# Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever



## Deejo

Because you would never fall for that.

You can see right through it.

It is contrived, manipulative and evil.

Right?


So ... full disclosure.

I have read a bunch of books about pickup and game, conducting healthy relationships, conducting a healthy life, etc.

A poster in another thread indicated the dichotomy between the belief of many women that this 'game' stuff can't possibly work, and numerous men's insistence that in fact it works remarkably well.

Didn't want to derail the other thread, so I offered to open this one.

This isn't about bragging rights. But ... if you would like a glimpse into the workings of dating as a divorced middle aged dude, I'll be as candid as possible.

I am not a pickup artist. I have no desire to date, and go to bed with as many women as I possibly can.

I am interested in maximizing attraction, and finding a woman with whom I can build a strong, loving, lasting relationship. And after lots of dates, a few short term relationships, it certainly appears that I've found a woman that fits the bill.

I promised honest answers to honest questions. I will be more than happy to outline how digesting this stuff after a failed marriage and translating it into something that worked for me, basically changed how I view relationships and interact with both men and women.

I'm sure other men can respond as well, I just ask that some level of decorum is maintained. The reason for opening this up isn't about trophies.

From my perspective, you are free to vent about what you don't like about it ... as we have done so in the past. Per standard fare, please refrain from making it personal in accordance with the forum guidelines.

I can only assure you, there is a world of difference between 'good' game and 'bad' game. Good game doesn't look or feel contrived at all. 

And I consistently followed one of the primary tenets as set forth in the first pickup book I read, "The Lay Guide".
That rule is essentially very similar to the one doctor's employ: "Do no harm."

I didn't go to clubs, bars, or local college campuses looking for women. Primary vehicle for me was online dating and using what I had learned to assure that I was a fun, confident, interesting, and engaging date.


----------



## Anon Pink

I don't know if it's the game a woman responds to, the game itself. If a guy is working the game and believing in the game, he's got confidence. It's the confidence a woman responds to, not the game.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Because you would never fall for that.
> 
> You can see right through it.
> 
> It is contrived, manipulative and evil.
> 
> Right?


Right! PUA lines are glaringly obvious and make you seem desperate and pathetic. 



Deejo said:


> A poster in another thread indicated the dichotomy between the belief of many women that this 'game' stuff can't possibly work, and numerous men's insistence that in fact it works remarkably well.
> 
> Didn't want to derail the other thread, so I offered to open this one.


As said poster, I will jump in. I've seen over and over again men saying how well these techniques work, and that women just don't know what they want. Supposedly we just fall for the BS over and over again.

But I am a woman and I do know what I want, dammit. And it isn't somebody playing me, or lying to me to get what he wants. You are much more likely to be successful at attracting me if you just talk to me like a normal human being. No games.

Of course, it could be that I am a just a freak of nature, entirely unlike all other women or that PUAs are going after a different type than I ever was or will be, but even still it seems unlikely to me to work for anyone but the gullible. Or maybe it's just for clubs where the alcohol is flowing and the judgements are impaired?

As someone who lacks certain social and conversational skills herself, I can quite understand why it may be useful to work on developing those. But none of that needs to involve playing games, lying, running routines, or spewing rehearsed one-liners, does it?

And given that the whole PUA thing is based on trying to seduce as many women as possible, how on earth can it hold any value for an LTR or marriage? I for one would be so totally turned off if my SO was practicing any of these tactics.


----------



## always_alone

Anon Pink said:


> I don't know if it's the game a woman responds to, the game itself. If a guy is working the game and believing in the game, he's got confidence. It's the confidence a woman responds to, not the game.


Not sure I agree. I've seen guys play PUA, and they come off as all sure of themselves, but it's just bluster.


----------



## Deejo

Somebody made this analogy in another thread regarding game, and it's very true.

It's like exercising. You may very well know that exercise is good for you and you will reap lots of benefits from exercise, but you don't get those benefits if you don't actually DO it.

You are absolutely right about the confidence piece. But ... for some men, they need to learn game in order to understand, and importantly, express their confidence.

There are undoubtedly guys that are quite simply incredibly and naturally comfortable in their skin with who they are and what they want and could care less about women ... and consequently, they pull women like crazy.

That whole bit about "Be yourself ..." and you'll meet the right person is a bit disingenous. As I have stated many times in the past, if being yourself means that you are an introverted shut-in, but you WANT to meet people, and women in particular, then being yourself isn't going to cut it.
You have to be willing to get uncomfortable with behaviors and actions that are distinctly not 'being yourself' if you want to be successful.

Learning game is like the workout. Gaining confidence and being more expressive is like building up your muscles. The actions are synergistic.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Not sure I agree. I've seen guys play PUA, and they come off as all sure of themselves, but it's just bluster.


Lon expressed what I have to say next wonderfully elsewhere. At it's most basic, any knucklehead can screw up the courage to go say hello to a beautiful woman. She gets lots of 'hello's' and much more.

She blows them off one way or the other.

To be the guy she is attracted to and wants to get to know, you must demonstrate social value. And that can be in a myriad of ways. You could be extraordinarily handsome. You could be in a suit that broadcasts you have money. You may be a rockstar or actor, you may be intellectually brilliant, or funny, or well traveled, or really good at making balloon animals.

Doesn't much matter what it is, as long as it sets the stage for engagement beyond "Hi, what's your name?"

I used to practice approaches having no expectations tied to outcome. Most of the time I wasn't trying to get a number or a date. I just wanted to learn how to make conversation.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Right! PUA lines are glaringly obvious and make you seem desperate and pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> As said poster, I will jump in. I've seen over and over again men saying how well these techniques work, and that women just don't know what they want. Supposedly we just fall for the BS over and over again.
> 
> But I am a woman and I do know what I want, dammit. And it isn't somebody playing me, or lying to me to get what he wants. You are much more likely to be successful at attracting me if you just talk to me like a normal human being. No games.
> 
> Of course, it could be that I am a just a freak of nature, entirely unlike all other women or that PUAs are going after a different type than I ever was or will be, but even still it seems unlikely to me to work for anyone but the gullible. Or maybe it's just for clubs where the alcohol is flowing and the judgements are impaired?
> 
> As someone who lacks certain social and conversational skills herself, I can quite understand why it may be useful to work on developing those. But none of that needs to involve playing games, lying, running routines, or spewing rehearsed one-liners, does it?
> 
> And given that the whole PUA thing is based on trying to seduce as many women as possible, how on earth can it hold any value for an LTR or marriage? I for one would be so totally turned off if my SO was practicing any of these tactics.


I don't think there is any man on this board who would identify himself as a pickup artist.

So if I may ... lets be clear. Exactly what tactics are you referring to?


----------



## Anon Pink

But Deejo isn't talking about a meaningless notch on the bed post. He's talking about changing from one mindset to another and sometimes that means exaggeration. 

I've been married far too long to have any current experience with PUA, but they, the true bed post notchers, can be spotted pretty quickly because they really don't care. They don't listen, they don't see, the don't notice.

A guy with game, back in my day... Oh never mind things are probably so very different now.


----------



## Anon Pink

always_alone said:


> Not sure I agree. I've seen guys play PUA, and they come off as all sure of themselves, but it's just bluster.


And a woman can tell bluster from confidence.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo, I know game works. Totally agree that it does and I also understand that most men read up about it in an effort to know women, be more attractive, etc. (ie: not ALL men are simply using the knowledge to get laid)

But I think these ideas and tactics can be taught without using phrases like "chubby screechtard" to describe a hypothetical group of women.

Any system that does use such degrading and just plain "mean" words to describe women, well, I can't get behind it no matter HOW MANY great points and ideas that system has.

I wouldn't be able to stomach a similar book or plan for women to up their game if it was full of hateful terms to describe men, either.


----------



## Ikaika

Not trying to get this thread off-track, but being an introvert is not the same as being a shut-in. Shut-in is a true pathological condition. I would classify myself as an introvert and yet for my career, I can stand in front of 300 people to present my research or communicate to a classroom full of students about the finer points of developmental biology. All with a great deal of confidence. 

So one could be an introvert and be confident enough to approach a woman. He will not be the one 'standing out' in a room full of people. So he would need to make the extra effort to approach a woman. As a opposed to the extrovert who makes no effort of being noticed. 

I think in both cases you could have an individual who either tries to be confident (quiet or boisterous) and sincere or play the game of a PUA (quiet or boisterous). So I think being oneself is absolutely important. It is how you approach, that will make or break the deal.


----------



## Wiserforit

FrenchFry said:


> My main objection towards PUA is despite the insistence that it's all about understanding and loving women it's absolutely riddled with misogyny.


Got that right. 

Generally you see people favoring lying and using people as objects to attain ends camoflaged beneath false premises - Use 5% truth to justify 95% creepy behavior. 

Example: if more than one woman is attracted to you, it will gain you confidence. So therefore use one woman to make another woman jealous? That's from the so-called sixteen commandments of poon - a great example of this kind of deceptive tripe. 

This is an example of bad intentions and manipulation that reverses cause and effect. If you are accomplished and confident a lot of women will want to date you. It isn't that you created that desire through playing one woman against another. 

Intentionally using one woman to make another jealous is being deceptive to both of them and makes you an antisocial jerk. 

Another example is from the book "The Game" and a tactic you see all over this vile literature: Neg theory. You are supposed to cut women down with insults disguised as compliments. Because after all "nice guys" don't get the girls. 

So here again they take some element of truth, that nobody respects a doormat, and reach the false conclusion that you should be an offensive prick to people.

This is why it is difficult to speak with people who use "game" because they are deceptive in talking about it. That is the very thing that is so loathesome about it. The deception. 

And yes, absolutely they love to use the example of how "being yourself" doesn't work if you are shy and reserved. So instead of telling people to work on positive skills, it's a rationale for deceiving people instead. See how lying is justified? _Dishonest _people recommend "being yourself". 

So do the right thing. The smart thing. Pretend to be someone you are not. Trick people into liking you. Because then your self-esteem will be really high knowing how people have fallen for the fake person on the outside.  Obviously being sarcastic here.


----------



## Deejo

How can I sum this up without sounding like an ass?

You know how some of the conversations we have about feminism ultimately meander into some very odd territory?

I feel that way about game as well. 

I don't perceive you, nor any of the other female posters here as militant man hating feminists, but others may not feel the same were you to identify yourself as a feminist.

I digested and internalized this stuff. I don't practice any of it with a goal of building myself up, or breaking another individual down. Took what I liked, discarded the rest. I don't buy into the frat-boy bullsh!t mentality, and yeah I've seen that stuff too.

I want good outcomes for me, and whomever I'm seeing ... for however long that may be.

My intention with this wasn't to preach the virtues of game, or bang my own drum. Always_Alone posed an interesting question. 

Wanted to see if it would make for an interesting discussion. But my goal isn't about convincing you or anyone that I can 'fool' you into going on a date with me.

Best way I can sum up, is that until I decided to take a serious look at what this subject matter was dealing with and referring to, I just presumed it was garbage.

Tried some of the methodology fully expecting to crash and burn horribly ... but that didn't happen.



FrenchFry said:


> My main objection towards PUA is despite the insistence that it's all about understanding and loving women it's absolutely riddled with misogyny.
> 
> I'm copy pasting these from PUA websites I have bookmarked
> 
> Anti-S!ut Defense
> 
> B!tch Shield
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, a bit rape-y:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not cute. It's not cute and because of this stuff absolutely everywhere within the community, I take anyone who espouses this with a huge grain of salt. But I also study it, I study it long hard and deep so I'm not taken off guard by it, and because of it I am developing a wariness of men I never had before. It's not a good side effect at all.
> 
> I wasn't really taken in by PUA tactics before, I'm far too awkward and can feign temporary interest to give away a fake number and get away way too well. Now, however, after reading this type of drivel over and over I want to make damn sure I can spot this and point it out before Mr. artiste even has a chance.
> 
> So, I'll be watching this thread as well. Can't be too careful to not get tangled up.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> You know that I am an advocate for being yourself and, no, I don't think it is disingenuous.
> 
> If a person is an introvert because that is who they are then to pretend to be an extrovert may work in the beginning but will not lead to attracting a woman who is compatible with him in the long-term.
> 
> Unless! That man is an introvert because he has not confidence or doesn't truly know what he wants or who he is. Then there is need for self discovery and confidence prior to attracting the right partner anyway.


All due respect Trenton, I'm not trying shift your description. I'm simply making a different one. I don't know how to hang-glide. Right now, who I am is a non-hang-glider.
But I want to learn to hang-glide.
That means I have to take steps to learn about what is required, what's involved, how difficult it is, and how much of an investment I want to make. So ... if I want to learn that skill, then I learn it ... I don't pretend to learn it or fake learning it. The skill then becomes part of who I am. It isn't false, or contrived. Does that not make sense?



Trenton said:


> I mean no offense but want to make an observation. You are flying high on the wings of new found lust and love. It's a fabulous thing! But, don't you think you should wait till about year 2 - 3 before you come to conclusions about PUA equating long term happiness in a relationship?


I don't equate pickup to long term happiness in a relationship. I have said as much before. And to reiterate, I don't see what I do as 'pickup'. True pickup is like a pyramid scheme. It thrives on it's own marketing. 

I remain firmly entrenched in the Athol, MEM, BBW camp. I didn't initially decide to learn about this stuff to find the love of my life. I decided to learn about because at the time, I didn't think it could possibly work.


----------



## Wiserforit

Deejo said:


> Tried some of the methodology fully expecting to crash and burn horribly ... but that didn't happen.


So far you've done what I see so commonly, which is two long-ish posts without one iota of information on what you are actually favoring.

That is a red flag. You also did not list one source. Also a red flag. People who are cagey like this do not earn trust.

The strategy is good for being able to deflect criticism just as you have by saying "I don't favor the frat-boy stuff", whatever that is supposed to mean.

I can take from Mein Kampf the things that are actually quite good recommendations. But whatever good you find in there can be taken from almost any decent piece of literature that is not the awful, ghastly, horrible truth of Hitlers screed.

So that is why the slick, evasive posturing of "I took the good things and discrded the bad things" without actually saying what it is you read and what you are doing is lousy reasoning. 

I offer this in the best faith I can for material that I have extreme contempt for.


----------



## Deejo

Wiserforit said:


> So far you've done what I see so commonly, which is two long-ish posts without one iota of information on what you are actually favoring.
> 
> That is a red flag. You also did not list one source. Also a red flag. People who are cagey like this do not earn trust.
> 
> The strategy is good for being able to deflect criticism just as you have by saying "I don't favor the frat-boy stuff", whatever that is supposed to mean.
> 
> I can take from Mein Kampf the things that are actually quite good recommendations. But whatever good you find in there can be taken from almost any decent piece of literature that is not the awful, ghastly, horrible truth of Hitlers screed.
> 
> So that is why the slick, evasive posturing of "I took the good things and discrded the bad things" without actually saying what it is you read and what you are doing is lousy reasoning.
> 
> I offer this in the best faith I can for material that I have extreme contempt for.


Well then, lets get the chest bump out of the way, shall we?

The LayGuide by Tony Clink
Married Man Sex Life by Athol Kay
Mystery Method by Erik von Markovick
Rules of the Game Neil Strauss
The Game Neil Strauss

Was dating a lovely divorced mom at the time I read LayGuide. We had 4 dates over six weeks. Had a hug and a peck at the end of date 4. We had spent plenty of time together figured I had certainly built up a sense of comfort ... she kept seeing me after all.
So I decided to go for seduction on date #5. I wasn't honestly sure she was interested in me up to that point. So I figured I had nothing to lose. Paid attention to indicators of interest, hell I didn't even know what they were prior to reading about them. Escalated kinesthetics, told some good stories about me ... surrounding travel and how I felt about that time and place, asked her if she had a similar place and feelings tied to it. 
I kept thinking that I sounded stupid ... but we kept talking and kept smiling.
Entire date had a different vibe. I had a different vibe. And 'we' closed. Would she have had sex with me anyway? Maybe, but up to that point I had been far too respectful to even go for a tongue kiss for cripes sake.

We moved on to have a great six month relationship before it became apparent we wanted different things and logistically our courses were subject to change. I broke it off.

I didn't lie.

I didn't 'neg' her. 

Was I comfortable with my behavior at that time? Absolutely not. 

But in my mind the shift in my behavior is what changed the dynamic of our relationship.


----------



## Entropy3000

Anon Pink said:


> I don't know if it's the game a woman responds to, the game itself. If a guy is working the game and believing in the game, he's got confidence. It's the confidence a woman responds to, not the game.


This is certainly a big part of things as confidence is king.

It is just not all of it.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> It doesn't make sense because I don't see how you can compare learning a new skill that you're going to take on as a hobby to learning a new skill to (I'm sure you would say attract) lure women. I hope you see that women are human beings and as such deserve authenticity in relationships. Maybe some women don't feel they deserve it but this doesn't mean they don't.
> 
> I think you are entrenched in the Athol, BBW camp because you see it creating something that you enjoy. I won't put MEM there and I refuse to put you there because unlike Athol & BBW I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you both believe that women do know what they want and their needs are important to you.
> 
> Let's look at the Bait and Switch scenario for a second. Is that not women just giving men what they want in a way to attract them? How can we be critical of this behavior if we are going to applaud and uphold it (even teach it) in men? Is it more OK because these same men are willing to continue with the games as a way to keep their sex life alive? Had you had these skills with your ex wife do you see there is a chance you two would still be together?
> 
> For me it is simple logic. If you want to be with an authentic person who is vulnerable to you and trusts you then you have to offer the same in return.
> 
> Perhaps it does come down to what is valued.


Hope you know, I think you're wonderful.

But we are still caught at that place you and I have always been. I'm trying to convey that I COMPLETELY changed up my perspective and approach to women and dating, but I didn't do so by being inauthentic.

And that is the lens that you see all of this through. And in many cases, it may well be the correct one.

Nobody that I have casually dated, seen over the long term, or seduced was, or felt, screwed over.


----------



## Machiavelli

Wiserforit said:


> I offer this in the best faith I can for material that I have extreme contempt for.


It doesn't matter one whit that you have contempt for it. Women respond to certain behaviors and traits and a man would be a fool to ignore that.


----------



## Saki

Trenton said:


> For me it is simple logic. If you want to be with an authentic person who is vulnerable to you and trusts you then you have to offer the same in return.


Have you considered that "game" includes being more vulnerable and authentic?

Especially for guys who usually are so intimidated by women that they put up false fronts and become extremely guarded. "Game" can be a tool that allows them to be more open and authentic. Some of the "game" tactics, especially stuff from MMSL (Athol Kay), is about shutting down your filter and saying the sexual stuff that's really on your mind.


----------



## Machiavelli

Trenton said:


> If I dig into my mental database you are the man who said men are allowing women not to be raped. A might equal right theory.
> 
> You I would place in the Athol Kay, BBW camp. Firmly so. So snug there that it would take a miracle to displace you.


Athol has it together. Rape quote? I doubt it. Might makes right? In the end, yes, since the victors make the laws and write the histories. Is feminism over if men decide to shut it down? no question.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Well then, lets get the chest bump out of the way, shall we?
> 
> The LayGuide by Tony Clink
> Married Man Sex Life by Athol Kay
> Mystery Method by Erik von Markovick
> Rules of the Game Neil Strauss
> The Game Neil Strauss
> 
> Was dating a lovely divorced mom at the time I read LayGuide. We had 4 dates over six weeks. Had a hug and a peck at the end of date 4. We had spent plenty of time together figured I had certainly built up a sense of comfort ... she kept seeing me after all.
> So I decided to go for seduction on date #5. I wasn't honestly sure she was interested in me up to that point. So I figured I had nothing to lose. Paid attention to indicators of interest, hell I didn't even know what they were prior to reading about them. Escalated kinesthetics, told some good stories about me ... surrounding travel and how I felt about that time and place, asked her if she had a similar place and feelings tied to it.
> I kept thinking that I sounded stupid ... but we kept talking and kept smiling.
> Entire date had a different vibe. I had a different vibe. And 'we' closed. Would she have had sex with me anyway? Maybe, but up to that point I had been far too respectful to even go for a tongue kiss for cripes sake.
> 
> We moved on to have a great six month relationship before it became apparent we wanted different things and logistically our courses were subject to change. I broke it off.
> 
> I didn't lie.
> 
> I didn't 'neg' her.
> 
> Was I comfortable with my behavior at that time? Absolutely not.
> 
> But in my mind the shift in my behavior is what changed the dynamic of our relationship.



Negging, lying, feigning interest in her personality, pretending to care about the same things or have similar moral views when you don't, deliberately flirting with others or pretending to be busy to up your status -- these are the sorts of things I'd find objectionable. But it sounds like you didn't use any of them.

I'm a bit leery of Kino too, but that's probably just me. It just kinda makes my skin crawl when someone I don't know very well is too forward with pats and brushes, handgrabs, touching my jewelry or clothing, etc. Others may not feel this way.

Reading body language to determine interest, though, seems just good sense. And talking about experiences rather than things may feel strange, but it can be a very nice way to get a better sense of who someone really is. (Before launching full scale into discussions of politics, religion, and sex, that is)

Too bad you had to read so much crap just to get those nuggets.


----------



## Nsweet

Oh dear God, I knew sooner or later I would find myself here having to differentiate between the types of "Game", if you want to call it that. I've been in the game lone enough to expose it's greatest secrets. 

I don't want to break everything down tonight, but I will give a quick run down of the good, the bad, the ugly and everything in between. 

For starters the "game" guides you see on book shelves written by Mystery, his little b!tch Style(Neil Strauss), their student Mehow, Herbal T, Love Drop, and generally any nicknamed douche bag are not created to find you true love. These are for the most books written on how to get laid in very little time. Now that may be great for the few it actually works for the the majority of the men I know who successfully picked up a woman from a bar or club regretted their decision later on because they wanted more affection than a night of sex could give them. 

When I speak of game it's important to realize that like in Star Wars (Yeah I'm a geek too) there is a light and dark side. The dark side guys are men like Mystery and Style who speak of doing or saying certain things to trick women into liking you. These are the idiots that wear a lot of douche bag jewelry, shiny clothes, and bring magic tricks into bars to impress apon drunk women. These are the guys who will f*ck your wife or girlfriend for the ego rush and not give a crap about what happens so long as they're having sex with someone new..... AKA usually an undiagnosed personality/mental disorder for the repeat offenders. And if you read "The Game" there's a part where Mystery cries like a little b!tch about losing a girl to another PUA and tries to over dose on pills so Neil has to call is mommy to take him to psych ward for further observation. It's in there!

The light siders on the other hand (such as myself) have learned their craft from a few dating books but mainly older men who warn against ONS and having sex before you get to know the woman. These guys are all about inner game which is becoming the person that women want to be around instead of acting the part which would be the outer game portion. The best example of a true light sider I can give is successful counselor who doesn't turn it off when he leaves his office. He still makes people feel really good about themselves through flattery but then doesn't hound women for any sexual interaction the way some of these younger dark side *********s do. 

You already know which one I prefer, but let me tell you why. A couple years before I found my ex wife and was married I tried to be a player and all that, but I got played with bad. So I stopped playing the game and decided to go out there and just have fun and vowed that I wouldn't *try* to have sex with another woman if the situation felt off. It was less than two weeks after I stopped caring I had women flocking to me and hanging around because I didn't have that creepy feel the way some guys get around pretty women and I let them know "Hey, you're cute but I'm not interested." Long story short I found my ex wife..... should have waited on marrying her though:rofl:

It's getting later, just one more thing. 

The "game" in which you speak, is supposed to be like the 180 for dateless men. The tragedy however, is that psychopaths have figured out how to appeal to the "gotta have it now" crowd before anyone could teach them any better. I don't agree with these dark side guys because they are all about disrespecting boundaries and use and abuse of the same emotional abuse tactics predators and cultist use to entrap people. But I can also say for certain that a lot of their knowledge does work and can be reverse engineered for the kind hearted man or woman just looking for a decent person in the dating world. It's just a shame that this information had to come after many casualties first. 

If I'm here tomorrow night at an earlier time I will walk you guys through step by step how a pick up take place from mind set to meeting and the take away from the situation or place. It's going to be big two because there's a lot of bodylanguage that exchanges from step to step. 

Just be glad on the good side:smthumbup:


----------



## norajane

Deejo said:


> So I decided to go for seduction on date #5.
> 
> Escalated kinesthetics, told some good stories about me ... surrounding travel and how I felt about that time and place, asked her if she had a similar place and feelings tied to it.
> I kept thinking that I sounded stupid ... but we kept talking and kept smiling.
> Entire date had a different vibe. I had a different vibe.


I honestly don't understand. How is talking about your travel experiences and thoughts and feelings about those experiences a game? That's YOU opening up and telling her about yourself. OF COURSE that is going to be interesting to someone who found you interesting enough to go on 4 dates with you already. OF COURSE that is going to bring you closer - you're telling her about your life _and who you are and how you think and feel about life_.

This is how people form bonds - they share stories about themselves and connect on an intellectual and emotional level. That is not _game_.

What were you talking about during dates 1-4?


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> Athol has it together. Rape quote? I doubt it. Might makes right? In the end, yes, since the victors make the laws and write the histories. Is feminism over if men decide to shut it down? no question.


Huh. Apt username you've chosen there.

Two troubles with might makes right:

One is how to define might. Is it physical strength? Cunning? Determination? Is it in numbers? And if so, what happens when there is dissension in the ranks?

The other is that success isn't all about conquest. Community, cooperation, symbiosis are all effective ways to become the strongest that survives, and we see this in both human and animal kingdoms.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Great post, Nsweet.


----------



## Machiavelli

Trenton said:


> Funny how I twisted your words in translation due to my own bias although if you think men allow women any rights and privileges they currently have, it's not a leap to believe that men are allowing women not to be raped.
> 
> Boy how red lined you are in my wee womanly head.


No worries. It happens.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo, I think you are probably a really great guy and a great catch. Most likely, the "tweaks" you did to your natural game, did up your value to the ladies...but the baseline "great guy" was already there.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Huh. Apt username you've chosen there.
> 
> Two troubles with might makes right:
> 
> One is how to define might. Is it physical strength? Cunning? Determination? Is it in numbers? And if so, what happens when there is dissension in the ranks?
> 
> The other is that success isn't all about conquest. Community, cooperation, symbiosis are all effective ways to become the strongest that survives, and we see this in both human and animal kingdoms.


Ever see a film of chimpanzees on patrol deploying from a staggered column of twos into a skirmish line? You're right, it's the same in the animal kingdom as in the human.


----------



## Machiavelli

norajane said:


> I honestly don't understand. How is talking about your travel experiences and thoughts and feelings about those experiences a game?


Not "a game", but "game." Men usually don't talk about feelings. We have to consciously make an extreme effort to do so. Kind of like putting down the toilet seat.


----------



## FalconKing

derailed anyway....


----------



## FalconKing

I would like to see some female posters talk about their dating experiences. Particularly those who were woman enough to approach men and ask them out.


----------



## Holland

FalconKing said:


> I would like to see some female posters talk about their dating experiences. Particularly those who were woman enough to approach men and ask them out.


Ouchie FK, *woman enough to approach men and ask them out.* Some of us are happy to sit back and pick and choose without the need to be the asker. But I am woman enough to be one hell of a woman.

Anyway as for the game stuff it is a bit "meh" TBH. Do men realise that while they are out gaming for women, us women are actually gaming them with far greater prowess.
It is not hard to work out when a guy is a PUA and as a woman I am the one that chooses whether I allow him to pick me up or not. So ultimately us women are the ones in control of the game.

Being a woman, the only game we need is to get dressed up and do our hair then off we go to pick up if that is what we choose to do. All power to us.


----------



## OrangeCrush

FalconKing said:


> I would like to see some female posters talk about their dating experiences. Particularly those who were woman enough to approach men and ask them out.


I asked my partner out. and before i met him, I asked about 50% of the guys i went out with. what exactly do you want to know?  

when a PUA talks to me though, i always suddenly magically speak only French. it's the best way to get rid of them fast. it's really funny to see a guy try to 'neg' (insult) and then panic when it doesn't go like he thought!  (note: i *never* do this to guys who are just talking to me like a normal person. but when a guy starts with 'running game', yuck!)


----------



## FalconKing

Holland said:


> Ouchie FK, *woman enough to approach men and ask them out.* Some of us are happy to sit back and pick and choose without the need to be the asker. But I am woman enough to be one hell of a woman.
> 
> Anyway as for the game stuff it is a bit "meh" TBH. Do men realise that while they are out gaming for women, us women are actually gaming them with far greater prowess.
> It is not hard to work out when a guy is a PUA and as a woman I am the one that chooses whether I allow him to pick me up or not. So ultimately us women are the ones in control of the game.
> 
> Being a woman, the only game we need is to get dressed up and do our hair then off we go to pick up if that is what we choose to do. All power to us.


That's kind of the point I was making. Men are the ones sticking their necks out. Some of them are reading about techniques that some men use for bad, but they will use for good. Yet women are calling foul to this. Have you ever approached a man and had him laugh in your face and diss you? Not because you did anything wrong but just because he could? Because he know it was generally your job to ask him out and he was on a power trip? We have to ignore things like this and push on. Or what if you met a man that you thought was interested in you but he was somewhat reserved because he wanted you to make the first move? How would some of you ladies navigate that? You don't want to make the guy uncomfortable so should you take his words at face value or just try to read his body language? If I read a manual written by a porno star about female ejaculation and knew how to make you do that, would you be angry as to where I got the knowledge rather knowing that I purposefully learned a way to please you? Of course I have my own things that I do but I know how to do that as well. Just like a purposefully learned a way to attract you. While having my own personal quirks.

If you ladies think you can do any of this better than please try. I would appreciate an intelligent woman chatting and laughing me up and paying for my food.


----------



## FalconKing

OrangeCrush said:


> I asked my partner out. and before i met him, I asked about 50% of the guys i went out with. what exactly do you want to know?
> 
> when a PUA talks to me though, i always suddenly magically speak only French. it's the best way to get rid of them fast. it's really funny to see a guy try to 'neg' (insult) and then panic when it doesn't go like he thought!  (note: i *never* do this to guys who are just talking to me like a normal person. but when a guy starts with 'running game', yuck!)


how do you know if he is a PUA though?


----------



## OrangeCrush

FalconKing said:


> how do you know if he is a PUA though?


maybe some of them aren't; people can be obnoxious/arrogant/misogynist without books telling them to do it. sometimes it's pretty much word-for-word out of one of the books though. yes, i've read some, even though i'm not a guy. i was curious.  the 'negging' is especially funny; they act legit surprised when you call them out 'oh yeah, that's from the game, right? where you insult people because it's supposed to make them more interested?' and then laugh and walk away.


----------



## Holland

FalconKing said:


> That's kind of the point I was making. Men are the ones sticking their necks out. Some of them are reading about techniques that some men use for bad, but they will use for good. Yet women are calling foul to this. *Have you ever approached a man and had him laugh in your face and diss you? Not because you did anything wrong but just because he could? Because he know it was generally your job to ask him out and he was on a power trip? We have to ignore things like this and push on. *Or what if you met a man that you thought was interested in you but he was somewhat reserved because he wanted you to make the first move? How would some of you ladies navigate that? You don't want to make the guy uncomfortable so should you take his words at face value or just try to read his body language? If I read a manual written by a porno star about female ejaculation and knew how to make you do that, would you be angry as to where I got the knowledge rather knowing that I purposefully learned a way to please you? Of course I have my own things that I do but I know how to do that as well. Just like a purposefully learned a way to attract you. While having my own personal quirks.
> 
> If you ladies think you can do any of this better than please try. I would appreciate an intelligent woman chatting and laughing me up and paying for my food.


OK I am not the best person to answer this because it is something I would never, ever do. I have always politely declined or accepted dates or chats.

I do understand that it is difficult for men especially if they are getting responses such as the above, hey but if some stupid woman were to laugh in his face then it could be considered a lucky save. Better for him to learn that she is not a decent person before anything happens.

My ire is not with decent men that genuinely want to meet women, whether that is for a quick fling or to find a partner. The disdain is for those men that treat women as a commodity to be gamed. 

Openness and honesty trump gaming always, would rather a man say that he was after some unattached fun than have him play stupid games which make him look like a twit.


----------



## Wiserforit

Deejo said:


> Well then, lets get the chest bump out of the way, shall we?


I don't know what the "chest bump" is supposed to mean but thank you for listing literature so we can have straight talk:




> Mystery Method by Erik von Markovick
> Rules of the Game Neil Strauss
> The Game Neil Strauss


Let's take these three as a group since I have read all of the Game and most of the first, and the middle one is the same stuff.

The Game opens with Mystery, this man we are supposed to admire, as _suicidal_. Why is he suicidal? Because much of what he recommends are actually tactics of people with _antisocial personality disorders_. It is no wonder at all this guy wants to kill himself. 

Look how pretentious and utterly silly the chapter titles are! 

Select a Target
Approach and open
Demonstrate Value
Disarm Obstacles
Isolate the Target
Create an Emotional Connection
Extract to a Seduction Location (hahahahahah!)
Pump Buying Temperature
Make A Physical Connection
Blast Last-Minute Resistance
Manage Expectations

Not only is this obviously misogynistic for its labeling of women as _things_, but the stupid titles don't even match to the text within them! It is a rambling narrative instead, disjointed and jumbled, verbose in the extreme - the entire book can be collapsed into a few pages.

It creates nonsense vocabularies. How can "demonstrate value" be stated with a straight face? You either are or are not a person of substance with a career, education, abilities, etc. 

And these three sources are big on neg theory - cutting people down as a manipulative stragegy so you cannot be following this material and not following the core principles.

There are diagrams with how to pretend you are ignoring a girl when acutally you are making a big show of talking to her friends - this deceptive and cowardly behavior instead of just introducing yourself! 

The back-handed way of starting this thread is actually a very interesting example of the kind of deception this whole literature teaches. Look at your title: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works... Ever"

What are you trying to say? I clearly isn't straight talk. What are you actually saying? Nobody has said it never "works". This formula may "work" on women of low self-esteem, but _following this book _ is a ridiculous way of conducting yourself. The amount of time alone they say to spend at trying to pick women up is about as much effort as I spent getting a graduate degree! 

That's why I wanted you to name sources. Because when you inspect them you can see how much garbage is in there. Why read 99% garbage to get 1% value, especially when the garbage is actually _offensive_?





> The LayGuide by Tony Clink
> Married Man Sex Life by Athol Kay



I have not read these.


----------



## OrangeCrush

^^ and the "1%" of valuable advice is stuff that can be found in ANY book on developing social skills, reading body language, getting over social anxiety, becoming a better conversationalist...you don't need to read things that include demeaning women and advising you to be manipulative and nasty, just to improve your social skills. 

there are even books specifically on flirting, and they're fun, and anyone can use the advice.  'superflirt' is a good one- it's just about how to read other people's body language signals and how to make your own signals more flirtatious and inviting. 

flirting with someone who you find absolutely gorgeous, and literally just enjoying and appreciating the person in that moment, is incredibly fun. your only goal is to make him/her feel special and delighted as his/her eyes meet yours from across the room.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Deejo said:


> That whole bit about "Be yourself ..." and you'll meet the right person is a bit disingenous. As I have stated many times in the past, if being yourself means that you are an introverted shut-in, but you WANT to meet people, and women in particular, then being yourself isn't going to cut it.
> You have to be willing to get uncomfortable with behaviors and actions that are distinctly not 'being yourself' if you want to be successful.


 My perspective likely flies in the opposite direction of what works for MOST woman...I am a little out of the box. 

If the bashful "shut in" got himself out where he could meet someone & could carry on an intelligent conversation/ some back & forth... someone like me... if he was good looking & showed enough interest...eye contact/smiling ... I would find it *a challenge* to bring him out of his shell...to get to know him deeper....I do have the gift of gab...he would, however, eventually have to put himself out there, I wouldn't be asking him out. 

