The kind of guy I want to be

Yesterday I listened to a Zan Perrion recording. I like listening to Zan. I don't agree with everything he says, and a lot of it I think is better taken metaphorically than literally. But his talks are great food for thought about the kind of guy I want to be, especially in relation to women.

I.

Lately I've been wondering about flirting. How can I flirt such that at the end of the day, I feel good — proud, even — about how I flirted? What kind of flirting is fun for me and compatible with the kind of guy I want to be? How can I keep from getting lost in words and instead stay aware of her body language and reaction? I listened to this recording as a way of getting at that.

One reasonable idea I've been trying on — I think I got this from Zan's Stoa talk — is to generously give genuine compliments, with no expectation of getting anything in return.

I like this one. It suits me — I like to look at pretty ladies and tell them what I like. It often feels a little bit beyond my comfort zone to be honest about what I like, it can be slightly risky, and I like that too. At the same time it feels natural, like I'm just taking what I was already noticing and making it explicit. I could and will like to learn to give better compliments but giving them at all — it feels like I was born for that. But I think what I like best is that whether it "works" or not, it's a kind thing to do and it's going to make that lady's day a little better.

I think it's not enough, though. It is easy to stick to safe compliments that don't indicate I like a lady as more than a friend. I'm working on that, but clearer compliments — while they're the easiest to implement — still don't seem like enough. Talk is cheap.

So, I listened to the recording to see if I could find better ideas there.

II.

I liked the recording, but at the same time it is a mixed bag, and that's what I find fascinating about it. Zan presents a lovely image of a new "manly ideal" in relation to women. At the same time, I find a lot of the specifics challenging. Overall though, I find it charming.

The overall image of a "manly ideal" I get from Zan, which overlaps with what in the recording he calls an "enlightened seducer," is that of a guy who genuinely likes and respects and cares for women, not only as a friend or a priest. It's a guy who loves women in the deepest sense. It's a guy who finds what is beautiful about women that is not (only) beauty, and who respects what they bring into his life. All that care applies, in theory, whether or not he ever intends to sleep with a woman, without fearfully retreating from the possibility nor scornfully rejecting it. Zan says he's great with words and I believe him, because his words sound great to me. I don't aspire to be any kind of player, I have no interest at all, but I do aspire to be so kind to women — and to be more than their friend or priest.

I say I find the specifics challenging, and it's a lot of the specifics. The idea that women are almost never "100% single" seems plausible but makes me uneasy. On the other hand, I don't understand what he's getting at when he talks about the importance of getting caught in white lies. The idea of touching a woman I just met in casual conversation scares me. I don't understand what he's getting at when he talks about self-deprecating rather than self-effacing humor. I don't understand as a practical matter how he can manage to explain so much as he says he does about himself to women up front. I am not sure I like the idea of flirting with married women, whether or not one intends to follow through. On the flipside, he talks about introducing his girlfriend as his sister, and as "kind of cute and available." He talks about respecting a woman's resistance in the moment but picking up where he left off the next time he sees her, and I'm not sure how I feel about that. He says that when a woman asks her why he's so interested in her, he says he doesn't know and he's trying to figure that out, and I don't understand that. He contradicts himself about women and words, and that confuses me. The first ideal (or "trait") sounds challenging to live by as much as it is inspiring.

I'm going to go through each one of those specifics in detail. Get ready for a lot of text.

While discussing the first "trait of a natural seducer," Zan raises the idea that women are almost never "100% single." So he doesn't wait for that. He doesn't wait for any hangers-on or the guy she's seeing sometimes or the guy she's been on a couple dates with to exit the picture. But he also doesn't pursue women who are in an established relationship or a marriage and doesn't recommend doing so. That seems sensible and correct, and also I think I would find it hard to live a hundred percent like that. Zan says that "A guy never takes your woman, she leaves of her own volition," and that makes sense to me, but not all guys think that way. It seems right, though. I think it makes sense to embrace that with 60+% single women if the circumstances make sense while still refusing — as Zan recommends refusing — to pursue women in established, ongoing relationships.

While discussing honesty, Zan says it's important to get caught telling inconsequential white lies. He gives an example of saying, "I'm a Libra," and then telling her his birthday is in December — from context I guess those don't match up, because she replies that you lied. Then he plays this game with her of telling her how she can make it up to him. It seems funny and disarming because it makes no sense. But I'm not sure what the point is here.

The whole white lies game seems like a particular tactic for having fun with a lady. It's plausible that it works to bond with her. It seems like the kind of thing that I'd see in a movie, although I couldn't point to any particular movie that uses it. This game feels really weird to me and I'm not sure if I would want to play it — maybe I would? But that's not the most confusing part.

