Misinterpreted glances (between males and goody-goody girls playing to do dumb).

Anonymous (northern italian school): "Woman at a window" (1510 - 1530)

Why are only the men tend to misinterpreted a "certain feminine glance"? But, ye know a woman who has misinterpreted a masculine glance one time that is one?

Why men tend to misinterpreted especially the married women or women with a boyfriend?

Why men tend to not misinterpreted almost never unmarried women or women without boyfriend?

Strange! At least, all this is very weird!

Apparently, men are too often inexorably gullible or sexual maniacs, and all married women or with a boyfriend are much unfortunate and meet (almost only them!) an incredible amount of idiots and uncouth men.

Why, if a man looks at a woman, she say always that this man has objectives prosaically sexual or has naively misunderstood a previous simple behaviour of mere female courtesy. But, if a woman looks at a men, this woman repeatedly deny it or, if forced by the evidence, admit only that can possibly be successful only for mere intellectual "curiosity". Evidently, men and women are alike but, bizarrely, not when they peeking!

P.S.: why those girls who peeking at you (precisely with those glances that us men we are accused of misunderstand so often) so often have a boyfriend or a husband so obnoxious, colourless, jejune and dull? Why???

* * *

Women (like men!) may tend to approach a persons of the opposite sex not only because they have a real sentimental or sexual interest for that person, but often, more simply, because they need to understand the own value of "exchange" (emotional, intellectual, economic, aesthetic) on the "market" of the intersexuals relationship and, as a result, they need to understand if they can or if should reposition themselves on this "market". Therefore, women approach men also for:

• check if they can still (theoretically) captivate a man (and, thus, strengthen own self-esteem), 
• understand if and what qualitative differences exist between the their man and the man that they're watching. 

Up to here, all is absolutely normal: also the males do the identical thing with opposite sex. It is a necessary process of analysis and comparison that, necessarily, requires an observation deeper than usual and a more intimate interpersonal exchange.

And I would be observed that it is not a good sign if a woman (or a man) do not perform this process of comparative analysis for too long time. In effect, if you're near a person of quality, you're not afraid of this comparative analysis, and you perform this process with continuity and serenity. But, if you not make, for too long time, this comparative analysis, it means that you are afraid of the result, and you conduct this process one-off, proceeding for pulses and with a recognizable internal contradiction between curiosity and inhibition, between the objective necessity to strengthen own fragile self-esteem and the need to avoid the (inexorable) public recognition of this necessity and of its causes.

* * *

Well, the males (with a partner) who feels universally uncovered in this game of glances and approaches, not feels particularly in embarrassment.

Contrariwise, if too many people realize that a woman (with a partner) tends to relate emotionally with "someone else" (over that with her man), this woman feels considered himself like a little whore. And the truth is that at no woman likes to be regarded as a bitch, even when she is really the woman most slut of the universe (and this feminine conditioned reflex is also the fault of us men, obvious). But, to this point, the die is cast (irreversibly!), and the woman, in order to satisfy this its urgent necessity of not appear as a woman with fragile virtue (and, not least, in order to avoid the risk that her man can suspect "something"), will behave, suddenly, of snap, in the following way:

• if the woman is really a bit whore, she will project onto this "someone else" the own lack of ethics, and, therefore, she will assume a demeanor of a goody-goody girl very shocked and with a puritanical sexual morality, and She will say that was this "someone else" to harass she because him is a "pig",
• if, instead, the woman is not at all a whore, she will project onto this man the own lack of personality, and, therefore, assume an attitude of adult and mature woman (and, then, with a physiological friendliness and with an assodate social skills), and this woman will say that this "someone else" have been an immature simpleton, an naive clumsy who has misunderstood ridiculously his candid and innocent friendship. And, after that, this woman will expect the gratitude of this "someone else" because she, at bottom, even in the face of this scandalous misunderstanding of unprecedented severity, she did not tell to him that him is a depraved, but instead (with generosity...!!!) she made him understand solely that she considers him a clumsy, a booby, pathetic victim of those hormonal thrusts that are typical of the nerds or of the men in incipient andropause.

In either case, this woman will use:

• unconsciously, the so-called psychological mechanism of projection (how more strong appeared his disaffection for her ​​man and how more strong appeared the mediocrity of her man, as much more terrifying will the his punitive fury against the "pig / poor idiot"). All the more this woman will can not, credibly, accredit at the public the quality of the own relationship with own man, as much more this woman will tend to degrade the quality (ethical, intellectual and physical) of the "pig / poor idiot". In other words, she will project the own negative characteristics above the other man.
• unconsciously, the so-called psychological mechanism of introjection (the more she will be treated with maturity and correctness from the other man, the more she will tend to play the role of lady mature and adult facing an immature inappropriate). In other words, she will tend to take on as their own the positive qualities of the other man.
• consciously, the widespread presumption of feminine innocence in the case of conflictual relationship with a male, very well knowing that, in this way, she will benefit automatically of the related presumption of masculine guiltiness: she pays one and takes two.
• consciously, (and to the bitter end) the mechanism of public denial (the woman will deny even the evidence of the nails of Christ, and will support that he is died of cold).
• consciously (and massively!), the so-called rhetorical questions (very mischievous technics, which consists in asking a question which, only in appearance, contains an request of information, but that, in reality, surreptitiously suggests a predetermined response at the interlocutor, with consequential inconscious tendency of this latter to delete all the possible answers in contrast with the assertion implicit in this question). "Coincidentally", she will use this sneaky rhetorical method only with the greatest possible number of common friends between she and the "pig / poor idiot" (that is with the only people who, knowing quite thoroughly too he, they can reveal the lie and the fiction of she), and, again "coincidentally", never with persons unknown to the "pig / poor idiot". She will ask "Perchance, he had misinterpreted me?" and "Why he misinterpreted me?": but, in reality, she will have disinterestedness for the answers, because she will use this rhetoric figure only to spread, in these his interlocutors, the following subliminal messages: "I knew nothing of his interest for me!" and "I've never induced him to misunderstand me!".
• consciously, the mechanism of indirect questions: when she ask "Perchance, he had misinterpreted me?" and "Why he misinterpreted me?", she, formally and apparently, ask if, in opinion of his interlocutor, there is a real attraction of him for her, but, substantially and in reality, she is absolutely sure of that attraction and of its reciprocity, and she want to know (also) if "he" has told to third parties of such reciprocity of attraction.

Feminine genius, in its purest form! Chapeau!! Thunderous clapping!!! Standing ovation!!!!

And, not surprisingly, all this techniques (so terribly effective) will be put in place by this woman with lightning speed: macroscopic confirm of habituality in their use!

The basic difference is always that between delicacy and ambiguity.
A girl who strives to appear naive, is ambiguous, ie plays on ambiguity sending contradictory signals.
Vice versa, a really naive girl, even if full of modesty abd scruples, it limits herself to are delicate but coherent.

William Congreve, in his work "The mourning bride" of 1697, wrote that "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a woman scorned". Well, I would add that there is a fury greater than that: it is the vengeful fury, unpredictable, blind and wild, but also unpredictably vile and dishonest, of one honest and respectable woman when she understands that it is not corresponded by that male with whom she tries to replace her man ... sense of guilt, bourgeois respectability and narcissism will compose an explosive mix!)