I have always been turned off by men who act "*over confident*" ...I just want "REAL" please. I also get a little annoyed with men who try too hard to make a girl laugh... I'd prefer someone to "engage" my mind, seek to know the real me..instead of cracking stupid jokes. 

I go for the type that are HUMBLE, HONEST, and GENUINE... Some women may find that too boring for the 1st couple dates, I just don't need Hyped Excitement...being REAL brings "entertaining flowing conversation" on it's own....anything HYPED will wear off anyway... I seek the authentic. 

We've went out with a GF & her guy a # of times...This man gets carried away...always trying to get a laugh with his endles stories..and he pulls it off.... but honestly, the stuff he says, we are shaking our heads afterwards ...I'll say to my husband..."I Don't believe it"....and my husband will say ..."But it was funny".. .and I will say... "I don't give a sh**, he's an A-hole". I don't know if these Mystery Method courses/books teach men to purposely '*exaggerate*" for a little BOOST of the humor...or not.. Just saying. 

Just have no use for GAMES.... if a man fed me







lines...and they were with the intent to Hook me/ string me... to get somewhere....or to UP his attraction, even the least bit disingenuous....I'd call him out on it....maybe that could lead to a little bantering - so it'd be cool...ultimately I'd be seeking the vulnerable. 



Trenton said:


> You know that I am an advocate for being yourself and, no, I don't think it is disingenuous.
> 
> If a person is an introvert because that is who they are then to pretend to be an extrovert may work in the beginning but will not lead to attracting a woman who is compatible with him in the long-term.
> 
> Unless! That man is an introvert because he has not confidence or doesn't truly know what he wants or who he is. Then there is need for self discovery and confidence prior to attracting the right partner anyway.


 This is how I think also









For example..

Our oldest son rooms with this Christian Writer, He is such a NICE Guy...26 yrs old, can't say he is successful with the ladies.. ....he is good looking, articulate, intelligent -can handle a debate.....what a great engager..... but women... ha ha , we've talked about his struggles there...He is introverted, so he doesn't put himself out there ENOUGH. 

Near every time we visit, me & him find ourselves getting into these lively discussions....they might go on for an hour + (Son & husband right there interjecting with us)......Religion (Calvanism vs ?), Relationships, Feminism, his "witnessing" trips...I find his adventures hilarious (on the Beach of Spring Break witnessing Jesus- he takes it all in stride)....and how authentically GENUINE he is..... he's one of those people, because they are so open..even with some of their odd quirks... it's just refreshing somehow. ..This is very rare to find in life...so I always appreciate these types..... 

And no...I am not flirting with this guy...He calls me Mrs_____ Though If I was young again....and single... Yeah...that's my type, the intellectual deep thinking bookworm.....just as my husband was MY TYPE......even though I can't say he was the feedback slapping debater this guy is. 

But with my husband....one thing was always there...*true "genuineness" in every conversation...from the very start*... I could base my life on his answers or what he shared with me. No







*This is what has** value* *to me - in seeking to know another*.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *OrangeCrush said:* and the "1%" of valuable advice is stuff that can be found in ANY book on *developing social skills*, *reading body language*, *getting over social anxiety*, *becoming a better conversationalist*...you don't need to read things that include demeaning women and advising you to be manipulative and nasty, just to improve your social skills.


 This is how I feel also...... 

I don't have this book - but I am sure it would be amazing for any man, also women....in communication skills, I doubt it can be beat... If one follows these principles with someone they long to get to know better.... it will be AUTHENTIC from the get-go ... I don't see why a man needs more than this. If a woman is not satisfied with this, she is a GAMER too, and I guess shouldn't blame the man for having to Read and act upon all that heightened FLUFF to get her attentions. ha ha 







How to Win Friends & Influence People: 







... talks about 



> The ability to express ideas, to assume leadership, and to arouse enthusiasm among people.... He teaches these skills through underlying principles of dealing with people so that they feel important and appreciated. He also emphasizes fundamental techniques for handling people without making them feel manipulated.





> His advice is so obvious and so easy, so how come it's so difficult to do yourself and so rarely found in others? Is it cynicism or manipulation? No, it's human nature:
> 
> *Do Unto Others ...THE FUNDAMENTALS*
> 
> *1*. "Speak ill of no man and speak all the good you know of everyone."
> People react very badly to criticism; don't do it, not to their face nor behind their back ... especially not behind their back.
> 
> *2*. Say "Thank You".
> Express appreciation. People yearn, yearn to be appreciated.
> 
> *3*. Talk about what people want and help them get it.
> "Arouse in others an eager want."
> Corollary: let others take credit for your ideas; they'll like your ideas a lot more if they believe them to be their own.
> 
> *WAYS TO MAKE PEOPLE LIKE YOU*
> 
> *1.* Be happy to see people.
> Greet everyone you meet and show an interest in them. Remember the things that are important to them.
> 
> *2*. Smile!
> 
> *3*. Remembers peoples' names!!
> Remember it, use it when talking to them. A person's name sounds beautiful to them.
> 
> *4*. Draw people out.
> Encourage them to talk about themselves and their interests.
> 
> *5*. Actively research the other person's interests.
> 
> *6.* Every person you meet feels themselves superior to you in some way.
> Strain to find out what that is and recognize their importance. Talk to people about themselves and they will listen to you for hours.
> 
> *WIN PEOPLE TO YOUR WAY OF THINKING*
> 
> *1. *Don't argue!
> Give in! Agree that the other person is right; often they are and if they aren't, you'll never convince them of it by arguing.
> 
> *2. * Don't ever tell a person they're wrong.
> They may be but telling them so is always counterproductive. It is difficult for a person to admit to themselves that they are wrong; harder still to admit it to others.
> 
> *3.* If you know you're wrong, admit it.
> Openly and freely admit whenever you're wrong. And always leave open the possibility that you're wrong even of you think you aren't.
> 
> *4*. Friendliness begets friendliness.
> Always begin that way. Don't accuse.
> 
> *5*. Never neglect a kindness.
> Look for ways to do or say something nice.
> 
> *6*. Start out by emphasizing areas of agreement.
> When a person has said "no" it's hard to get them to change even if they know they're wrong.
> 
> *7*. Let the other person do most of the talking.
> Listen patiently and don't interrupt. Let your friends be better than you.
> 
> *8.* Let people come to your conclusions.
> First, tell me what you expect of me; then tell me what I can expect of you. People will generally live up to the commitments they make to you as long as they came up with them on their own.
> 
> *9*. Think always in terms of the other person's point of view.
> Where they stand depends on where they sit; figure out where they're sitting.
> 
> *10.* A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
> 
> *11*. Dramatize your ideas.
> "Don't use logic; tell stories." Make your ideas visible, concrete. Bear in mind that people don't know until you show them what you mean.
> 
> *12.* Stimulate in others their innate desire to excel (perhaps through a friendly challenge or through competition).
> 
> *BE A LEADER*
> 
> *1*. Don't go sailing into difficult interpersonal situations with guns blazing. You'll always get a negative reaction.
> 
> *2*. Change "but" into "and".
> Be indirect in your criticism. Praise before you condemn.
> 
> *3*. Ask questions rather than giving orders.
> 
> *4*. Be very careful to help others preserve their dignity.
> 
> *5. * People crave recognition: praise the smallest improvement and praise every improvement.
> 
> *6. * Treat people as though they had the virtues you wished they possessed.
> Give them a reputation to live up to and they will work like crazy to live up to it.
> 
> *7*. Praise the good; minimize the bad: encourage.
> Make achievement seem possible. Take and encourage little baby steps. Seek out even the most insignificant of successes.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Deejo said:


> But we are still caught at that place you and I have always been. I'm trying to convey that I COMPLETELY changed up my perspective and approach to women and dating, but I didn't do so by being inauthentic.
> 
> And that is the lens that you see all of this through. *And in many cases, it may well be the correct one.*


YOU are  in this way then.. but as you stated above ...in those MANY cases, Trenton would be RIGHT....

Men don't generally use these books you listed:

*****  The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women Into Bed
*Rules of the Game* Neil Strauss
*The Game *Neil Strauss .... for finding the "Love of their lives".. but to manipulate just enough to escalate his Sex Rank - so he can score that night....the end result is ALWAYS SEDUCTION &







.....(I guess if the Babe wants that, you're all good!) You reached your  goal.







Mystery Method The Outline HERE 









Even the most Homely men want to sow their Wild Oats today... He knows what HIS purpose & goal is (yours might have been more honorable seeking something Real ultimately).... but us women don't know ... which makes it all a guessing game - when you come across these PUA converts.

#1 PUA Forum - Become The Ultimate Pick Up Artist ...of course they have a section entitled "Lay Reports" ... 

They even have Pickup Artist Bootcamps !

Another woman's perspective.. .mentioning the Benefits & the Cons PUA Forums: Are Players On The Rise?


----------



## LouAnn Poovy

SimplyAmorous

You are so ..... *colorful!*


----------



## Caribbean Man

Machiavelli said:


> Athol has it together. Rape quote? I doubt it. *Might makes right? In the end, yes, since the victors make the laws and write the histories. Is feminism over if men decide to shut it down? no question*.


Well said!
A lot of these arguments being put forward against men and their sexuality can be viewed as an attempt to rewrite the rules by those who find the tone of the rules offensive.
How is it that no one complains when females play that same game?
In fact, many of those who complain about PUA and game techniques here on TAM openly support women who want to play that game,_ when they have the upper hand..._

Reminds me of one of my favourite* _offensive_ *quotations about right and wrong;

"...*All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth*..."
Friedrich Nietzche.

_Absolutely nothing makes sense in love & war._


----------



## Faithful Wife

Falcon...I've asked guys out, and have many friends who have, as well. I have also been rejected (not laughed in my face but who knows what they said after I walked away?)

I have girlfriends who pay for everything for their boyfriends. I have female friends who have put their husbands through college while they worked two jobs. I also have friends who are trans, gay, bi, sex workers (strippers, porn stars, etc), and then some who are totally religious and on the opposite end of that scale. Many of these friends of all types have initiated their relationships. Some have been rejected, some not.

My husband was asked out by many women in his life. Some he accepted, some not. He asked me out first, though.

What did you want to know?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Faithful Wife said:


> Falcon...I've asked guys out, and have many friends who have, as well. I have also been rejected (not laughed in my face but who knows what they said after I walked away?)
> 
> I have girlfriends who pay for everything for their boyfriends. I have female friends who have put their husbands through college while they worked two jobs. I also have friends who are trans, gay, bi, sex workers (strippers, porn stars, etc), and then some who are totally religious and on the opposite end of that scale. Many of these friends of all types have initiated their relationships. Some have been rejected, some not.
> 
> My husband was asked out by many women in his life. Some he accepted, some not. He asked me out first, though.
> 
> What did you want to know?


Without dismissing those efforts, they are the exception. I have been asked out, but it is a tiny percentage. Men are still expected to pay for most things, though that evens out in a LTR. Most rejections were not about laughing in my face, but I certainly recall walking away and then hearing laughter with her friends. Also got a couple of bum phone numbers. Asking a girl out when you are average and not all that confident is not for the faint of heart. 

As far as "game", I have worked on employing aspects of it with my wife. Our sex life (and marriage) was not where I wanted it to be, and I researched ways to improve it. Some were silly and designed for a ONS. Some would actively hurt our marriage. But many others do work to up the sexual tension between us and help me better understand her. Things have improved. It worked for me and that is all I care about.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

FalconKing said:


> I would like to see some female posters talk about their dating experiences. Particularly those who were woman enough to approach men and ask them out.


I've pursued most of the men I've had in my life.men don't ask me out and I rarely get hit on unless it's online.

When dating I had no game,unless being yourself is a game.

With SO,if I'm viewing the situation reasonably,I may have put my neck out further and did a bit of gaming.He was seriously the most quiet person I had come across.I had to carry the conversation which is something I rarely do in real life.I made the conversation more light and funny hoping to pull him out of his shell also when normally I'm more serious or wait for others to begin joking.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TAG - a few years back there was a HUGE best seller written (and subsequent really HORRIBLE move that had nothing to do with the book) and it was called.....He's Just Not That Into You.

Who do you think this book was aimed at, if not toward women who were pursuing men who aren't that into them?

One of the chapters is called, If You Have to Ask Him Out, He's Just Not That Into You.

I'm not debating whether the above statement is true or not. Just pointing out that women asking out men must not be that uncommon.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Tall Average Guy said:


> As far as "game", I have worked on employing aspects of it with my wife. Our sex life (and marriage) was not where I wanted it to be, and I researched ways to improve it. Some were silly and designed for a ONS. Some would actively hurt our marriage. But many others do work to up the sexual tension between us and help me better understand her. *Things have improved. It worked for me and that is all I care about.*


^^THIS is all that matters.
All other arguments are just exercises in cherry picking IMO.

If a woman isn't into the casual sex, fast lane stuff and don't want to be played , then don't date players,stop fooling yourself , falling for PUA, thinking you can change the game. 
_Don't pretend you're a lioness when you know you're a sheep_.
Be true to yourself , who you are and what you want the relationship to be.

If a woman wants a perspective life partner who would spend quality time with her , and romance her the way she wants to be and she in return would be willing to do her part ,then she should only seek out such men.
Good men who respect themselves and the women they date are quite easy to spot . So too , are players and PUA.

Its about personal responsibility and not cake eating.

I've posted here already that in my late 30's our sex life ebbed a bit, but I was not worried, I just took it for granted.
I decided to start going to the gym and pump iron. My physical appearance changed , my energy levels improved and as a consequence , my wife's sexual attraction to me grew way beyond my imagination.
Mo, I didn't read any of those books, all of this I did was 
_for me_.
I felt I needed to change my lifestyle because I was dissatisfied with it.
Was I supposed to first inform my wife, get her opinion and if she agreed, the start to work on myself?
Nonsense.


----------



## Entropy3000




----------



## Tall Average Guy

Faithful Wife said:


> TAG - a few years back there was a HUGE best seller written (and subsequent really HORRIBLE move that had nothing to do with the book) and it was called.....He's Just Not That Into You.
> 
> Who do you think this book was aimed at, if not toward women who were pursuing men who aren't that into them?
> 
> One of the chapters is called, If You Have to Ask Him Out, He's Just Not That Into You.
> 
> I'm not debating whether the above statement is true or not. Just pointing out that women asking out men must not be that uncommon.


Not sure that says anything of the sort. My understanding of the book (though I have not read it) was that it generally dealt with women who were dating men that were starting to withdraw. That is, had been on a couple of dates where the girl was more interested in continuing than the guy was.

Again, I am not saying it does not occur (and certainly is more common that it was 15 years ago), only that it is still pretty uncommon, that chapter notwithstanding.

_Edit_ - As I think about it, we probably are not that far apart in what we are saying. Certainly not worth me wasting any more electrons debating it.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Entropy3000 said:


>


So what did we learn from this?

Apparently, sleeve tatts work in the short term.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> One of the chapters is called, If You Have to Ask Him Out, He's Just Not That Into You.
> 
> I'm not debating whether the above statement is true or not. Just pointing out that women asking out men must not be that uncommon.


:iagree:

My wife was the one to ask me out first.
But she didn't really ask me out , she told me that she wanted to take me out for some pizza and a night out.
In retrospect , that was her " game." She was always one step ahead of me , and she kept me guessing if we were just friends or if she wanted us to be more than just friends...

I knew for certain my head was all over the place with women, and she was trying to get me to see her alone.
So her " game " actually_ worked_.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TAG - No, the book was about women who are chasing men who are not that into them. Not men who were starting to withdraw.


----------



## Blue Firefly

Deejo said:


> I have read a bunch of books about pickup and game, conducting healthy relationships, conducting a healthy life, etc.


If found "Get Insider Her" by Marni Kinrys to be an effective alternative to game dating theory.

She makes the case that game works not because it's right, but because it's not 100% wrong.

Women are attracted to men with certain positive attributes. Gamers display those attributes (as does the prototypical bad-boy), but they also display a lot of negative attributes (again, as does the prototypical bad-boy). Women are so inherently attracted to the positive attributes, that they tolerate the negative ones.

If you can learn to display the positive attributes and dump the negative attributes you'll have a huge advantage over the gamers/bad-boys.

As an added bonus, Kinrys' advice can be easily adapted for use within a marriage. Want to know how to change so your wife will start finding you sexually attractive again? Just follow the advice in this book, but direct your focus toward your wife.

Go to this link and read the reviews.

Get Inside Her: Dirty Dating Tips & Secrets From A Woman: Marni Kinrys: 9781624090127: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> My wife was the one to ask me out first.
> But she didn't really ask me out , she told me that she wanted to take me out for some pizza and a night out.
> In retrospect , that was her " game." She was always one step ahead of me , and she kept me guessing if we were just friends or if she wanted us to be more than just friends...
> 
> I knew for certain my head was all over the place with women, and she was trying to get me to see her alone.
> So her " game " actually_ worked_.


Understanding some game concepts has helped make my marriage more passionate and playful. 

But indeed sir, you and I have some things in common here. Quality women will find me. Oh heck so will the others. I have never been an aggressive guy with women. Never needed to be. But my point is that if a woman sees something in me past the ephemeral she will get my attention somehow. I will see it in her face and body language but ultimately she will engage me in conversation. She may be playful or she may be challenging. The dance begins. Knowing some game will make it easier for her to engage with me frankly. Not the other way around.

But where game can help is in getting past the sticking points in the relationship. Getting past the awkward. When we want to open up to someone we seek ways to break down the barriers. I am using an iron analogy here. I know you will know what I mean about sticking points when lifting. I do not see these as tricks but genuine actions.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Faithful Wife said:


> TAG - No, the book was about women who are chasing men who are not that into them. Not men who were starting to withdraw.


Does not seem that way from the description on Amazon:



> Straightforward and sensible, He’s Just Not That Into You educates otherwise smart women on how to tell when a guy just doesn’t like them enough, so they can stop wasting time making excuses for a dead-end relationship.


This is also consistent with user reviews there and elsewhere that i have seen. But again, I have not read it, so if you have an think these are wrong, I won't argue.


----------



## Blue Firefly

drerio said:


> Not trying to get this thread off-track, but being an introvert is not the same as being a shut-in.


I am a true introvert, and I agree. There are actually a host of positive attributes that typically go along with being an introvert (independent, focused, self-sufficient, calm & measured approach, not impulsive). But, there are also a host of negative attributes.

Introverts tend to be "me" focused. What will she think of ME? What if she doesn't like ME? What should I say when it's my turn to speak? I just said something stupid, now how do I make it better? Or the worse: I better not say something, because she might think I sound stupid.

This "me" focus is why a lot of introverts have trouble interacting with others.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, the description includes "how to tell when a guy just doesn’t like them enough". Not sure what you are confused about?

Withdrawing is not the same as not that into you.


----------



## Entropy3000

coffee4me said:


> I think what I find interesting in these last threads is that the majority of men posting here have been admired by the majority of the women here. Many have been complimented on their morals, behaviors, how they appreciate their wives and respect women, etc.
> 
> These same men have said that they have read and found helpful the material (MMSL and PUA stuff) that is being torn to shreds here by the women. They have said that they only used and tried parts that applied to them. They found it helpful in finding a relationship or improving their marriage.
> 
> The women are telling these same men (that they admire), that this material is offensive in the way the material disrespects women. Yet, they admire the men who say they used it and they found it helpful. :scratchhead:
> 
> Women want men to just be themselves, apparently they tried that and it wasnt attracting women (their wife or a girlfriend), so they then try to improve themselves to attract a woman and are told to not do that because that means they are playing games :scratchhead:
> 
> The materials the men say have helped them seems to speak to them as men. I don't purpose as a woman to relate to it all; just as I for the life of me don't get some of the jokes the men in my family make.
> 
> I did start reading the MMSL blog and the part about a woman my age (mid 40's) not having a very high sex rank, I might as well recognize my fate now. I'll be a lonely woman needing to accept a lesser man. :rofl: Made me bust out laughing. I wasn't offeneded nor did I find it offensive, I just wondered why then do I have 25 year old men wanting to date me, there must be something wrong with them. I read something about flirting with other women to make your wife jealous and thought ya, only if you want to walk home. I just don't take all that stuff seriously but more importantly, I don't think that men do either. They take what they can use and leave or laugh at the rest.


Nice post. I think there are things in the blog that women may find offensive. Some of us just do not focus on those pot holes. It is a buffet. We take what we want and leave the rest. 

I read the book and shook my head at some areas and just said that is not me. Fundamentally it was not who I was. But in other areas I thought yes, he is dead on. 

The Ten Second Kiss can be twisted into something evil no doubt. But the premise is to seek to get past the barriers that have built up in the arteries of the marriage. These obstructions in the marriage are taking its life away and ultimately kill it. I am sorry but I think seeking intimacy with the one you have dedicated your life to is nothing but wonderful and loving. Indeed the ten second kiss may indicate there is some resentment in the marriage. Very possibly unknown to the man.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Entropy3000 said:


> The Ten Second Kiss can be twisted into something evil no doubt. But the premise is to seek to get past the barriers that have built up in the arteries of the marriage. These obstructions in the marriage are taking its life away and ultimately kill it. I am sorry but I think seeking intimacy with the one you have dedicated your life to is nothing but wonderful and loving. Indeed the ten second kiss may indicate there is some resentment in the marriage. Very possibly unknown to the man.


I would also note that some of the advice (at least in MMSL) is addressed to folks in a bad situation. One poster mentioned not wanting her husband to destabilize their relationship. Ignoring the fact that almost any change will have some effect, if things are generally healthy, destabilization is not necessary. But in a truly unhealthy relationship, destabilization may be necessary. So presuming that all advice applies to all relationships is misguided. I certainly did not read it with that in mind.


----------



## WyshIknew

coffee4me said:


> I think what I find interesting in these last threads is that the majority of men posting here have been admired by the majority of the women here. Many have been complimented on their morals, behaviors, how they appreciate their wives and respect women, etc.
> 
> These same men have said that they have read and found helpful the material (MMSL and PUA stuff) that is being torn to shreds here by the women. They have said that they only used and tried parts that applied to them. They found it helpful in finding a relationship or improving their marriage.
> 
> The women are telling these same men (that they admire), that this material is offensive in the way the material disrespects women. Yet, they admire the men who say they used it and they found it helpful. :scratchhead:
> 
> Women want men to just be themselves, apparently they tried that and it wasnt attracting women (their wife or a girlfriend), so they then try to improve themselves to attract a woman and are told to not do that because that means they are playing games :scratchhead:
> 
> The materials the men say have helped them seems to speak to them as men. I don't purpose as a woman to relate to it all; just as I for the life of me don't get some of the jokes the men in my family make.
> 
> I did start reading the MMSL blog and the part about a woman my age (mid 40's) not having a very high sex rank, I might as well recognize my fate now. I'll be a lonely woman needing to accept a lesser man. :rofl: Made me bust out laughing. I wasn't offeneded nor did I find it offensive, I just wondered why then do I have 25 year old men wanting to date me, there must be something wrong with them. I read something about flirting with other women to make your wife jealous and thought ya, only if you want to walk home. I just don't take all that stuff seriously but more importantly, I don't think that men do either. They take what they can use and leave or laugh at the rest.





Entropy3000 said:


> Nice post. I think there are things in the blog that women may find offensive. Some of us just do not focus on those pot holes. It is a buffet. We take what we want and leave the rest.
> 
> I read the book and shook my head at some areas and just said that is not me. Fundamentally it was not who I was. But in other areas I thought yes, he is dead on.
> 
> The Ten Second Kiss can be twisted into something evil no doubt. But the premise is to seek to get past the barriers that have built up in the arteries of the marriage. These obstructions in the marriage are taking its life away and ultimately kill it. I am sorry but I think seeking intimacy with the one you have dedicated your life to is nothing but wonderful and loving. Indeed the ten second kiss may indicate there is some resentment in the marriage. Very possibly unknown to the man.


Two very good posts!

And I agree wholeheartedly with E3000. Take what is useful to you and bin the rest. Don't make a book your manifesto on life or your bible.

I read MMSLP and did take note of some of the stuff classed as alpha.

But I also included more stuff classed as beta. One of the things that made me pause for thought was the laundry thing. How sexy is it for your wife to wash your socks and undies? Consequently I now try to do more laundry when I can, and she really appreciates it.

I think this is one of the things that gets overlooked sometimes, people concentrate on the ultra alpha stuff and forget MMSLP also advocates doing stuff classed as beta.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Entropy3000 said:


> It is a buffet. We take what we want and leave the rest.


THIS is what everyone needs to remember.It isn't a guide anyone should follow verbatim.You take what you need and leave what you see as garbage out of the equation. 

I know I've said it a bunch of times but damn some people don't get it.It's about BALANCE!No man or woman can be all one way or another and expect to have healthy relationships. If these methods and books and blogs help guide someone to balance their personality out a bit more then I think that's awesome.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Myself, I still can't condone the work of an author who would use terms like "chubby screechtard". I'm sorry to keep picking on that, but the fact is, there are MANY such degrading phrases he uses in MMSL.

I know, I know...I'm a broken record, and all.

But there are books about sex between married adults that are all about communication and love, and not about game.

Not saying game books don't have their place, but I don't see why the hateful terms need to be used AT ALL. The same books could be written without those nasty terms and would then be great books.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

faithful wife said:


> the same books could be written without those nasty terms and would then be great books.


agree!


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Myself, I still can't condone the work of an author who would use terms like "chubby screechtard". I'm sorry to keep picking on that, but the fact is, there are MANY such degrading phrases he uses in MMSL.
> 
> I know, I know...I'm a broken record, and all.
> 
> But there are books about sex between married adults that are all about communication and love, and not about game.
> 
> Not saying game books don't have their place, but I don't see why the hateful terms need to be used AT ALL. The same books could be written without those nasty terms and would then be great books.


No, I think you have a valid point there. When I read that it was a real "eeeww" moment.

It's been a while since I read the book but I don't recall the book being as degrading as the web site.

I would hope that a real man could see through any nonsense and only take out of it that which was applicable to him.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Myself, I still can't condone the work of an author who would use terms like "chubby screechtard". I'm sorry to keep picking on that, but the fact is, there are MANY such degrading phrases he uses in MMSL.
> 
> I know, I know...I'm a broken record, and all.
> 
> But there are books about sex between married adults that are all about communication and love, and not about game.
> 
> Not saying game books don't have their place, but I don't see why the hateful terms need to be used AT ALL. The same books could be written without those nasty terms and would then be great books.


Knowledge like gold is where you find it.

The world is not black and white. I get your point though.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

WyshIknew said:


> I would hope that a real man could see through any nonsense and only take out of it that which was applicable to him.


It is up to women to trust that men are smart and capable enough to realize what's appropriate and respectful and what isn't.It's also up to men to realize not all women are the same and while one woman may love a man to make decisions and take care of her,another woman might resent it.That doesn't mean he needs to stop being who he is to cater to that woman,it simply means they aren't a good match.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy: Then why do so many men get so riled up when women use man-hating language, if it is just "no biggie" and "not the whole picture" and "the woman has a lot of good things to say, don't shut her down just for a few man-hater names"?


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy: Then why do so many men get so riled up when women use man-hating language, if it is just "no biggie" and "not the whole picture" and "the woman has a lot of good things to say, don't shut her down just for a few man-hater names"?


Because they are insecure and need to grow up a bit?

I dunno, perhaps I'm just thick skinned about some things?


----------



## WyshIknew

And just realised we have taken Deejo's Pick up thread and jacked it into an MMSLP NMMNG type thread. Perhaps a different thread might be in order?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, I too am sorry for the threadjack.

I still want to hear more from NSweet, though.

And I want to hear back from Falcon on his questions.

Back to those and other regularly programmed topics....


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy: Then why do so many men get so riled up when women use man-hating language, if it is just "no biggie" and "not the whole picture" and "the woman has a lot of good things to say, don't shut her down just for a few man-hater names"?


I need context. I am not interested in a relationship with Athol. I read his book. I also believe that everyone brings something to the table. I may ultimately feel that on balance they have no place in my life as they are a net negative.

I do listen to women who mix in some such rhetoric. I will even like their posts when what they say resonates with me. 

Ultimately what I feel for that woman is not anger but empathy. Because she is expressing her pain. 

But context matters to me in how I feel and react.

Example :

The same woman may say --

1) No woman should be defined by any man

2) No woman is owned by any man and what she does is none of her husbands business

Number one I agree with. #2? Not so much.

I have no ill will towards that woman. But I feel sorry for both her and her husband.

Now just to be clear on this that I get the own thing. My wifes first husband told her he paid $6 for the marriage license and owned her. But this same woman has no problem in giving herself to me and I to her. We have joint ownership of the marriage and of each other in the sense that we are committed to one another and have put ourselves in each others keeping. We can withdraw that privilege at any time. So it in no way is like owning land. That is offensive no matter what way one looks at it. My wife has a safe haven in my arms period. And I in hers.

Also I am not ashamed to say that I am by nature and personality a protector. It is not limited to women. But I have always been and shall always be my wifes Dark Knight and I pray she will always be my Guardian Angel. Dysfunctional and co-dependent? LOL. Perhaps. F^ck it. It works for us.

Back to game ...


----------



## Blue Firefly

Entropy3000 said:


> Knowledge like gold is where you find it.
> 
> The world is not black and white. I get your point though.


The fact that something works is what counts, not why it works.

For decades we had the theory of electrical flow backwards, but it didn't matter, because the wrong theory still worked in practice.

I happen to think Kay's "sex rank" theory is wrong, but it works in practice.

Increasing your sex rank basically means getting yourself in shape--body, job, personal, everything. But, guys who do that also become more self-assured, independent, focused, and aggressive--all traits women desire in men.

So, was it increasing your sex rank or displaying these traits that made women more interested in you? I happen to think it was the traits, but it doesn't matter, because the end result is the same.

There's an old negotiating rule that says whoever is willing to walk away from a contract negotiation will always win the negotiation in the end.

Kay also says you should increase your sex rank so your spouse will be afraid of losing you. But, isn't it also possible that men who follow Kay's advice suddenly realize that there is a point that they would leave their marriage, and that is what gives them the upper hand in the "negotiations" with their wife?

Again, it doesn't matter, because the practical result is the same.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Faithful Wife said:


> The same books could be written without those nasty terms and would then be great books.


They wouldn't have been so enjoyable to read though. Just like there were women who thought S.C.U.M was hilarious and satirical and just a wonderful read, I am a guy who enjoys Chateau Heartiste type of humor.


----------



## Entropy3000

Blue Firefly said:


> The fact that something works is what counts, not why it works.
> 
> For decades we had the theory of electrical flow backwards, but it didn't matter, because the wrong theory still worked in practice.
> 
> I happen to think Kay's "sex rank" theory is wrong, but it works in practice.
> 
> Increasing your sex rank basically means getting yourself in shape--body, job, personal, everything. But, guys who do that also become more self-assured, independent, focused, and aggressive--all traits women desire in men.
> 
> So, was it increasing your sex rank or displaying these traits that made women more interested in you? I happen to think it was the traits, but it doesn't matter, because the end result is the same.
> 
> There's an old negotiating rule that says whoever is willing to walk away from a contract negotiation will always win the negotiation in the end.
> 
> Kay also says you should increase your sex rank so your spouse will be afraid of losing you. But, isn't it also possible that men who follow Kay's advice suddenly realize that there is a point that they would leave their marriage, and that is what gives them the upper hand in the "negotiations" with their wife?
> 
> Again, it doesn't matter, because the practical result is the same.


Excellent pragmatism.

Anyone who can talk about conventional versus electron flow can see the matrix.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Blue Firefly said:


> The fact that something works is what counts, not why it works.
> 
> *For decades we had the theory of electrical flow backwards, but it didn't matter, because the wrong theory still worked in practice.*


* *Back EMF* *
Sorry I couldn't resist that!


----------



## WyshIknew

Caribbean Man said:


> * *Back EMF* *
> Sorry I couldn't resist that!


Just use a diode. Stops it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> But where game can help is in getting past the sticking points in the relationship. Getting past the awkward. * When we want to open up to someone we seek ways to break down the barriers. I am using an iron analogy here. I know you will know what I mean about sticking points when lifting. I do not see these as tricks but genuine actions.*


:iagree::iagree:

YES!

My point exactly!
And I love the " plateau busting " analogy.
Its not all simply " black& white."
And as in lifting, some of us men have biomechanical disadvantages and we have to use more
" cheat reps " , different ranges of motion, higher volumes and so forth to achieve what mesomorphs achieve with ease. 
Some , our metabolism is so naturally jacked that we could eat anything and still not put on excess weight, others have to eat clean, and count every calorie.

Yes, you are correct.
The same principles can apply in this case.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree::iagree:
> 
> YES!
> 
> My point exactly!
> And I love the " plateau busting " analogy.
> Its not all simply " black& white."
> And as in lifting, some of us men have biomechanical disadvantages and we have to use more
> " cheat reps " , different ranges of motion, higher volumes and so forth to achieve what mesomorphs achieve with ease.
> Some , our metabolism is so naturally jacked that we could eat anything and still not put on excess weight, others have to eat clean, and count every calorie.
> 
> Yes, you are correct.
> The same principles can apply in this case.


Sometimes I use straps.

Also a man should never ever be afraid to chalk up.


----------



## inarut

mQUOTE=Blue Firefly;1551546]If found "Get Insider Her" by Marni Kinrys to be an effective alternative to game dating theory.

She makes the case that game works not because it's right, but because it's not 100% wrong.

Women are attracted to men with certain positive attributes. Gamers display those attributes (as does the prototypical bad-boy), but they also display a lot of negative attributes (again, as does the prototypical bad-boy). Women are so inherently attracted to the positive attributes, that they tolerate the negative ones.

If you can learn to display the positive attributes and dump the negative attributes you'll have a huge advantage over the gamers/bad-boys.

As an added bonus, Kinrys' advice can be easily adapted for use within a marriage. Want to know how to change so your wife will start finding you sexually attractive again? Just follow the advice in this book, but direct your focus toward your wife.

Go to this link and read the reviews.

Get Inside Her: Dirty Dating Tips & Secrets From A Woman: Marni Kinrys: 9781624090127: Amazon.com: Books[/QUOTE

This is true. It is not 100% wrong. Gamers/players, whatever you want to call them show a strong display of some of the qualities women really want in men. Unfortunately they also come with qualities women just as strongly DO NOT WANT. For the women who tolerate them, eventually , the negative will completely overshadow anything positive she may have seen in him and she will avoid those types like the plague. Some men who read this stuff don't seem to understand that and follow it to the letter. 

Others recognize nuggets of truth, internalize it and make it their own while ditching the ridiculous, negative stuff that comes with it. This is not posturing, it is authentic. Good, decent men who use the info in this way do have a HUGE advantage with women because now you have a good, decent man with the best of "beta" qualities which no bonifide "alpha" is likely to ever posess, in conjunction with a strong, confident and self assured man who knows who he is, what he wants and what he will accept/ not accept in a partner. He is not an arrogant, uncaring, self centered jerk. These are men who actually took the info from these sources and created something else in a way that is specific and relevant to them to improve themselves, to grow. 

When these men say they support athol or whoever I don't really understand it because from even the little bits of what I've seen from this stuff the negatives are so strong and in your face it doesn't make sense to me that its given such strong support. Those nuggets of truth are powerful yet small in comparison to the rest. It can do much more harm then good when taken at face value. For men who are taking it at face value and employing these methods by the letter, I have no doubt you will attract women just not the kind of woman you really want in the long run. 

