- 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.
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.
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 withholding 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 meet this its urgent necessity of not appear as a woman with fragile virtue (and, not least, 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 man the own lack of ethics, and, therefore, she will assume a demeanor of a shocked goody-goody with a puritanical sexual morality, and She will say that it was you to harass she, because you're a "pig",
- if the woman is not at all a whore, will project onto this man the own lack of personality, and, therefore, assume an attitude of adult and mature woman (and, then, with physiological friendliness and with assodate social skills), and this woman will say that you have been an immature simpleton, an naive clumsy who has misunderstood ridiculously his candid and innocent friendship. And, after, this woman will expect your gratitude, because she, at bottom, even in the face of this scandalous misunderstanding of unprecedented severity, did not tell you that you are a depraved, but (with generosity...!!!) "solely" that you're a bit a "poor idiot" (pathetic victim of those hormonal thrusts that are typical of the nerds or of the men in incipient andropause).
- 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"). As much more this woman can not, credibly, accredit at the public the quality of the own relationship with her man, as much more will tend to degrade the quality (ethical, intellectual and physical) of "pig / poor idiot". In other words, she project the own negative characteristics above him.
- unconsciously, the so-called psychological mechanism of introjection (the more he will be acted on with adult maturity and correctness, the more she tend to play the role of lady mature adult facing an immature inappropriate). In other words, she will tend to take on as their own the positive qualities of him.
- 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.