Tuesday, October 17, 2006

The Best of Captain Capitalism - Dear Penthouse Forum

This was arguably the most popular post and taught me a great lesson in the economics of blogs;

Smut and sex sells and ain't none of you honyakers interest in economics as much as you are dirt on people's dating lives.

Alas, what am I to do, a true capitalism responds to the market.

It was several weeks ago I was sitting at one of my favorite jazz clubs. And as always I was reading the most recent issue of The Economist. I had set it down on the table and turned my attention to do some tax work when an rather attractive Asian woman walked by. But while I was looking at her, I noticed that she was looking at the cover of The Economist.

At first I was hopefully impressed, thinking that somehow this may be the legendary "video-game-playing, Economist-reading, sexy-lingerie-wearing, totally hot babe capitalist economist that likes to serve Irish economist men martinis while they listen to Frank Sinatra." The one that the Holy and Sacred Elder Economists of Yore spoke so much of. But when I saw what was on the cover of The Economist, "China and the Key to Asian Peace" I realized she must be Chinese and was naturally just looking at the cover.

She proceeded to sit down at a table about 10 yards from me and ordered a glass of wine. She was dressed provocatively enough that I figured she had a date or was meeting some friends, so I just left it at that and returned to doing some tax work. However, 20 minutes had passed and I noticed that she was still sitting by herself.

Did her date fail to show up?

Were her friends the tardy types?

Or...could she be like me! A Napoleon Solo type character who is actually secure and cool enough with themselves to go to clubs and read The Economist?!?!

Realizing that my finite resource of time was being used up, I decided to gather up the courage and ask her if she was alone. Upon asking her, she said she was waiting for friends, but they were very late. And in my politest, least forward and non-threatening way, I asked her if she would like to join me so that I may keep her company until her friends arrived.

She agreed.

Happily we sat down at the couch I had previously ornamented with my papers and files and started talking. A very nice and attractive woman, but what impressed me the most was that she was not bashful about asking me about myself, alleviating me of the typical male duty of keeping the conversation going. And within one minute of asking me questions, it seemed the prophecy of the Holy and Sacred Elder Economists of Yore were to come true. For in that brief minute of conversation it was established that;

1. She reads The Economist
2. She was a financial manager at a money management firm
3. She had her undergraduate in finance
4. She was getting her masters in economics

The next hour of conversation was tantilizing and insanely intelligent. We talked about econometric modeling. We talked about efficient frontier theory. We talked about Miller-Modigliani. And then she talked about her specialty, behavioral economics.

I love it when chicks talk dirty to me.

And thinking that the night could not get better, it did. Her friends showed up. All of them finance majors and all of them just as capable of holding intelligent conversation which lasted the next hour.

But I knew inevitably I would have to make my play. And at a table full of economists and finance majors you're not really going to impress anybody by quoting correlation coefficients between GDP growth rates and unemployment figures because that’s just par for the course for them. So I decided to play my trump card. My master stroke of genius. My coup d'etat.

I can dance.

Fortunately for me there was a jazz band. And fortunately there was a dance floor. So sitting there patiently, engaging in conversation, I waited for the perfectly timed song to play and then asked, "do you know how to dance?"

The expression on her face could not be repeated.

"No, but I would love to learn how!"

So I said, "I can teach you."

"Well, not now, but I'd certainly love to go dancing sometime later."

And boom! There was my in.

The scenario could not have been more perfect;

* I established we had insane amounts in common.
* We established we could have that insanely rare thing called "intelligent conversation"
* I mingled well with her friends
* I established that I was unique and could offer her something fun that would make for one hell of a date.
* She wanted me to take her out dancing.

And like George Castanza, knowing that he should exit at the top of his game, I proceeded to give the woman my card, said I would love to take her out dancing, and bid her and her friends farewell.

Leaving the jazz club I had a smile on my face. I was supremely confident she would call.