What really confuses me is that Zan brings up this idea of getting caught telling white lies as if to say it's an important adjunct to or part of honesty. I don't understand how that works. Is lying to a woman about things that don't matter supposed to convince her that you are honest? How the hell would that work? What's the logic? I can see where it demonstrates something like "having an edge," but not honesty. Would love if somebody could walk me through this, 'cause I don't get it.

The idea of touching a woman I just met in casual conversation scares me. He talks about how when he meets a woman, from the start he touches her on the small of her back, how they allow it and feel comfortable with it — occasionally don't even notice it until he points it out — because it seems natural, "just who he is."

Zan tells a story about hanging out with two women this way. The girls direct the three of them away from another guy they call "Mr. Gropey," who touches them in ways that make them uncomfortable. Zan notes that he's been touching them the whole time and they laugh about it and note that it seems natural when he does it, not like Mr. Gropey.

I'm not sure how much to buy the story, but I'm inclined to take it at face value. I have seen for myself that some guys touch women a lot more than I do without creeping said women out — the women in question seemed totally comfortable with it, like it was part of a friendly interaction. So far as I could tell they liked the guy even when he wasn't around. Still, that kind of touch seems impossibly, terrifyingly familiar to me from where I am right now.

On the other hand, when I started partner dancing in June of 2024, holding strange women in closed position seemed impossibly familiar to me. In closed position, the lead (that's me) gives the follow (often a woman) light pressure through his hand or arm — in smooth dances like Waltz and Foxtrot, that's upward pressure from his hand or wrist to the underside of her shoulder. That pressure helps communicate where he is leading her. It's functional — a dance doesn't work well without it.

Even so, the idea of giving upward pressure, however gentle, however necessary, terrified me. But I got used to it! Now when I fail it's generally (I think...) because I forgot, not because I was afraid to touch a woman like that or to give that pressure. So while I'm not now comfortable with the kind of touch Zan describes, maybe I could get there. It's somewhat plausible — it's close to the "danger zone," but on the other hand it's not so far from where a lead would put his hand for a right-side redirect in west coast swing. Maybe that kind of touch could become light and natural without being gropey. The idea is as terrifying as it is exciting.

Zan distinguishes self-deprecating from self-effacing humor, and I don't get it. I am familiar with the mean-spirited way a person can make fun of themself — which Zan calls neurotic self-effacing or self-degrading humor. But he distinguishes that from self-deprecating humor, he says that this other kind of humor is different from putting yourself down. I don't understand what this "better" kind of self-related humor would look like.

Zan gives one example of self-deprecating humor but it doesn't make sense to me. He says (around 41:30 maybe?) that:

A quick example is when you go up to a girl somewhere and she lets you know she's not interested. Most people get rejected and walk away. I just say something like, whatever, like oh man, I can never get girls! You just make fun of it, the whole situation.

Zan can say that kind of thing as a joke because he's not afraid that what he's saying is true, that it's really true that "I can never get girls," because he knows from experience it isn't true. It's such an obviously false thing to say that it's funny. And the image of Zan saying this is funny. But I think to make this example one has to genuinely feel that it's not true — that what's happening isn't representative of their whole life or future or person. Maybe that's the distinction he's trying to draw between self-degrading and self-deprecating humor — in self-degrading humor, you say "I suck" and mean it even if you smile about it, but in self-deprecating humor you say what you say with a smile because you know you're full of shit (i.e. actually fine).

I don't understand as a practical matter how he can manage to explain so much as he says he does about himself to women up front. He recites these minute long monologues about how he's interested in her and isn't content to be just a friend, how he's not like other guys, and how he'll never tell women that, for example, he'll love her forever if he can't. It's very direct. But I don't understand the logistics. When he says he's up front, what does he mean? Does he mean this is literally the first thing he tells them? I find it hard to imagine many women would react well to that — it seems kind of psycho to unload a whole soliloquy of desire and expectation-setting as his opening line. So I think he's probably not doing that. But then when does he deliver his speech? Does he even deliver it as a speech, or does he say these things in bits and pieces? How the hell does that work? My mind boggles at the logistics of this.

I am not sure I like the idea of flirting with married women, whether or not one intends to follow through. It sounds like Zan is okay with flirting in this scenario, but not with going beyond that — not, supposing she wants it, going on to kissing or groping or sex. On the one hand, isn't it disrespectful to the married woman's husband? On the other hand, as Zan says — a guy never takes your woman, she leaves of her own volition. As long as it's not "in anger," not an attempt to subvert or destroy their relationship — as long as it's for fun and care and not to try and take something — that seems okay. It still feels weird and I don't know how much I want to do it, but maybe it's okay. I can see scenarios (e.g. happy older couples) where it's likely to be taken well and to do no harm.

On a related note, he talks about introducing his girlfriend as his cute, available sister, making it clear to her (and only her) that it's a joke. That shows comfort with her freedom to leave him. I like that. It's sweet in an odd way — it's loving. I don't know if I could do that and mean it — if I could say that and not get anxious about whether she would jump on the chance to leave me, even knowing I have no right to hold on to her, that she has every right to leave. I would like to love that freely, in theory, and I don't know if I want it bad enough to get there.