Unless of course, all you really want is to get laid.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Saki

coffee4me said:


> I think what I find interesting in these last threads is that the majority of men posting here have been admired by the majority of the women here. Many have been complimented on their morals, behaviors, how they appreciate their wives and respect women, etc.
> 
> These same men have said that they have read and found helpful the material (MMSL and PUA stuff) that is being torn to shreds here by the women. They have said that they only used and tried parts that applied to them. They found it helpful in finding a relationship or improving their marriage.
> 
> The women are telling these same men (that they admire), that this material is offensive in the way the material disrespects women. Yet, they admire the men who say they used it and they found it helpful. :scratchhead:
> 
> Women want men to just be themselves, apparently they tried that and it wasnt attracting women (their wife or a girlfriend), so they then try to improve themselves to attract a woman and are told to not do that because that means they are playing games :scratchhead:
> 
> The materials the men say have helped them seems to speak to them as men. I don't purpose as a woman to relate to it all; just as I for the life of me don't get some of the jokes the men in my family make.


Ya know, one of the major tenants of MMSL is that a woman is not capable of telling a man what she wants.

Once a guy recognizes that, they stop trying to gain women's verbal approval. Then suddenly good things start happening, despite how many women keep telling him what they are doing is not good.

light bulbs should be going off about that time...


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> Sometimes I use straps.
> 
> Also a man should never ever be afraid to chalk up.


:smthumbup:

This allegory is so applicable,
Every man should know this..

"..._Never bend you back, neutral spine , breathe deeply , tighten your abs and then pull the bar_..."

One more thing I forgot;

" _Always look directly ahead , in order to minimize the risk of injury_.."


----------



## diwali123

I'm a woman and I don't know if this is the same thread that was previously started on this topic. I don't have time to read it all. 
But I watched the Pickup Artist show and much the techniques are not only about a man's attraction level but have to do with convincing women that he's not a psycho predator. Women don't care what a guy looks like if he comes off as a serial killer. Also if he comes off as the only reason he is there is to get laid even if it's the truth. 
I loved the clever ways they broke the ice in a really organic way. 
I think "negging" only works on really hot women who know they are really hot. The problem is if a woman doesn't see herself that way you are going to look like a *********. I have had men pull that sh*t with me and I just thought "friend zone."
Also never saying stupid stuff like "are we ginna get naked later?" is such a turn off. I had a guy say that to me, we had been flirting and were talking about going to a party with some friends. I felt like saying "well now we aren't!"
A lot of it is basic social skills. 
I see it like this. It's not to make women suddenly want to have sex. It's to make them want to have sex with YOU.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tacoma

always_alone said:


> Right! PUA lines are glaringly obvious and make you seem desperate and pathetic.


Successful PUA's never use "lines".
They get inside a woman's head, discover her likes, dislikes, wants, needs, and then makes them available to her.



> As said poster, I will jump in. I've seen over and over again men saying how well these techniques work, and that women just don't know what they want. Supposedly we just fall for the BS over and over again.


This is your problem digesting this.
No one said anyone "falls all over" anything AND successful PUA isn't bull****, it's sincere to a point.



> But I am a woman and I do know what I want, dammit.


Yes you are a woman who knows what you want and a successful PUA also either knows what you want or you can bet he's going to try to find out what you want and make it available for you.



> And it isn't somebody playing me, or lying to me to get what he wants. You are much more likely to be successful at attracting me if you just talk to me like a normal human being. No games.


Who mentioned lies?
A successful PUA doesn't lie, the discovery of a lie can destroy all that hard work.



> Of course, it could be that I am a just a freak of nature, entirely unlike all other women or that PUAs are going after a different type than I ever was or will be, but even still it seems unlikely to me to work for anyone but the gullible. Or maybe it's just for clubs where the alcohol is flowing and the judgements are impaired?


Or you're just in denial because your female pride his been poked.





> As someone who lacks certain social and conversational skills herself, I can quite understand why it may be useful to work on developing those. But none of that needs to involve playing games, lying, running routines, or spewing rehearsed one-liners, does it?


A successful PUA does none of that, except the playing games part and I think we have a different definition of what a game is.
I see all human interaction as a "game" of sorts.



> And given that the whole PUA thing is based on trying to seduce as many women as possible, how on earth can it hold any value for an LTR or marriage?


All PUA theory does is allow a man to put himself out there for a woman in the best possible light for that particular woman to see him in and it's different for every woman.


----------



## Machiavelli

Entropy3000 said:


> But indeed sir, you and I have some things in common here. Quality women will find me. Oh heck so will the others. I have never been an aggressive guy with women. Never needed to be. But my point is that if a woman sees something in me past the ephemeral she will get my attention somehow. I will see it in her face and body language but ultimately she will engage me in conversation. She may be playful or she may be challenging. The dance begins.


You guys are rare birds. I mentioned when I first joined this site, that I have never "approached" any woman. They came to me. I never needed any game to attract them, but I needed game to keep them interested. Until I actually started looking into the way women respond to men, I thought all guys had the problem being hit on by women. I had no idea this was unusual, until I was called a liar.


----------



## Saki

This may not make any sense at all, but it wasn't until I accepted that women cannot tell me directly what they want, that I really was able to listen and consciously interpret what they were saying.

In other words, I had to stop listening to them to start hearing them.

Take the focus off the words (trees) and start seeing the big picture (forest).

edit - In reference to this:



FrenchFry said:


> That exact "tenant" messed up my marriage from the moment my husband read it and continues to mess it up when my husband *shock of all shock* refuses to believe what I am telling him is ACTUALLY what is important to me.
> 
> Fantastic. I love it!


----------



## Entropy3000

Machiavelli said:


> You guys are rare birds. I mentioned when I first joined this site, that I have never "approached" any woman. They came to me. I never needed any game to attract them, but I needed game to keep them interested. Until I actually started looking into the way women respond to men, I thought all guys had the problem being hit on by women. I had no idea this was unusual, until I was called a liar.


Exactly. Part of the allure is confidence. No desperation. I am not selling anything. If they are not interested in me, I am cool with that. I am also not God's gift to women as the phrase goes. I am just a good guy comfortable in his own skin.

BUT, yes keeping a women interested once she knows you dig her.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

FrenchFry said:


> That exact "tenant" messed up my marriage from the moment my husband read it and continues to mess it up when my husband *shock of all shock* refuses to believe what I am telling him is ACTUALLY what is important to me.
> 
> Fantastic. I love it!


I completely understand, and yet understand the point MMSL makes as well. My wife generally tells me what she needs as far as our relationship. Sometimes she is right. But there are instances when she is not . Instances when doing what she wants actually decreases her attraction to me. Or not doing something she actually does want.

So I don't think that women always know exactly what it is they want or need (and to be clear, I think that is a human thing). Part of my challenge is figuring that out with respect to my wife.


----------



## Entropy3000

FrenchFry said:


> That exact "tenant" messed up my marriage from the moment my husband read it and continues to mess it up when my husband *shock of all shock* refuses to believe what I am telling him is ACTUALLY what is important to me.
> 
> Fantastic. I love it!


I wish my wife had told me she wanted me to take her more passionately. To lose myself in her. Did she know herself? Does not matter really. 

She does.

Now I can think back that over the years I lost this. Because early on this was me. So I was reminded of this.

I am just saying that often many women are unable to verbalize what they do want in this way. How does a woman ask her man to be more playful with her and so on. Some women can do this. 

When left in stagnation, someone has to break the plateau. If a guy is not happy then he should take steps to do something about or shut the hell up.

In my case my wife and I had very demanding careers even going for long periods of working opposite shift. We spriralled downward and disconnected.

I acted. Because ... I am that guy.


----------



## tacoma

Holland said:


> Do men realise that while they are out gaming for women, us women are actually gaming them with far greater prowess.


Yes, we do that's part of the game.



> Being a woman, the only game we need is to get dressed up and do our hair then off we go to pick up if that is what we choose to do. All power to us.


If I were single and looking for nothing more than a notch in my bedpost then yes, you are correct.
If I was looking for anything more than that you'd need better game.


----------



## AnnieAsh

I know a PUA. He works with my husband, so I know he makes very good money. He is attractive, nice body, very charming, funny. He zeroed in on me at a beach party and did ALL that stuff from the list, including the isolation, though that came later in a bar. 

At first, I thought I was imagining things (like the negging) especially since there were single women there AND I was surrounded by other agents' children. But it became pretty clear very quickly what he was after. I found it all very amusing (at first.)

I just found out he has slept with another agent's wife.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

FrenchFry said:


> So...do you not talk about it?
> 
> Because if my husband thinks I'm wrong about something in regards to something I want in our relationship, I want to know why he thinks I'm wrong. Why he thinks he knows better. I want to know his thought process, even if I don't agree with it.
> 
> Instead, if he thinks what I am asking for is wrong and he does the exact opposite of what I ask or does nothing at all. This gives me the message the I am clearly not worth communicating with or to and I should do my own thing. Then he gets upset when I have stopped talking/having sex/cooking for him.
> 
> I only feel like being considerate to those who feel like I'm worth consideration.


Sometimes I talk about it, but for some things, I have started just doing things about it. I work pretty long hours (8-6:30 is a short day). My wife is of the opinion that we would be better if I was home the rest of the time. Unfortunately, she is wrong - or at least wrong with respect to our marriage. Me being home works well as far as taking care of the kids and getting stuff done around the house. But it hurts her attraction for me. I can see very clearly her interest in me waning when I stay at home for extended periods. 

When I do a couple of things for myself (the gym for a hour three times a week, maybe a beer with a friend once a month), we do a lot better. She is more interested in me. Just a fact.

I tried to explain it, but she does not really believe it. So I just do it. She is not always pleased, but now excepts it. In this instance, she does not know what she really wants.

Honest question - are you correct about everything you think you need in your relationship? Are there ever instances where you communicated what you thought you needed, but in fact, deep down, perhaps not completely realized, wanted something different? 

Because I am amazed at how controversial this is. Like we are all completely evolved humans who have no hang ups and clearly communicate exactly what we need. There is currently a thread describing this very issue with respect to the "Good Girl" syndrome. People have difficulties expressing themselves and admitting what they want. Perhaps they think it is not authentic if they have to ask for it (some on this thread certainly suggest it). 

I am sorry that you husband misused this, but that does not mean it lacks merit in all or even most cases.


----------



## Entropy3000

FrenchFry said:


> *shrugs*
> 
> *Maybe I'm extraordinarily straightforward.* In relationships I'm fairly easygoing and when something is bothering me, it's really bothering me and I'd like to take care of it right away. I spend a good amount of time gathering my thoughts as to exactly what is bothering me so I can be as clear as possible to my husband.
> 
> MMSL changed that part of our dynamic for the worse. Now he sincerely believes that I am dancing around issues that are bothering me and he needs to be the one to figure out what it is that I really want. Now, if my husband is "hearing" me I have to create a dumb ****ing dance about what I want instead of having a conversation like two people who respect each other.


I have no doubt. Never stop being that way. You are genuine. Embrace this.


----------



## Entropy3000

AnnieAsh said:


> I know a PUA. He works with my husband, so I know he makes very good money. He is attractive, nice body, very charming, funny. He zeroed in on me at a beach party and did ALL that stuff from the list, including the isolation, though that came later in a bar.
> 
> At first, I thought I was imagining things (like the negging) especially since there were single women there AND I was surrounded by other agents' children. But it became pretty clear very quickly what he was after. I found it all very amusing (at first.)
> 
> I just found out he has slept with another agent's wife.


You know another one too. He met you at school.

His actions screamed PUA to me from the start.


----------



## Wiserforit

SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't have this book - but I am sure it would be amazing for any man, also women....in communication skills, I doubt it can be beat... If one follows these principles with someone they long to get to know better.... it will be AUTHENTIC from the get-go ... I don't see why a man needs more than this.


YES! Dale Carnegie's book is outstanding. 

Others have been recommended as well in this thread but the chief distinction between the pick-up artist bunk and this kind of literature is the lack of deception and treating other people with respect.

Look also at the absence of stupid, pretentious jargon in How to Win Friends and Influence People. The pick-up artist literature is chock full of ludicrous gibberish. This is a tactic of manipulative organizations of all kinds, like cults for example where memorizing all of these buzz-words are supposed to be a demonstration of "insider" knowledge.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

FrenchFry said:


> I'd be highly resentful of my husband if I asked to spend more time together, he determined I was wrong without informing me why he thought so and continued to do his own thing. I feel shut-out, so I shut down.


I have informed her why I thought so, but she does not see it. So I can do what she says she wants and make us both miserable, or I can do what is right for us. Seems an easy choice to me.



> I'm not always correct, but no. I dig deep until I communicate what I really truly think I want. I don't play the tease it out of me game. At least, I didn't.


I think that sounds great in theory. If you personally need to work through every such issue and decision to get complete agreement, go for it. I am glad for what ever works for you and your relationship. But that does not work for everyone, nor have I thought that it did. 

Some people have difficulties explaining what they want or even asking for it. Some people think it needs to be spontaneously offered by their spouse to be real. The difference between offering an apology on your own as opposed to being asked to apologize. I am glad that you understand that this is not you.


----------



## Zig

I've never read PUA stuff.

I'm glad that the OP has been able to create successful relationships without resorting to backdoor/manipulative tactics. There are times when I think that these sorts of things work and they might work but they won't give me the quality of relationship that I'm looking for. It's tempting sometimes but honestly seems like too much work.

I just wish that more people would be honest and up front in relationships.


----------



## always_alone

tacoma said:


> Successful PUA's never use "lines".
> They get inside a woman's head, discover her likes, dislikes, wants, needs, and then makes them available to her.


I see this as lying and manipulative. At the very least it is acting like a chameleon, rather than an authentic person. I'm more interested in someone who is his own person.






tacoma said:


> A successful PUA does none of that, except the playing games part and I think we have a different definition of what a game is.
> I see all human interaction as a "game" of sorts.


Yes, I've heard this before, but find it very hard to relate to. But I am a bit unusual in that I really can't play games and don't have "game". I'm a what-you-see-is-what-you-get kind of person. And I don't say this to toot my own horn or anything. It was just how I was raised.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I might get slapped around for this, because some people seem to completely hate what I'm about to say...but I love the Marriage Builders concepts, questionaires, books and principals.

The basis of it is: To have a happy marriage, create and maintain your romantic love for each other.

It gives you all sorts of resources and knowledge in which to do this.

Mostly it has to do with time spent together, filling each other's emotional needs (as specifically defined by each spouse), not allowing others to fulfill our initmate emotional needs (boundaries to protect your marriage), and avoiding habits that reduce your spouse's love for you.

For this program to work, of course you need to assume that your spouse actually DOES know what they want and need.

My husband and I took our very rocky relationship (though the love was very solid, just the communication was bad) and turned it into a FANTASTIC marriage based on the MB princpals.

One of the key principals is the Policy of Joint Agreement: Never do anything without the enthusiastic agreement of your spouse.

That one right there turned everything around for us.

Another good one is The Policy of Radical Honesty: Reveal to your spouse as much information about yourself as you know; your thoughts, feelings, habits, likes, dislikes, personal history, daily activities, and plans for the future.

Radical honesty is not brutal honesty. But it does require both spouses to man/woman up and be able to tell each other things that without the policy, we may be too afraid to say "because it might hurt your feelings". With this policy in place, it is known upfront that you have an obligation to be honest, even if it WILL hurt their feelings.


----------



## tacoma

always_alone said:


> I see this as lying and manipulative. At the very least it is acting like a chameleon, rather than an authentic person. I'm more interested in someone who is his own person.


Example:

A very young me was interested in this very very attractive girl I worked with who had guys all over her constantly.

I discovered she was a big Pink Floyd fan and the Floyd show had been sold out for weeks, she was bummed.

I got tickets for the show(connections) and let it be known I had tickets (not directly to her) but my date cancelled.

Wasn't a couple of hours after I let it be known I had tickets that she was seeking me out asking if I had a date for the show.

Spent the next 4 years with her.

If I had approached her with those tickets like the other 5000 men a day were approaching her I would have been just another creeper trying to "buy her affections".
I let her come to me, she's much more open to me.

Did I lie about anything?
No
Was I manipulative?
Most definitely, but again almost all human interaction is a manip of one sort or another 



> Yes, I've heard this before, but find it very hard to relate to. But I am a bit unusual in that I really can't play games and don't have "game". I'm a what-you-see-is-what-you-get kind of person..


And that's your "game".


----------



## norajane

Tall Average Guy said:


> Sometimes I talk about it, but for some things, I have started just doing things about it. I work pretty long hours (8-6:30 is a short day). *My wife is of the opinion that we would be better if I was home the rest of the time*. Unfortunately, she is wrong - or at least wrong with respect to our marriage. *Me being home works well as far as taking care of the kids and getting stuff done around the house. But it hurts her attraction for me.* I can see very clearly her interest in me waning when I stay at home for extended periods.
> 
> When I do a couple of things for myself (the gym for a hour three times a week, maybe a beer with a friend once a month), we do a lot better. She is more interested in me. Just a fact.
> 
> *I tried to explain it, but she does not really believe it. So I just do it. She is not always pleased, but now excepts it. In this instance, she does not know what she really wants.*
> 
> Honest question - are you correct about everything you think you need in your relationship? Are there ever instances where you communicated what you thought you needed, but in fact, deep down, perhaps not completely realized, wanted something different?
> 
> Because I am amazed at how controversial this is. Like we are all completely evolved humans who have no hang ups and clearly communicate exactly what we need. There is currently a thread describing this very issue with respect to the "Good Girl" syndrome. People have difficulties expressing themselves and admitting what they want. Perhaps they think it is not authentic if they have to ask for it (some on this thread certainly suggest it).
> 
> I am sorry that you husband misused this, but that does not mean it lacks merit in all or even most cases.


So does that mean she is always at home stuck taking care of the kids and doing things around the house? Doesn't that create resentment that will fester and explode one day?


----------



## inarut

and


Zig said:


> I've never read PUA stuff.
> 
> I'm glad that the OP has been able to create successful relationships without resorting to backdoor/manipulative tactics. There are times when I think that these sorts of things work and they might work but they won't give me the quality of relationship that I'm looking for. It's tempting sometimes but honestly seems like too much work.
> 
> I just wish that more people would be honest and up front in relationships.


_Posted via Mobile Device_

I agree. Nobody wants to be subject to backdoor, manipulative behavior. I hate the game. Creates nothing but mistrust. It doesn't foster a relationship of quality. I respect upfront, direct communication. What "works" is being true to yourself, knowing who you are, what you want and having the strength to uphold it AND if you are a good, decent man AND the 2 of you gel, in the wants and don't wants, along with a bit of compromise....as long as you do not compromise yourself or lose yourself in the interum, you can form a relationship of quality. That is what you need. Its called having a backbone. Its true whether you are a woman or a man. Women want a man they can respect and admire. The typical pua behavior predominantly put forth in those books won't get you that.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> I might get slapped around for this, because some people seem to completely hate what I'm about to say...but I love the Marriage Builders concepts, questionaires, books and principals.
> 
> The basis of it is: To have a happy marriage, create and maintain your romantic love for each other.
> 
> It gives you all sorts of resources and knowledge in which to do this.
> 
> Mostly it has to do with time spent together, filling each other's emotional needs (as specifically defined by each spouse), not allowing others to fulfill our initmate emotional needs (boundaries to protect your marriage), and avoiding habits that reduce your spouse's love for you.
> 
> For this program to work, of course you need to assume that your spouse actually DOES know what they want and need.
> 
> My husband and I took our very rocky relationship (though the love was very solid, just the communication was bad) and turned it into a FANTASTIC marriage based on the MB princpals.
> 
> One of the key principals is the Policy of Joint Agreement: Never do anything without the enthusiastic agreement of your spouse.
> 
> That one right there turned everything around for us.
> 
> Another good one is The Policy of Radical Honesty: Reveal to your spouse as much information about yourself as you know; your thoughts, feelings, habits, likes, dislikes, personal history, daily activities, and plans for the future.
> 
> Radical honesty is not brutal honesty. But it does require both spouses to man/woman up and be able to tell each other things that without the policy, we may be too afraid to say "because it might hurt your feelings". With this policy in place, it is known upfront that you have an obligation to be honest, even if it WILL hurt their feelings.


And please know that these are the concepts at the foundation of my marriage.

POJA

His Needs Her Needs

BUT. My wife and I had a very balanced relationship from the outset. I was in the Navy and therefore my wife had to be strong.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FF and Entropy...That's awesome.

Also I wanted to throw in there quickly, that the people at the MB website state (very loudly) that you can't cherry pick the program, you have to do it all or nothing, yada yada. I would not agree with that. I think you can use it in whatever way or form works for your marriage...however, the thing that makes it work is actually following the principals. On that part, I don't think it would work if it was done half assed or only by one spouse.


----------



## Wiserforit

Blue Firefly said:


> The fact that something works is what counts, not why it works.


Disagree on a number of grounds. Rape works too, but that doesn't justify rape.

Secondly, the self-identified "gamers" here actually have no data or studies backing how treating women as objects and manipulating them "works", whatever that is supposed to mean. 

Third, look how quickly self-identified "gamers" flee from the tactics of these books and articles when you start quoting from them. Oh, no - we don't do neg theory, we don't deceive, we don't use lines - we only take what is useful. Except they don't identify what is actually useful, or else it is material thay has nothing to do with pick-up artist literature like confidence or social skills that are found in other literature. Literature that does not refer to women with offensive terminology. 

That's the big picture so loathesome with "game" - being deceptive and slippery, evasive, not above-board and straightforward. I play game except I don't do game, but I recommend game except for any of the things you can point out about game. That's what game is when you isolate what is unique about game as compared with general literature on social skills. Deception. 

Generally when I talk to self-identified "gamers" they explain how they had backgrounds of having big trouble with women. This is not the group to listen to in terms of success with women. 

I never had trouble attracting women - that is true for successful people in general. Nothing succeeds like success. The trouble for successful people is making the right choices in who gets your time, male or female. Do you EVER hear of a standout in sports, art, theater, politics, business, or any other walk of life saying how he uses "game" to be attractive to other people? Success takes hard work and dedication over many years. It breeds all of the things like confidence and vitality that are admired by others. If you aren't an offensive prick and you are successful, you'll do just fine with people in general.


----------



## Entropy3000

FrenchFry said:


> Never done nor read Marriage Builders but those two policies (we somehow conceived and implemented them independently) kicked MMSLs ass in regards of the way we relate to each other.


I love His Needs Her Needs.

But I felt that MMSL covered things that HNHN did not.

I like the pair of these. They provide balance.

That said, again my intent was to meet my wifes needs.


----------



## always_alone

tacoma said:


> Was I manipulative?
> Most definitely, but again almost all human interaction is a manip of one sort or another


Maybe in your world ...


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> FF and Entropy...That's awesome.
> 
> Also I wanted to throw in there quickly, that the people at the MB website state (very loudly) that you can't cherry pick the program, you have to do it all or nothing, yada yada. I would not agree with that. I think you can use it in whatever way or form works for your marriage...however, the thing that makes it work is actually following the principals. On that part, I don't think it would work if it was done half assed or only by one spouse.


A couple has to do His Needs Her Needs.

MMSL is for a guy who needs an edge.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But according to the policy of radical honesty, you would have to tell your wife about what you are reading (MMSL or Pickup-Scamartist) and what you intend to use it for. I'm not saying you didn't, just that the two programs do have some major differences.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

norajane said:


> So does that mean she is always at home stuck taking care of the kids and doing things around the house? Doesn't that create resentment that will fester and explode one day?


Perhaps, but I don't think so. My two oldest are in school full time, while my youngest is in half day every day. She hits the gym at least 3 times a week, goes to Zumba once a week in the evenings, and does lunches with her girlfriends probably 2-3 times a month. She does take care of the house, but also gets out to do things. But most of that occurs during the day when I am at work.

We also work real hard to have a date night at least every other week. I am much better about dating her (something I quit doing after we had kids - big mistake on my part).


----------



## Tall Average Guy

always_alone said:


> Yes, I've heard this before, but find it very hard to relate to. But I am a bit unusual in that I really can't play games and don't have "game". I'm a what-you-see-is-what-you-get kind of person. And I don't say this to toot my own horn or anything. It was just how I was raised.


So while this thread was not about getting personal, I will give a personal example from my life. I am naturally an introvert around people I do not know. However, once I know them, I am very friendly and (I think) likeable. So what is the natural me? The one that has difficulty going up to people to talk, or the one that enjoys conversation once he knows someone?

In my case, I have used some aspects of “game” to help break the ice and make an initial connection. Noticing the signs when people are bored vs. interested. Light touching were appropriate. Humor. It has helped me meet more people and show them what I consider my true self.

Is this fake? In some ways, I have to be fake, because I would not normally talk to people on my own at a party or the like. So I work at being more sociable. I never pretend I am the life of the party, and never will be. But I do like doing things with friends, so I do view it as inauthentic. Rather, I see it, as Deejo mentioned earlier, as changing myself to get the results I desire.


----------



## tacoma

always_alone said:


> Maybe in your world ...


That's it?

No opinion on how I manipulated that poor girl?
Was what I did so nefarious?

C'mon AA I even left one inconsistency in there for you to tear apart.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Trenton said:


> Curious TAG, how old are your kids?
> 
> Are you sure she's not building resentment, playing the game with you while the kids are young and secretly planning her escape?
> 
> I'm not saying this is the case but just curious.


Kids are 12, 9 and 4 (soon to be 5). Perhaps she is building resentment. But as I have noted before, she does a lot for herself. She goes to the gym, spends time with her friends, takes care of herself. She sure does not seem resentful that I insist that I have some time for myself. She says she would prefer I stay home, but her actions tell a very different story. 

I guess I could continue to have a conversation about it, never taking time for myself until I had her permission, or at least joint agreement with enthusiasm, but I am unsure how that is reasonable. But since I don't have a Facebook account, she can't do much if she does not get her way.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Trenton said:


> Seems like you're working out balance and it's not as if she's home while you head out. She has her own life as well.
> 
> This would never actually work for me but I know a lot of couples it does work for.
> 
> Ladies from work keep inviting me out and I naturally assume it's a guy/gal thing as they're all married except for the one who never wants to go out, only to find they want me to leave husband at home. My thought on this is...why would I ever want to do that?!?!


Actually, she is home when I head out. Sometimes I am home when she heads out. But we do stuff together as well. But if I don't do stuff for myself (and consequently am around too much), she is just not as in to me.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Trenton said:


> Joint agreement with enthusiasm is the only way in my opinion. You waiting for permission ain't gonna work either.


Until that does not work. Look at this thread:

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/sex-marriage/69906-i-dont-know-why-bothers-me.html

Under that theory, he is stuck.



> Minus Facebook, I can think of 15 things right off the top of my head but she doesn't seem the type so no worries.


Wait, I thought these things were supposed to be talked out? When is passive aggressive allowed?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Trenton said:


> Started reading that thread but don't understand the cross over. Are you saying she might refuse to try new things? There may be no middle ground?


He suggests ideas to spice up the sex life. She says I don't want to, but will do it for you. No enthusiasm, so a no go.

If the other person won't discuss it, you are stuck.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Trenton said:


> It's not passive aggressive. I say, "If you don't talk this out with me, refuse to listen to me, are going to be such a douche...I am going to *fill in blank with what I say I'm going to do*"
> 
> He knows I mean it. I make it clear and I don't bluff.


And if you do discuss it, and he is not able to change your mind, then what?


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> I'm a what-you-see-is-what-you-get kind of person. And I don't say this to toot my own horn or anything. It was just how I was raised.


If you see no room for self-improvement, making yourself more appealing to the opposite sex, then what you get is what you get.


----------



## Wiserforit

tacoma said:


> I got tickets for the show(connections)


What an achievement. You got tickets to a concert.  On the other hand a person can learn music and perform themselves. But of course, that takes a lot of effort over an extended period of time. 



> If I had approached her with those tickets like the other 5000 men a day were approaching her I would have been just another creeper trying to "buy her affections".


Rubbish. This is not just extreme exaggeration, and an assertion you cannot prove about who she would go with - but let's look at rock concert attendees. Don't the vast majority of couples who attend them just buy tickets and go with someone they ask? 

Look how a fan of manipulation likes to paint straightforward, honest interaction as "creepy". An insinuation of _prostitution_. Attacking normal behavior as repugnant and loathesome! 

What is creepy about asking someone to a concert? You have it in reverse. It is creepy trying to make normal behavior look like something to be ashamed of.


----------



## tacoma

FrenchFry said:


> With Tacoma's example I would have simply assumed he wasn't that into me and left him to find another person to take to Pink Floyd.


You're not getting it.

I wasn't even on her radar and would never have been if I didn't run game on her for a few weeks previous to this episode.

Her sex rank was an easy 9 and she had literally dozens of men all over her daily.

I never once approached her in an "interested" manner because her first reflex when a guy did so was "Ohh..**** here we go again!"

I made myself interesting without getting into her space, always had a slightly disinterested but jovial attitude around her.

A couple of weeks of that and tickets to her favorite bands sold out show and I was in.

If I hadn't played it the way I played it I would have wound up discarded and forgotten before I got the second sentence out of my mouth.

The ladies in this thread are in many ways evidencing that "cliche" that women don't know what they want.

Y'all keep telling us guys to show interest, to pursue, to court a woman but I've never had any luck with that role nor has any man I've ever known.

We all want what we can't have and every attractive woman finds a challenge unique.


----------



## Faithful Wife

:slap:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mine, too. He pursued me with abandon. Still does!


----------



## tacoma

Wiserforit said:


> What an achievement. You got tickets to a concert.  On the other hand a person can learn music and perform themselves. But of course, that takes a lot of effort over an extended period of time.


And this has exactly what to do with the discussion at hand?




> Rubbish. This is not just extreme exaggeration,


Of course 5k men a day is extreme exaggeration Mr. Obvious.
She drew men like a magnet constantly.
With a woman like that you need to separate yourself from the herd constantly all over her.
You need to be perceived as different from the rest in some manner.
That's what game is.



> Don't the vast majority of couples who attend them just buy tickets and go with someone they ask?


I usual went with whoever my current lady was or my friends, I figure most people do.



> Look how a fan of manipulation likes to paint straightforward, honest interaction as "creepy". An insinuation of _prostitution_.


Sorry but I never brought prostitution into this discussion, you just did.
Affection to me isn't synonymous with ****ing.
It's sad it is for you though.

Straightforward, honest interaction got those 5000 guys a day absolutely nowhere.
Game got her in my life for 4 years.

Use what works, it's been said in this thread before.



> Attacking normal behavior as repugnant and loathesome!


I've attacked nothing especially "normal" behavior considering I couldn't even begin to define "normal".



> What is creepy about asking someone to a concert?


It's not creepy at all, but it wouldn't have worked.
She would have put me in a different light right away and I would have gotten no where.



> You have it in reverse. It is creepy trying to make normal behavior look like something to be ashamed of.


I've done nothing of the sort.
You're inventing **** to rail against.
I won't take part.

She considered all those guys "creepers" because she was constantly getting hit on by them.
She was extremely unlikely to go out with any man who approached her.

It was my confidence and indifference that brought her to me.
This is what she told me after I fessed up about the game months later.


----------



## inarut

itndQUOTE=Deejo;1549754]Because you would never fall for that.

You can see right through it.

It is contrived, manipulative and evIl..


So ... full disclosure.

I have read a bunch of books about pickup and game, conducting healthy relationships, conducting a healthy life, etc.

A poster in another thread indicated the dichotomy between the belief of many women that this 'game' stuff can't possibly work, and numerous men's insistence that in fact it works remarkably well.

Didn't want to derail the other thread, so I offered to open this one.

This isn't about bragging rights. But ... if you would like a glimpse into the workings of dating as a divorced middle aged dude, I'll be as candid as possible.

I am not a pickup artist. I have no desire to date, and go to bed with as many women as I possibly can.

I am interested in maximizing attraction, and finding a woman with whom I can build a strong, loving, lasting relationship. And after lots of dates, a few short term relationships, it certainly appears that I've found a woman that fits the bill.

I promised honest answers to honest questions. I will be more than happy to outline how digesting this stuff after a failed marriage and translating it into something that worked for me, basically changed how I view relationships and interact with both men and women.

I'm sure other men can respond as well, I just ask that some level of decorum is maintained. The reason for opening this up isn't about trophies.

From my perspective, you are free to vent about what you don't like about it ... as we have done so in the past. Per standard fare, please refrain from making it personal in accordance with the forum guidelines.

I can only assure you, there is a world of difference between 'good' game and 'bad' game. Good game doesn't look or feel contrived at all. 

And I consistently followed one of the primary tenets as set forth in the first pickup book I read, "The Lay Guide".
That rule is essentially very similar to the one doctor's employ: "Do no harm."

I didn't go to clubs, bars, or local college campuses looking for women. Primary vehicle for me was online datingg and using what I had learned to assure that I was a fun, confident, interesting, and engaging date.[/QUOTE

I like the original intent of your post. You might be better off with the title " ask a single, middle aged, divorced guy about the guy you are dating or interested in." Put in in the divorced section. I do believe you have something to offer.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tacoma

Trenton said:


> Tacoma, has she been all you hoped and dreamed of? Just curious here.


Nope we only lasted 4 years because I didn't realize at the time you can't stop running game once you got the girl.
We were both extremely young as well.

Every woman I've ever had became disinterested once they knew they had me
Proclaiming your undying love for a woman and giving her everything she's ever thought she wanted is the fastest way to get her to tire of you.

Whats the first thing we tell a shell shocked BS to stop doing right after his wife leaves him?
We tell him to stop pandering and proclaiming his undying love fir her and pull a 180 to reignite her interest.

Same concept but not as extreme
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> I see this as lying and manipulative. At the very least it is acting like a chameleon, rather than an authentic person. I'm more interested in someone who is his own person.


 Perfect example of a *Chameleon* was in response to YOUR Post by DvlsAdvc8 (post #385) ...

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/69757-whole-package-woman-26.html

...he explained word for word EXACTLY how to act ...in regards to certain types of women....like he can just pull it out of a hat - at will....(in that case...MY TYPE)..... but thing is - he is seriously everything I wouldn't want AT ALL...He has admitted he is unemotional and detached... has has rather inflated Ego outwardly...into Racing, his TOYS... BIG ADVENTURE man.... but he sure can BE what he wants TO BE -putting on a fake mask of entertainment for the ladies ....to get what he wants from a WOMAN......damn that's scary!! 

How the hell can we tell who is Authentic... Seems ridiculous to me.

Answer... ONLY THE TEST OF TIME..so don't jump in bed too soon- if you are looking for something REAL !



> Yes, I've heard this before, but find it very hard to relate to. But I am a bit unusual in that *I really can't play games and don't have "game". ** I'm a what-you-see-is-what-you-get kind of person. *And I don't say this to toot my own horn or anything. It was just how I was raised.


 I am very similar ..to a point... to those who know me BEST...Yes... when out and about, I can fit into whatever social circle is at hand.. .whether Conservative Christians or a more Laid Back crowd, I will be respectful of their Tameness.. of course.

But among friends...I've been told I'm a "what you see is what you get" type of person..... you will always get an honest answer ... My husband may be quieter than me... ..maybe even a little more TACT , but we are one in the same....I guess our "types" need to look for our types.... it has worked well for us.



GAMERS thrive on MYSTERY......And many a woman will say she wants this....so in reality she DOES NEED some GAMING !!! 

Me on the other hand... *I Prefer Transparency with my mate*, I don't need Mystery... I like to do new things, have new experiences but NO steady flow of this golden Mystery do I seek.... this is likely the divide.

 



> *Machiavelli said*: If you see no room for self-improvement, making yourself more appealing to the opposite sex, then what you get is what you get.


 Hey Machiavelli.. just cause someone IS this sort of person by no means = we are lacking somehow... I used to be shy when I was younger, a part of me was held back... Because I KNEW I was different... so I hid my thoughts , stayed LOW KEY (sometimes).... never around GOOD friends though...-but that is where I thrived the most -JUST being my unabashed Boisterous Self.....which boosted my confidence.....so slowly I grew more & more into myself.. THIS has been a good thing. 