Which reminded me of a theory I had developed back in my college days;

“If you are supremely confident a girl will call, she won’t.”

Sure enough, time had passed, and no call.

Alas, I concluded she must not have been too smart, for how stupid do you have to be not to call a dancing, video-game-playing economist? Especially one with his very own subscription to The Economist! I mean come on, ladies, how can you resist?

But don’t cry for me Argentina, for there is good news to this story. For immediately after I had left the jazz club, and while I was still riding high on the prospects of meeting a potential intellectual equal, I felt it necessary to share my experiences with those who I thought at the time were at least in part responsible for making this meeting happen; the kind ladies and gentlemen at The Economist. In a drunken stupor, I had sent off a letter to London detailing my exploits that night, not expecting what would happen two weeks later.

For two weeks later, at the insanely early hour of 10AM, I was awoken by a call from none other than the chief editor of The Economist asking if I had taken her out yet! It seems the good blokes and dames at The Economist had a running wager on me and whether I’d be successful in getting her out on a date. The chief editor, recognizing the obvious fact that anybody who subscribes to The Economist and who is in fact an economist himself, is so studly that they would practically be guaranteed of getting a date, wisely bet on me. Sadly, perhaps he is too wise, for he is 72 years of age and perhaps still subscribes to the romantic notions of the 1940’s; chivalry, tradition, romance, and other such BS. Whereas his younger, less senior counterparts are fully aware of the insanity of modern day women and their incapability to appreciate the concept of carpe diem, and thus bet against me.

But regardless of the outcome, as an economist, one must think. For while girls that shoot me down are a dime a dozen, how often is it that you get a call from the chief editor of The Economist?

As far as my econometric models tell me, that’s worth getting shot down at least 348 times with a 2.5% margin of error.

48 comments:

Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey said...

"And like George Castanza, knowing that he should exit at the top of his game, I proceeded to give the woman my card, said I would love to take her out dancing, and bid her and her friends farewell."

THIS WAS YOUR ERROR.

You need to ask HER for HER NUMBER and then YOU CALL HER.

Captain Capitalism said...

You're so cute. OK, I'll explain it to you.

Ball in Court Theory.

You keep the ball in their court.

This means you don't have to decide whether to call them, when to call them, what do you say when you call them, did they really want you to call them or did they just not want to hurt your feelings, do you leave them a message when they're not it.

Forget it. It's just easier to give them your number and if they like you, they'll call. It also serves as a screening process as girls that actually call have some audacity and aren't the typical types who sit there and say,

"Gee, shucks howdy. I really really hope he comes over here and asks me for my phone number."

The girls that call are typically truly more independent and courageous.

Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey said...

Well, you're eliminating and turning off most women. If a guy doesn't have the balls to ask me for my number and call me, I don't want to date him. I'm not attracted to passive men. I don't know any independent, courageous women who are (unless they have a dominatrix thing going on).

Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey said...

Also, you may not realize how competitive the situation is. Good women - the attractive, smart, and witty ones - have many men pursuing them. Why should they waste their time on a guy who doesn't like them enough to take the initiative to call them?

For example: I'm above average in attractiveness, but I'm no supermodel. I'm above avenge in intelligence, but with nothing to show for it yet (no degree or career). I am not the hottest thing on the dating market. Yet when I post a personal ad I get 50+ (sometimes 100+) responses. Men walk up to me and ask me out in stores and on the street. Over a dozen of my male friends have expressed interest in more than friendship, and dozens more email me via my blog.

Unless you are getting a similar level of attention from women, when you meet a hot woman you need to remember that you are competing to date her, not vice versa. The "keep the ball in their court" strategy will either leave you single or score you a desperate, lower quality woman.

Captain Capitalism said...

OK, I have a confession to make.

I'm just too lazy and burnt out to give a damn anymore.

