How's this? 1. She's testing for your assertiveness. 2. By accepting you, she concedes that her SMV is no higher than yours and given the intuitive risk of pregnancy, concedes commits to no better than you (whereas the man makes no equivalent concession). Rejecting you on the other hand is a message to others and her own self-esteem that she could do better than you, whether or not that's true. Rejecting says "I can do better". Accepting says "I can't do better, though perhaps you could. You may be above me in SMV. I concede that I'm not above you". Women nevertheless accept because that concession is worth the validation/status/pleasure (AF) or resources (BB) of a sexual relationship. PUA's say "guys, realize that women like sex!" But AFC's can't accept that because we can tell there's some element of being sexual that bothers the woman no matter what. This is it! NOTE. I think this is a huge sticking point for AFC's. We imagined (were conditioned to perceive) romance as a culmination of mutual affection, the primary concession being the risk of pregnancy or STD. That displays of romantic affection necessarily entail a woman exposing the limit of her SMV but entail no reciprocal concession by the man (the reciprocal concession being commitment/marriage) was simply not something AFC's were taught or realized. So AFC's mistakenly interpreted rejection and any resistance as proving their lack of worth rather than the woman's preservation of her perceived SMV.