I may not want to stand up & speak in front of a crowd anytime soon...but I am who I am... and I LIKE myself for the most part.....Hope I am never in this dating scene though.....What a Monkey Maze to get through - is anyone who they really are these days?? Going by Dating profiles alone... what a Joke.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"...is anyone who they really are these days??"

SA, don't get too worried, there ARE plenty of people who are forthright and loving in the dating world.


----------



## inarut

Faithful Wife said:


> "...is anyone who they really are these days??"
> 
> SA, don't get too worried, there ARE plenty of people who are forthright and loving in the dating world.


I agree. Its not all bad. There are many positives but yes, you better be aware of the bad! You must be strong enough within yourself to sift through it.

Nobody has to go along with the game....be aware and refuse to play. Know who you are and you can't be manipulated. Those who dont get it can play with themselves ;-) 

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> SA, I am so with you on this. I really want to be free to be myself and admit it all, look at it, value or dismiss or degrade it and get on with it and have a partner there by my side to witness it all and still love me.
> 
> I abhor this idea that everything is a game. That I'll never really know what the person I most admire and adore in this world is thinking at all times even if it means I'll feel something I might not want to as a result. Please grant me permission to feel all that and accept that I love you enough to get over it. It seems so unfair that I'm being played since I'm giving it all and doing so willingly.
> 
> I think that's the thing of it all though and something missed by men on these boards who subscribe to gaming. They are mistakenly attracting women who subscribe to the same. Those that aren't willing to compromise, aren't willing to throw a tantrum and screw them hard an hour later, cry and beg for a hug, show themselves at their worst only to show them their best too, blow them hard and mean it, never have to pretend because even if they're thinking in their heads, 'ow his penis is bigger than I thought, oh my jaw', they're also thinking, 'I love the noises he's making, the way he places his hands on my head.'
> 
> Those women who they regularly compliment on TAM...they're moving farther and farther away from finding women like that or severing relationships with women like that and moving in the opposite direction without recognizing it.


What Tacoma wrote touched me. I get what he is saying very much. I see this in two ways though. There are women who do need "game" all the time. I am not so sure they are worth it. But that said I think a husband needs to never stop falling in love with his wife. So maybe I am agreeing with you. Maybe not.

What I think the ladies may be missing here is that within a marriage if a husband is not focused on being in love with his wife he is vulnerable to outside influences himself.

My BIL just does not have the same feelings for his wife any more. So he has left his wife alone in their house and moved in with a woman 15 years younger. What an @$$hole. He would have been better off working on his marriage and trying to rekindle those feelings.

Sorry for the threadjack but I told my wife tonight as she was in tears over this ... where are the freaking men? Too many relatives and friends that are missing in action. So please consider while we bash away at guys trying to make their marriage work that at least they are men enough to not just walk away without trying. End rant. Oh one more. Where are the men?


----------



## FalconKing

The point of my earlier posts was to say that if you are one to stick your neck out in the dating game, perhaps you would have more understanding for someone reading and learning from many sources for the sake of finding someone in what can sometimes be a discouraging process. Just because you are reading about ways to meet women doesnt mean you want to sleep with every woman you talk to(although so men are like that).

The problems with these kinds of threads: 1. Subjective use of the term game. 2. People having negative experiences with men. 3. People blaming materials for how they loved ones use or interprate them. 

It will always always always be like this here. 

If something helps me with icebreakers as well as understanding women and female attraction I don't think I should be shamed for it. I've read everything from relationship studies, marriage sex life, sex guides, maintaining emotional closeness, keeping sexual attraction, conflict resolutions, books written by men and women for women and vice versa for men, feminism and sociology, and even psychology. If I am successful at something with a woman by reading a book she doesn't like or not successful thats on me. I mean no woman no harm.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> When it is right they both focus on being in love, all the time. If either or doesn't we see turmoil, dissatisfaction, dreaming, wishes for divorce, or elaborate drastic change, etc.
> 
> It's the job of both to keep love alive.


I agree but often in marriage one or the other has to take the lead.

I am just pretty discouraged right now. Sorry. 37 years. Just seeing this stuff play out again and again.

It just related a bit with me with this thread. The gaming is as much for the gamer as the gamee is my point. Having ones head in the game. See if a guy is focused on his wife he is keeping it in his pants with someone elses wife.

So I am listening to the ladies view here, trust me. But when either the husband or the wife takes the risk of bringing passion back into their marriage I just do not see the bad. Many women have had to deal with the indignities of trying to pull their husbands interest by working on themselves. Only to be laughed at. They workout, they diet, they get the lingerie, they try to be their husbands fantasy .... and so on. I am saying there are two sides to this. I would never put down a woman for doing anything to rekindle her marriage. Call it female game.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> *I wish my wife had told me she wanted me to take her more passionately. To lose myself in her. Did she know herself? Does not matter really.
> 
> She does.*
> 
> Now I can think back that over the years I lost this. Because early on this was me. So I was reminded of this.
> 
> I am just saying that often many women are unable to verbalize what they do want in this way. How does a woman ask her man to be more playful with her and so on. Some women can do this.
> 
> When left in stagnation, someone has to break the plateau. If a guy is not happy then he should take steps to do something about or shut the hell up.
> 
> In my case my wife and I had very demanding careers even going for long periods of working opposite shift. We spriralled downward and disconnected.
> 
> I acted. Because ... I am that guy.


It took me years to remove that type of programming / dynamic from my wife.
It used to piss me off.
The only thing that fixed it , in addition to counselling was ,
Lots of serious , marathon conversations, no BS , no posturing , straight , _honest_ talk.

But I too ,
Had too, first had to take the lead, and hold the bull by its horns.
A lot of men are afraid to do this , and instead find them walking on eggshells.


----------



## inarut

hQUOTE=Trenton;1553147]SA, I am so with you on this. I really want to be free to be myself and admit it all, look at it, value or dismiss or degrade it and get on with it and have a partner there by my side to witness it all and still love me.

I abhor this idea that everything is a game. That I'll never really know what the person I most admire and adore in this world is thinking at all times even if it means I'll feel something I might not want to as a result. Please grant me permission to feel all that and accept that I love you enough to get over it. It seems so unfair that I'm being played since I'm giving it all and doing so willingly.

I think that's the thing of it all though and something missed by men on these boards who subscribe to gaming. They are mistakenly attracting women who subscribe to the same. Those that aren't willing to compromise, aren't willing to throw a tantrum and screw them hard an hour later, cry and beg for a hug, show themselves at their worst only to show them their best too, blow them hard and mean it, never have to pretend because even if they're thinking in their heads, 'ow his penis is bigger than I thought, oh my jaw', they're also thinking, 'I love the noises he's making, the way he places his hands on my head.'

Those women who they regularly compliment on TAM...they're moving farther and farther away from finding women like that or severing relationships with women like that and moving in the opposite direction without recognizing it.[/QUOTE

I wholeheartedly agree....minus any begging. Never beg or plead. Not as a woman or a man. Express yourself fully, from a place of strength. We all need to be loved and accepted despite our insecurities and faults. We all have them. You can express yourself fully without begging, pleading or throwing a tantrum. That's a loss of control, sure we all lose it now and and then but that should be infrequent, shouldn't be the norm. Nobody responds positively to that, not time and time again. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> BTW Entropy, "So maybe I am agreeing with you. Maybe not."
> 
> Don't be afraid of commitment!
> 
> :lol:


LOL. Thank you Trenton. I needed that. You are awesome.

I was not sure what I was saying was totally in line with your thoughts.
I am not thinking as clearly as I would like at the moment.


----------



## inarut

Trenton said:


> Falcon, I haven't been in the dating game in forever so I can't really speak to it. If I were to imagine, which is cheap and so short sighted no doubt, I imagine that I would not care and I would approach those I was interested in with abandon and if they dismissed me I would chalk it up to the idea that it was their loss.
> 
> Would I wait to be approached? No.
> Would I worry the guy would shut me down? No because I would protect myself by thinking only the wrong guy would turn me down.
> 
> My question is whether reading a book that has manipulative undertones and convinces you to attract the right women by doing the wrong things could ever be right?
> 
> My advice will always be the same. Be yourself and be yourself boldly without apology so that the right woman may find you.
> 
> If fear of disappointment holds you back or if awkwardness gets in the way of you saying what you truly mean then work on that. But please don't read a book with manipulative undertones that predicts what women biologically want and think that even if it works in the short-term, it can have a chance in long-term bliss.
> 
> Authenticity attracts the same. Maybe it's harder to come by but that's a reflection on the faults of the majority, it's not a reflection on the value of your authenticity.
> 
> If you'd rather be fake and have a partner than hold out for the minority then that is your choice but don't call it something else.


 I Agree!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Machiavelli said:


> If you see no room for self-improvement, making yourself more appealing to the opposite sex, then what you get is what you get.


:iagree: x 100 %.

I believe that this basic theory exposes one of the fundamental flaws in certain lines of reasoning on this thread.

One of the most important lessons I learned whilst I was an engineering student, was from our electrical engineering lecturer.
He always stressed;

".._There's theory and then there's practical.What works in theory does not always work in practical_..."

Electrical shunts come to mind.

Many men have taken their spouse's attraction for granted and think to themselves that she would always be attracted.
Many women fool themselves also with that thought.
They end up in no man's land , lacking attraction, fighting temptation, a fight many of them often loose.

As my paternal grandmother used to say:

" .._.There is always room for improvement_..."


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> Falcon, I haven't been in the dating game in forever so I can't really speak to it. If I were to imagine, which is cheap and so short sighted no doubt, I imagine that I would not care and I would approach those I was interested in with abandon and if they dismissed me I would chalk it up to the idea that it was their loss.
> 
> Would I wait to be approached? No.
> Would I worry the guy would shut me down? No because I would protect myself by thinking only the wrong guy would turn me down.
> 
> My question is whether reading a book that has manipulative undertones and convinces you to attract the right women by doing the wrong things could ever be right?
> 
> My advice will always be the same. Be yourself and be yourself boldly without apology so that the right woman may find you.
> 
> If fear of disappointment holds you back or if awkwardness gets in the way of you saying what you truly mean then work on that. But please don't read a book with manipulative undertones that predicts what women biologically want and think that even if it works in the short-term, it can have a chance in long-term bliss.
> 
> Authenticity attracts the same. Maybe it's harder to come by but that's a reflection on the faults of the majority, it's not a reflection on the value of your authenticity.
> 
> If you'd rather be fake and have a partner than hold out for the minority then that is your choice but don't call it something else.


All you read was that I am trying to be fake to get women. Even when I referenced that I read all kinds of materials and to try and understand all kinds of things. And you do not know what books I read nor why I read them. It's easy to say how you will feel and respond to something but sometimes being in those situations we act differently. You also have to learn things. Things are learned from knowledge and experiences. I expected a more open minded response than this. You zeroed in on a sore spot and missed the entire point I was making. A lot of that going on.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Machiavelli

Trenton said:


> I see no room for manipulation cloaked as self-improvement.
> 
> No idea why you're even interested in these types of books and arguments since you're so attractive and confident that women flock to you.
> 
> What's in it for you?


As far as attractiveness goes, I don't exactly know what it was, but I used to have something going on. A lot of it evaporated about 40, so most likely this is biological. I didn't need PUA game to meet girls, I needed LTR game to hold girl's interest after we connected, but that was many years before the internet and I was groping in the dark. I was heavily indoctrinated with churchian and American societal BS about women being morally superior and I was looking for a woman who measured up. I started watching how the A-holes treated their girlfriends and did as much as I felt I could within the constraints I was operating in given my religious beliefs at the time. Again, this was just me trying to figure things out on my own. I figured out "just be yourself" was not working for me before Neil Strauss was even born and I fixed it.

Many years later, I needed to run LTR game on my wife when she inevitably became sexually LD due to my own beta-ization (deferring to her, getting enormously fat, depression after getting cancer and nearly emasculated, no longer driving a vette, not in a rock band, no long hair, etc). The first time I knew people had systemized what I had done decades before in a half-assed, ignorant, instinctive way was looking around on the internet on how to deal with a frigid wife. I wondered what would happen if the whole arsenal could be applied to my wife, even though I didn't need to pick her up. I did some research, read a lot of stuff on LTR game, limbic attraction,etc, found Athol's web site (I always recommend his book, but still haven't finished it). Now she's higher demand than me and doesn't slam her knees together when my hand moves up her leg. The change was nothing short of amazing.


----------



## Machiavelli

What I get from this discussion is that women don't like the idea that their sexuality, with regards to attraction, is largely a function of the autonomic system and the limbic brain. The idea that a guy may figure out a way to bypass the prefrontal cortex and key the access panel is deeply offensive to them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FK said: "The point of my earlier posts was to say that if you are one to stick your neck out in the dating game, perhaps you would have more understanding for someone reading and learning from many sources for the sake of finding someone in what can sometimes be a discouraging process. Just because you are reading about ways to meet women doesnt mean you want to sleep with every woman you talk to(although so men are like that)."

Ok, I see your point. Do you really think men stick their necks out more than women? I don't.

Dating for millions of women is all about getting your heart smashed across the rocks over and over. There are sooo many books and websites out there about navigating through the dating waters and how to mend those inevitable broken hearts...what to do when you are horny like any normal woman, but to just sleep with a guy without exclusivity is asking to get your heart broken AGAIN...why does he pull away when I try to get closer...why isn't he into me...how can I remain true to my heart when my body has raging chickwood? Supposedly I have to remain receptive while he pursues me, and its all going great but...one phone call from his ex and POOF! Never heard from him again.

I have read the same types of books you listed. I got a lot out of all of them (including MMSL).

But to think that men get hurt worse than women in the dating world? Or the marriage world, for that matter? I think the hurt is spread pretty evenly. And yet at the same time, I know that people everywhere are looking for love and real happiness. So they will continue risking getting their hearts bashed against the rocks again, just for the chance of it.

One of the biggest problems I have with the game type books and systems, is that they do not talk about LOVE.


----------



## Entropy3000

I feel that women think they are being cheated out of finding the fittest male because lesser males are faking it. LOL. 

You know like wearing makeup, getting a fake tan, working out is artifical of course, fake boobs, and so on. Wearing high heels is fake.

All of these tricks!!


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Machiavelli said:


> As far as attractiveness goes, I don't exactly know what it was, but I used to have something going on. A lot of it evaporated about 40, so most likely this is biological. I didn't need PUA game to meet girls, I needed LTR game to hold girl's interest after we connected, but that was many years before the internet and I was groping in the dark. I was heavily indoctrinated with churchian and American societal BS about women being morally superior and I was looking for a woman who measured up. I started watching how the A-holes treated their girlfriends and did as much as I felt I could within the constraints I was operating in given my religious beliefs at the time. Again, this was just me trying to figure things out on my own. I figured out "just be yourself" was not working for me before Neil Strauss was even born and I fixed it.
> 
> Many years later, I needed to run LTR game on my wife when she inevitably became sexually LD due to my own beta-ization (deferring to her, getting enormously fat, depression after getting cancer and nearly emasculated, no longer driving a vette, not in a rock band, no long hair, etc). The first time I knew people had systemized what I had done decades before in a half-assed, ignorant, instinctive way was looking around on the internet on how to deal with a frigid wife. I wondered what would happen if the whole arsenal could be applied to my wife, even though I didn't need to pick her up. I did some research, read a lot of stuff on LTR game, limbic attraction,etc, found Athol's web site (I always recommend his book, but still haven't finished it). Now she's higher demand than me and doesn't slam her knees together when my hand moves up her leg. The change was nothing short of amazing.


Alot of the over 40 "aging" is complete bull****. There's advertising made to make you feel old, everyone say's it to you, you probably drink alcohol and smoke enjoying life. And eat processed foods.

There is a ton you can do to rejuvenate you and if you weren't taking as good care of yourself at 35, you could look as good or better at 45 if you take care of yourself.

But I know what you mean, alot of it is psychological. You mentioned the Athol Kay, the wife sexxing you again - so that must have helped you out quite a bit.


----------



## Red Sonja

Machiavelli said:


> What I get from this discussion is that women don't like the idea that their sexuality, with regards to attraction, is largely a function of the autonomic system and the limbic brain. The idea that a guy may figure out a way to bypass the prefrontal cortex and key the access panel is deeply offensive to them.


I am a woman and don’t find this offensive; it’s just a fact of human biology/physiology. What would be offensive (to me) is the assumption that women automatically *act on *this type of attraction you speak of. I don’t see that assumption on this thread … so no offense taken.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy: "I feel that women think they are being cheated out of finding the fittest male because lesser males are faking it."

I recently had a guy friend who is actively dating tell me he wished he was better looking so he could score hotter chicks.

And I'm like....so the chicks in your "league" aren't good enough or what?


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy: "I feel that women think they are being cheated out of finding the fittest male because lesser males are faking it."
> 
> I recently had a guy friend who is actively dating tell me he wished he was better looking so he could score hotter chicks.
> 
> And I'm like....so the chicks in your "league" aren't good enough or what?


Sigh. I hear ya.


----------



## Wiserforit

tacoma said:


> Of course 5k men a day is extreme exaggeration Mr. Obvious.


This is what's obvious:

1) You are a person of deception, proudly so.
2) You have used extreme exaggeration with us.

Common sense dictates not to trust you. 

People who are confident do not use extreme exaggeration. That is a sign of _lacking_ confidence. 



> And this has exactly what to do with the discussion at hand?


Getting all melodramatic about buying a ticket demonstrates very little in the way of achievement in a person's life. People admire the performer, not the guy crowing about buying a ticket.




> With a woman like that you need to separate yourself from the herd constantly all over her.
> You need to be perceived as different from the rest in some manner.
> That's what game is.


You mean like being lead singer in a band? I was. I don't even consider myself a musician. But I could walk out the door and perform on either piano or guitar tonight if I felt like it. At that age I was singing on tour with a gospel group. 

You can actually be a performer instead of the person making a big deal out of buying a ticket. But that takes work, and you don't see people pushing game talking about honest hard work. 



> Straightforward, honest interaction got those 5000 guys a day absolutely nowhere.
> Game got her in my life for 4 years.


There you go with extreme exaggeration again - it's incredible, really. Putting this girl up on a pedestal as if she was some legendary goddess. Another sign of lacking confidence and living in an alternate reality. 

My girlfriend in high school was the homecoming queen. Pretty cliche, the head cheerleader and the state champion athlete. How many people approach a girl like that? Almost nobody. Sure, she was admired universally. But seriously hit on? Occasionally. Certainly not daily or even weekly. 

Being a standout - well sure. But honest hard work will get you that in a way that deception and trickery never can. She'll be cheering for you. Literally. Sitting down next to you in class and on the bus. She was a nice girl. but in the end just a little lacking intellectually and I went off to a college scholarship and she stayed home. 

From there the same thing was true. None of us had to really do anything except our jobs to have girls knocking on our doors in the dormatory. I see it everywhere whether you are in theater, art, politics, sports, business - if you are successful both men and women alike will find you attractive. The problem is weeding out the ones that are going to do you harm.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> I feel that women think they are being cheated out of finding the fittest male because lesser males are faking it. LOL.
> 
> You know like wearing makeup, getting a fake tan, working out is artifical of course, fake boobs, and so on. Wearing high heels is fake.
> 
> All of these tricks!!


^^^EXACTLY!

Why is it ok for a woman to purchase nice clothes, get regular manicures,wear sexy lingerie , spend hundreds on her hairdo , go on a diet / head to the gym or in short, do ANYTHING to improve her self esteem , boost her self confidence, and get her man's attention focused on her in a relationship., but when men do the same for themselves, suddenly it's manipulative games , blah, blah,, blah?


----------



## FalconKing

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, I see your point. Do you really think men stick their necks out more than women? I don't.
> 
> Dating for millions of women is all about getting your heart smashed across the rocks over and over. There are sooo many books and websites out there about navigating through the dating waters and how to mend those inevitable broken hearts...what to do when you are horny like any normal woman, but to just sleep with a guy without exclusivity is asking to get your heart broken AGAIN...why does he pull away when I try to get closer...why isn't he into me...how can I remain true to my heart when my body has raging chickwood? Supposedly I have to remain receptive while he pursues me, and its all going great but...one phone call from his ex and POOF! Never heard from him again.
> 
> I have read the same types of books you listed. I got a lot out of all of them (including MMSL).
> 
> But to think that men get hurt worse than women in the dating world? Or the marriage world, for that matter? I think the hurt is spread pretty evenly. And yet at the same time, I know that people everywhere are looking for love and real happiness. So they will continue risking getting their hearts bashed against the rocks again, just for the chance of it.
> 
> One of the biggest problems I have with the game type books and systems, is that they do not talk about LOVE.



Faithful Wife I am not speaking about the course of the relationship as being harder for guys. I am not competing with you ladies and saying relationships are harder for me. It has just been my experiences that it's usually the man that approaches a woman and breaks the ice. Someone has to go for it. I find it's usually the guy. And a lot of women i've met assume the same. If your experiences have been different that's cool. 

Also, I know that relationships can be difficult for all involved. But I am a man. So it would make sense for me to try to learn more about what I can do as a man and what I can expect to be potential conflicts in LTR. If a woman is being difficult I would like to assess why she is being this way, factors, and motives before I make a decision. Or what I could have done that was offensive to her that I was oblivious to. I don't think men are better i'm just trying to be a better man. I am not dismissing your frustrations as a woman in relationships.


----------



## Machiavelli

DaddyLongShanks said:


> But I know what you mean, alot of it is psychological. You mentioned the Athol Kay, the wife sexxing you again - so that must have helped you out quite a bit.


It did help, but I think the main thing is getting the physique back. My face got a lot less puffy, too. When you're pushing 60 and you've got the best body in a room full of 30 and 40 year old people, it counts for a lot.

I heard my wife on the phone one day talking to one of her friends, "I've got my husband back and he's better than ever." I was the same guy with the same messy office she hated, and the same prostate cancer side effects, so what changed? H.Boss suits with a 54 shoulder 46 chest and 34 waist: the Golden Ratio. That made other women give me the eye and when she saw that and sees me training some of my clients with flat stomachs and big implants, she gets the tingle. Instinctive competition to keep me around.


----------



## Faithful Wife

What are your thoughts on LOVE, Falcon?


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy: "I feel that women think they are being cheated out of finding the fittest male because lesser males are faking it."
> 
> I recently had a guy friend who is actively dating tell me he wished he was better looking so he could score hotter chicks.
> 
> And I'm like....so the chicks in your "league" aren't good enough or what?


Some guys just need to be grateful they get any action at all. Does he have a body like the "David" sculpture? Then he doesn't deserve better.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Machiavelli said:


> It did help, but I think the main thing is getting the physique back. My face got a lot less puffy, too. When you're pushing 60 and you've got the best body in a room full of 30 and 40 year old people, it counts for a lot.
> 
> I heard my wife on the phone one day talking to one of her friends, "I've got my husband back and he's better than ever." I was the same guy with the same messy office she hated, and the same prostate cancer side effects, so what changed? *H.Boss suits with a 54 shoulder 46 chest and 34 waist: the Golden Ratio. That made other women give me the eye and when she saw that and sees me training some of my clients with flat stomachs and big implants, she gets the tingle. Instinctive competition to keep me around.*


Sounds like a complicated, differential algebraic function.

Do you mind breaking that down?

Just Kidding!


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> No what I read is that you're disappointed. You're being yourself, you've not gotten a response you'd like and this frustrates you.
> 
> I agree things are learned from knowledge and experience and I've told you that I don't have experience with dating.
> 
> But my experience also tells you not to give up being who it is that you are as I see it entirely as a great thing.
> 
> No zeroing on a sore spot on purpose, Falcon, I promise on my kids.


I would say more so disillusioned. Nothing against the women. I was naive and thought women were generally of higher character than men when I was younger. Now I know people are people. 

Case in point: When I was in my first year of college I really liked this girl in my sociology class. One day I finally decided to tell her how I felt and that I was interested in hanging out with her. We exchanged numbers. Someone had mentioned to me that she had a boyfriend but she never said anything about that to me. Whenever I would call her she would never respond but she would always call me really late at night. I missed her calls and the ones I did catch it would always seem like she couldn't talk for long. I assumed that she was just really busy but now I know what was really going on...

We stopped communicating because I was frustrated and just wanted to hang out with her. 

So I wasn't interested so much into getting a lot girls, just more so of "what the hell does this mean?"

We are all products of our experiences to an extent. I don't have a lot of problems meeting women, i'm just really picky. But when I was younger I was quiet and awkward and my legs were wobbly on the dating scene. And I was shot down so much people often confused me with a World War II fighter plane. But those things built character. I've gotten advice and given advice. And i've heard and read what good men do and what bad men do. Out of interest, digust, curiosity or whatever.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

It's a shame we can't all just be open and honest with ourselves and each other. I guess that would be no fun. everyone would get bored not being able to game and "be fake" and "be manipulative".
It is much more entertaining to treat the opposite sex like moronic cave people and clueless scatterbrained individuals who know nothing about what they need or want

Yup let us continue with the big fantastic game,men and women alike. It's awesome watching each sex try to school the other.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## FalconKing

Faithful Wife said:


> What are your thoughts on LOVE, Falcon?


----------



## Wiserforit

The topic of the OP is pick-up artist and "game" literature.

The proponents have run away from the actual tactics published by them and have substituted "personal improvement" literature in its place, as I said they would. 

In addition, we have projection - attacking women for wearing lipstick or high heels, which are open and above-board practices, to justify what is in the pick-up artist literature, which at is core is all about deception. 

The pick-up artist crap is not about exercising, diet, men's fashion and toastmaster speaking practice. The fact someone is arguing so disengenuously is pretty telling.


----------



## Nsweet

Wow! How did this thread just explode in one day!?

It's funny, you people speak about this topic yet you have no experience. You trash the men you come on here with a thing or two to say about it and yet you've been a part of the game yourself. The "game" isn't about playing women for sex, even though that name sounds like it. When we speak of game we mean dating confidence, and when we speak of dating confidence we mean game. It's all about confidence in yourself and learning from others to improve your relationships, which why you're here after all. 

I said I would come back to tell all, but I'm going to have leave a rain check until I get more sleep. 'Til then I can leave you with the game's biggest secret of the most devoted pick up artists...... 

The longer you keep trying to play others, the more depressed it's going to make you in the end. Everybody get's burned once in a while, but pick up artists in the truest fashion are far more likely to kill themselves after their sexual conquests leave them and they have to deal with a fresh wound exposing all of the emotional hurt that they've been carrying since childhood. Having sex with random men or women isn't a cure for abandonment issues and it sure as hell can't fix your intimacy problems from never being loved as a child. It's just going to screw you in the end as everybody who starts a relationship with sex instead of friendship and values will find out. 

You want to know what I learned from the game? What I learned from chasing and bedding beautiful women before I met my ex wife. Nights spent sweet talking women in clubs and sleeping with ladies I just met, and banging a couple strippers because I could. I learned that the pick up artists game is just an illusion. All you do is represent yourself as a catch and then try to real in any pretty pet that bites. You know, the game women are equally guilty of.:rofl:

In the end I learned that these game guides are for little boys just learning to touch women after learning to touch themselves. The real men out there who know a thing or two about life, love, and sex aren't focused on lying to themselves or others to get sex. Real game is learning how to spot what a woman wishes you would take notice of and learning how to give an honest compliment when all other men are too scared of her good looks. It's knowing that she is somebody's mother, somebody's sister, cousin, and daughter so you better treat her with respect and not as a tool for your masturbation that night. And most importantly it's learning how to attract friends first and then develop love slowly from that. You could have sex with someone who is very attractive and end up marrying them by beauty fades quick, but friendship doesn't

Who I am today is a reflection of what I learned from my PUA days and from marriage and divorce. I learned that you'll lose yourself chasing after women, but you'll never women when you improve yourself. And the game doesn't ever stop when you get married, it only transforms. How you win the game is not by playing others it's by attracting the woman who suits you most, putting a ring on her finger, starting a family together, and living a long happy life without divorce or affairs. If you can master one thing in this life that will help you succeed the most for that goal..... it's patients. Because if you can learn to wait long enough and not pressure a woman for anything, she'll make it worth your wile later on.


----------



## Wiserforit

FrenchFry said:


> Hah! I almost got sucked in with an essay on makeup. Another time.
> 
> How about this: I'm putting aside the negatives for a minute.
> 
> Who picked up on that my husband used a common PUA tactic?


Heh. Then staying positive along with you, there is nothing wrong with introducing yourself with a sincere compliment.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Wearing high heels is fake but it is obvious, so is makeup and dresses. Duh. Tanning and fake boobs...dunno...can't even imagine doing that as it'd be SO funny!
> 
> I think the difference here is that what women do is apparent even in its desire to please.
> 
> Working out I don't think can be compared to the others. That's common sense, taking care of your health??? How is that fake?


I do not think any of it is fake. It is ALL genuine making oneself better for your spouse.


----------



## Entropy3000

ScarletBegonias said:


> It's a shame we can't all just be open and honest with ourselves and each other. I guess that would be no fun. everyone would get bored not being able to game and "be fake" and "be manipulative".
> It is much more entertaining to treat the opposite sex like moronic cave people and clueless scatterbrained individuals who know nothing about what they need or want
> 
> Yup let us continue with the big fantastic game,men and women alike. It's awesome watching each sex try to school the other.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And think game in marriage is open and honest.


----------



## Entropy3000

Wiserforit said:


> The topic of the OP is pick-up artist and "game" literature.
> 
> The proponents have run away from the actual tactics published by them and have substituted "personal improvement" literature in its place, as I said they would.
> 
> In addition, we have projection - attacking women for wearing lipstick or high heels, which are open and above-board practices, to justify what is in the pick-up artist literature, which at is core is all about deception.
> 
> The pick-up artist crap is not about exercising, diet, men's fashion and toastmaster speaking practice. The fact someone is arguing so disengenuously is pretty telling.


R U ok dude?

I am showing women that their thoghts on this are not balanced.

That what a man does to meet his wifes needs is a good thing. How can it not be? Shame on them for wanting to meet their wifes needs!! Shame on them for wanting to add passion to their marriage. Shame on them for trying to make it better. Shame on them for not seeking attention from other women but instead to solidify their marriage. Such awful men and their trickery.

But if a woman does the same thing. It is ok. Right?

It is absurd to think a marriage board ... a pro marriage board would berate men for staying in a marriage and fighting for it.

My wife better not give me a hug and tell me she loves me. OMG that would be such a manipulation. Oh wait that is beyond silly.

But here is the deal. If one has a closed mind to something ... they miss out. It is Darwinian.


----------



## Machiavelli

Trenton said:


> Since men are just allowing women any power or privilege they have...it doesn't matter much what they think, right Machiavelli?


Does it matter what anyone thinks? Biology is biology, like it or not and no matter what I or you think about it, even when it doesn't fit your personal wishes about how the universe should have been set up. But, what people think is still _interesting_, even when it doesn't matter. I'm just observing that these autonomic cues seem to be a big sticking point in the discussion of the efficacy of game.

As far as men "allowing women any power" that's another little fact of nature. Women cannot take power, because warrior women only exist in tripe, even if well done and entertaining tripe, like _Game of Thrones._


----------



## Machiavelli

Caribbean Man said:


> Sounds like a complicated, differential algebraic function.
> 
> Do you mind breaking that down?
> 
> Just Kidding!


Hey, man. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it.


----------



## Machiavelli

Wiserforit said:


> The topic of the OP is pick-up artist and "game" literature.
> 
> The proponents have run away from the actual tactics published by them and have substituted "personal improvement" literature in its place, as I said they would.
> 
> In addition, we have projection - attacking women for wearing lipstick or high heels, which are open and above-board practices, to justify what is in the pick-up artist literature, which at is core is all about deception.
> 
> The pick-up artist crap is not about exercising, diet, men's fashion and toastmaster speaking practice. The fact someone is arguing so disengenuously is pretty telling.


You don't know what you're talking about. The term those guys use is DHV: demonstrating higher value. The term they use for self-improvement and internalizing behaviors that elicit a positive response from the opposite sex via DHV is "Inner Game." I know a couple of guys who are brought into these "Game" conferences to teach these guys how to build a physique and how to eat. These kinds of approaches to inner game have been around for a while.


----------



## Machiavelli

Trenton said:


> And on this we disagree. Men have been fighting for control over women since eternity and unfortunately it doesn't look as if it will stop anytime soon.


Who would there be to fight men if they did want to have "control over women?" In the West, we don't want to control them, as far as I can discern. After all, we gave them the vote and even outlawed booze, just to make them happy. Now in Africa, the MidEast, India, Central Asia? It looks to me like the women are very much under control. My wife is from South America, and that's pretty much the case down there, too. Now, those regions are all pretty much hellholes, but I think it has more to do with their lack of liberty and property rights than it does with any battle of the sexes. There is no battle there.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> If you see no room for self-improvement, making yourself more appealing to the opposite sex, then what you get is what you get.


I have plenty of room for self-improvement, but I don't see playing head games with people as a way to get there. I'd much rather be unattractive.


----------



## always_alone

tacoma said:


> You're not getting it.
> 
> I wasn't even on her radar and would never have been if I didn't run game on her for a few weeks previous to this episode.
> 
> Her sex rank was an easy 9 and she had literally dozens of men all over her daily.
> 
> I never once approached her in an "interested" manner because her first reflex when a guy did so was "Ohh..**** here we go again!"


You never gave her a chance. Since you had so many opportunities to be disinterested and jovial, you could have also just told her that you could get her tickets to the show. I bet she would've been all over that.

Instead you made all kinds of assumptions about who she was and what she wanted, and turned it into a big game. Lucky you, it worked out.

But I would have responded in much the same way as FrenchFry and assumed you already had a date.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^^EXACTLY!
> 
> Why is it ok for a woman to purchase nice clothes, get regular manicures,wear sexy lingerie , spend hundreds on her hairdo , go on a diet / head to the gym or in short, do ANYTHING to improve her self esteem , boost her self confidence, and get her man's attention focused on her in a relationship., but when men do the same for themselves, suddenly it's manipulative games , blah, blah,, blah?


Because you are talking about two totally different types of things. No one here is saying that men shouldn't dress well, wok out at the gym, work on themselves and become better people. They are saying they shouldn't play deceitful games to get what they want at the expense of another.

And no one is saying that women should be gaming either.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Because you are talking about two totally different types of things. No one here is saying that men shouldn't dress well, wok out at the gym, work on themselves and become better people. They are saying they shouldn't play deceitful games to get what they want at the expense of another.
> 
> And no one is saying that women should be gaming either.


I don't think the OP mentioned anything about deceit in his post.
The " game " he speaks of is exactly what I mentioned,
Men and women working on themselves , both physically and emotionally , in an effort to become more attractive to a potential mate.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I have plenty of room for self-improvement, but I don't see playing head games with people as a way to get there. I'd much rather be unattractive.


Again,
Romance itself is a " head game " played between two people.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is being naive or disingenuous.

I'm sure you are your best on a first date with someone you fancy?


----------



## sinnister

This argument is more than a little annoying to me. There are people in here that refuse to post with honesty because it's not "en vogue" to do so.

If you're not going to be honest about how these things work, having this discussion is pointless. 

I understand completely where OP is coming from. Not ever had to use it in decades cause I am still married but it did work once upon a time.

Just be honest and stop trying post the way you think a womans magazine would want you to post.

Sorry for the rant.


----------



## Deejo

Travel day yesterday. I haven't fully caught up.

But it does appear things have taken a certain tack ...

Yes I read a number of books on the subject. Was curious to see how much if any, content differences there were in the subject matter.

One of the biggest takeaways for me personally had nothing to do with becoming a chick magnet or a sex god. It was more about coping with rejection which I believed was pointed out by FK up-thread.