I'm getting old. And as guys get older, we get tired of the girly phone games, and start to appreciate things like "staying in and reading" or "watching The Family Guy" or "having a beer with the guys."

It's not so much an issue as to whether we're passive or not. It's a judgement call as to whether we invest our resources, and history has told us the majority of times it will fail and therefore we should order ourselves another beer.

Plus, may I propose the theory to you that the guys who aren't running amuck, slobbering over the girls, asking them all out may be a bit more stable and secure as their lives are satisfying and fulfilling without the company of a lady.

You might be surprised if you take the initiative and ask the cute guy sitting at the Bloomberg Terminal out on a date.

Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey said...

Well, sure, I can see how you would get bored and give up if your strategy was not paying off.

But the alternative to giving up is to change your strategy.

Do you only try one strategy in other areas of your life, not changing it in the face of failure, giving up because the one strategy you tried didn't work? Or do you try different things until one works?

Captain Capitalism said...

Multiple approach.

If I've seen a girl multiple times and have established a repore with her, I might ask her out.

Friends have been setting me up recently, but it's more a pain in the ass than it's worth.

But truthfully I am spoiled in the sense that I do a fair amount of dancing, and that allows for a polite and innocent approach to a girl, and it's just very easy to ask them out for a night of dancing after you dance with them several times.

Regardless, my "keep the ball in their court" strategy has paid off, so I stick with it. Again, it's not terribly successful, but I'd say 1 in 3, 1 in 4 girls call. And that all for just handing out a card and no worries there after.

Ray MH said...

Hello Captain, here's another theory "GET HER NUMBER THEORY"!

Seriously Ball in court theory is just a theory, in real life you ask the girl her number!

There is a reason why 99.9% of guys ask girls for their numbers and not the other way around, it is not only tradition and the way things have been done since the dawn of time but there are strong pluses to doing so.

You having the number puts you in control and IMHumbleO this is a good thing. There is no "will she won't she" that no doubt you suffered, there is no "why didn't she call" that some would suffer also.

As for the "decisions" you have to make, je pense they are not hard, here are my answers.
You call her
Ideally call her 2 days after meeting her, alternatively call her a few days before the date of a suitable event (economics convention/dancing... my perfect first date--> a lecture from Paul Krugman on America's political economy followed by dinner and maybe clubbing/pubbing/going home to someone's place.)
You tell her, do you remember me, I had a great time with you the other night, would you like to try it again some time, when are you free --> this friday?

If she is not interested then she will avoid. if she is interested she will accept the date or say "i can't make it that day, but i'm free on ..."

If you get the answer phone, well I agree this is a real bastard. If it were repeated hmm...I would probably end up sending a txt, or for landline a well prepared hello+name+number that doesn't try to be funny.

Well that is my tuppence on the subject ---> perhaps a t-test on whether this strategy is significantly more successful than your current strategy is due? A project you might find entertaining?

Having said all that...you did speak to the cheif editor of The Economist...and that doesn't happen very often...respect is due.

Good luck with the next one, although fine asian economists aren't too common either these days...unless you happen to work in the chinese modelling industry and are happy to define economics veeeerrrryyy broadly ;)

Great blog btw, you have another enthusiastic reader. beer IRA? pure genius...

Captain Capitalism said...

Thank you Ray.

I certainly appreciate your concern and dispensing of wisdom, but I think I'm doing alright. Truth be told I fare fairly well with the ladies, it's just this one particular instance had some significant relevance to economics.

Besides, I think at my age certain aspects of life are starting to supercede the ladies, so sometimes it is just nice to go into a jazz club, listen to some jazz (reading The Economist of course) and go home for a nice night's rest. Don't be like most 22 year old kids and waste too much time, effort and energy chasing the ladies, you have your own life to live.

(PS-Thanks for the comments on the Beer IRA. It's the 3rd most popular post, feel free to send it to any alcoholics you know)

Dave Peterson said...

