Hey and welcome back.
After finishing my latest series on indirect game, I’ve decided to make a few more posts covering aspects of the topic that did not make it into my series or respond to questions and comments that I have seen in the comment sections.
Today I want to debunk the idea that women are always aware of your intentions, as if they were ultra-intuitive super-computers.
This flawed argument is often used as a sort of counterargument to indirect game.
The argument goes as follows:
“What’s the point of going indirect, if she knows that you are hitting on her anyway?”
Followed up with:
“So, you might as well be direct about your intentions.”
I see this argument often, and every time I read it my eyes hurt.
There are false beliefs involved in this line of thinking.
I always wonder how this idea first appeared.
It seems to be a form of projection of male thinking onto women (yes, we are wired differently). And yet I have no clear idea where such notions came from.
What I can say is that this line of reasoning is wrong:
The first dimension is that "women can sense what your true intentions are – they can sense you are hitting on them". This is false, although there are some nuances
Even if we were to assume the above is indeed correct (or that elements of it may at times be true), then it is still not a reason for going direct
So, on both levels, the whole argument is flawed, and this line of thought can be safely thrown into the wastebasket.
This is what this post is about, debunking this line of thought by discussing these two dimensions.