This one was a big one for me personally. Untangling emotional attachment to outcome basically meant letting go of the notion, "man ... I really hope she likes me." or "I hope I don't say anything stupid."

To me personally, this is what makes it a 'game'.

Can I interact with a woman and create something ... or walk away and not much care.

Going back to my dating history, I only ever approached or asked out 'sure things'. Basically already had intel from peers that she was interested. I think many, many young guys operate this way.

Because I used to hate rejection. If someone you are interested in makes it overtly clear they have no interest in you ... that can be challenging not personalize. And as pointed out, the task of approaching, and asking for a date falls overwhelmingly on men.

And fortune favors the bold.

Learning not to personalize or attach a sense of outcome to an initial interaction with a woman was probably the single biggest benefit I got out of reading 'all that crap'. 

There seems to be a lot of rationalizing that the stuff that works is just 'common sense' and I probably didn't need a pickup book to learn that. The only reference in that regard that I agree with, and have pointed out previously, is Carnegie's, "How to Win Friends and Influence People"

That book dear friends, is about game. Says so right in the title.
Contains that word that were I to apply in a dating sense, people, particularly women, and some others take issue with.

Influence. Influence means steering any given social transaction in a direction or towards an outcome that you desire or is beneficial to yourself or your goals.

If I were to say that I used Influence in my dating, it would absolutely be true. But people would scream that I'm not using Influence, they would use Influences less savory synonym, Manipulation.

Influence generally has a positive connotation.

Manipulation does not.

To me, they mean the same thing. To me, in practice, I am using influence.

And lets be honest here. If you are out with someone you are very attracted to, would anyone question that you want to Influence the outcome of those interactions towards a specific end?

On my first date with M, she expressed that she had spent most of her life around horses and loved riding. I responded that I had never ridden but that I would like to learn.
She furrowed her brow and said, "Really? Why?"
Without hesitation I said, "Because it isn't like being behind the wheel of a car or riding a bike. It isn't an object that you control. It's alive, you have to have a connection, an understanding."

She stared at me for about 5 seconds wearing the smile I have come to love and said, "It's a dance. That's what I tell my students. No one's ever answered like that before. Guys usually just say, 'I don't know, because it seems cool.' "

So ... she had had that kind of exchange before. My thoughtful, response influenced her feelings about me. Influence, yes. Manipulation? No.
The other thing that I learned was that what you say and do ... is important. It matters. People pay attention, so you'd damn well better pay attention to them, and yourself. 

Whether it be sex on the first date, or a long term relationship to me, is immaterial. The requirements are the same. Building Attraction, Rapport, and Security.

Take those things out of either equation and there goes your one night stand, or your marriage.

Oh, and although 'game' may be in need of a makeover, it remains game. I prefer game over pickup. I used game to date. I use game in my relationship. 

I think things are going just fine.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Funny I was working on a post that said THIS >>

" I just don't care for the word "*GAME*" & the idea of a "*Pick up Artist*" - it is what these terms conjures up in my head that offends my senses....how every outline ends with getting LAID... The wording alone is our "hang up"... obviously. " then I read your post, that was very good.



> *Deejo said*: The other thing that I learned was that what you say and do ... is important. It matters. People pay attention, so you'd damn well better pay attention to them, and yourself.
> 
> Whether it be sex on the first date, or a long term relationship to me, is immaterial. The requirements are the same. Building Attraction, Rapport, and Security.
> 
> Take those things out of either equation and there goes your one night stand, or your marriage.
> 
> Oh, and although 'game' may be in need of a makeover, it remains game. I prefer game over pickup. I used game to date. I use game in my relationship.


 :smthumbup::smthumbup:

Still not crazy about the word "*GAME*" but I'll live.... Will give the good man a pass that he only uses "GOOD GAME".

Because of the association though...If I suggested to our oldest son to read one of these books...he'd tell me off, he'd consider it garbage. 

I'll leave now.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> I have plenty of room for self-improvement, but I don't see playing head games with people as a way to get there. I'd much rather be unattractive.


You see it as playing head games. I see it as improving ones ability to communcate. Behavior modification. The modification is actually on the man.

We are talking about gaining social skills with a focus on how changes to the man may positively impact some women's view of him. This is all good.

I am feeling that women are still adapting and are very much on guard about not being controlled. The priority is on not being controlled and not infinding ways to bind with men. I get this. I have empathy for it even. Even though I know that it is something that hurts us all. The wounds are too fresh for some. But their attitudes also can poison the next generation and the next. I concede this is going to take time. But not just time alone. It is going to take these conversations that seem to talk at cross purposes.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> I think you make up fancy terms when what you're really saying is being thoughtful and showing boldness, attentiveness, and intelligence has worked to your advantage in your relationships.
> 
> Well, duh.
> 
> *This is game for you? For me it is a natural way of relating to people because I genuinely do care.*


.....and who determines what is " game" and if it works in Dejoo's dating life?
You or him?
I think he as well as others have laid out an excellent argument, presented the facts and their / his own life experiences to support it.

In this entire thread those opposed have presented opinions based on what?

Whether or not you want to believe it, there was something about your husband that attracted him to you, and caused you to seal the deal in _his_ favour, instead of another man.
In dating lingo ,that something is called " game."
It can be good or bad , real or just a false persona.


----------



## LovesHerMan

I agree that it is the word "game" that is so offensive. It has connotations of women as prey, of men seeing relationships as a sport which they must win through control and superiority, and a frivolous approach to engaging women. As Deejo explains it, it is just being confident and an aid to not taking rejection personally. Another word besides "game" should be used for this.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> I'd love to see a long-term study on the outcomes of relationships where the man willingly admits to using PUA techniques to get his wife vs an outcome study of men who say they were themselves from the beginning.
> 
> I wonder if there would be any difference at all and if it even matters at this point.


Here is the thing, even the guys that wrote this stuff in the first place will tell you ... prior to following 'game theory', most of them were geeks. They didn't 'create' game. They cataloged it.

First book I read was "The Game" by Neil Strauss. Neil Strauss is a writer by trade. And yes, his PUA name is 'Style'. Now see ... I don't have a pickup artist handle. Maybe I need one ...

Anyways, the entire arc of that book is Strauss learning about, and becoming involved in the pickup community. It isn't a book about how to pickup. It is a book about pickup itself, and it isn't always kind to those in the community. But it talks explicitly about why this stuff is so very appealing to young computer geeks that can't get dates, or middle aged divorcee's who cant find their ass with both hands.

And he talks about why it works and how it works, and within the framework of the book, he meets a girl with whom it DOESN'T work. And by the end of the book, that is who he ends up in a relationship with. Don't believe they are together any longer.

My point is, that there are guys for whom attracting hoards of women has never, ever, been a problem ... hell these kinds of guys usually don't even have to approach. Women go to them.

Most of us aren't that dude.

Most of us would be happy with just one woman, thank you very much.

So ... a bunch of guys who were never the kind of guys that women gravitated to naturally, decided to write about the things which the 'naturals' make look effortless. For a natural, it is indeed common sense. For others, myself included, picking up a skill that can make you more attractive to women, comfortable with or confident in yourself was not common sense. It needed to be learned.

If that makes me a loser, I'm fine with that too.

As for the misogyny, to a degree, many of those books NEED to take the step of removing women from the pedestal and bringing them down to Earth. Not because that is what women need ... but it is certainly needed by a large proportion of their reading audience.

Many men have a very skewed view of women. I did.
However, a consequence of realigning how some men see the fairer sex, it has gone a bit too far. It has become vogue in the community to objectify, de-personalize and de-humanize.

I'm not interested in any of that. Which is why, I'm not a member of the community. But ... I do use game.

In the long run it doesn't matter. 

The guys who use their powers for evil, will as Wiseforit said, only intensify their own bitterness, hurt others and eventually be toxic and alone.

If you are a good man, and to be clear, that has been and remains my goal; learning and employing game, in my case has only increased that perception in the eyes of others.

You can be a self-centered, manipulative, and hurtful sonovab!tch whether you are using game or not. In that case, game will only aid you in being more manipulative and hurtful.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> Because you are talking about two totally different types of things. No one here is saying that men shouldn't dress well, wok out at the gym, work on themselves and become better people. They are saying they shouldn't play deceitful games to get what they want at the expense of another.
> 
> And no one is saying that women should be gaming either.


You completely dismiss a man learning to communicate with a woman. This objectifies men does it not? It seeks to limit them.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> You see it as playing head games. I see it as improving ones ability to communcate. Behavior modification. The modification is actually on the man.
> 
> We are talking about gaining social skills with a focus on how changes to the man may positively impact some women's view of him. This is all good.
> 
> I am feeling that women are still adapting and are very much on guard about not being controlled. The priority is on not being controlled and not infinding ways to bind with men. I get this. I have empathy for it even. Even though I know that it is something that hurts us all. The wounds are too fresh for some. But their attitudes also can poison the next generation and the next. I concede this is going to take time. But not just time alone. It is going to take these conversations that seem to talk at cross purposes.


How are you going to explain to your sons how to be with a woman like this and what it is to be a man. What principles should a man uphold and how should he expect to be treated?


----------



## Entropy3000

lovesherman said:


> I agree that it is the word "game" that is so offensive. It has connotations of women as prey, of men seeing relationships as a sport which they must win through control and superiority, and a frivolous approach to engaging women. As Deejo explains it, it is just being confident and an aid to not taking rejection personally. Another word besides "game" should be used for this.


Agreed. But again what men wanted was the meat and potatoes of the concepts. Not the presentation.

So indeed someone could polish this up without throwing out the goodness and make it more acceptable and less offensive to women.

Believe it or not MMSL is a big step in that direction. He has really toned down from Roissy.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> So indeed someone could polish this up without throwing out the goodness and make it more acceptable and less offensive to women.
> 
> Believe it or not MMSL is big step in that direction. He has really toned down from Roissy.


So it works for some, doesn't work for others, is viewed as a positive by some and not so much by others. Did I sum up these 16 pages?


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> I think you make up fancy terms when what you're really saying is being thoughtful and showing boldness, attentiveness, and intelligence has worked to your advantage in your relationships.
> 
> Well, duh.
> 
> This is game for you? For me it is a natural way of relating to people because I genuinely do care.


Yes it is game. Because prior to my reading about 'game', I had no friggin' idea how to string all of those qualities you outlined above into a semblance of strategy for helping me in relationships.

Everyone wants this to be organic and natural. And it just isn't for most. I was a good guy before I learned this stuff, but I wasn't very good at self-moderation, or seeing how what I do, and what others do, directly plays into outcomes for both people in the transaction. I used to think it was my job to do everything possible to make my partner love me ... and the harder I tried, to get what I wanted, the further it seemed to move away.

Game along with all of the other books I read and ACTED on, such as N.U.T's, NMMNG, Being the Strong Man a Woman Wants, Hold Me Tight, etc ... have made me a better man.

I'm not sharing all of this stuff to brag about baggin' chicks.
Immediately after posting it, I felt a little sick to my stomach.

But I actually thought of you, oddly enough. Leaving the post up made me 'vulnerable'. So not alpha 

But I patently believe that my opinion of myself, and the opinion others have of me has improved since I started this journey 4 years ago. And for those who don't think I'm all that and a bag of chips ... I don't care, which is also oddly a dividend of having done the work.

'Do no harm' remains at the top of my code.


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> How are you going to explain to your sons how to be with a woman like this and what it is to be a man. What principles should a man uphold and how should he expect to be treated?


I think you are addressing others here. I have two daughters. 

I could write a book on what a man should be. I am a work in progress myself. Most of what I have learned has been on my own.

I am a firm believer in Bushido and Chivalry.

The biggest thing a father can provide a son is an example of how a man can be very powerful but can also live in a loving marriage. I think it is important for children to see that mom and dad are attracted to one another.

This all said I would have to warn young men about the dynamic that swirls in this age. He needs to understand the situation he is in. No punches pulled. Which is that his sister does not trust him and they will behave in a scarred manner as anyone who has been abused. That this prevents many from truly being who they could be and that he will have to have patience and understanding and that he will have to pay for the sins of others. But because he is pure of heart and a real man he will persevere none-the-less.

So he would have to be able to use his armor and shield more than is optimal. But I would still encourage him to seek out a woman of quality. An intelligent woman. A woman of substance who is less impacted by this scarring. At least a woman who is together enough to put this aside. For him. He needs to show compassion for her. Because he is a quality man. He can then in good faith remove his armor and put away his shield... with her. That he trusts her and she can trust him. And he should never, ever break that trust for it is the gift of all gifts.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> He does but growing as a person to take on positive behaviors translating into supporting books and practices by men who are not exposing the same is an injustice to other men, women and himself.
> 
> Not to mention, I'm sure that M would prefer Deejo never tell her he was gaming her but rather that his response about horse back riding came from sincere thought and care within himself.
> 
> Words do matter and how we use those words matter.
> 
> I am obviously stuck on repeat here. Deejo and I have always been at an impasse on this topic. I don't foresee that changing anytime soon. My objection has nothing to do with objections to who Deejo is or how he treats women. I both value and admire Deejo.
> 
> However, I won't change my mind until the books and philosophies he supports come from men who are worthy of that support.
> 
> So this is futile except to offer a contrary opinion and opposition to what is so commonly encouraged and upheld on these boards as acceptable practice.



Human beings are the only creatures with cognitive ability.
We can reason.
Truth comes from many sources.
It is not about the men's character who wrote the books, its about what is written and whether it works or not.

So until a " _few good men_ "come up with better alternatives, don't you think its best just to use what works from the books and dump the rest?


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So it works for some, doesn't work for others, is viewed as a positive by some and not so much by others. Did I sum up these 16 pages?


Yes. As you always, and brilliantly do.

My goal was to answer questions about my experience. Less so to paint a picture that this can't be ugly, hurtful stuff. I know it can be.

But I use it. And it isn't my goal to be ugly or hurtful.

Most of the women I've dated have been very smart and some extremely accomplished. Wanted to point out that not everyone that uses game is looking for weak willed, low self esteem women to target and screw.

It isn't that. Not for me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> *The biggest thing a father can provide a son is an example of how a man can be very powerful but can also live in a loving marriage. * I think it is important for children to see that mom and dad are attracted to one another.


This should be the quote of the day.
Real men are fast becoming an endangered species.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> "Whether or not you want to believe it, there was something about your husband that attracted him to you, and caused you to seal the deal in his favour, instead of another man.
> In dating lingo ,that something is called " game."
> It can be good or bad , real or just a false persona."
> 
> You know, my husband did spin a game on me and at 19 that was fine until it wasn't. The way he got me for good (of course, the fact that he is the first and only man to make me orgasm tilted things in his favor by default) was by coming to me after me telling him it was over and leaving for months and he said, for the first time, how he wanted to stop playing *games*, missed me, wanted nothing but to be with me.
> 
> That I could understand and work with and wanted to work with, did work with, still work with.


Well , before we were married ,my wife had me tied all around her fingers for almost five years, playing with me like a kitten would play with a ball of yarn.
That made me more attracted to her.
She was the only woman to ever do that ,without sex,
_ and still keep me interested._

IMO, she had game.....
And I loved her more for it.

It works for those whom it works for.

Many years later, she still does things that keep me attracted to her. She still has game.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Yes. As you always, and brilliantly do.
> 
> My goal was to answer questions about my experience. Less so to pain a picture that this can't be ugly, hurtful stuff. I know it can be.
> 
> But I use it. And it isn't my goal to be ugly or hurtful.
> 
> Most of the women I've dated have been very smart and some extremely accomplished. Wanted to point out that not everyone that uses game is looking for weak willed, low self esteem women to target and screw.
> 
> It isn't that. Not for me.


Mentioning Dale Carnegie resonated with me in that I got a tremendous amount of benefit from that book. Reading your post about the similarities was a "d'oh" moment for me. So yes, I can see the posititves in it. 

As you pointed out though, do no harm is an excellent motto to live by. If it helps the individual, then what a wonderful tool to have. If it is used to destroy or harm the self esteem of another, then it is harmful. So really, it isn't the tool so much as it is the person wielding it.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> I think you make up fancy terms when what you're really saying is being thoughtful and showing boldness, attentiveness, and intelligence has worked to your advantage in your relationships.
> 
> Well, duh.
> 
> This is game for you? For me it is a natural way of relating to people because I genuinely do care.


BINGO dear lady!!!

Trust me we can get very mixed messages from the women in our lives. We do not like to ask directions. But when we do we are ridiculed for it. LOL.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Your animations and pics in post are so entertaining!


Ah. You just used PUA!!!!

You reached out and connected with someone in a heartfelt way. 

Hope this does not come off as a neg.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Did I meet you afterwards? I think the person that I've known you to be has always been magnificent. Maybe you needed to give yourself permission to show the whole world that and you had a lot of healing to do.
> 
> Maybe, too, you'll write a book that will be far better by default because you are a good person.
> 
> I'll patiently await that book...but I'm not that patient so get right on it. You can call it, "Do No Harm".


Yes, I would buy the Deejo book for sure. 

We need this book.

It could be the yin and yang. Half the cover diagonally is in white or pink and says Do No Harm. The second half is in black with red accents. And says ... and Bring Passion To The Woman You Love.

Or maybe just a gold cover because this would be pure gold.


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> You see it as playing head games. I see it as improving ones ability to communcate. Behavior modification. The modification is actually on the man.
> 
> We are talking about gaining social skills with a focus on how changes to the man may positively impact some women's view of him. This is all good.


So buying banana bread and pretending that a hot girl at work gave it to you, as a deliberate tactic to drive your wife crazy is behaviour modification for the man that helps build communication? 

This is actual advice recommended on the MMSL blog, which isn't even the most offensive of the PUA genre. And there is so much more that is deliberately designed to feed women's insecurities and put her in her place. 



Entropy3000 said:


> I am feeling that women are still adapting and are very much on guard about not being controlled. The priority is on not being controlled and not infinding ways to bind with men. I get this. I have empathy for it even. Even though I know that it is something that hurts us all. The wounds are too fresh for some. But their attitudes also can poison the next generation and the next. I concede this is going to take time. But not just time alone. It is going to take these conversations that seem to talk at cross purposes.


Who wants to be with someone who is deliberately trying to keep them off balance? Or who can read hateful hateful comments and just shrugs it off with an "I took what I wanted from it"?

What happens when the tables are turned? Suppose your wife starts gushing over some hot guy at her work or gym? Will you just shrug it off and say she's modifying herself to be more attractive to me?

I really don't see how this helps men and women bind. To me it's just another wedge.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> Ah. You just used PUA!!!!
> 
> You reached out and connected with someone in a heartfelt way.


Oh Lordy, she was just being herself for cripes sake. Sometimes life isn't that complicated and people can be who they are without it being a "technique".


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> On this we disagree.
> 
> You want to promote goodness then you don't compromise or you compromise but only long enough to transform it.
> 
> Jaded.
> 
> I hear it all the time in my work.
> 
> I have no room for it in my life, I don't want it in my life, I don't want it in my relationships. I struggle to overcome it and lean on the very good people I trust to share my frustrations so that I can continue.


Well that's what makes life and relationships so wonderful.,
We're all different!
I was once a purist and fundamentalist, but my dear wife changed that part of me.
For us to get along well , I had to understand that, like in the words of Blake Shelton's song,

"..._she's a free and gentle flower, growing wild_.."

And change some of my views.
Everybody's different. Our differences can either bring us together or we could forever exploit it and allow it to rip us apart.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> My point is, that there are guys for whom attracting hoards of women has never, ever, been a problem ... hell these kinds of guys usually don't even have to approach. Women go to them.
> 
> Most of us aren't that dude.
> 
> Most of us would be happy with just one woman, thank you very much.
> 
> So ... a bunch of guys who were never the kind of guys that women gravitated to naturally, decided to write about the things which the 'naturals' make look effortless. For a natural, it is indeed common sense. For others, myself included, picking up a skill that can make you more attractive to women, comfortable with or confident in yourself was not common sense. It needed to be learned.
> 
> If that makes me a loser, I'm fine with that too.
> 
> As for the misogyny, to a degree, many of those books NEED to take the step of removing women from the pedestal and bringing them down to Earth. Not because that is what women need ... but it is certainly needed by a large proportion of their reading audience.


My guess is that they would have been equally successful if they had just let go of their resentment instead of reveling in it.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> No, I used authenticity to express how something made me feel.
> 
> Sheesh. I can assure you, although I find SA attractive and think she is awesome, I don't want to pick her up.
> :rofl:


But this IS my point. Learning that it is safe to be authentic. It matters not that she is a woman. You expressed a real feeling. You connected with her.

So a man may be encouraged to not hold back these feelings with men or women. 

But you now address your intention. Excellent.

So I say a man who learns to express his sincere emotions in this manner is more personable. He is confident enough to share those feelings. He is more likely to connect with the woman he is dating or his wife.

Yet the very same statement you made could be used by a PUA.

You are a very engaging individual. I am not sure how much of this you learned over time or whether you were born as you are. Others could learn from you. And these would not be tricks. They would be positive learned behaviors.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> So buying banana bread and pretending that a hot girl at work gave it to you, as a deliberate tactic to drive your wife crazy is behaviour modification for the man that helps build communication?


No,
But refusing to put up with her temper tantrums and emotional blackmail , and resetting the framework of the argument is.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> .
> 
> It could be the yin and yang. *Half the cover diagonally is in white or pink and says Do No Harm. *


^^CLASSIC!:lol:


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> The biggest thing a father can provide a son is an example of how a man can be very powerful but can also live in a loving marriage. I think it is important for children to see that mom and dad are attracted to one another.
> 
> This all said I would have to warn young men about the dynamic that swirls in this age. He needs to understand the situation he is in. No punches pulled. Which is that his sister does not trust him and they will behave in a scarred manner as anyone who has been abused. That this prevents many from truly being who they could be and that he will have to have patience and understanding and that he will have to pay for the sins of others. But because he is pure of heart and a real man he will persevere none-the-less.


A nice sentiment. But how do we prevent him from being scarred? Or help him heal from them?


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> A nice sentiment. But how do we prevent him from being scarred? Or help him heal from them?


The way of the warrior. Bushido goes a long way. He will learn to embrace the scars of battle but not be diminished by them. To not let the scars deter him from his quest. To never give up. A man may die but he does not have to be defeated. Being pure of heart and conviction is essential. To know what is truly important.

A man realizes that he must risk all to gain all.

One must learn to pick oneself up when knocked down. I have lived this my entire life. Men are forged by the fire and by the pounding we must endure. We learn to revel in it. And it makes us stronger for ourselves and the ones we love. Bond this with true purpose and compassion.

These thoughts. These sentiments are kata for me. They are visualizations, meditations and affirmations but are only preparation for realization. Meaning ultimately they are manifested in action. Actions matter. Please see my signature.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Too complicated.
> 
> Be authentic. Simple.
> 
> We can add to it, Deejo's message of _Do no harm_ *because I love it and want to hump it*.
> 
> Be authentic. Do no Harm. Simple.


You have true wit and are a treasure. 

Thank you

I shall make my way now to a mountain in Tibet or somewhere in Colorado and contemplate what I have learned here. I will do no harm. But indeed I will do no good either. So after do no harm I will await the sequel of get off your butt and love that woman. I purposely leave myself knowingly open for you to define the trilogy ending.


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> But this IS my point. Learning that it is safe to be authentic. It matters not that she is a woman. You expressed a real feeling. You connected with her.
> 
> So a man may be encouraged to not hold back these feelings with men or women.


But so much of PUA is about the exact opposite of this. It's heartening to hear that many who read the message of PUA are doing so for the betterment of themselves and their relationships.

At the same time, most PUA doesn't actually encourage authenticity. It gives tricks to disarm, techniques to manipulate emotions and provide the illusion that they are something they are not. So much so that I'm amazed that so many of you learned how to be better and more authentic men from it.

Definitely time for better books.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> *But so much of PUA is about the exact opposite of this. * It's heartening to hear that many who read the message of PUA are doing so for the betterment of themselves and their relationships.
> 
> At the same time, most PUA doesn't actually encourage authenticity. It gives tricks to disarm, techniques to manipulate emotions and provide the illusion that they are something they are not. So much so that I'm amazed that so many of you learned how to be better and more authentic men from it.
> 
> Definitely time for better books.


Only because you focus on it.

The road that paves my way has potholes in it. Do not focus on them as you will surely be consumed by them if you do. Or more simply put ... avoid them.

There is PUA and there are concepts that we draw from PUA to help us in more positive pursuits. 

I see the road. Others may see the rocks and potholes.

Or as the cliche states. The bird is in your hands.

There is always time for better books. Certainly time for better actions.

Maybe this is a point missed here. The men who use PUA for goodness, are better men to begin with than others. They are simply learning life skills. Indeed a woman may now see the man for who he is inside. This is why I say it is not fake.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> The way of the warrior. Bushido goes a long way. He will learn to embrace the scars of battle but not be diminished by them. To not let the scars deter him from his quest. To never give up. A man may die but he does not have to be defeated. Being pure of heart and conviction is essential. To know what is truly important.
> 
> A man realizes that he must risk all to gain all.
> 
> One must learn to pick oneself up when knocked down. I have lived this my entire life. Men are forged by the fire and by the pounding we must endure. We learn to revel in it. And it makes us stronger for ourselves and the ones we love. Bond this with true purpose and compassion.


All I could picture while reading this is a dragon, a chick wearing a steel bra, a wizard, a quiver and lakes of fire.


----------



## Deejo

FrenchFry said:


> I'm very tempted to just copy paste PUA forum topics since you guys aren't even really talking about it anymore.
> 
> I think it's because you know how gross it gets!


I've been on the forum.

Yes. I know. 

I think I really like NSweet's analogy with 'The Force' in Star Wars.
It's a bit cooler than my attempt at using feminism as a contrast.

At this point, quite honestly I don't know what else to call it, but whatever it is, Trenton wants to hump it, so I figure we're onto something.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> All I could picture while reading this is a dragon, a chick wearing a steel bra, a wizard, a quiver and lakes of fire.


Oh you have been to my home.

The bra would be titanium.

I sleep in the coils of the dragon.

And yet these metaphors define how I lead my life. It is a philosophy. I spend much of my day in a leadership role dealing with continued conflict to achieve things for my company has never done before. So it is a battle. It requires great compassion. My style brings me great trust and loyalty. This said the biggest battles have been closer to home.

Look. I was brought a Catholic boy. When mass was in Latin and there was much incense and ceremony. And Catholic girls. I went on a journey where I examined other religions and became agnostic in my beliefs. It was a transcendental time. Indeed I have seen the pillars of hercules in a rare manner. Later on in life there was a time where I studied martial arts from a discipline that was focused on the spiritual aspects of the way. My sensai was a hachidan. Our way sparred internally but we did not compete with others. Why? Because fighting was always considered to be the last resort and that it was to be done to finality. The fight was a sacred art and not a sport. A way of life. The way of the warrior. It is meditative and reflective. I moved on with my life but this philosophy is much of who I am. It is genuine. When people get to know me they do at some point have an aha moment. This guy is for f'ing real.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FrenchFry...Please do copy and paste some stuff, if you dare. I want to read it, but I refuse to even go find the sites.


----------



## Deejo

I'm out til tomorrow night. Heading into town for a show at the Orpheum and spending the night at a neat little hotel nearby, with someone whom I care deeply about.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> I'm out til tomorrow night. Heading into town for a show at the Orpheum and spending the night at a neat little hotel nearby, with someone whom I care deeply about.


Looks like you got good game!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> If you are authentic then you will be doing something. If what you are doing does no harm then your woman will be grateful and great sex with ensue.
> 
> Is that more sell-able?
> 
> Look...I made a book cover already:


:rofl::rofl::rofl: Awesome. The third pic from the left looks like an accident waiting to happen though. Yikes!


----------



## ravioli

always_alone said:


> But so much of PUA is about the exact opposite of this. It's heartening to hear that many who read the message of PUA are doing so for the betterment of themselves and their relationships.
> 
> At the same time, most PUA doesn't actually encourage authenticity. It gives tricks to disarm, techniques to manipulate emotions and provide the illusion that they are something they are not. So much so that I'm amazed that so many of you learned how to be better and more authentic men from it.
> 
> Definitely time for better books.


If the tricks work who's fault is that? Women engage in trickery as well, such as makeup, corsette's, wonder bra's, lipstick, lip gloss, hair weave, fake eye lashes, high heels...All this to trick a man into thinking she is better looking than what she really is. Females use these manipulation tactics to get men to engage in conversation with them. It's all part of the game.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> If you are authentic then you will be doing something. If what you are doing does no harm then your woman will be grateful and great sex with ensue.
> 
> Is that more sell-able?
> 
> Look...I made a book cover already:


Greatness.

But you get where I am coming from. Doing No Harm is only part of the equation. Many men who come here in desperation do no harm. Doing no harm is all well and good. But doing no harm can be ambivalent is my point. I get that you feel where men go wrong is the harm that they do. And of course this goes both ways. 

So I am saying doing no harm is not enough. But I concede for some a good start.

There is a level beyond grateful sex. Grateful sex seems like such a Nice Guy thing to expect.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> Greatness.
> 
> But you get where I am coming from. Doing No Harm is only part of the equation. Many men who come here in desperation do no harm. Doing no harm is all well and good. But doing no harm can be ambivalent is my point. I get that you feel where men go wrong is the harm that they do. And of course this goes both ways.
> 
> So I am saying doing no harm is not enough. But I concede for some a good start.
> 
> There is a level beyond grateful sex. Grateful sex seems like such a Nice Guy thing to expect.


There has to be balance between do no harm and things like "Door Pattern". I think many guys here are downplaying what tactics the PUA community is touting and it isn't about being ones authentic self. 
I go back to that these might work for some who chose to use it for their own self reflection/betterment but let's not skim over that most of the techniques are not about finding inner peace. More like finding inner piece.


----------



## Machiavelli

FrenchFry said:


> My favorite forum is PUAHate.com.
> 
> I didn't think it got much more cynical than PUA itself.
> 
> I was so wrong. So so so wrong.


PUAHate is an interesting forum, although I haven't looked at it in a while. It's especially amusing when they post photos of the girlfriends of the notable PUAs and rag on them for not being 7-10's.


----------



## always_alone

ravioli said:


> If the tricks work who's fault is that? Women engage in trickery as well, such as makeup, corsette's, wonder bra's, lipstick, lip gloss, hair weave, fake eye lashes, high heels...All this to trick a man into thinking she is better looking than what she really is. Females use these manipulation tactics to get men to engage in conversation with them. It's all part of the game.


I know what you are saying. Me, I deliberately avoid such things because I really have no interest in "pulling" (gawd I hate that word) sexual attention from lots of men. No good can come of that, IMHO. As a consequence, many, maybe most, will overlook me. 

I'm okay with that. In fact I prefer it, as I don't have to play games with anyone. And it increases the odds that I can connect with those that I do talk to.

One of the things that strikes me as odd about all of this PUA sex rank stuff is that turns human relationships into a big competition where we are all trying to out sex each other to get the most attention possible. Seems needy and narcissistic --the very opposite of what it is striving for. Humans are not just pea****s strutting our stuff or baboons beating our chests. We evolved to have a cerebral cortex. Let's use it. I'm sure it's adaptive!


----------



## Wiserforit

Entropy3000 said:


> R U ok dude?


Shaming doesn't work on me. 



> I am showing women that their thoghts on this are not balanced.


I'm sticking to the OP, which is pick-up and game. 

1) Your wife is not someone you are picking up.

2) The women know the difference between self improvement and manipulation, ie. dieting vs. the shaming tactic you just tried to use on me.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> There has to be balance between do no harm and things like "Door Pattern". I think many guys here are downplaying what tactics the PUA community is touting and it isn't about being ones authentic self.
> I go back to that these might work for some who *chose to use it for their own self reflection/betterment *but let's not skim over that most of the techniques are not about finding inner peace. More like finding inner piece.


Perhaps. I know what is in my heart. What is bolded is where I live. Interesting views on all of this though.

No indeed PUA are only some simple tools. Some men only have a hammer though and still f it all up.


----------



## Entropy3000

Wiserforit said:


> Shaming doesn't work on me.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sticking to the OP, which is pick-up and game.
> 
> 1) Your wife is not someone you are picking up.
> 
> 2) The women know the difference between self improvement and manipulation, ie. dieting vs. the shaming tactic you just tried to use on me.


It was to make a point. I made it.

It was about some hypocritical aspects on this topic.

Also one needs to continue to date and court their wife. This is perhaps the biggest mistake men make. They take their wife for granted.


----------



## tacoma

Wiserforit said:


> 1) Your wife is not someone you are picking up.


Actually she is, I'm constantly picking her up.

That's the point of this thread.


----------



## ravioli

always_alone said:


> I know what you are saying. Me, I deliberately avoid such things because I really have no interest in "pulling" (gawd I hate that word) sexual attention from lots of men. No good can come of that, IMHO. As a consequence, many, maybe most, will overlook me.
> 
> I'm okay with that. In fact I prefer it, as I don't have to play games with anyone. And it increases the odds that I can connect with those that I do talk to.
> 
> One of the things that strikes me as odd about all of this PUA sex rank stuff is that turns human relationships into a big competition where we are all trying to out sex each other to get the most attention possible. Seems needy and narcissistic --the very opposite of what it is striving for. Humans are not just pea****s strutting our stuff or baboons beating our chests. We evolved to have a cerebral cortex. Let's use it. I'm sure it's adaptive!


I understand your overall point, but how do you expect to get a man to like you or pull a man? Flirting, and game is part of the human make up. It all depends on how one uses it or one goes about achieving its goals. You don't have to out sex any one to get a man, but we are sexual beings. There are sexual components that are inherent to both genders to woo their target. Light banter, teasing, enhancing your physical qualities, are just all parts of human interaction. Are you saying it's a bad thing? When you watch a Romantic comedy, there is much gamesmanship going on. Without it, it will just be boring 5 minute movie that's mechanical in nature. I think it adds layers to human interaction. Its up to women and men to see who are the bad players in life and stay away from them.

What do you mean by PUA? Because all this stuff existed before there was a word named "PUA". It's just recently there are books and men are flocking to these written materials. Sex rank has always existed.


----------



## ravioli

FrenchFry said:


> I'm very tempted to just copy paste PUA forum topics since you guys aren't even really talking about it anymore.
> 
> I think it's because you know how gross it gets!
> 
> Flight of the Conchords - Bret tries to flirt - YouTube


Basic locker room talk. I've never been on the forum but it's no different then men getting together talking about women and women at bars and clubs talking about guys. It's just that there's a place on the internet for it.


----------



## Wiserforit

Machiavelli said:


> You don't know what you're talking about. The term those guys use is DHV: demonstrating higher value. The term they use for self-improvement and internalizing behaviors that elicit a positive response from the opposite sex via DHV is "Inner Game." I know a couple of guys who are brought into these "Game" conferences to teach these guys how to build a physique and how to eat. These kinds of approaches to inner game have been around for a while.


Congratulations for memorizing pretentious jargon and thereby demonstrating the exact opposite of what you think.

When you pull out all of this pretentious jargon in front of a hot babe that has a mind she is going to instantly recognize you as having joined this cult of losers. So you conceal it from her of course. 

The so-called seduction literature preys upon guys that could not get women, creating a whole silly vocabulary, the purpose of which is to feign insight.

So you memorized some words. I was kicking ass in combat sports and competing in front of crowds up to 15,000 people. After that I was coaching and in my 50's I am in better shape than most teenagers. I wasn't doing this for "game". I don't consider it "game". It is being an athlete. 

Nobody ever said "ooooooh, he's got _game_". They said "welteweight champion". Nobody said "oooooh, he demonstrates higher dating value..." It was just a photo in the paper, a short interview on TV - the winner. They actually call you that when you win. 