I agree with Jacqueline. There's a fine line you gotta walk. Act too disinterested and you end up in "friends" territory. Act too interested and you end up in "creeps" territory.

Ryan Breen said...

I gave a girl my number the other day! DAMMIT. I didn't know you weren't supposed to do that. :P

Live and learn, I suppose.

Amy said...

As another intelligent, attractive woman who gets asked out all the time, I have to say that it really doesn't matter whether the guy gives his number or asks me for mine.

There are really only two possibilities in this situation. Either I'm genuinely interested, in which case what he does is irrelevant because I will have asked him for his number, and probably tentatively scheduled a date. Or I'm just not that into him, and if he asks me for his number, I'll just ask him to give me his so that I don't have to tell him (cowardly, I know) that I'm not particularly interested.

It's just not worth dating maybe men when with a bit of patience I know I'll find someone that I'll truly be thrilled to see again.

Kilgs said...

One might also take into consideration the fact that if she really is that INCREDIBLE, we will pursue her until the ends of the earth.
If she is physically/mentally/??? attractive enough to interest us, we'll throw our number out like bait and see if they bite on it. What the dear Captain is trying to say is... it separates the wheat from the chaff.

Matt Ginivan said...

WHY DONT YOU TAKE OUT AN AD IN THE ECONOMIST?
Think about it, ITS GENIUS. Imagine her surprise when, reading her favorite magazine, she gets a message from you, that guy she should have called. Who knows, maybe she lost your card or thought you weren't really interested or maybe shes just swamped with work.
HEED MY ADVICE. I found a sexy-lingerie wearing, totally hot babe, capitalist economist who likes to serve her Irish economist man barbeque and beer. ANYTHING would have been worth it to get her.

Captain Capitalism said...

THAT IS SHEER GENIUS!

Although I don't think I could afford the advertising real estate on the pages of THe Economist.

Although, they could offer some online service where other subscribers to The Economist meet.

That would result in some of the best looking kids the world has ever seen!

Oh yeah, and smart too I guess.

Todd Fletcher said...

"THAT IS SHEER GENIUS!"

No, a waste of money. If she was interested, she would have called. If not, then anything more you do will just seem desperate and creepy. Jacqueline is right, you should have gotten her number. Most women will respond better to a guy who takes control. Trust me, as one who doesn't, I know!

Dave Peterson said...

If she is physically/mentally/??? attractive enough to interest us, we'll throw our number out like bait and see if they bite on it. What the dear Captain is trying to say is... it separates the wheat from the chaff.

I think it's a wimp-out. Making the call can be a bit of a nerve racking thing that separates the men from the boys. And even if she's not blown away by you, but still interested, she may not be interested enough to call you, but with some action on your part be willing to go out with you.

a 1 in 4 conversion rate is ok, but I get like a 2 in 3 response rate from asking for email addresses.

Matt Ginivan said...

If the editor called you, he'd at least print something for you in the letters to the editor section.
And Todd, stop being lame, let the Captain take a chance. Plus, taking out an ad or writing a letter IS taking control of the situation. Its refusing to let the girl walk away.

Just write a letter to the editor, if they're that interested in your saga, I'm sure they'd love to print it. You've got everything to gain and nothing to lose.

If I don't see some free-market flirtation in the next issue, I'm going to be real dissapointed.

Patri Friedman said...

Hilarious post. Jacqueline had some good comments. Combining your post, her replies, and your replies, my conclusion is:

1) This chick is way too cool for a guy who is not really interested in and chasing her.

2) You are not really interested.

I think you have failed to turn your "filter" idea around and look in the mirror. What happens when two people both say "let me filter for people who try to contact me"? They never meet. Someone has to be willing to make a move. In this case, its clearly you, for the reasons Jacqueline gave.

If you don't feel like putting forth the effort, that's fine. But understand that you have failed because of your decisions, and your lack of enthusiasm.

Captain Capitalism said...