I find it uncomfortable how Zan talks about engaging with a woman's resistance. He talks about respecting a woman's resistance in the moment — she says I have a boyfriend, or I'm not interested, okay, back off. That's good, that seems right to me. But then he says the next time he sees her he'll pick up where he left off. Is that pushy? Is that disrespectful? Is it going too far? I'm not sure. He seems so airy and lighthearted about it, so casual and carefree in how he describes it, that it's hard to read it as pushy. The way he tells it, his re-approach has the solidity of pure wind — but in a good way. The way he tells it, it's offering or suggesting without demanding or ordering in the way that it would be if he were getting pushy. Maybe that way of engaging with resistance is okay — if you can honestly engage so lightheartedly. I don't think that I can, and I wonder how I could learn.

I don't understand why he'd tell a woman he doesn't know why he's interested in her. He says that when a woman asks her why he's so interested in her, he says he doesn't know and he's trying to figure that out. He says the average guy would say, you have a nice smile, or something like that. What's wrong with that? "I don't know" seems no more or less honest, assuming it is true she has a nice smile (and it probably is). Maybe it's that it leaves the question of her visible good qualities open — and fair enough, one can't gush about her every lovely quality off the cuff, you'll surely miss some important dimension or important point. Do the exact words really make such a difference, though? I wonder.

He says several times in this recording that women's weakness is words, but he also says (under trait 8 of a "natural seducer") that words matter very little. He cites a study finding that the way a man approaches her and his tone of voice talking account for 93% of the variation in a woman's impression of a man, with what he said counting for just 7%. Setting aside whether I believe this arbitrary social science study, it seems like his contradicting his claim that "a woman's weakness is words." And furthermore he says that when a woman really likes you it is hard to screw it up. I'm not sure what to conclude from this other than "probably body language and words both matter, and Zan's maxims are less final or certain than they appear."

The first ideal sounds challenging to live by as much as it is inspiring. Zan tells a story about giving up on pursuing a woman he was attracted to (Ms. X) in order to care for a different woman (Ms. Y). An acquaintance of Zan's cruelly insults Ms. Y and Zan dedicates his night to making her feel beautiful again. It's a kind thing to do. It would also be a damn hard thing to do. Do I want to be that kind guy badly enough that I could actually give up on Ms. X in the moment and support Ms. Y? That's a question only to be answered by living.

Overall, I find the recording charming. The music varies between coming of age movie, ad muzak, and Sonic the Hedgehog soundtrack in a way I've never heard before — it's charmingly unique. The recording is full of listicles and quaint old references to TV and DVDs. He recommends daily affirmations and similarly uncool techniques and I love how he does it. He could have dug up studies or some impersonal authority to sell the listener on these. He doesn't. He tells the listener his own daily affirmations and how he's used these techniques. I respect that, that he speaks from his own personal experience when some would count it against him. And the way he recounts his own story with women, it frames this whole recording as a kindly letter to the next shy nerdy guy who's bad with women and wants to get better. It's sweet.

III.

Anyway,

It's worth revisiting the question of what am I even trying to do here.

I listen to these for the same reason any guy worth speaking of does: I like the ladies, I want to connect with them, and have no idea how to make that happen. It goes back to my questions about flirting at the top.

So it's worth checking — in listening to this, did I learn anything to answer my flirting questions? I think the challenging bits are the most relevant in answering:

1. I asked: How can I flirt such that at the end of the day, I feel good — proud, even — about how I flirted? What kind of flirting is fun for me and compatible with the kind of guy I want to be?
   1. Maybe: By trying on various ways of touching women in low-stakes situations like flirting at a bar, with as breezy and lighthearted and non-needy an attitude as I can summon — and never of course with intent to grope.
   2. Maybe: By experimenting with self-deprecating humor — joking about failures by way of not taking them hard.
   3. I don't think I want to try on the white lies game because it makes so little sense to me. I don't like lying for no good reason. I also don't see when I'd do this — nobody ever asks me what my sign is and I never ask them. Though I may keep an eye out for other such questions where a lie would be comparably harmless and easily caught. This seems like such an obscure game and I'm not convinced it would be viable often enough to even be worth considering playing it.
2. I asked: How can I keep from getting lost in words and instead stay aware of her body language and reaction?
   1. He suggests, under the umbrella of the first ideal, feeling as though the women he interacts with are already attracted. That makes enough sense to me to try on — it sounds like a good way to relax. I know that before when I've genuinely thought a woman was attracted in me I felt a lot more relaxed and it helped me pay attention and have fun with her. So, this attitude seems worth trying on.

So — I guess I did get something out of the recording after all. And that's not to mention the other ideas I got out of it that didn't fit into the questions I asked to get there in the first place.