The Big Lie throughout this whole thread is guys that are studying pick-up artist literature which is expressly targeted towards losers who are trying to get one-night-stands with women and pretending that it is really all about something else.

In The Game, this guy Mystery is recommending approaching 200 girls a month! That's incredible! I haven't approached 200 girls in my entire life! I didn't need to. The problem was weeding out the ones that will do you harm. 

I spent one more night in the gym training that he recommended being in bars trying to pick up women. The difference in terms of results is that he's turned down 49 times out of 50 whereas a decent athlete has to pick which girl he's going to spend time with. And he is going to a place where women specifically go to get picked up! That's like going to the grocery store and being proud that you came out with groceries sometimes. 


One thing I appreciate very much in this thread is the women who know B.S. when they see it. I respect them for that, and it makes them more attractive. Nothing is more revolting than stupidity. Women who have a mind and can stand up for themselves are fun.


----------



## Wiserforit

always_alone said:


> So buying banana bread and pretending that a hot girl at work gave it to you, as a deliberate tactic to drive your wife crazy is behaviour modification for the man that helps build communication?
> 
> This is actual advice recommended on the MMSL blog, which isn't even the most offensive of the PUA genre. And there is so much more that is deliberately designed to feed women's insecurities and put her in her place.


I just want to specifically thank you for these posts. 

Exposing what it is these books actually recommend is far, far better than listening to the evasion, diversion, and rationalization you see here by men who are viewing women as "targets" instead of people.


----------



## always_alone

ravioli said:


> When you watch a Romantic comedy, there is much gamesmanship going on. Without it, it will just be boring 5 minute movie that's mechanical in nature.


So instead they turn it into a boring 90-minute movie of people acting like idiots, making the same predictable mistakes over and over again, and then pretending that'll all work out well in the end.

Not exactly the model I'd choose to follow.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Wiserforit said:


> I just want to specifically thank you for these posts.
> 
> Exposing what it is these books actually recommend is far, far better than listening to the evasion, diversion, *and rationalization you see here by men who are viewing women as "targets" instead of people.*


^^:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Really?
I have been on this entire thread and you are the only one who has used the words " targets " and " women " in the same sentence.....
Are you saying that women are targets instead of people?
Or , is it that , like the rest of us, you have your very own cognitive bias?

BTW,I like your signature.....
Just sayin'


----------



## Machiavelli

Trenton said:


> As older generations die off and their dated thinking goes with it,


Sorry, but humans will never outrun their biological hardwiring, which is exactly why "game" exists.



Trenton said:


> as technology continues to breech barriers,


And you give this away by confirming that the barriers you wish to breech fundamentally require technological advances to attempt to close the gap.



Trenton said:


> as woman are accepted in the front lines in more nations


Military frontlines? Not likely to happen, since only about 2% of women can do 3 full extension pullups, which are now required for the USMC. Due to natural limitations, the only way to get those numbers up will require large doses of AAS, like the Williams sisters.



Trenton said:


> and increase in numbers in politics, medical science, and advocacy, the world will continue to change and what you think now will soon become something spoken about and debated, but no longer relevant.


 Also, you have a very optimistic outlook on the future. Now that Medical Science is falling under the purview of the IRS, I wouldn't expect a whole lot more in the way of advances there.




Trenton said:


> Let me just say, that overall, I think you underestimate women and the impact they have had in history and will continue to have. I could get into 5 pages on this but this isn't the place.


It is hard to underestimate the power of the P. It put Catherine the Great on the throne of Russia and it kept Cleopatra alive long after she would have been rubbed out had she been a boy. It keeps millions of low rank American men in thrall to WWs who walk all over them. Now, in terms of the impact women have on history in man-roles without using the mighty P, Joan of Arc comes to mind and the not-so-virgin Queen Elizabeth, then again there may be more than we know going on there. Women can have an iron will, but its usually mostly expressed with regards to personal hypergamy and children.



Trenton said:


> I think that men who subscribe to PUA and implement it to improve the outcome of their pool of women do so understandably. It apparently works and they are OK with the idea that some of the material they read comes from writers who do not portray women well, simply because they get the results they want. I get why they have to defend it then.


PUA game is only about getting action immediately or shortly thereafter. LTR game is about holding and building a relationship with a woman. I agree with you that the PUA crowd has a lot of contempt for women. Like you, many of them were raised on the idea of equality between the sexes. Those guys saw women as the same as men, only in a different wrapper and plumbing. Once they understand how to punch in the limbic access code in the proper sequence and have the gates swing open most of the time with a woman of similar sex rank, it results in contempt for women generally. It's nothing the women did, they just went for the worm, but the PUAs seem to be disappointed that it works and does so consistently. When I was researching all that stuff, there were a number of comments from people leaving the "community" because they claimed they had lost all respect for women as a whole, due to their success in the field. It reminds me of the contempt the WW has for the clueless cuckold.



Trenton said:


> I'd love to see a long-term study on the outcomes of relationships where the man willingly admits to using PUA techniques to get his wife vs an outcome study of men who say they were themselves from the beginning.


The first time my wife met me, she had set something up with a girlfriend who knew my brother for us to meet at a restaurant. Right away, my now-wife, who I had just been introduced to (she had seen me at church) started ragging on me about any and everything she could think of. The term "sh!t test" hadn't even been invented (the internet only existed at universities and only a few students could get at it) but that's what she was doing. That's instinctive "woman game", testing to see how I would react to provocation. I immediately started paying a lot of attention to her friend. Instantly, she was working hard to draw me back in. I don't know what they call this, but it's a basic game PUA concept that I knew nothing of and did strictly by instinct. My wife has brought that occasion up a couple of times since then. She remembers nothing of her sh!t testing, only me suddenly paying a lot more attention to her friend.



Trenton said:


> I wonder if there would be any difference at all and if it even matters at this point.


I'm guessing I would most likely be considered a "natural" by the PUA crowd, but I used that ploy on my wife 30 years ago. That wasn't planned though, it was a natural reaction. I didn't do anything like that again, until we had been "roommates" for a long time. I shaped up, had some women stop me in the supermarket, my wife's friends telling her how hot I was, and suddenly she's not clamping her legs shut all the time. It works.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> One of the things that strikes me as odd about all of this PUA sex rank stuff is that turns human relationships into a big competition where we are all trying to out sex each other to get the most attention possible.


It is a big competition, but it's for the best DNA available. That requires a sex competition to get that DNA.



always_alone said:


> Seems needy and narcissistic --the very opposite of what it is striving for. Humans are not just pea****s strutting our stuff or baboons beating our chests. We evolved to have a cerebral cortex. Let's use it. I'm sure it's adaptive!


An evolutionist who doesn't believe the limbic overrides the prefrontal cortex on female desire. Interesting.


----------



## Wiserforit

Entropy3000 said:


> It was to make a point. I made it.


Shaming is used by someone who _doesn't have a point_. 

Because they lack an argument, they try to use emotional warfare to attack their opponent. So you accuse your opponent of being sick or weird and hope they will shrink away like a wilted flower. 

But instead I am happy to shine the light on exactly the kind of tactic this pick-up artist literature recommends - trying to manipulate people. 




> Also one needs to continue to date and court their wife. This is perhaps the biggest mistake men make. They take their wife for granted.


Fallacy of drawing the false conclusion. I didn't use the Mystery Method to court my wife nor to keep her, and I cannot strongly enough recommend against the Mystery Method.

Instead I would recommend working hard, setting goals in your professional and hobby pursuits that have nothing to do with trying to deceive women. 




tacoma said:


> Actually she is, I'm constantly picking her up.
> 
> That's the point of this thread.


Thank you very much for that example of fallacy of definition, proving how disengenuous you are being. 

You just made a nonsense definition of "picking up", which is not defined by you. It is defined by the literature in question which has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with single men picking up single women for one night stand sex.

This is what you resort to, and it is amazing you think it cannot be seen through.


----------



## ravioli

always_alone said:


> So instead they turn it into a boring 90-minute movie of people acting like idiots, making the same predictable mistakes over and over again, and then pretending that'll all work out well in the end.
> 
> Not exactly the model I'd choose to follow.


The result doesn't neccesarily matter, but humans are predictable and the way humans interact and the gamesmanship that is provided by both genders in these particular movies are intriguing to millions of people. The proof is in the box office.

So what model do you follow? Are you against flirting? Are you against men with game, charm, charisma? How do you expect, or go about, to put yourself in a position to get a man?


----------



## Wiserforit

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^:rofl::rofl::rofl:


Another guy without a point resorting to emotional tactics. In this case ridicule. But it doesn't work on me. 




> Really?
> I have been on this entire thread and you are the only one who has used the words " targets " and " women " in the same sentence.....


Yes really - you are evading the very literature we are discussing that I have quoted from directly by chapter title. 

Select the Target: chaper 1 in "The Game".

I have to go as well, but in my case it's work. 

Take care everyone.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Wiserforit said:


> Fallacy of drawing the false conclusion. I didn't use the Mystery Method to court my wife nor to keep her, and I cannot strongly enough recommend against the Mystery Method.
> 
> *Instead I would recommend working hard, setting goals in your professional and hobby pursuits that have nothing to do with trying to deceive women. *


Oh God...........


----------



## Machiavelli

ravioli said:


> The result doesn't neccesarily matter, but humans are predictable and the way humans interact and the gamesmanship that is provided by both genders in these particular movies are intriguing to millions of people. The proof is in the box office.
> 
> So what model do you follow? Are you against flirting? Are you against men with game, charm, charisma? How do you expect, or go about, to put yourself in a position to get a man?


I disagree that romantic comedies from Hollywood depict game concepts. However, there was a movie with Steve Carrell recently that was about PUA and that was accurate. Including the bit about the personalities of the girls you are most likely to score with.

Now, for a movie about what happens in a marriage when the H has zero concept of LTR game and what women want, see "Blue Valentine." Very true to life from start to finish.


----------



## Machiavelli

Wiserforit said:


> Shaming is used by someone who _doesn't have a point_.
> 
> Because they lack an argument, they try to use emotional warfare to attack their opponent. So you accuse your opponent of being sick or weird and hope they will shrink away like a wilted flower.
> 
> But instead I am happy to shine the light on exactly the kind of tactic this pick-up artist literature recommends - trying to manipulate people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy of drawing the false conclusion. I didn't use the Mystery Method to court my wife nor to keep her, and I cannot strongly enough recommend against the Mystery Method.
> 
> Instead I would recommend working hard, setting goals in your professional and hobby pursuits that have nothing to do with trying to deceive women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much for that example of fallacy of definition, proving how disengenuous you are being.
> 
> You just made a nonsense definition of "picking up", which is not defined by you. It is defined by the literature in question which has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with single men picking up single women for one night stand sex.
> 
> This is what you resort to, and it is amazing you think it cannot be seen through.


Is it hard for you to kick against the pr!cks?


----------



## tacoma

Wiserforit said:


> Thank you very much for that example of fallacy of definition, proving how disengenuous you are being.
> 
> You just made a nonsense definition of "picking up", which is not defined by you. It is defined by the literature in question which has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with single men picking up single women for one night stand sex.


I have re-defined nothing, I'm actually on topic for a change.

You may be unaware but this entire thread was born from the concept of using "game theory" to keep your wife interested in you sexually/romantically.

In fact the "literature in question" is game theory for married men.

Married Man Sex Life | How to have the marriage you thought you were going to have. By which I mean doing it like rabbits.

Gaming my wife is something that is a part of our relationship, she likes that I still show that much interest and the rewards are very fine.

Try to keep up.


----------



## ravioli

Machiavelli said:


> I disagree that romantic comedies from Hollywood depict game concepts. However, there was a movie with Steve Carrell recently that was about PUA and that was accurate. Including the bit about the personalities of the girls you are most likely to score with.
> 
> Now, for a movie about what happens in a marriage when the H has zero concept of LTR game and what women want, see "Blue Valentine." Very true to life from start to finish.


 When I say game its just one's ability get a girl or a man. I personally don't consider PUA real game. But If you're talking about PUA tactics used in Romantic comedies, then yes I agree with you. But game to me is your overall ability to get a female or male, whether its innate or learned. That's why I say in Romantic Comedies there's a certain type of gamesmanship going to woo the opposite sex. In the movie Hitch, Will Smith had some serious game. The movie Two can play that game was another one where both sides were both sides were using their game to get one another. We probably just have two different thoughts about the same concept.


----------



## BjornFree

I like this thread.....


----------



## Entropy3000

Wiserforit said:


> Shaming is used by someone who _doesn't have a point_.
> 
> Because they lack an argument, they try to use emotional warfare to attack their opponent. So you accuse your opponent of being sick or weird and hope they will shrink away like a wilted flower.
> 
> But instead I am happy to shine the light on exactly the kind of tactic this pick-up artist literature recommends - trying to manipulate people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy of drawing the false conclusion. I didn't use the Mystery Method to court my wife nor to keep her, and I cannot strongly enough recommend against the Mystery Method.
> 
> Instead I would recommend working hard, setting goals in your professional and hobby pursuits that have nothing to do with trying to deceive women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much for that example of fallacy of definition, proving how disengenuous you are being.
> 
> You just made a nonsense definition of "picking up", which is not defined by you. It is defined by the literature in question which has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with single men picking up single women for one night stand sex.
> 
> This is what you resort to, and it is amazing you think it cannot be seen through.


You just made my ignore list. So continue on. I have no time for this drama.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Apparently cat fights aren't just for women.


----------



## always_alone

ravioli said:


> The result doesn't neccesarily matter, but humans are predictable and the way humans interact and the gamesmanship that is provided by both genders in these particular movies are intriguing to millions of people. The proof is in the box office.
> 
> So what model do you follow? Are you against flirting? Are you against men with game, charm, charisma? How do you expect, or go about, to put yourself in a position to get a man?


Surely no one actually watches romantic comedy to learn about human nature. More likely it's just a mental vacation, wouldn't you say?

And no, I am not against flirting. I can't flirt to save my life,but I have no problem with it. I do think it's a far cry from PUA, though, despite what some are saying here. 

I've been off the dating scene for 15 years now, but when I was single, I didn't "put myself" in any position. I went about my life treating people as well as I know how. Was I more aware of men's level of interest in me and in finding out their relationship status? Sure. But I looked for connection rather than trying to manipulate them into liking me. 

It's not much of a method, I'll grant you that much. No fortunes to be had from my "Have them at your beck and call" blog!


----------



## tacoma

Entropy3000 said:


> Some of us have made a habit of getting banned and some of have been luckier. RAWR.


I should have been banned 3 or 4 times.

The MoDs here are really slackin!

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Apparently cat fights aren't just for women.


Not really a cat fight, more like a beat down.

There's a reason Lions and Hyenas don't mix.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> Some of us have made a habit of getting banned and some of have been luckier. RAWR.


I've learned not to tempt fate so my lips are sealed!

Anyway, it was a good thread today.
But its almost 8 PM down here , and its Saturday night....

I'm off for some fun night.
Enjoy yourselves folks!


----------



## sinnister

FrenchFry said:


> I do like how there is all the charm and warmth of the PUA community in here when it's not going exactly your way.


But what is a PUA exactly? I damn sure never was one and never will be one. I think there is a fundamental flaw in the belief system that categorizes a PUA with someone that runs game.

My thoughts....women run game far more often and with more success than us men do.


----------



## tacoma

sinnister said:


> But what is a PUA exactly? I damn sure never was one and never will be one. I think there is a fundamental flaw in the belief system that categorizes a PUA with someone that runs game.
> 
> My thoughts....women run game far more often and with more success than us men do.


I might be adding to some confusion here.

I am under the assumption that PUA and running game are one and the same.

I have looked at some PUA "handbooks" and laughingly put them down as in general the guys who write them spend the majority of their time in their moms basement clinging to an XBox or at least that's how they read.
But I just thought they were "bad" game running.

I have been running game my whole life because it's how I do everything really.

I find an object of desire and I figure out the most likely way to succeed in gaining it, be it a house, car, friendship, or lover...whatever.
I then take my theory/plan of the best way to attain my goal and run it in reality.
Usually works, sometimes not so much.

Am I mistaken in thinking PUA and "game" are one and the same?

Maybe we should get this back to the focus of using game in a monogamous relationship.


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> I might be adding to some confusion here.
> 
> I am under the assumption that PUA and running game are one and the same.
> 
> I have looked at some PUA "handbooks" and laughingly put them down as in general the guys who write them spend the majority of their time in their moms basement clinging to an XBox or at least that's how they read.
> But I just thought they were "bad" game running.
> 
> I have been running game my whole life because it's how I do everything really.
> 
> I find an object of desire and I figure out the most likely way to succeed in gaining it, be it a house, car, friendship, or lover...whatever.
> I then take my theory/plan of the best way to attain my goal and run it in reality.
> Usually works, sometimes not so much.
> 
> Am I mistaken in thinking PUA and "game" are one and the same?
> 
> *Maybe we should get this back to the focus of using game in a monogamous relationship.*


:iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## Machiavelli

ravioli said:


> When I say game its just one's ability get a girl or a man. I personally don't consider PUA real game. But If you're talking about PUA tactics used in Romantic comedies, then yes I agree with you. But game to me is your overall ability to get a female or male, whether its innate or learned. That's why I say in Romantic Comedies there's a certain type of gamesmanship going to woo the opposite sex. In the movie *Hitch, Will Smith had some serious game*. The movie Two can play that game was another one where both sides were both sides were using their game to get one another. We probably just have two different thoughts about the same concept.


Forgot that one. But usually Hollywood has fat doofs like Kevin James getting hot looking women by acting goofy. It ain't that way in real life.


----------



## JustPuzzled

I have NO GAME! It doesn't matter because I'm happily married.

So, with no game I still seem to attract women. I always have. Not like Brad Pitt, mind, but it's never been difficult.

I don't think that I'm particularly good looking. Actually, I am sure of this.

I think it's because I come across as relaxed and confident (internally I am neither). I make eye contact, respect personal space, listen (this is big, I think) and ask questions that let the woman talk about things that interest her. I do this with no calculation.

If someone asked me how to pick up a woman my reply would be that I have no clue.

"Be yourself", maybe?


----------



## tacoma

JustPuzzled said:


> I have NO GAME! It doesn't matter because I'm happily married.


If that's true then you've definitely got game.

Some guys are just born with it.


----------



## Machiavelli

JustPuzzled said:


> I have NO GAME! It doesn't matter because I'm happily married.
> 
> So, with no game I still seem to attract women. I always have. Not like Brad Pitt, mind, but it's never been difficult.
> 
> I don't think that I'm particularly good looking. Actually, I am sure of this.
> 
> I think it's because I come across as relaxed and confident (internally I am neither). I make eye contact, respect personal space, listen (this is big, I think) and ask questions that let the woman talk about things that interest her. I do this with no calculation.
> 
> If someone asked me how to pick up a woman my reply would be that I have no clue.
> 
> "Be yourself", maybe?


the poor dweebs who fork over money for PUA conferences call you a "natural."


----------



## Wiserforit

Deejo said:


> However, a consequence of realigning how some men see the fairer sex, it has gone a bit too far. It has become vogue in the community to objectify, de-personalize and de-humanize.


I am going to try starting off and ending on the positive. FINALLY an acknowledgement here, grudgingly, that the pick-up artist literature de-humanizes women. 

Thank you for that acknowledgement. Mostly what this has been up to here has been deny, deny, deny. You are the first from this whole side of the argument to acknowledge this basic tenet of Pick-up artist literature. 



> Most of us aren't that dude.


There it is. This is why I have so little respect for this literature. Because instead of becoming that dude in reality, which anyone can do, this whole approach is to use deception instead.

I was a teacher and coach for almost 40 years. I never accepted this attitude. In one sport alone in a five year span I coached 26 individual state champions. It was an incredible run, with three national records along the way in that period. 

Having been in the business of transforming people from getting their butts kicked into people destroying their opponents - you cannot have this attitude and be a champion. This is something you decide to be, not something you are born with or something that you can take short-cuts to achieve by deception. 

Being attractive to people is something that stems not from an illusion about having qualities that winners have - but by being a winner at things. Geez, even the top serial killers have scads of women writing them in prison but I am suggesting being talented in business, arts, athletics, writing - almost any walk in life can be something you excel at and earn the respect of others for. But it takes years of hard work to be good at anything. Deceptive people are looking for short-cuts and tricks that will get them what honest hard work will get you in the long run. 




> If you are a good man, and to be clear, that has been and remains my goal.


I pledged to end positively. So let me accept that your goal is to be a good man. 

Read Dale Carnegie "How to Win Friends and Influence People and you will see how different it is from the PUA literature you read.


----------



## Wiserforit

always_alone said:


> But so much of PUA is about the exact opposite of this.
> 
> At the same time, most PUA doesn't actually encourage authenticity. It gives tricks to disarm, techniques to manipulate emotions and provide the illusion that they are something they are not. So much so that I'm amazed that so many of you learned how to be better and more authentic men from it.
> 
> Definitely time for better books.


When a person is steeped in literature on how to manipulate, what kind of arguments are you going to get from them?

Manipulative arguments. So they're looking at playboy for the articles and they are reading PUA literature for self-improvement.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Wiserforit said:


> When a person is steeped in literature on how to manipulate, what kind of arguments are you going to get from them?
> 
> Manipulative arguments. So they're looking at playboy for the articles and they are reading PUA literature for self-improvement.


While much of it is how to manipulate others, what many of the men here pointed out is that for them, it was a tool to understand what they are doing wrong in their marriage. If it helped them, isn't that a good thing?


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

I love it when there are guys who disregard "game" and "PUA tactics". Makes for much less competition


----------



## Entropy3000

Thoughts on Kino concepts within a marriage.

1) Consider that connection between a couple in a long term marriage will ebb and flow. The stresses in life and marriage can stress us out. We may be having a small conflict with our spouse but please concsider that this is not even the issue. We have stresses with finances, stresses with work, stresses with extended family and freinds. Maybe a couple has not been able to be intimate for a while beyond their control. Maybe they have lost a parent to death. Maybe they have just lost faith in someone they really cared about. Sometimes people need reassurance we are there for them. Couples can start to shutdown. 

2) The healing power of touch

3) The communication power of touch

4) The need to rebalance things and break down the barriers we put up when we are stressed or are in pain.

5) Is not just about sex. Touch should be a normal part of our marriage. There are different kinds of touch. Sometimes a woman wants her man to be assertive. Sometimes she wants to know he still wants her. Sometimes she just wants to know he is there and is listening. Sometimes she wants to feel safe in his arms. Sometimes she wants to be teased or seduced. The sensual tocuh. Sometimes she wants to be indulged. I am sure the ladies can elaborate further on the infinite nuances of the pallette for touching.

In the context of a marriage, Kino inidcates a progression of touching in a non threatening way and then releasing. Nothing inherently evil here. Any perceived evil is in the intent I believe. I think the key is to be sensitive in knowing what kind of touch os the right touch. Some ways are obvious but pragmattically I think the man needs to be in tune with her response to it. 

I think I am a natural with touch. Maybe because I touch speaks to me and I can speak the language of touch.

I often give my wife foot massages just because. But I do alos give her no strings attached full body massages. Part of the Kino here is in the undressing. It is not always immediately foreplay. But in the long term it is all foreplay. Even the just the soft touch of her cheek. Now that said it is wondermous in itself. But it is about connecting and mantaining connection. I say it is loving your wife. it is not the only way to connect. But it is important none-the-less.

I love to caress my wifes neck and to gently play with her ear. Indeed cupping gently but firmly on the base of the head where the neck connects feels ever so good. This is a way of releasing tension. 

Touch is key. I have seen guys at work walk up to women ... married women and start massaging their shoulders, traps and neck and the women close their eyes and melt in their hands. Do I do this? Hell no, that is for my wife ony but it makes a point that people can be very receptive to touch. It is powerful.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Trenton said:


> I think we spend so much time hiding from ourselves and trying to learn ways to get what we want when what we really want is to be accepted for who we are.


While I think "being accepted for who we are" is just a new-age, feel-good fluff, that makes people lazy and diverts the from reaching their full potential by keeping them in their status quo, vulnerability is key in relationships. Unless you can fully immerse yourself in The Dark Triad, you're best bet is being vulnerable and transparent(to a point.).

Ha, there's even a PUA book written about this. Models:Attracting Women Through Honesty by Mark Manson


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Wiserforit, no need for all the condescension. You're not coming across as one who seeks to understand. You're coming across as someone who seeks to belittle. I find it really loathsome.
> 
> I wonder if any of the men who regularly practice learned PUA practices are willing to do an experiment for me?
> 
> If you are single, will you be willing to spend one day observing women that you find attractive (for whatever reasons...looks, mannerisms, voice, etc.). Consciously consider what it is that is finding her attractive and verbalize it in your mind.
> 
> Then step up and take action but not based upon what you think the woman wants to hear, based upon what you are thinking. To do this be honest. Say what you are thinking.
> 
> "Your legs are stunning. I couldn't help but notice."
> 
> Wait for her response and offer an honest response in return. So on and so forth until it's obvious the conversation is over and move on unless one of your honest thoughts are to ask for her contact information.
> 
> Maybe you get it, maybe you don't. Maybe she laughs in your face.
> If so, why not tell her what that makes you think too?
> 
> "I'm sick of being honest about what I think and sharing it with women because I can't stand the way women respond. Why can't you take a compliment?"
> 
> Can you try it or are you too afraid to be this vulnerable?
> 
> I think we spend so much time hiding from ourselves and trying to learn ways to get what we want when what we really want is to be accepted for who we are.
> 
> Sadly, we will never be accepted for who we are if we aren't vulnerable enough to show it.
> 
> I wanted to make this point because, as usual, I have thought a lot about it.
> 
> Men in relationships should try the same.
> 
> Have you already? Do you prefer what works with the least possible rejection?
> 
> Mac, I won't argue with you on this thread. Not the place. I continue to disagree with you.


Trenton, what you just did was redefine the same concepts in a more positve light. 

Coming up to a woman and telling her her legs are stunning does take courage. But I have seen this play out in many ways. It is actually while heartfelf very PUA IMO. Becasue the PUA concept is that if you try and fail 99 times but connect on try 100 you are successful. Indeed this works for the man who is looking for a qualty woman as well.

I have been told by women that their response to these things depends on how cute or atractive they feel the guy is. If he is not so cute, he is a creep. If he is cute they are very attracted.

But what you are saying is very valid.

In the context of a marriage, where I care about, I think many men do hold back even with their wives. I think men need to be able to say these things to them.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Entropy3000 said:


> I have been told by women that their response to these things depends on how cute or atractive they feel the guy is. If he is not so cute, he is a creep. If he is cute they are very attracted..


See this is the problem with supplication, whether it be through buying drinks or complimenting. Unless attraction is set, it is worse than useless. So it's really not a great tactic.


----------



## Entropy3000

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> See this is the problem with supplication, whether it be through buying drinks or complimenting. Unless attraction is set, it is worse than useless. So it's really not a great tactic.


The thing is that women know when their legs are stunning. They are displaying them. So in principle I have no problem with letting her know that I know that she knows she is displaying stunning legs. Now I suppose they do want validation and some women may be concerned they are carrying and extre 2.35 lbs. But stunning legs are just stunning legs.

My way of doing such a thing though would be very cool but with eye contact. Meaning, expressing that I am indeed impressed but matter of factly. Like walking up to a woman in an art gallery. And commenting on how breath taking the art is that she is looking at. A genuine emotion mind you. But I might make this comment to her while ordering a drink or otherwise taking my focused attention on her and then immediately given focus elsewhere for a moment. Then return her my focus. This does a few things. It gives her a chance to escape. LOL. It gives her a chance to assess. Her response with the renewed attention is where one looks for the IOI.

I absolutely get the maintainingg full focus. In reality it would just depend. You could also just switch the subject and throw her off balance.

Now all this said, she may actually think you are an @$$hole. She may be a quaulity woman with great legs. I do think that ultimately even then one can turn that around.

One thing a guy can do who works out is that he can make that comment and then follow up with where do you workout? Or you must love to dance. Either of these can be great segues. She may say oh she does not have a lot of time for working out. Then you have a free pass to expore her interests. Her job. What makes her happy. Or she may try to shcok you. Do not be phased. Laughter is fine.

This is so much easier if she has just asked you if you workout. You can make a quick statement without going on about yourself and then immediatly go for the stunning legs comment. I guess more passive here.
Stating, I have been admiring your legs and they are simply stunning but right now I am cannot stop looking at your eyes. Your smile is so inviting.
What are you passionate about?

Ummmm. But I would have to ask my wife first.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

always_alone said:


> So buying banana bread and pretending that a hot girl at work gave it to you, as a deliberate tactic to drive your wife crazy is behaviour modification for the man that helps build communication?
> 
> This is actual advice recommended on the MMSL blog, which isn't even the most offensive of the PUA genre. And there is so much more that is deliberately designed to feed women's insecurities and put her in her place.


Not so much feeding insecurities but using preselection. And tbh, I never thought it was to build communication, but rather attraction. Let's be honest, there is a wave effect in female attraction. A man that's being eyed by another woman, is a man in demand. And a man in demand is an attractive man.



> Suppose your wife starts gushing over some hot guy at her work or gym? Will you just shrug it off and say she's modifying herself to be more attractive to me?


There is a difference in being friendly and slightly flirty in an open space with a person and gushing over the hot guy at the gym. But I guess, differences or intents don't have that much meaning for you. 

Good job trying to bash something without fully understanding it though.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> The thing is that women know when their legs are stunning. They are displaying them. So in principle I have no problem with letting her know that I know that she knows she is displaying stunning legs. Now I suppose they do want validation
> .



I seriously cannot believe what I just read. I hate to break it to you Ent, but women wear shorts because it's hot outside and here in Houston it is over 90 degrees 5 months out of the year. We aren't doing it because we are seeking attention from men or for your validation that our legs are stunning. How interesting that you imply these women are "displaying" them and thus glory seekers when it is you who is turning this in to a sexual scenario. 

Christ on a cracker with Cheese Wiz on top. Pass me the Tylenol.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I seriously cannot believe what I just read. I hate to break it to you Ent, but women wear shorts because it's hot outside and here in Houston it is over 90 degrees 5 months out of the year. We aren't doing it because we are seeking attention from men or for your validation that our legs are stunning. How interesting that you imply these women are "displaying" them and thus glory seekers when it is you who is turning this in to a sexual scenario.
> 
> Christ on a cracker with Cheese Wiz on top. Pass me the Tylenol.


I guess I was not thinking about shorts dear lady. When I was thinking stunning legs I was envisioning something else entirely. I was going off the picture in my mind. I pictured a woman in a black dress. One who was actively moving her legs say on one of those elevated chairs waiting to be seated for dinner while having a drink kinda thing. A woman who had put time and effort in for a night ... on the town. Indeed I am talking about a woman who is comfortable in her own skin.

So again. Context matters. It is my vision so I get to define the "set".

Cheese and Rice what are you thinking?


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Entropy3000 said:


> I guess I was not thinking about shorts dear lady. When I was thinking stunning legs I was envisioning something else entirely. I was going off the picture in my mind. I pictured a woman in a black dress. One who was actively moving her legs say on one of those elevated chairs waiting to be seated for dinner while having a drink kinda thing. A woman who had put time and effort for a night ... on the town. Indeed I am talking about a woman who is comfortable in her own skin.


Dear Penthouse.


----------



## Entropy3000

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Dear Penthouse.


That is funny. And I deserve that.

But indeed I confess I am actually using a real life situation from last month. A woman with stunning legs who knew how to use them in this very way. Her legs seemed to go all the way up. She absolutely was having a great time. She was clearly waiting for some one. I hope he did not make her wait too long.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I seriously cannot believe what I just read. I hate to break it to you Ent, but women wear shorts because it's hot outside and here in Houston it is over 90 degrees 5 months out of the year. We aren't doing it because we are seeking attention from men or for your validation that our legs are stunning.


Then why the nylons?
& the 4 inch F me pumps?



I live in Florida we wear nearly nothing down here for 8 months of the year.

To claim that women don't EVER wear skirts to expose their assets is disingenuous.

Comfort for sure but it's not the only reason.


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> Then why the nylons?
> & the 4 inch F me pumps?
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Florida we wear nearly nothing down here for 8 months of the year.
> 
> To claim that women don't EVER wear skirts to expose their assets is disingenuous.
> 
> Comfort for sure but it's not the only reason.


I do not think they were 4". But they fit the lines of her stunning legs very nicely. No this woman was having a great time and knew her legs were fabulous. Good for her. It was a cool night. She would have been risking a chill has she left the hotel.

My colleague had a Sam Adams. I a Guiness. And the lady in black with the stunning legs faded into the night while my colleague and I discussed the days events and what tomorrow would bring. I called my wife when I got back to my room.

Gee whiz do folks not get out?

Again, tag teamed by Trenton and Brighteyes. Trenton set up the shot, I took the bait and Brighteyes ... for the kill. LOL. Delightful.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> While much of it is how to manipulate others, *what many of the men here pointed out is that for them, it was a tool to understand what they are doing wrong in their marriage. If it helped them, isn't that a good thing?*


^^:iagree:

Its that simple.
Take what applies and simply dump the rest.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> Then why the nylons?
> & the 4 inch F me pumps?
> 
> 
> 
> I live in Florida we wear nearly nothing down here for 8 months of the year.
> 
> To claim that women don't EVER wear skirts to expose their assets is disingenuous.
> 
> Comfort for sure but it's not the only reason.


He never said anything about heels and I never said it was the ONLY reason. He did however say that women who show their legs do so for attention to which I was saying that it isn't always the case. And who the heck where's nylons anymore? :rofl:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^:iagree:
> 
> Its that simple.
> Take what applies and simply dump the rest.


Exactly, just as I did with MMSL. I found plenty to be offensive and I found some to be useful. So I took the useful parts and used them.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> He never said anything about heels and I never said it was the ONLY reason. He did however say that women who show their legs do so for attention to which I was saying that it isn't always the case. And who the heck where's nylons anymore? :rofl:


The woman in my fanta... I mean vision had heels.

Yes. You are correct it is NOT always the case. But it was in that bar on that night. LOL. She was dressed to impress.

This came to mind because this would have been the scenario that made most sense to me from what Trenton said. I think in that scenario as one grabbed their drink they could have said to her matter of factly ... You look fabuolus ... what are you celebrating? If she responded in a positive way, one could have easily followed up with the and your legs are simply stunning.


----------



## always_alone

tacoma said:


> If that's true then you've definitely got game.
> 
> Some guys are just born with it.


This just strips all meaning from the term. Game in the PUA scene is about attracting lots of interest from lots of women. There are, I'm sure, plenty of happily married men without game.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> And who the heck where's nylons anymore? :rofl:


May I ask you a question?

Why do women seem not to like wearing nylons any more?

My wife hates them too, and I love seeing her in them,especially if she's wearing short skirts. They look & feel nice to touch on her legs, but she no longer wears them.

She thinks its cumbersome and they rip easily.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

always_alone said:


> There are, I'm sure, plenty of happily married men without game.


Of course there are. Until they are not so happily married.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> This just strips all meaning from the term. Game in the PUA scene is about attracting lots of interest from lots of women. *There are, I'm sure, plenty of happily married men without game.*


Indeed back to the context of marriage.

Men in passionate marriages have game or have developed game.

Life does NOT end when you get married ... If you do it right.

I married my wife to be in a life long affair with her. To share my life with her.


----------



## always_alone

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Not so much feeding insecurities but using preselection. And tbh, I never thought it was to build communication, but rather attraction. Let's be honest, there is a wave effect in female attraction. A man that's being eyed by another woman, is a man in demand. And a man in demand is an attractive man.
> 
> 
> There is a difference in being friendly and slightly flirty in an open space with a person and gushing over the hot guy at the gym. But I guess, differences or intents don't have that much meaning for you.
> 
> Good job trying to bash something without fully understanding it though.