Ugh!

OK, let me clarify some things here;

1. I am not talking about taking an ad out in The Economist for this girl or any girl, that would be a waste of money.

2. What is sheer genius is if The Economist were to do a sort of Match.com, but for subscribers to The Economist.

3. I doubt The Economist is going to print anything in the letters to the editor as they would like to maintain their professional image as a serious publication, not a running version of People Magazine.

4. You're all missing the major point of Ball in Court Theory. That eventually, courtship and chasing the opposite sex becomes tiresome, and there are opportunity costs for the energy, efforts and worry you put into it. Thus, to keep stress and worry down, you just give your number to the person and transfer the responsibility of moving the relationship along to them. It's a cop out. It's a lazy man's move. It's something you can do and forget about it with no remorse.

Yet, be rest assured that if I see a girl and I am very interested, I will fully pursue her until failure.

It's just that it takes effort...that and do you know how much time is freed up if you just choose to play video games? ;)

Paul said...

A smart, attractive woman posts a personal ad and gets 50 or 100 replies. A smart, attractive man posts a personal and gets 0 replies, sometimes 1 or 2. I have posted ads as both a man and a woman, sometimes the same ad, and those numbers are not an exaggeration.

So it's no surprise to me that JMPP can say "if the guy doesn't ask my for my number, screw him" because it's true - that's the way things work. But if CC's concerned only about fairness, I think he has a point.

Captain Capitalism said...

Thank you Paul. I think you summed it up. If I was a young 20 something, yes, of course, women have the upper hand, and let's not fool ourselves, they're the ones that do the choosing. Thus I'd be asking for the number, puffing out my chest, displaying my feathers, and squawking really loud. But, cripes, life ain't all about the other sex here people, and it's not like you can employ a strategy to win them over.

The best strategy I've found is to live your life and if a dame happens to fall into it, great. Otherwise, what kind of a life do you live if you constantly worry and stress over wooing a member of the opposite sex and base your life off of it? I'd like to think humans have developed a little bit past darwinistic, prolong-the-species thinking.

Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey said...

"It's just that it takes effort...that and do you know how much time is freed up if you just choose to play video games? ;)"

But video games won't have sex with you (yet -- Google "teledildonics").

Allison said...

honestly,

it's much more clear that you didn't really WANT a date, you just wanted to show off that night, leave on a high note and feel like you COULD HAVE gotten a date.

You thought it was so much better to receive the call from the Economist than to actually find the girl.

No, you weren't actually interested in dating her. Then you'd have to live up to something.

Captain Capitalism said...

Dear Allison,

To some extent you are right, but you are wrong in one aspect; I did want to go on a date with this girl.

You are correct however, in that it didn't mean that much to me.

If you have a background in econ or finance, view it as an expected rate of return in the lottery.

When you buy a lottery ticket, certainly you would LIKE to win, but you don't expect to. And thus, it is no big deal if you lose.

Same here, or in any case with the prospect of getting a first date/call back from a girl. The chances are right off the bat poor for any guy to get any girl on a date (thus lending credence to Josh's shotgun/volume approach).

Thus, yes, it literally meant more to me that I got a call from The Economist than a date with this girl, because the call provided a return greater than what I was expecting from the date.

Furthermore, I actually do subscribe to the theory that if a girl didn't have the audacity or (and this will sound arrogant) wisdom to take her chances and call me, well chances are I probably wouldn't want to go out with the girl in the first place.

Regardless, I apologize having this "Devil May Cry" attitude towards approaching the fairer sex, but sadly past experiences have proven it a losing proposal. I say this not out of pity, but if you read the few posts guys have made, they are all pretty much in agreement that it is an uphill battle for the guys. And again, they're not saying this to beget pity, they're saying it cause it's true.

One more observation I'd like to make and that is most of people making posts I gander are in their mid twenties. When these guys hit their late twenties and early thirties, they will (sadly) start to take my approach and become less and less inclined to approach women.

