The primal rule in Romance seduction goes like this;
“In Romance seduction, always rely more on what your victims want, not what they claim to want”
~ Komrade Montell.
Sometimes there’s a disconnect between what people, let’s use women in our case, claim to desire and actually choose.
Like ‘ I want this type of a guy’ but actually choose the opposite. Why is it so?
There’s a word for this, Preferences Falsification. A word that I borrow from Timor Kuran’s 1995s book, Public Truths, Public Lies. That individuals sometimes express publicly preferences that are different from those held in private.
But in our case we shall stretch beyond the public vs privately concealed but first let’s use the research case example below which can offer a major takeaway for those of us trying to grapple with the question above and navigate in this unpredictable modern dating world.
Case Experimental Research Example;
So we’re in America. Experimental studies are primarily being conducted across major academic institutions, including Northwestern University and Texas A&M University led by a team of prominent social psychologists and relationship experts ie; Dr. Paul W. Eastwick (professor at the University of California, Dr. Eli J. Finkel (Professor of Psychology and Management at Northwestern University and Lucy L. Hunt (then a researcher at the University of Texas at Austin)
A total of over 1,200 participants (comprising undergraduate students and young adults) were combined with researchers splitting their experiments into two distinct measurements phase to find out discrepancies if any.
In the first phase, Participants were asked to fill in detailed surveys that were isolated from any real-world event by rating how much they valued specific traits such as; physical attractiveness, earning potential, warmth, and intelligence in an ideal mate.
The same participants were then subjected to real-life dating events where they interacted with real people before later rating how romantically attracted they were to each individual they met.
The data revealed a disconnect between the results from the first and second inquiry.
In theory: Women preferred a man’s abstract warmth, stability, and intelligence s perquisites for dating.
But practically: Attraction was heavily dominated by immediate physical presence, confidence, and visible social status markers something that completely bypassed their own written “checklists.”
Lessons from the Experimental Case.
From the experimental case example we find that there’s a disconnect between what women say and do,, claim to desire and actually choose. There are many reasons for this but we can categorize them into two brackets depending on the level of awareness.
1. When the disconnect is caused by conscious intents ie; lying intentionally, we can conclude that women sometimes claim to desire some traits in men just to save their self image. It’s not what they actually desire but what they feel they should desire. For instance; No woman will, and if any rarely, publicly claim to fall for the rake. Equally , claiming that they prefer status or earning potential will make them sound selfish or like gold diggers.
2. On the other hand, sometimes the disconnect between the stated preferences and real preferences are cause by unconscious (without their awareness) factors. For instance; Forces from their childhood. We find girls state they need partners who are kind, caring and emotional available but are attracted to unavailable, chaotic and even abusive men again and again. This might for example be caused with a factor like; A childhood unfinished task like of rebellion hence attracted to partners who are enable them to close it. Or one who has a low self worth being attracted to partners who confirm their beliefs. Or a girl who learnt to associate love with chaos pushing away peaceful men because they don’t match what she already believed.
The second Instance requires a deep introspection to uncover and no matter what they state of their desired reality/preference… Be wary that they will fall for the other types again and again.
You ever found a friend who fell for the wrong types of partners again and again?
In a nutshell, Knowing that the disconnect and discrepancies exist saves us from dissapointment that may arise like in cases where we see Nice guys complaining that women (not all) claim to want them but don’t choose them.
The above can also be an awakening call to reflect on ourselves and see if there exists any discrepancies between what we say and do. What we claim to desire and actually desire.
I mean maybe you preach that you deserve a Maddona but fall for the ‘Danger woman’ .. You claim to fall for a humble mary but fall for a chaotic woman.
Equally worth noting is the fact that, preferences differ from woman to woman. What one woman/ man find desirable in a partners doesn’t apply to all cases. And this is why I rarely read what modern ‘experts’ on social media say. They will put out a list of desired traits women or men desires in romantic partners as if generalizing… So the 20 yr old girl probably has the same tests as those of the woman in her 50s or 60s? Wow!
Reference Source
Eastwick, P. W., Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L. (2014). The specific is better than the universal: Forming and using partner preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6), 945–963.doi.org
Kuran, T. (1995). Private truths, public lies: The social consequences of preference falsification. Harvard University Press.
Montell, K (2025). The Principles of Seduction.