I referred to communication because Entropy was suggesting that the MMSL tactics are designed to improve it. And I still fail to see how buying banana bread and pretending that it was given to you by a hot girl at work is going to improve your communication.

It is also not just being "friendly or flirty in an open space". It is a deliberate manipulation to plant the idea that there is an attractive women at work who has a crush on you. You call it demonstrating preselection, but I call it exploiting jealousy. And I bet you wouldn't like it if your wife pulled that stunt on you.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> I referred to communication because Entropy was suggesting that the MMSL tactics are designed to improve it. And I still fail to see how buying banana bread and pretending that it was given to you by a hot girl at work is going to improve your communication.
> 
> It is also not just being "friendly or flirty in an open space". It is a deliberate manipulation to plant the idea that there is an attractive women at work who has a crush on you. You call it demonstrating preselection, but I call it exploiting jealousy. And I bet you wouldn't like it if your wife pulled that stunt on you.


I like Banana Bread. 

I do believe preselection works. However I do not believe in using it in this way to manipulate my wife. I do not have to contrive situations. She sees me interact ... respectfully with other women. But she gets it. My wife is not above walking up to me when I am speaking to a couple of nice looking women and claiming her territory by introducing herself, putting one hand around my biceps and the other across my yoke. She cares. I like that. She has game.


----------



## Entropy3000

Oh and to be clear. My wife does own me. I gave myself to her. Not like land you walk on though. More like a horse she is free to ride when the mood strikes her fancy.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

always_alone said:


> I referred to communication because Entropy was suggesting that the MMSL tactics are designed to improve it. And I still fail to see how buying banana bread and pretending that it was given to you by a hot girl at work is going to improve your communication.
> 
> *Look, there is attraction and there is rapport and they are different things. Being in an open and transparent marriage doesn't get you into a marriage that your spouse is attracted to you. There are different parts of MMSL that work on both sides of the issue. *
> 
> It is also not just being "friendly or flirty in an open space".
> 
> * I wrote that because I thought you were comparing the "flirt with other women" advice with openly gushing over another person. Not with banana bread.*
> 
> It is a deliberate manipulation to plant the idea that there is an attractive women at work who has a crush on you. You call it demonstrating preselection, but I call it exploiting jealousy. And I bet you wouldn't like it if your wife pulled that stunt on you.
> 
> 
> *I'm not so disillusioned to think women and men have exactly the same attraction switches.*


And tbh, it really depends on your spouse. If you even talk with another woman in a cordial and not-discouraging way, if your spouse is very low stimuli, it may be too much and they may be hurt. If she is very high stimuli, openly flirting, charming and complimenting etc may give her the drama she needs.

If there is one thing that doesn't change in game, it's calibration.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> I like Banana Bread.
> 
> I do believe preselection works. However I do not believe in using it in this way to manipulate my wife. I do not have to contrive situations. She sees me interact ... respectfully with other women. But she gets it. * My wife is not above walking up to me when I am speaking to a couple of nice looking women and claiming her territory by introducing herself, putting one hand around my biceps and the other across my yoke. She cares. I like that. She has game.*


Haha!

My wife does the same.
She would simply walk up, take a sip of my drink whilst introducing herself.
I don't mind either!


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> Indeed back to the context of marriage.
> 
> Men in passionate marriages have game or have developed game.
> 
> Life does NOT end when you get married ... If you do it right.
> 
> I married my wife to be in a life long affair with her. To share my life with her.



Who said anything about life ending when you get married? And why would you need "game" to keep it passionate?

Maybe I need to go back to the beginning: What exactly are we talking about? 

Cuz I'm willing to bet there are happy relationships out there, where the man isn't all alpha-ed up, flirting with other women, and being all dominant and disinterested, throwing negs around. I'm pretty sure if my SO decided to "man up" in this way, our relationship would spiral downward quickly. None of what I read in that literature spells attraction for me.

Surely I'm not the only woman who thinks this way...


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> May I ask you a question?
> 
> Why do women seem not to like wearing nylons any more?


They are insanely uncomfortable. One size fits none.


----------



## tacoma

always_alone said:


> This just strips all meaning from the term. Game in the PUA scene is about attracting lots of interest from lots of women. There are, I'm sure, plenty of happily married men without game.


Perhaps but there aren't any men in happy marriages who don't have game.

I thought we were discussing game in the context of marriage?

Maybe I'm in the wrong "game" thread there are like 3 of them ATM.
I'm probably confused.


----------



## tacoma

Entropy3000 said:


> I married my wife to be in a life long affair with her.


This exactly!

This is the point of the whole damned "Game" in the first place.


----------



## always_alone

coffee4me said:


> If I found out he bought it himself, I would have thought he had lost his mind. He probably would have to explain twice why he did it, because I probably wouldn't get it. But I wouldn't have been angry about it or think it was some kind of manipulation.


Yes, I too would think he had lost his mind. Don't know if I'd be angry exactly, but I would see it for the manipulation it is (assuming he is indeed lying about where he got it). And it would definitely reduce my respect for him. By a lot.


----------



## always_alone

tacoma said:


> Perhaps but there aren't any men in happy marriages who don't have game.


Are you sure about this? Seems to me "game" refers to a certain kind of man,.not the state of his relationship.


----------



## tacoma

always_alone said:


> I referred to communication because Entropy was suggesting that the MMSL tactics are designed to improve it. And I still fail to see how buying banana bread and pretending that it was given to you by a hot girl at work is going to improve your communication.
> 
> It is also not just being "friendly or flirty in an open space". It is a deliberate manipulation to plant the idea that there is an attractive women at work who has a crush on you. You call it demonstrating preselection, but I call it exploiting jealousy. And I bet you wouldn't like it if your wife pulled that stunt on you.


I agree this scenario is a blatant unethical manipulation.
Did you think of it if did you get it somewhere?

Everyone keep forgetting the context of the topic we're discussing.

The context of MMSL is a husband whose wife is on her way out the door or into another mans arms.

In this context it's not a bad thing at all for the wife to realize her husband holds value and quite honestly preselection is a large barometer of value for women.

My wife is well aware I have options I do indeed plan to keep that knowledge in her mind.

It's to both our benefit.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> Haha!
> 
> My wife does the same.
> *She would simply walk up, take a sip of my drink whilst introducing herself.*
> I don't mind either!


:smthumbup:


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> Who said anything about life ending when you get married? And why would you need "game" to keep it passionate?
> 
> Maybe I need to go back to the beginning: What exactly are we talking about?
> 
> Cuz I'm willing to bet there are happy relationships out there, where the man isn't all alpha-ed up, flirting with other women, and being all dominant and disinterested, throwing negs around. I'm pretty sure if my SO decided to "man up" in this way, our relationship would spiral downward quickly. None of what I read in that literature spells attraction for me.
> 
> Surely I'm not the only woman who thinks this way...


Game in marriage is the ability to keep things new and exciting over the long haul.

I encourage men to do this. I also encourage women to up their game for their husbands. Properly done it is a dance. Sometimes one has to lead for a while. Some women will up their game and take it on the road. As Tacoma points out this is the primary audience for MMSL.


----------



## tacoma

always_alone said:


> Who said anything about life ending when you get married? And why would you need "game" to keep it passionate?
> 
> Maybe I need to go back to the beginning: What exactly are we talking about?
> 
> Cuz I'm willing to bet there are happy relationships out there, where the man isn't all alpha-ed up, flirting with other women, and being all dominant and disinterested, throwing negs around. I'm pretty sure if my SO decided to "man up" in this way, our relationship would spiral downward quickly. None of what I read in that literature spells attraction for me.


I totally agree except I have to ask again what literature are you speaking of?

MMSL does not in any way promote the attitude you described.

It in fact directly opposes the attitude you described, constantly.


----------



## tacoma

always_alone said:


> Are you sure about this? Seems to me "game" refers to a certain kind of man,.not the state of his relationship.


It does refer to a certain kind of man.

The kind who is in a truly happy marriage.


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> It does refer to a certain kind of man.
> 
> The kind who is in a truly happy marriage.


If a husband does not keep his wife in the game with him he runs the risk of her meeting her needs elsewhere to the detriment of her marriage. Just not cheating is not a marriage.

Hey, gaming your wife is infinitely better than staying home while a line of other guys take their shot with her. That thought just creeps me out. Women have needs. Women are sexual too. Be that guy. Try things out. Nothing ventured nothing gained. Just being nice is not good enough. Be passionate. Be flirty. Up your game. I kissed a girl. It was my wife. And I liked it.


----------



## always_alone

tacoma said:


> I totally agree except I have to ask again what literature are you speaking of?
> 
> MMSL does not in any way promote the attitude you described.
> 
> It in fact directly opposes the attitude you described, constantly.


Except the banana bread example I gave that you agreed was blatant manipulation came straight from the MMSL blog.

And I could pull dozens more quotes from it that promote exactly the type of attitude I was describing.


----------



## always_alone

tacoma said:


> My wife is well aware I have options I do indeed plan to keep that knowledge in her mind.
> 
> It's to both our benefit.


Perhaps. Taken too far, though, it can erode an already fragile trust. Thin of all the threads here from both women and men who are freaking out over their spouse's co-workers, OS friends, FB and chat pals, etc. Having these options doesn't always inspire passion in your spouse. Sometimes it creates fear and mistrust, and a desire for revenge.

If my SO starts rubbing his options into my face, he's quite likely to find himself single.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

....

Okay, it's manipulation, we're insecure but we learned our lesson. We won't do it any more, will we guys?

Lol, even the 180 when your spouse is cheating works as a manipulative tactic, if you think about it.Tbh, even getting in shape to be more attractive to your spouse may be considered manipulation, so honestly I cannot care what anything seems like on the outside. The ends justify the means. If it works, it works.

If a guy cannot get IOI's from other women thus isn't able to tap into the preselection source, his only hope may be such a tactic. Sucks for him, but at least with this tactic he has an option.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

always_alone said:


> If my SO starts rubbing his options into my face, he's quite likely to find himself single.


Why do you constantly take parts of messages that are beneficial to your contrarian message and deliberately leave out parts that answer your questions?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Caribbean Man said:


> May I ask you a question?
> 
> Why do women seem not to like wearing nylons any more?
> 
> My wife hates them too, and I love seeing her in them,especially if she's wearing short skirts. They look & feel nice to touch on her legs, but she no longer wears them.
> 
> She thinks its cumbersome and they rip easily.


I love to wear dresses, I find them very comfortable and feminine, but I've always hated the nylons, I am a country girl and they are literally a pain up the butt & I'll have snags near immediately... so what's the point....... I only wear them if going to weddings / funerals, where I should be dressed appropriately...

I wear dresses shopping even... and go to amusement parks with skirt (shorts underneath) type outfits. 



> *tacoma said*: Perhaps but *there aren't any men in happy marriages who don't have game.
> *
> I thought we were discussing game in the context of marriage?


 I still don't care for the term "GAME"... I would NEVER say my husband plays any kind of "game" with me... not when we met, not during any part of our marriage...I don't feel this = boring... sorry am I some kind of freak here?

I would , however, say he has always been very Loving, Romantic, affectionate, giving, engages me in conversation, a grand listener, he has a GOOD sense of humor- he gets me laughing at myself (I would call this part of his "EDGE" something else I learned at TAM...never having heard of this sort of talk) ....and I LOVE LOVE LOVE his vulnerability with me, his sensitivity to what we have. To me, It's high Romance...this keeps our marriage flying with the wife on the clouds.. with a happening sex life... still wouldn't call it "game". 

Why does this word have to be used...damn some of you guys are stubborn on this ... so If I don't agree with this word, something is wrong with me.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> Perhaps. Taken too far, though, it can erode an already fragile trust. Thin of all the threads here from both women and men who are freaking out over their spouse's co-workers, OS friends, FB and chat pals, etc. Having these options doesn't always inspire passion in your spouse. Sometimes it creates fear and mistrust, and a desire for revenge.
> 
> If my SO starts rubbing his options into my face, he's quite likely to find himself single.


Many things in life exist in a continuum. Picking either extreme is often bad.

Water is good for you but if your drink to much you can die. Not an excuse to not properly hydrate.

The key is to keep the shiny side up. Women get bored with their husbands. They get to feeling like roommates. This results in a not so happy marriage, possibly a walk away wife or a wife who looks for excitement elsewhere.

Game is about keeping the marriage alive. Keeping excitement. It can be done. Many folks are just too lazy or too ambivalent or too entitled or too naive to try.

I guess guys are ok with the term game. We often refer to bringing our best game to things that matter to us. Sports metaphor. We are guys.

My wife just made me blueberry pancakes from scratch. I think she is gaming me. I love her.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

JustPuzzled said:


> The story goes that a young woman had the opportunity to dine alone with the two men on successive evenings. When asked afterwards how things went she answered, "Well, after dining with Mr. Gladstone I came away convinced that he was the most charming man in the world."
> 
> She was then asked about her second dinner. She answered, "Oh, after dining with Mr. Disraeli *I came away convinced that I was the most charming woman in the world."*


I really liked this comparison....I bet some women can relate...Mr Charmer bringing all the Excitement -he can play that game with many women....big whoop !

This is how my husband makes me FEEL every day of my life. I'd never trade that, it's honest, and it's true....your words made me think of these quotes here.... even if this is a bit off the subject at hand..


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> May I ask you a question?
> 
> Why do women seem not to like wearing nylons any more?
> 
> My wife hates them too, and I love seeing her in them,especially if she's wearing short skirts. They look & feel nice to touch on her legs, but she no longer wears them.
> 
> She thinks its cumbersome and they rip easily.


I don't think they ever liked wearing them, it was just seen as something professional/proper women did. Now it isn't viewed so much that way anymore although I still know of many law firms that require them. 
They might look nice but they itch, feel like cling wrap on a hot day and yes they "run" easily. 

T/J over.


----------



## always_alone

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> ....
> The ends justify the means. If it works, it works.
> 
> If a guy cannot get IOI's from other women thus isn't able to tap into the preselection source, his only hope may be such a tactic. Sucks for him, but at least with this tactic he has an option.


Ah, well, I expect we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. The ends do not justify the means in my book.

And honestly, I find this whole preselection trope a bit ridiculous. Maybe it works for y'all, I don't know. I can only speak for myself. But what I found was the men that had all of the girls swirling around them were too arrogant and full of themselves for my liking. I prefer the ones on the edge. And one who is just pretending to have other women into him is closer to pathetic than anything else.


----------



## always_alone

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Why do you constantly take parts of messages that are beneficial to your contrarian message and deliberately leave out parts that answer your questions?


For the same reason that you do?

But in that case it was because I addressed the other issues in another post.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

I gotta say I've mulled over the idea of preselection as well and I think it is shaky at best. This notion that I'm going to be more attracted to a guy because he has a woman on his arm just doesn't gel with me. For one, she might have awful taste so why would I allow her choice to influence mine. Two, he's already with someone so it ends there. Three, he might be a scuzbag who is using this woman to up his chances with someone "better" so yeah, I'll pass. 

If it works then cool. Honestly though if I were a guy I would have to wonder if I really wanted the woman that this would work on.


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> My wife just made me blueberry pancakes from scratch. I think she is gaming me. I love her.


Okay, well if game = blueberry pancakes, I suppose it can't be all bad.

Seems to me that what you, Deejo, & Tacoma are presenting as game bears little resemblance to PUA or even MMSL. But, FWIW, I find it much more appealing.


----------



## Blue Firefly

Therealbrighteyes said:


> This notion that I'm going to be more attracted to a guy because he has a woman on his arm just doesn't gel with me.


The technical term is *social proof*. It's been well researched, and is an absolute proven. Robert Cialdini's book "Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion" is worth reading if for no other reason than to learn how common influence techniques might be used against you (as in advertising, for example). Cialdini, btw, is a college professor and is considered the godfather of research on persuasion and influence. This isn't out of some "game" book, it's out of a college text book.

When people see others approve of an activity or person, they are more likely to have a positive opinion of that activity or person. The TV laugh track is an example. When the exact same show is tested with and without a laugh track the version with the laugh track is always rated as the funnier show.

The converse is also true. When people see others react negatively to an activity or person, they were more likely to have a negative opinion of that person or activity.

Think you're above it, that you could never be influenced as something as stupid as a laugh track? That's what everybody says, including the people who actually were influence by the laugh track.

The most dangerous stance you can take is to think you're too smart to fall for something that simple. Cialdini points out that intelligence seems to have nothing to do with how susceptible people are to persuasion techniques. A Mensa member is just as likely to fall for one of these simple/stupid techniques as a high school dropout.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I gotta say I've mulled over the idea of preselection as well and I think it is shaky at best. This notion that I'm going to be more attracted to a guy because he has a woman on his arm just doesn't gel with me. For one, she might have awful taste so why would I allow her choice to influence mine. Two, he's already with someone so it ends there. Three, he might be a scuzbag who is using this woman to up his chances with someone "better" so yeah, I'll pass.
> 
> If it works then cool. Honestly though if I were a guy I would have to wonder if I really wanted the woman that this would work on.



Have seen it work on quite a few women (the same women who follow fashion trends and see other women as competition mostly).


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Blue Firefly said:


> The technical term is *social proof*. It's been well researched, and is an absolute proven. Robert Cialdini's book "Influence, the Psychology of Persuasion" is worth reading if for no other reason than to learn how common influence techniques might be used against you (as in advertising, for example). Cialdini, btw, is a college professor and is considered the godfather of research on persuasion and influence. This isn't out of some "game" book, it's out of a college text book.
> 
> When people see others approve of an activity or person, they are more likely to have a positive opinion of that activity or person. The TV laugh track is an example. When the exact same show is tested with and without a laugh track the version with the laugh track is always rated as the funnier show.
> 
> The converse is also true. When people see others react negatively to an activity or person, they were more likely to have a negative opinion of that person or activity.
> 
> Think you're above it, that you could never be influenced as something as stupid as a laugh track? That's what everybody says, including the people who actually were influence by the laugh track.
> 
> The most dangerous stance you can take is to think you're too smart to fall for something that simple. Cialdini points out that intelligence seems to have nothing to do with how susceptible people are to persuasion techniques. A Mensa member is just as likely to fall for one of these simple/stupid techniques as a high school dropout.


"Social proofing", works. It may not work 100% but it tilts the odds in your favor.

The "laugh track" example was a good one as well, that the opinion of large numbers will influence someones decision.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I gotta say I've mulled over the idea of preselection as well and I think it is shaky at best. This notion that I'm going to be more attracted to a guy because he has a woman on his arm just doesn't gel with me. For one, she might have awful taste so why would I allow her choice to influence mine. Two, he's already with someone so it ends there. Three, he might be a scuzbag who is using this woman to up his chances with someone "better" so yeah, I'll pass.
> 
> If it works then cool. Honestly though if I were a guy I would have to wonder if I really wanted the woman that this would work on.


I don't think I've ever seen one it didn't work on.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

tacoma said:


> I don't think I've ever seen one it didn't work on.


It always has worked. I used to go out and just take a attractive female friend out with me, it always boosted me for when I wasn't with her... One of my old tricks. Another social proof is the crowd your with. You'd think it shouldn't really work, but it works like magic.

The same if females know you are having sex with certain females and they want to get some too. Don't know why they want the same one, but they do.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I gotta say I've mulled over the idea of preselection as well and I think it is shaky at best. This notion that I'm going to be more attracted to a guy because he has a woman on his arm just doesn't gel with me. For one, she might have awful taste so why would I allow her choice to influence mine. Two, he's already with someone so it ends there. Three, he might be a scuzbag who is using this woman to up his chances with someone "better" so yeah, I'll pass.
> 
> If it works then cool. Honestly though if I were a guy I would have to wonder if I really wanted the woman that this would work on.


Ok.

I will give MY experience.
As everyone knows before I started dating my wife I had my full of women.
I started dating her exclusively. For one year , no problems with women.
When word got out that I was going to marry her, it was like a dam bursting.
I had the most offers from women within that six week period..
Really weird.
They were very subtle overtures. There were the obnoxious, disrespectful ones, who tried to talk down my wife.
Then there were those whom I never thought knew I existed.

The week of my marriage, one of my childhood buddies called me and told me he had a message from one of my exes who was a well known " hottie."
But she was a girl I had also liked a lot. He told me she owned a jewellery store and gave me her business card . So I called her and told her I was getting married.
She told me she heard.
I invited her.[ she didn't know my wife ]
She responded that she was not interested in coming to our wedding, but she wanted_ me_ to come across to her place.
I told her no.
She sent another message through my buddy four days before our wedding , again extending the invitation.
This time I didn't call her.
After we returned from honeymoon, I sent one of those little wedding cake boxes with our names written in gold on it to her, with a piece of our wedding cake inside.
[She probably dumped it! haha :rofl: ]

Even after years of marriage , women still come. I tell them I'm married and the say ok, then we could be " just friends."
My response is always a polite " no way."

But in reality, some people tend to be influenced by other people's choices.
In dating scenarios , I've seen it amongst both sexes.
Also, some people are like hyenas, they prefer to steal from other people than go find their own food.

But in principle , you are quite correct.
Wanting a man because every other woman is choosing him makes absolutely no sense.

Maybe its just a primal urge.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok.
> 
> I will give MY experience.
> As everyone knows before I started dating my wife I had my full of women.
> I started dating her exclusively. For one year , no problems with women.
> When word got out that I was going to marry her, it was like a dam bursting.
> I had the most offers from women within that six week period..
> Really weird.
> They were very subtle overtures. There were the obnoxious, disrespectful ones, who tried to talk down my wife.
> Then there were those whom I never thought knew I existed.
> 
> The week of my marriage, one of my childhood buddies called me and told me he had a message from one of my exes who was a well known " hottie."
> But she was a girl I had also liked a lot. He told me she owned a jewellery store and gave me her business card . So I called her and told her I was getting married.
> She told me she heard.
> I invited her.[ she didn't know my wife ]
> She responded that she was not interested in coming to our wedding, but she wanted_ me_ to come across to her place.
> I told her no.
> She sent another message through my buddy four days before our wedding , again extending the invitation.
> This time I didn't call her.
> After we returned from honeymoon, I sent one of those little wedding cake boxes with our names written in gold on it to her, with a piece of our wedding cake inside.
> [She probably dumped it! haha :rofl: ]
> 
> But some people tend to be influenced by other people's choices.
> But in principle , you are quite correct.
> Wanting a man because every other woman is choosing him makes absolutely no sense.
> 
> Maybe its just a primal urge.


Knowing you are being chose raises your own confidence and signal up higher. So it is better to know you are being chose than to not know you are being chose.


----------



## Holland

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I gotta say I've mulled over the idea of preselection as well and I think it is shaky at best. This notion that I'm going to be more attracted to a guy because he has a woman on his arm just doesn't gel with me. For one, she might have awful taste so why would I allow her choice to influence mine. Two, he's already with someone so it ends there. Three, he might be a scuzbag who is using this woman to up his chances with someone "better" so yeah, I'll pass.
> 
> If it works then cool. Honestly though if I were a guy I would have to wonder if I really wanted the woman that this would work on.


100% with you on this. Never have and have no desire to take a second glance at an attached man. I have more self respect than that plus the fact there are more than enough men out there, why expend energy to get someone elses?

Yes it happens but I would think it would be more likely that a weak, insecure or mentally unbalanced person would be the type to do this.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Knowing you are being chose raises your own confidence and signal up higher. So it is better to know you are being chose than to not know you are being chose.


I think the preselection thing may explain in part ,why some people are serial cheaters.

What I recall about it in my dating years , was that the " hottie " chicks who were in relationships , were always on the top list of some guy's
" must haves ."
Guys would use all sorts of underhand techniques to woo them away from their boyfriends, or get them to cheat.

Conversely, some guys, in relationships ,who the ladies considered as hottties , always had two or three girls literally fighting over them.
Girls would become bitter enemies because another " friend" was trying to " steal " her man. At the same time , he's giving the other girl some signals, and his girlfriend doesn't want to believe he's actually the culprit.

My feeling is that some of this type of behaviour also occurs within marriages as well , and those without proper personal boundaries and of low morals would find themselves in trouble.,
Multiple times.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TiggyBlue said:


> Have seen it work on quite a few women (the same women who follow fashion trends and see other women as competition mostly).


Yep,
It works.
That's one of the biggest tools with the most leverage in advertising.
It's part of what makes a brand successful.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Holland said:


> 100% with you on this. Never have and have no desire to take a second glance at an attached man. I have more self respect than that plus the fact there are more than enough men out there, why expend energy to get someone elses?
> 
> Yes it happens but I would think it would be more likely that a weak, insecure or mentally unbalanced person would be the type to do this.


Agreed and baffled why so many here are trying to convince me or suggest that I am "that" woman. Despite what books might suggest, we are all different and we all respond to different things. I can assure you that a guy with another woman in tow might get a glance from me but that's it. I don't poach other womens dudes. My life is not a laugh track. I laugh at what_ I _think is funny, not what somebody else tries to convince me is.


----------



## norajane

Holland said:


> 100% with you on this. Never have and have no desire to take a second glance at an attached man. I have more self respect than that plus the fact there are more than enough men out there, why expend energy to get someone elses?
> 
> Yes it happens but I would think it would be more likely that a weak, insecure or mentally unbalanced person would be the type to do this.


:iagree:

I'd think it would attract people with few boundaries and people who are exactly the type that would cheat since they don't respect existing relationships. So why would a guy want to attract women who are attracted to attached men?

And if a guy is apparently in a relationship and is flirting and open to women's attention, wouldn't a woman have every reason to believe he's open to cheating?


----------



## Machiavelli

Entropy3000 said:


> Touch is key. *I have seen guys at work walk up to women ... married women and start massaging their shoulders, traps and neck and the women close their eyes and melt in their hands.* Do I do this? Hell no, that is for my wife ony but it makes a point that people can be very receptive to touch. It is powerful.


Funny you use that example. Seen women recoil from that if they consider the guy "creepy." Then after running the guy off, see me watching and ask me to do it. We had a serial wannabee neck masseur in our office. I was single then. I used to get sexually harassed all day every day, so it's not like women don't want it, it's just that they want it from certain guys (alpha/sigma). I enjoyed it, but never made that connection until many years later. I had to be deprogrammed to get it retrospectively.


----------



## Nsweet

norajane said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I'd think it would attract people with few boundaries and people who are exactly the type that would cheat since they don't respect existing relationships. So why would a guy want to attract women who are attracted to attached men?
> 
> And if a guy is apparently in a relationship and is flirting and open to women's attention, wouldn't a woman have every reason to believe he's open to cheating?


I'm glad someone finally said it!

I've been meaning to write about pick up artists attract women and get them hooked in such short time, it's boundaries. If you've ever read any one of these books you'll see they read like cultist recruiting how to guides. Basically, you go in and ignore personal and respectful boundaries to ABC - always be closing. It's also how abusive people hook their prey.

But it doesn't stop there. 

Anyone who's been divorced from a crazy borderline or narcissistic husband or wife will see the simalarities in how these relationships start. The target is approached and disarmed with lots of flattery to boost the ego and make them feel really good, surging levels of dopamine which gets him/her high. Then the target is toyed with for a while in ways that escelate the high before cutting them off completely. The skilled adulterer/PUA then takes them away that night for sex or what have you and a series of NLP anchors are set. All while telling him or her "You're special!".

I'm cutting to the chase of course. You people would not like what I have to say about how easy it is, and I don't think you would want to see the flow charts I can drum up in about a minute or less. 

In the end these emotional abusers always seem to get their just desserts. In case you don't know, emotionally abusive people tend to find carbon copies of the abusers they had early on in life and the two sort of self destruct over a lifetime. 

Ahh, this thread is out of control. Maybe I should open a new one and explain how attraction and seduction take place in dating, marriage, and divorce. Hint: When dating sex happens based on how the date when, in marriage it's how you've treated your spouse throughout the week, and in divorce sex with your ex depends on how well you can agree and pull away:rofl:

It's going to be a lot to explain, perhaps I should take a few weeks to study up and write this.


----------



## FalconKing

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I gotta say I've mulled over the idea of preselection as well and I think it is shaky at best. This notion that I'm going to be more attracted to a guy because he has a woman on his arm just doesn't gel with me. For one, she might have awful taste so why would I allow her choice to influence mine. Two, he's already with someone so it ends there. Three, he might be a scuzbag who is using this woman to up his chances with someone "better" so yeah, I'll pass.
> 
> If it works then cool. Honestly though if I were a guy I would have to wonder if I really wanted the woman that this would work on.


I think a lot of men don't want these kind of women. They just want to use them. On some level they actually resent them. It works the same with a lot of famous men or men who have some kind of status. They like that they can get a lot of women but they hate that some women only want them because of those reasons. It's destructive behavior for all parties involved. I've experienced this myself. I had a lady friend who never paid me much mind. When she saw me some years later and I was more successful and fit, she began to flirt with me and told me on different occasions that she wanted to sleep with me. Then she told me that she always had a thing for me. Which was a lie. And it made me angry. It made me angry because those years before when I didn't have anything her attraction to me was non-existent. Now she pursues me with abandon. But as others have stated she is also the type of woman that sees herself in competition with other women. She also has two kids. One from a ONS and the other from a casual sex relationship. No..I did not have sex with her.


----------



## Entropy3000

JustPuzzled said:


> Maybe. I doubt it. It could just be that because I'm married I give off zero "I gotta have it" vibes.
> 
> For some reason this thread makes me think of a story about the UK's two great political rivals of the mid-19th century, William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli (stick with me here).
> 
> The story goes that a young woman had the opportunity to dine alone with the two men on successive evenings. When asked afterwards how things went she answered, "Well, after dining with Mr. Gladstone I came away convinced that he was the most charming man in the world."
> 
> She was then asked about her second dinner. She answered, "Oh, after dining with Mr. Disraeli I came away convinced that _I_ was the most charming _woman_ in the world."


Any man who can make a woman feel this way ... has great game.

A man should maintain some mystery. Not go on about himself. Instead he should listen and explore the woman.

But something very elemental in a man should be that he is master over his fears. It is human to have fear. The man who can conquer his fear IS a better man.


----------



## always_alone

Trenton said:


> At this point, I'm just glad I'm an outlier...


Ditto. But considering all the outliers here, and among my friends, I find myself questioning the truth of this norm. And just who it is these guys are hanging out with.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> *Okay, well if game = blueberry pancakes, I suppose it can't be all bad.*
> 
> Seems to me that what you, Deejo, & Tacoma are presenting as game bears little resemblance to PUA or even MMSL. But, FWIW, I find it much more appealing.


Wondermous. How about we go after world peace now. Lets start with hunger and education.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> btw stockings and pantyhose and me are best friends. I heart them. They run easily, etc. but I like being a piece of art and funky pantyhose are a sure way to become instant art.
> 
> I'll have to wear my tattoo pantyhose tomorrow. Every time I wear them no doubt at least two people during the day ask me, "Are those real?"
> 
> I say, "No, stockings." *smile*
> 
> They say, "That is really cool."
> 
> I think...'yep, art is awesome when displayed!'
> 
> My pantyhose with black birds embroidered on them also get comments, the tye dyed ones also but not quite as many and not as predictable.
> 
> Stockings and clothing are ways to express. I've always loved that.


Lady, you got game.

I love those pattern ... tights or whatever some women wear. Hot.

I also know you enjoy the 40s style and that is very attractive. It is a great style. Women started to come into their own in the 40s. They had to.


----------



## Nsweet

See, I always secretely lost respect for any woman who would sleep with me on the first night without getting to know me. I sure as hell would enjoy the sex, but everytime she said "NO" and held her boundaries I would respect her even more and work harder for to be with her. 

That is the little known secret guys never tell women, that I will have to someday tell my future daughter to c*ck block all other men. We love to hear NO, it makes us work harder to be with you. 

I mean you absolutely have to make a pass at a woman you've been flirting with and talking to for a while if the moment is right, but after that..... Let me just say, I prefer to get to know her so I know what I'm "getting into".


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> Wondermous. How about we go after world peace now. Lets start with hunger and education.


I need Simply Amorous to send me a little exploding-head emoticon


----------



## always_alone

Nsweet said:


> See, I always secretely lost respect for any woman who would sleep with me on the first night without getting to know me. I sure as hell would enjoy the sex, but everytime she said "NO" and held her boundaries I would respect her even more and work harder for to be with her.
> 
> That is the little known secret guys never tell women, that I will have to someday tell my future daughter to c*ck block all other men. We love to hear NO, it makes us work harder to be with you.
> 
> I mean you absolutely have to make a pass at a woman you've been flirting with and talking to for a while if the moment is right, but after that..... Let me just say, I prefer to get to know her so I know what I'm "getting into".



What a revolting little sh*t test this is.


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> FTS!
> 
> One, just one, relationship that supersedes all this will make you a believer that biology may be acceptable as a go to but not acceptable as a rule.
> 
> FalconKing...seriously?!
> 
> I'm feeling verbose and rather naturally high this evening as Walking Dead was SO GOOD so I'm going to tell you my weekend before telling you why you need to stop all the negative hating for how some are and start persuing how those who aren't that way are.
> 
> Husband and I went to event Sat night for charity. Didn't know what we were getting into but was good cause so we signed up and drove an hour away for it. When I say 'WE' I mean 'ME'.
> 
> Got there and realized we'd be working our butts off. He was in a suit, I was in short dress and 5 inch heels and I have a cold.
> 
> We are "runners" and we have to run over 300 gift baskets to tricky tray winners with an announcer who seems to draw out the announcement of each of the 300 baskets. OK, whatever, good cause remember?
> 
> Everyone is jeans. You might as well put a spotlight on us. I have bugers running down my face most of the time and my bare arm is an array of various bugers that I can't find a tissue for while in this 3 hour 'running' volunteer spotlight.
> 
> Remember, I don't even know these people and we are far from home. HAHA!
> 
> What does my husband do?
> 
> He runs off (I want to kill him at first) and comes back with a tissue which he provides to me. After another ten minutes of seeing me struggle he meanders over to me and says in my ear, "I'm going to run twice as much. Sit down."
> 
> I say, "No. I got us into this."
> 
> He says, "You're ridiculous, I can use the calorie burn."
> 
> I walk as politely as I can while sniffling into a seat and watch him for the rest of the time working twice as hard but knowing full well he's happy to.
> 
> When we get in the car afterwards I apologize. He tells me I'm stupid for apologizing, he loved being able to be offered a chance to help me so easily. That I looked beautiful and he enjoyed the evening.
> 
> Really? Well, if that's not cause to make me want to swoon, freak out and think I'm the luckiest human being ever on the face of the Earth!
> 
> But I'm not the luckiest human being on the face of the Earth.
> 
> I simply want to love fully, to not have to worry about games. To, in the end, have not been afraid to go after what is meaningful to me with people surrounding me who may not find meaning in what I find meaning but none the less find meaning in me.
> 
> So, PLEASE, please, PLEASE! Don't give up or feel disheartened or think for a second that a woman out there exists who will appreciate you for your intense yet somewhat different humor, your masculine, dark skinned looks and ability to feel and think intensely.
> 
> Just don't buy into some tag line that says women and men are on auto biology pilot!
> 
> Explore and express and when you least expect it, you'll find her and then all this crap will seem like meaningless tripe.
> 
> This, in knowing you and finding value in who you are, is what I wish for you most of all.


Thanks Trenton. But i'm not really depressed of anything. I'm just sharing experiences. If I tell you the darkside of things it's not to speak bleak of my life. Just to show you what I have learned from different experiences and people. People are as good as you think and as bad as you think. I am single with no kids. I'm not exactly taking what I can get. If I would have believed as you say I would have succumb to such urges because I would have accepted that's how things are. I was just showing how a lot of those playas feel and the sad reality of it for a lot of people. I am not bitter against women. But some women are not good for me.


----------



## FalconKing

always_alone said:


> What a revolting little sh*t test this is.