...this barring some revolutionary social change where women might take on the candor and decorum of classy 40's dames.

David said...

CC, I am a twenty year-old economics major and face the same problems that you do, worsened by the fact that I do cling on to the old "carpe diem" mentality and an inability to dance. To say the least, it raises my spirits to see others like myself (despite the resolution in your story).

Perhaps we were born too late? The market for dating has changed and women face dating-inflation because guys have more opportunities for asking women out (as well as fewer social barriers). The median single guy, who probably had it hard from the beginning, can only maintain their standard of dating by increasing the number of offers they make. Not making offers, in general, is a bad policy. So, the market has left us behind, just as the market for perishables has killed many mom & pop stores with the advent of Walmart.

Take some hope in the niche markets; there are women who appreciate the qualities you mention, just as there are people who still frequent mom & pop stores despite the higher prices. Still, I am sure that those women play the game as well. They also are subject to offers made by qualified men. And in the end your story makes for a perfect dating tragedy, where the protagonist falls due to his own error. (or at least, that's how it appears to the audience. you might view it as standing by your principles or succumbing to burnout)

Captain Capitalism said...

Ha! Thanks David.

Funny you mention being born too late. Many of my friends have ruminated about how'd they'd gladly suffer the Great Depression and risk getting killed/maimed in WWII just so they could be part of that culture back then.

Think this may provide you a little insight, or at least some entertainment;

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2004/10/ode-to-baby-boomers-part-1.html

David said...

Hmmn, I would not go a far as them. In fact, I would most definately not take the risk of being born 100 years ago. That said, it seems that respect between equals was more common then (avoiding the problem that not everyone was considered equal), and as for dating... I don't know... maybe I'm as guilty of romanticizing the past in that respect as I am regarding my own life. But even if the qualities we seem to share a liking for in women have never been the norm, something about them seems stoic.

Tim Worstall said...

Captain,
So email Jane Galt with the Match.com / Economist idea. She works there.

Brian said...

What I find interesting is the dating ratios are like this in the US but not so in many other countries. Here the population is, I believe, 49:51 male/female. Yet the ratio of offers or requests for a date is probably around 20:1, if not more. My anecdotal evidence has been that when I travel to other countries, especially in Asia (I'm white BTW), I find that I get women approaching me almost every night I go out. Granted I am in a better position because I am seen as an exotic foreigner. But it seems that this is not enough to explain going from the US where girls rarely approach me to going to another country were I get asked out consistently. These are some of my potential theories:

1. American men vs. men in other countries are overly aggressive about getting sex. Hence American women have, as a defensive measure, become less likely to consider all but the most attractive offers. Since offers come around so often from various levels of quality, from a female perspective there probably seems to be a certain amount of randomness to who asks you out. So it leads to encouraging thinking in which one sees that a potentially “better” offer could always be around the corner. As a result women who want to have children find themselves desperately looking for anyone available once they hit around 30+ and realize there is little time left.

2. The mating ritual specific to the US has evolved around a history of intense religious prudishness about sex, which only recently has loosened. But the continued undertones of our historical prudishness makes it a difficult dance whereby we all want to have sex without seeming to look like we really want it since, intensified by these persistent undertones, deep down inside we still feel intense guilt about doing it. Speculative on my part, but it seems that women are more prone to these feeling of guilt then men. This difference is especially pronounced in Asian countries where there are fewer cultural mores against having sex and prostitution is, although illegal in many countries, openly accepted and rarely prosecuted.

3. It is an indicator of economic equality in the US. Since men and the institution of marriage are not necessary to live well and secure a comfortable standard of living women can afford to be more selective and less likely to see a man as also a step to improve there own standard of living. Not to say this still doesn’t occur here.

Captain Capitalism said...

4. Green Card

Jeff said...

I've been a little busy this past week so I'm a little late on the draw with this, but...

In Cappy's defense, I'm here to share the top two reasons why I hang out with the boy:
1, He really is pleasant company, really he is.
And,
2, When I'm invited to meet up with him... when I show up, the men are usually outnumbered by the women. How does the Cap'n do it?


To Jaq.,

This aint junior high no mo'. Cappy initiated conversation with this woman, offered his contact info, and asked her to call if she wished. I think it's pretty clear to any observer that he's looking forward to hearing from her, and if she has any moxie, she'll call. I think that Cappy and I see eye to eye in our desire to meet women with that kind of initiative. While we believe in behaving like gentleman, and treating ladies like Ladies, we're also looking for a partner, not a pet (or in my case, another sports car; knock out good looking, a ripping good time, makes others a little jealous... noisy, para-reliable, expensive, high maintenance, always afraid someone else is going to run off with it...).
The more time I spend around women, the more I love my Porsche.

And Dave, If *I* can learn to dance, *you* can learn to dance.

Jeff

Captain Capitalism said...

That much is true. If Jeff can learn to dance, most anybody can ;)

jaimito said...

If you really like the girl, you should have asked The Economist to give you her name and phone, would have located here and sent flowers and phoned her and phoned her again and find where she was studying and meet her in the classroom and so on till she agrees to see you. No girl, unless utterly desperate, calls back ever. Girls are to be chased, seduced, romanced, conquered.

Brian said...

CC,

Although this would be true in developing countries I have observed this disparity in other developed nations as well. So the meal ticket factor doesn't seem to account for much of the difference, i.e. I even find that there is a significant difference between the US and Canada.

Captain Capitalism said...

You got me. I used to speculate on such things, but I found it a waste of time, but you are right, there is some phenomenon going on there.

I was in Seattle many years ago doing seminars for a week and was just hanging out at Pioneer Square. And poof, gal came right up to me.

Who knows, pheromones, you look different, you have an odd jib, you look lost, don't fit in, approachable, got me.

Regardless, best approach I've found is knowing how to dance. It's a cheap cop out, but most girls want to dance and want to be showcased on the floor to make the other girls jealous. If you can show you have promise to give it to them, you're looking at 80-90% success rate.

BradMan said...

"The best strategy I've found is to live your life and if a dame happens to fall into it, great. Otherwise, what kind of a life do you live if you constantly worry and stress over wooing a member of the opposite sex and base your life off of it? I'd like to think humans have developed a little bit past darwinistic, prolong-the-species thinking."

Pure genius. Every time I stop looking and do exactly that ^^ the girl always just shows up. Sorry JMPP but you are rightfully wrong. Yes you may very well get an abundance of guys clawing tooth and nail to date you, but thats the point right there -> quantity not quality. CC is quality, he knows it, and doesn't give two shits if 'the girl' has 10,50 or 100 guys running after her.

Instead of CC being another hyena in the pack, he understands the law of the jungle, and is quite content being patient, waiting for the lioness to come hunting for him!

I for one applaud such actions, as I too have absolutely no inclination in anyway to be grouped with the rest of the barbarians. But then again, JMPP, you said it best yourself,

"But video games won't have sex with you."

I may be in the minority, but I definitely do not want to just 'sex' the body, but alternatively whats more important is tantilizing and 'sexing' the brain (aka good conversation with many laughs).

-Brad

Captain Capitalism said...

And don't forget, I'm lazy too!

Jonathan said...

I'm an engineer, not an economist, but I think that "Ball in Court Theory" is a losing proposition. Why? Entropy always wins.

Maybe she was interested. Maybe not. Maybe she was busy with life events, and your card naturally settled into the bottom strata of her purse, where it was forgotten.

I find the whole "you call me", "no, YOU call me" thing a bit silly. The claim here is that giving out your number becomes the sum total of your investment, and that any returns would be a pleasant surprise. If that was true, then why all the long followup, and the short-term euphoria in writing a letter to the Economist?

The mistake here was in not immediately setting up a second meeting. Instead, the negotiations were allowed to lapse, and entropy took over.

"Well, not now, but I'd certainly love to go dancing sometime later."

"There's a jazz band playing this Saturday, would you like to meet here at 7:00?"

So now she either accepts, suggests another time/place, or vacillates, in which case you can just hand her your card and make a polite exit, knowing that probable return will be 0.

If she does accept, then, "Wonderful! Should I give you a call beforehand to confirm?" After all, something might come up - so you get her email/phone in order to keep communication open. Then you leave knowing there is a higher probability of a repeat meeting.

Bottom line, from my view, Ball in Court Theory is equivalent to trusting in entropy. That's not a winning propostion - entropy always wins.

Captain Capitalism said...

Statistically speaking, entropy wins about 66%-75% of the time. I win the remainder. Which is a pretty good success rate on something that takes minimal investment of time and emotion.

Regardless, I certainly agree with some of the criticisms, but it's actually more of a personal approach that I've liked and has worked for me.

I will say this, however, that everybody speculating on this, as if it were a strategy session and we're trying to develop a tactic to employ given you're in situation X, I can't believe it, because frankly all women are different and thus you might as well do what you want and are comfortable with because women are truly random and chaotic creatures.

Those sexy minxes them.

alena said...

This is a excellent blog. Keep it going.

This may be of interest to you I have a free online dating service. It pretty much covers dating stuff.

I'll be sure to come back.

DailyLinks said...

Very nice blog, hard to come by these days,

Look at this site I saw while surfing Dating Ideas site


Thanks

jobs123 said...

Hey I just love your blog. I also have a asian dating site
blog/site. I mostly deals with asian dating site
Please come and check it out if you get the time!

122272 said...

Not what I was searching for, but none the less and interesting blog here. Thanks for putting it up. I've enjoyed reading alot of the text here. I got you bookmarked for the future, I'll be back.

My site is a bit different, some think it's odd. I guess it's a matter how you look at it. I have a penis enlargement reviews related site. Most of the articles are on penis enlargement reviews.

milfcritic said...

click for dating senior

milfcritic said...

internet dating service

alteredname said...

Old post I stumbled upon.

I think that women are missing the men who don't approach them. Sure you get approached by 50 guys, who are all sleezeball, horndog, bad-boys. The guys hitting on girls in bars are usually lame. The interesting guys are sometimes the ones who don't approach. Do I really want a girl who can't tell the guy she is interested in is putting on a show?

The girls, since puberty, have been approached by the aggressive, less-introspective guys. So that's all they think exist. It's not. Introspection is not bad. If you discount the less confident you discount the losers, but you also discount the deep thinkers who perhaps have not graduated to a state of less self-doubt.

What you get is a lot of cocky guys and a tiny number of very emotionally mature men. Unless you are very emotionally mature you won't get the emotionally mature man.

Perhaps you can ask a guy out and have a relationship where you both grow into maturity.

Wulf said...

Wow, you really sparked some conversation on this one.

For the record, I too got very tired of chasing women and expecting to find anything other than women who like to be chased. The chasing game is not what I am interested in, so I switched to a Ball in Court Theory, like you have described. It wasn't a wimp-out, it was (as you said) a screening process and a conservation of my energies.

Jacqueline is making broad generalizations, so I will reply in kind. If I woman writes a man off for the behavior described in this story, she is high-maintenance, and you are better off knowing that up front.

To those women who are turned off by the fact that I didn't call, I say "likewise".


I may have spent a lot of nights without a date due to this method. But it's also how I met my wife of nearly 10 years. You get what you look for. It's not a guaranteed fools errand - though I recommend a variant of Jonathan's advice. It might go something like this;
"There's a jazz band playing this Saturday, I'll be here around 7:00. Come by if you'd like to dance."