I should write a female version of what Trenton wrote to me, for you.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Well this thread officially has everything. Varying opinions, chest thumping, man stealing techniques, blueberry pancakes, hypocrisy, sh!t tests and patterned stockings.


----------



## Nsweet

WTF!? 

Ok, A Stop using lingo like "**** tests" when you don't understand the real meaning youself. 

And B, just because I lost respect for these women didn't mean I disrespected them in any way. I never rejected a woman after having sex with me on the first night or neglected to call them back. I just didn't persue them for relationships as much as I would if we had held off. There's something to be said about waiting and the night after I was usually regretting that I didn't get to know them better. And FYI my ex wife and I had sex on the fist night and I married her because I got to knew her as a wonderful person thereafter. 

C, once again I make my point that just because I talk about my former days playing the game doesn't mean I was a this emotionally abusive assh*le monster you make me out to be. There are other people in here who have something good to say about what they've learned and used to make their relationships with their dates and spouses better, but a few women in here seem to fixate on is how damaged they've become because a few bad guys have ruined them for others. 

It's not my fault you're damaged goods and this isn't all about you! I'm not the type of guy who goes out there messing with women's emotions in order to get sex from them and I sure as hell am not a rapist. If you had read anything I posted before this point instead of mudding up the boards with you overly personified blame-shifting you'd know that by now.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> FTS!
> 
> One, just one, relationship that supersedes all this will make you a believer that biology may be acceptable as a go to but not acceptable as a rule.
> 
> FalconKing...seriously?!
> 
> I'm feeling verbose and rather naturally high this evening as Walking Dead was SO GOOD so I'm going to tell you my weekend before telling you why you need to stop all the negative hating for how some are and start persuing how those who aren't that way are.
> 
> Husband and I went to event Sat night for charity. Didn't know what we were getting into but was good cause so we signed up and drove an hour away for it. When I say 'WE' I mean 'ME'.
> 
> Got there and realized we'd be working our butts off. He was in a suit, I was in short dress and 5 inch heels and I have a cold.
> 
> We are "runners" and we have to run over 300 gift baskets to tricky tray winners with an announcer who seems to draw out the announcement of each of the 300 baskets. OK, whatever, good cause remember?
> 
> Everyone is jeans. You might as well put a spotlight on us. I have bugers running down my face most of the time and my bare arm is an array of various bugers that I can't find a tissue for while in this 3 hour 'running' volunteer spotlight.
> 
> Remember, I don't even know these people and we are far from home. HAHA!
> 
> What does my husband do?
> 
> He runs off (I want to kill him at first) and comes back with a tissue which he provides to me. After another ten minutes of seeing me struggle he meanders over to me and says in my ear, "I'm going to run twice as much. Sit down."
> 
> I say, "No. I got us into this."
> 
> He says, "You're ridiculous, I can use the calorie burn."
> 
> I walk as politely as I can while sniffling into a seat and watch him for the rest of the time working twice as hard but knowing full well he's happy to.
> 
> When we get in the car afterwards I apologize. He tells me I'm stupid for apologizing, he loved being able to be offered a chance to help me so easily. That I looked beautiful and he enjoyed the evening.
> 
> Really? Well, if that's not cause to make me want to swoon, freak out and think I'm the luckiest human being ever on the face of the Earth!
> 
> But I'm not the luckiest human being on the face of the Earth.
> 
> I simply want to love fully, to not have to worry about games. To, in the end, have not been afraid to go after what is meaningful to me with people surrounding me who may not find meaning in what I find meaning but none the less find meaning in me.
> 
> So, PLEASE, please, PLEASE! Don't give up or feel disheartened or think for a second that a woman out there exists who will appreciate you for your intense yet somewhat different humor, your masculine, dark skinned looks and ability to feel and think intensely.
> 
> Just don't buy into some tag line that says women and men are on auto biology pilot!
> 
> Explore and express and when you least expect it, you'll find her and then all this crap will seem like meaningless tripe.
> 
> This, in knowing you and finding value in who you are, is what I wish for you most of all.


I love these kind of posts. Your hubby sounds like a really great guy.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> When I met my husband I would have f'd him that first night. I even tried my darndest to.
> 
> If he had done it and then lost respect. Whatever. He'd have been like all the others I'd been with and at that point, since I felt it ass what I deserved, I would have dismissed it and moved on to the next guy willing to have sex with a girl who had no idea how much she was worth or how meaningless sex was when only one was enjoying it.
> 
> In my mind, it makes you like all the 'other' guys who I was revolted by. In fact, as revolted by them as I was by myself at the time.
> 
> What does this tell you?


My wife did not have sex with me on our first date. 

I would not have felt less of her if she had. By the time we had a "real" date though we were quite close already. We had already bonded emotionally as friends and the in love feelings were there. I also knew that sex was not just sex for her. This was one of the things that drew me to her.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Well this thread officially has everything. Varying opinions, chest thumping, man stealing techniques, blueberry pancakes, hypocrisy, sh!t tests and patterned stockings.


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Always putting things in context. I lost my breath laughing at this. Excellent.

Realize the pancakes were made with real blueberries and real love.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> When I met my husband I would have f'd him that first night. I even tried my darndest to.
> 
> If he had done it and then lost respect. Whatever. He'd have been like all the others I'd been with and at that point, since I felt it ass what I deserved, I would have dismissed it and moved on to the next guy willing to have sex with a girl who had no idea how much she was worth or how meaningless sex was when only one was enjoying it.
> 
> In my mind, it makes you like all the 'other' guys who I was revolted by. In fact, as revolted by them as I was by myself at the time.
> 
> What does this tell you?


I don't know if I follow your logic.
When I started dating my wife , one of our very first , serious conversations was about sex.
She said no sex , not on the first dat , fifth date , three months , ever before marriage.
Any man would have laughed and walked off , but I didn't.
What does that tell you ?

IMO , people have different views about sex , and they are entitled to their views . Every woman has different comfort levels with the men that they date.
Some women are revolted if a man they're not really into , tries to get into their pants on the first date.
Should the man be revolted by her actions?
Is she a hypocrite because she slept with X on the first date , but she makes Mr. Y wait for three months?

" ...All is fair in love and war..."

A man having sex with a woman he does not respect is no more hypocritical than a woman having sex with a man she does not respect.
What is important is that both people feel the same way about sex, before body fluids are exchanged, and all sort of weird dynamics set in.

In fact, I don't think that because a man has sex with a woman he is supposed to respect her.
Neither do I think women are supposed to respect a man because they had sex.
Respect is supposed to come way before sex.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> What don't you follow?
> 
> We all walk into sexual relations from different perspectives and are entitled to our versions of how they went down
> ..


^^^^ This right there is my point.
NSweet said that if a woman puts out too easily he doesn't really respect her.
Basically you're saying that type of attitude is hypocritical.

Lets suppose , NSweet had the greatest respect for the woman who had sex with him on the first night, and two weeks after, she had sex with two other guys , then comes back to him.
Should he still hold her in high esteem , and accept her lifestyle 
Because she's willing and had sex with him?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Both are free to come to whatever conclusions they see fit and take actions based upon those conclusions.
> .


......and^^^this right there is what PUA's thrive on , and what some women hate.
This is the dark side of " game."

One partner expected more , and the other , usually the man, didn't put much meaning to it , feelings get hurt.

Risky business......

And he could be a thoughtful human.
He's just not thinking of the woman he had sex with, maybe he thought it was an one night stand, or he likes you as a " friend."

He is entitled to come to whatever conclusion he sees fit.
Maybe he's thinking of another woman.......


----------



## I got this

Effective social skills can be acquired. Some come by them naturally. Others have to learn it with outside help. That creates a market. A submarket is men looking to increase sexual activity. 

Appealing to a market that is frustrated with the opposite gender for substantial quantities of rejection can be helped by some bluster. Sifting thru the bluster will uncover nuggets of human nature that can be used to successfully engage others in enjoyable conversation 

Being charming isnt hard. Women like attention, affection and appreciation from attractive men at the appropriate distance whether it be 20 feet or less than one.

You also cant argue with the suggestion of getting fit, washing your azz, learning social graces, a few decent jokes and their delivery, wearing stylish clothes and tackling your fears. 

Saying it doesnt work because you cant see past the bluster is ****ing ignorant.


----------



## always_alone

Nsweet said:


> WTF!?
> 
> Ok, A Stop using lingo like "**** tests" when you don't understand the real meaning youself.
> 
> And B, just because I lost respect for these women didn't mean I disrespected them in any way. I never rejected a woman after having sex with me on the first night or neglected to call them back. I just didn't persue them for relationships as much as I would if we had held off. There's something to be said about waiting and the night after I was usually regretting that I didn't get to know them better. And FYI my ex wife and I had sex on the fist night and I married her because I got to knew her as a wonderful person thereafter.
> 
> C, once again I make my point that just because I talk about my former days playing the game doesn't mean I was a this emotionally abusive assh*le monster you make me out to be. There are other people in here who have something good to say about what they've learned and used to make their relationships with their dates and spouses better, but a few women in here seem to fixate on is how damaged they've become because a few bad guys have ruined them for others.
> 
> It's not my fault you're damaged goods and this isn't all about you! I'm not the type of guy who goes out there messing with women's emotions in order to get sex from them and I sure as hell am not a rapist. If you had read anything I posted before this point instead of mudding up the boards with you overly personified blame-shifting you'd know that by now.


I didn't mean to offend you, and I certainly didn't call you a rapist or a monster. But the way you wrote that one post it sure sounded like you deliberately made a play for women knowing full well that you would respect them less if they said yes. If that isn't a **** test, I don't know what it.

If I misread you, I'm sorry. But I also kind of hope that you lost as much respect for yourself as you did for those women.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

always_alone said:


> But I also kind of hope that you lost as much respect for yourself as you did for those women.


Ugh!

Yeah, he had his own opinions and boundaries and such , and he should lose self-respect for it.

Get a life.


----------



## inarut

I think the point being made is he should hold himself accountable to the same values and expectations he has or want in others. If you think of it another way, if you want and expect faithfullness you yourself should be faithful.....no? It would seem to me the person who expects something they don't practice themselves, they are the one who feels entitled.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

inarut said:


> I think the point being made is he should hold himself accountable to the same values and expectations he has or want in others. If you think of it another way, if you want and expect faithfullness you yourself should be faithful.....no?* It would seem to me the person who expects something they don't practice themselves they are the one is feel entitled.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Bingo.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

inarut said:


> I think the point being made is he should hold himself accountable to the same values and expectations he has or want in others. If you think of it another way, if you want and expect faithfullness you yourself should be faithful.....no? It would seem to me the person who expects something they don't practice themselves, they are the one who feels entitled.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't think this really coincides with what he is saying. He has specified that he would call them and even go out on consequent datesi but he wouldn't pursue them as much he would pursue a girl who didn't put out on the first date. From a biological standpoint, his opinion is highly valid. From a sales tactic, his opinion is still highly valid. 

Twisting what he said into something else is not cool.


----------



## Caribbean Man

inarut said:


> I think the point being made is he should hold himself accountable to the same values and expectations he has or want in others. If you think of it another way, if you want and expect faithfullness you yourself should be faithful.....no? It would seem to me the person who expects something they don't practice themselves, they are the one who feels entitled.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But what " standards " can he hold her accountable to when nothing ever was discussed about sexual standards in the first place?
The issue of standards cannot arise because there were no legitimate expectations. This is just a first date, and I doubt anyone ever agrees beforehand , to have sex on the first date.

If she choose not to have sex, would he be justified in feeling disappointed because he had " legitimate " expectations?

If it was discussed before, and she said, " well this is how I view sex ", and they both agreed to have sex and see where it goes from there, then the issue of standards can arise.
And who said that he was looking for any particular standard in _that _woman?

Lets suppose she got pregnant on that first date, and he asks her to get married, because he holds himself to a " certain standard". Is she now obligated to marry him because he is the father of the child?
What if she decides that she made a mistake on that first date, and he is unfit to be her husband,even though he is the father of the child. Would that be hypocritical of her , or is she just being realistic and facing the truth?
See the problem with that logic?
The centre of that type of logic cannot hold.

As far as I know, the first date is really like a job interview where first impressions count. Its a time when both parties form opinions about each other,
_Based on what occurs , during that date._

If after the sex she,decided to move on to the next in line for whatever reasons , which is HER RIGHT ,is she holding herself accountable to the same standard she expected in him?

If so, then why didn't she stay and fulfil his expectations?

There is absolutely no hypocrisy neither double standard there.
One cannot " project " a standard on someone else if it was never discussed before.

They agreed for an evening date out.
_She decided she wanted to have sex with him._
He accepted.
After the encounter he felt differently,and is entitled to his feeling.
She too may have felt differently, and is entitled to her feelings.

NO LOVE LOST.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

In response to NSweet, you have a daughter and I have two sons. I have taught them that if they can do x,y,z and still respect themselves in the morning, then they better respect her for doing the same x,y,z. If they don't, then they should look within and stop projecting their own "values" to which they themselves didn't uphold.


----------



## inarut

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> I don't think this really coincides with what he is saying. He has specified that he would call them and even go out on consequent datesi but he wouldn't pursue them as much he would pursue a girl who didn't put out on the first date. From a biological standpoint, his opinion is highly valid. From a sales tactic, his opinion is still highly valid.
> 
> Twisting what he said into something else is not cool.


I'm not twising his words. Whether he continued to date her or not he said he lost respect for her. He held her to a different standard he has for himself.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

inarut said:


> I'm not twising his words. Whether he continued to date her or not he said he lost respect for her. He held her to a different standard he has for himself.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And I'm saying that you cannot loose something that was NEVER there.
If he had respected her in the first place, he would NOT have had sex on the first date!
Respect is earned.
You cannot assume someone whom you do not know is a respectable person.
That's crazy.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> If He Had Respected Himself He Wouldn't Practice Behavior He Finds Disrespectful To Begin With.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


BINGO!
And therin lies the problem.

So the legitimate question is why would a woman who respects herself subject herself to that?


----------



## inarut

gQUOTE=Caribbean Man;1559075]But what " standards " can he hold her accountable to when nothing ever was discussed about sexual standards in the first place?
The issue of standards cannot arise because there were no legitimate expectations. This is just a first date, and I doubt anyone ever agrees beforehand , to have sex on the first date.

If she choose not to have sex, would he be justified in feeling disappointed because he had " legitimate " expectations?

If it was discussed before, and she said, " well this is how I view sex ", and they both agreed to have sex and see where it goes from there, then the issue of standards can arise.
And who said that he was looking for any particular standard in _that _woman?

Lets suppose she got pregnant on that first date, and he asks her to get married, because he holds himself to a " certain standard". Is she now obligated to marry him because he is the father of the child?
What if she decides that she made a mistake on that first date, and he is unfit to be her husband,even though he is the father of the child. Would that be hypocritical of her , or is she just being realistic and facing the truth?
See the problem with that logic?
The centre of that type of logic cannot hold.

As far as I know, the first date is really like a job interview where first impressions count. Its a time when both parties form opinions about each other,
_Based on what occurs , during that date._

If after the sex she,decided to move on to the next in line for whatever reasons , which is HER RIGHT ,is she holding herself accountable to the same standard she expected in him?

If so, then why didn't she stay and fulfil his expectations?

There is absolutely no hypocrisy neither double standard there.
One cannot " project " a standard on someone else if it was never discussed before.

They agreed for an evening date out.
_She decided she wanted to have sex with him._
He accepted.
After the encounter he felt differently,and is entitled to his feeling.
She too may have felt differently, and is entitled to her feelings.

NO LOVE LOST.[/QUOTE]

Although I agree with much of what you say it has no bearing on the point being made. I'm not arguing the legitimacy of his expectationion in the scenario you layed out. What I am saying is if you don't hold yourself to the same standards you judge others by you are a hypocrite. It doesnt matter what was agreed on or what was discussed. Let's say you value honesty in another but your not honest then it is hypocrital for you to expect it, to look down on another who isn't. Yet you feel "entitled" to it. Shadow said the other posters view was one of entitlement when in fact his is.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

inarut said:


> Although I agree with much of what you say it has no bearing on the point being made. In this case it doesnt matter what was agreed on or what was discussed. Let's say you value honesty in another but your not honest then it is hypocrital for you to expect it, to look down on another who isn't. Yet you feel "entitled" to it. Shadow said the other posters view was one of entitlement when in fact his is.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I understand what you are saying.
But what* legit expectations * can two people really can two peple really have on a first date?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> She Defines Respect Differently Or Who Knows Why?


Well if she defines respect differently, then maybe he's doing the same?
Maybe its better to just leave sex of the menu until both of them can define their legitimate expectations, and respect each other?


----------



## inarut

Caribbean Man said:


> I understand what you are saying.
> But what* legit expectations * can two people really can two peple really have on a first date?[/QUOTE
> 
> None....just don't be a hypocrite and judge others for not having qualities you don't have either.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

It should come as no surprise that we have people who hold themselves to a different standard then what they hold others to. Liars who get up in arms when they are lied to, thieves who go ballistic when something is stolen from them, cheaters who are furious when they are cheated on and men who think it's perfectly fine for them to screw around but not for a woman to do the same. 
The last part however has been "explained away" by some cosmic biological imperative and has been excused many, many times on this site. Oddly, I have yet to see any woman come here and explain her terrible behavior as being "biological". I'd be curious to hear why that is.


----------



## Caribbean Man

One of my favorite Lauryn Hill

It's been three weeks since you've been looking for your friend
The one you let hit it and never called you again
'Member when he told you he was 'bout the Benjamins
You act like you ain't hear him then gave him a little trim
To begin, how you think you really gon' pretend
Like you wasn't down then you called him again
Plus when you give it up so easy you ain't even fooling him
If you did it then, then you probably f*** again
Talking out your neck sayin' you're a Christian
A Muslim sleeping with the gin
Now that was the sin that did Jezebel in
Who you gon' tell when the repercussions spin
Showing off your ass 'cause you're thinking it's a trend
Girlfriend, let me break it down for you again
You know I only say it 'cause I'm truly genuine
Don't be a hardrock when you're really a gem
Babygirl, respect is just a minimum
****** f***ed up and you still defending them
Now Lauryn is only human
Don't think I haven't been through the same predicament
Let it sit inside your head like a million women in Philly, Penn.
It's silly when girls sell their soul because it's in.......

Girls you know you better watch out
Some guys, some guys are only about
That thing, that thing, that thing

Doo *** [ That thing ]


----------



## inarut

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> I don't think this really coincides with what he is saying. He has specified that he would call them and even go out on consequent datesi but he wouldn't pursue them as much he would pursue a girl who didn't put out on the first date. From a biological standpoint, his opinion is highly valid. From a sales tactic, his opinion is still highly valid.
> 
> Twisting what he said into something else is not cool.


Do you ever consider a moral standpoint or is everything biology and sales?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

inarut said:


> [/QUOTE
> 
> None....just don't be a hypocrite and judge others for not having qualities you don't have either.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Everybody judges somebody else , every single minute of the day, for many different reasons.
Even right now, I'm posting here, you're posting and people are judging us.
We have no control over that.
Nobody is obligated to respect anybody for any reason.
But,
We do have control over our own actions , and can choose to live a respectable lifestyle.

Women who live their lives by a man's standard will ALWAYS loose.
Because of social mores, they are judged by men themselves, 
And other women.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> .... men who think it's perfectly fine for them to screw around but not for a woman to do the same.
> The last part however has been "explained away" by some cosmic biological imperative and has been excused many, many times on this site.


I haven't seen this here.

I don't see everything though.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Caribbean Man said:


> Everybody judges somebody else , every single minute of the day, for many different reasons.
> Even right now, I'm posting here, you're posting and people are judging us.
> We have no control over that.
> Nobody is obligated to respect anybody for any reason.
> But,
> We do have control over our own actions , and can choose to live a respectable lifestyle.
> 
> Women who live their lives by a man's standard will ALWAYS loose.
> Because of social mores, they are judged by men themselves,
> And other women.


It's the same as a man cannot live by a womans standard.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

And...

I have to make myself clearer on my view about pickup and game.

I have no qualms about manipulation. Life is a neverending game, a dance. Manipulation is enmeshed within the world. We all have had some ulterior motives regarding different stuff, so don't go saying "Na-ah, not in my world." etc. 

The intent of the manipulation is the key. Into exactly what am I being manipulated into? Taking notice of my spouse? I'm cool with that. Studying when I don't really want it? Okey dokey. Lending someone a lot of money when they have no intention of paying back? I'm not down with that.

It exactly comes down to that in game and pickup. Dunno about what some of you think happens in bars, clubs etc., but a lot of people go there to hookup.(I hear you random viewer who is screaming "Not me, I go there for the music.") Knowing the dance, whether it's subconscious or conscious, is essential to having a power and say to the outcome of your night. I haven't seen one woman that got into something they didn't want, just because they were "picked up". Unlike posters likening pickup with rape, there isn't really much non-consensual stuff going on. 

PUA game is about "style". It may or may not have substance, but if you're looking for a ONS or a STR, it really doesn't differ that much. Be outcome independent. Don't get too attached or emotionally invested. Move on to the next when bored or dumped.

LTR game is about "substance". Basically you gotta have a consistent behaviour that can back your initial approach. If it's just smoke and mirrors you've got, then it's a no-go on a healthy LTR. On the other hand, keeping some sort of mystery and alive is still crucial. A mysterious man is an attractive man. Using "pickup" tactics on your spouse would very useful to spice things up, once in a while. Basically in an LTR, never let the relationship get boring for a long time. Short ruts are okay ,though.

Whether it's PUA game or Married Game the key is "being" the person that you are behaving like. Not acting, not pretending but being. The ones who succeed are the ones who don't think of their selection of game as sets of lines to spout off and faces to put on, but rather as a lifestyle.

To the people who said the "Game" people uses a fancy jargon just to look cool, I have to repeat what Machiavelli said. Most of these tactics aren't created by PUAs but rather watched and taken from "naturals" then studied and catalogued to create an easier understanding of. In this aspect, I think of "Game" as a science.


----------



## inarut

tacoma said:


> I haven't seen this here.
> 
> I don't see everything though.


Look at my quote of shadow nirvana's post on this page.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

inarut said:


> Do you ever consider a moral standpoint or is everything biology and sales?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What is the moral fallacy here exactly? That he has feelings that aren't what you expect or aren't the norm?

There is a covert contract going on here. You are expecting him to feel something more than he would want to feel just because he had sex with someone. He can feel more respect, same respect, less respect, no respect, towards anyone doing anything. Does he act upon it? No. Does he shame or insult that woman because she didn't give him what he was expecting(or not give him to be more precise)? No. Does his feelings effect the long run of her life in a considerable way? No. Therefore he is entitled to his own feelings, whatever those may be.


----------



## inarut

Caribbean Man said:


> Everybody judges somebody else , every single minute of the day, for many different reasons.
> Even right now, I'm posting here, you're posting and people are judging us.
> We have no control over that.
> Nobody is obligated to respect anybody for any reason.
> But,
> We do have control over our own actions , and can choose to live a respectable lifestyle.
> 
> Women who live their lives by a man's standard will ALWAYS loose.
> Because of social mores, they are judged by men themselves,
> And other women.


Yes but kind of an aside from the point I was trying to make.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Therealbrighteyes said:


> ...and men who think it's perfectly fine for them to screw around but not for a woman to do the same.


Actually, I don't support this view like inarut says I do. But I do believe that anybody has every right to believe anything they want. If there is no action, there is no harm.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Women who live their lives by a man's standard will ALWAYS loose.
> Because of social mores, they are judged by men themselves,
> And other women.


No, women who live their lives by the standards of men who judge them for doing exactly what they themselves do will always lose. Those men never hold themselves to the same standards they expect in others, so it will always be a losing situation for anyone around them. 

I do however hold myself to the standard of a man, my husband. He holds himself to the standards of a woman, his wife. Neither of us hold each other to a standard that we are not willing to uphold with ourselves.


----------



## inarut

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Actually, I don't support this view like inarut says I do. But I do believe that anybody has every right to believe anything they want. If there is no action, there is no harm.


That's not what I said. You said you were really disturbed by another poster who had an entitled viewpoint. What I said was your view actually was not hers. It has nothing to do with an action or non action but the attitude and hypocrisy of it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

We live in a world full of double standards.
Some double standards protect the status quo.
_They would never change._

A man had fun with women whilst in his youth. He sowed wild oats all over.
He sobers up, gets married, and 10 years later a beautiful baby girl is born.
15 years later he's considering owning a shotgun and is apprehensive about his teenage daughter's eminent departure to university.
The exact , same place he sowed his wild oats before, and had his way with many a young woman.

Double standard?
Yes.
But is he wrong to feel that way?

Any man who promises to respect a woman who throws sex at him on the first date is first fooling himself and then fooling the woman. After all that is the oldest trick in the players handbook.

Double standard?
Yes.
But is he wrong to have suspicions about her?

We live in a world full of double standards, and it cuts both ways across both genders.

_All is fair in love and war._


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> *I do however hold myself to the standard of a man, my husband. He holds himself to the standards of a woman, his wife. Neither of us hold each other to a standard that we ourselves are not willing or able to meet.*


^^.and that can ONLY happen in marriage or LTR's.
Not in one night stands nor casual " no strings attached " sex.

Because each other's expectations are discussed before ,and are considered to be LEGITIMATE.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Actually, I don't support this view like inarut says I do. But I do believe that anybody has every right to believe anything they want. If there is no action, there is no harm.


I wasn't actually referring to you but you did mention biology in your last post so now I will ask you, why do men use it as an excuse so often yet you don't hear women doing the same? We both have biological imperatives, do we not?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^.and that can ONLY happen in marriage or LTR's.
> Not in one night stands nor casual " no strings attached " sex.
> 
> Because each other's expectations are discussed before ,and are considered to be LEGITIMATE.


I disagree. Not being a hypocrite can happen at any time.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I wasn't actually referring to you but you did mention biology in your last post so now I will ask you, why do men use it as an excuse so often yet you don't hear women doing the same? We both have biological imperatives, do we not?


Both men and women have biological urges.
But men and women are not psychologically the same for a number of reasons.
They respond to these urges differently.
The system of monogamous marriages was designed and fine tuned over thousands of years to deal with these urges in a way that benefited societies and made them into great civilizations.


----------



## inarut

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> What is the moral fallacy here exactly? That he has feelings that aren't what you expect or aren't the norm?
> 
> There is a covert contract going on here. You are expecting him to feel something more than he would want to feel just because he had sex with someone. He can feel more respect, same respect, less respect, no respect, towards anyone doing anything. Does he act upon it? No. Does he shame or insult that woman because she didn't give him what he was expecting(or not give him to be more precise)? No. Does his feelings effect the long run of her life in a considerable way? No. Therefore he is entitled to his own feelings, whatever those may be.


That's not what I am saying. You are missing the point entirely. It has nothing to do with anything you just wrote. The point is he hypocritically holds her to standards he doesn't hold himself to then judges her for it. You justified his position as biologically and sales tactic worthy and valid. She is immoral for having sex on a first date but he is not? Biology and sales tactic excuse him? 

Not that I'm saying its immoral to have sex on a first date...I'm not.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

To me, if you understand that the world is full of sexual people, and you are one of them, then you will also understand that other people don't have to be "convinced" to have sex with you. You will understand that sex happens between consenting adults. There's no need for game if you understand this. Finding the consenting adults of the opposite sex who WANT to have sex with you, and not trying to pursue the ones who don't, is all it takes.


----------



## MissMe

Caribbean Man said:


> Both men and women have biological urges.
> But men and women are not psychologically the same for a number of reasons.
> They respond to these urges differently.
> *The system of monogamous marriages was designed and fine tuned over thousands of years to deal with these urges in a way that benefited societies and made them into great civilizations.*


Do you really believe that?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I disagree. Not being a hypocrite can happen at any time.


:iagree:,
And Hypocrisy abounds EVERYWHERE.
But without a commitment can any expectation be really considered as legitimate?
If I post a response to your post and expect you to respond.
You choose not to, because of your personal interests,
Does that make you a hypocrite?


----------



## MissMe

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I disagree. Not being a hypocrite can happen at any time.


*I don't even know the context of this statement, but I love it!* :smthumbup:


----------



## MissMe

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:,
> And Hypocrisy abounds EVERYWHERE.
> But without a commitment can any expectation be really considered as legitimate?


*I expect every commitment I make to be legitimate. *


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Faithful Wife said:


> To me, if you understand that the world is full of sexual people, and you are one of them, then you will also understand that other people don't have to be "convinced" to have sex with you. You will understand that sex happens between consenting adults. There's no need for game if you understand this. Finding the consenting adults of the opposite sex who WANT to have sex with you, and not trying to pursue the ones who don't, is all it takes.


May I ask though how would a person know if another wants to have sex with them? Most people don't wear a sign, it takes some "moves" if you will by both sides to figure it out.


----------



## Caribbean Man

MissMe said:


> Do you really believe that?


That's why I posted it Miss!
I was just as surprised as you when I discovered it during my research.


----------



## Caribbean Man

MissMe said:


> *I expect every commitment I make to be legitimate. *


Well then we're on the same page.
People who have sex without any commitment cannot expect anything out of it, far less respect.


----------



## Davelli0331

Haven't read the whole thread. Apologies if I'm repeating anything.

While I do agree that some parts of "game" can be useful, I have a myriad of problems with the whole notion of "game".

1) It has taken under its umbrella behaviors that were once considered good traits for a man (or anyone) to have.

For example, if I take my wife out to dinner, smile, make her laugh, gently tease her, engage in witty banter, touch her in suggestive ways, then we go home and hop in the sack, that used to be called _charming_. Now it's called "gaming your wife".

Another example: I'm terribly shy but love to meet and talk to new people. It's taken me years to become good at casual conversation. When I do engage in casual conversation, it's a very conscious effort on my part to think of meaningful questions to ask and to establish common ground. That used to be called _being a good conversationalist_, but now that's considered "gaming someone", especially if that someone is a woman.

Listening to your wife, being confident, letting her know when she's crossed a boundary and enforcing your boundaries when need be, those things aren't "game", those are just good relationship skills. Calling them "game" makes it sound juvenile.

2) "Game" is a hodge-podge of ideas and frameworks, some of which are useful, some of which reek of social pseudo-science, but all of which are treated like gospel when in real life they are hit or miss.

3) "Game" forces a man to focus on the woman instead of himself. "Game" is successful if the man gets the woman, whether that means sex or a LTR. "Game", therefore, makes the woman the objective, when the objective should be being the best man one can be and letting a woman be drawn to you naturally.

4) "Game" shows a man how to pass himself off as the type of man that "game theory" implies a woman wants, but it doesn't show a man how to actually be that man.

If a woman is attracted to me, I want it to be because of the integrity, values, intellect, charm, and charisma that I've (hopefully) cultivated over my life, not because I came in the door peac0cking, negged her, then AMOGed the jock sitting next to her while displaying social proof and high-valued sex rank.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"May I ask though how would a person know if another wants to have sex with them? Most people don't wear a sign, it takes some "moves" if you will by both sides to figure it out."

If you are a very sexual person, you can pick up these vibes from simple communication. Mutual sexual attraction is pretty evident when it happens (I think most people would agree with that?)

I'm not saying these two mutually attracted people would then just do a throw down right there...but sometimes (if they were both looking for casual sex at that moment they might).

But what I'm getting at is, the "game" parts of paying attention to a certain girl, noticing things about her, complimenting her, etc...the things that are designed to "break her down" and make her high on dopamine (or whatever)...why bother doing this if the girl isn't OBVIOUSLY into you from the get go? Why try to "break her down"? Why not instead, go for the girl who is clearly signaling to you?

If you think there aren't girls clearly signaling to you, it is likely because you are overlooking them and looking at hotter girls, or you are not really experienced at understanding the idea that women WANT SEX and do not need to be duped into having it. 

I could expand this further, but for this example, I'm just talking about casual sex.

It applies further into people looking for relationships, too.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I wasn't actually referring to you but you did mention biology in your last post so now I will ask you, why do men use it as an excuse so often yet you don't hear women doing the same? We both have biological imperatives, do we not?


Actually women are hypergamous and this is a widely studied and talked upon issue both in MMSL and Game areas. A woman wants the best mate she can get. This is her biological imperative and it explains much of the cad/dad, alpha/beta dichotomies, attraction, cheating etc.

I never think biology is an excuse. But it is a very important factor. Basic moralities generally crumble before the cold hard truth of biology.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

inarut said:


> She is immoral for having sex on a first date but he is not? Biology and sales tactic excuse him?


There was no insinuation of immorality in his post.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> "May I ask though how would a person know if another wants to have sex with them? Most people don't wear a sign, it takes some "moves" if you will by both sides to figure it out."
> 
> If you are a very sexual person, you can pick up these vibes from simple communication. Mutual sexual attraction is pretty evident when it happens (I think most people would agree with that?)
> 
> I'm not saying these two mutually attracted people would then just do a throw down right there...but sometimes (if they were both looking for casual sex at that moment they might).
> 
> But what I'm getting at is, the "game" parts of paying attention to a certain girl, noticing things about her, complimenting her, etc...the things that are designed to "break her down" and make her high on dopamine (or whatever)...why bother doing this if the girl isn't OBVIOUSLY into you from the get go? Why try to "break her down"? Why not instead, go for the girl who is clearly signaling to you?
> 
> If you think there aren't girls clearly signaling to you, it is likely because you are overlooking them and looking at hotter girls, or you are not really experienced at understanding the idea that women WANT SEX and do not need to be duped into having it.
> 
> I could expand this further, but for this example, I'm just talking about casual sex.
> 
> It applies further into people looking for relationships, too.


Its NEVER as simple as that.
The dating game is the precursor to marriage and having a family.
The selection process is usually a very rigorous one, because future offspring are at stake.
People don't usually wear their hearts out on their sleeve, and people don't show who they really are.
People don't show who they are because most people don't know themselves.
Self actualization is a lifetime journey.
Dating is a way of discovering oneself.


----------



## Davelli0331

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Actually women are hypergamous and this is a widely studied and talked upon issue both in MMSL and Game areas. A woman wants the best mate she can get. This is her biological imperative and it explains much of the cad/dad, alpha/beta dichotomies, attraction, cheating etc.
> 
> I never think biology is an excuse. But it is a very important factor. Basic moralities generally crumble before the cold hard truth of biology.


All patently false.

If basic moralities crumbled before biology, then I could go tune up my boss and take his place as the alpha. My wife would leave me the very instant that a more valuable mate became available, and I would be spreading my seed to all possible viable recipients. And it would all be ok, because like you said, basic morality crumbles before biological forces and everyone would know that.

The problem with MMSL, game theory, and the "biological imperative" is that they are small, tenuous grains of truth dressed out in scads of pseudoscience dripping with a juvenile understanding of relationship dynamics.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Its NEVER as simple as that."

I know many people for whom it is as simple as that.


----------



## inarut

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> There was no insinuation of immorality in his post.


Then where does the loss of respect come from?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

inarut said:


> She is immoral for having sex on a first date but he is not? Biology and sales tactic excuse him?
> 
> Not that I'm saying its immoral to have sex on a first date...I'm not.


The issue is not about immorality.
If it were, then all that has to be done is change the value system and presto!
Its fixed.
People date in order to find a proper life mate.
He's thinking: If she had sex with me so easily on the first date, then maybe ,she's having sex with them too.
He has no evidence either way, so he uses his instinct.
Automatically, in his mind, she's no longer a viable choice for him to marry and have his offspring with, because he wants to know that his kids are indeed, his.
In order for him to know that she must be faithful.
In order to judge whether she's faithful, he makes an assessment on her attitude towards sex.
Because they never spoke about it, he can only judge her on her actions.


The woman also has her very ,own criteria she judges him by.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> If I post a response to your post and expect you to respond.
> You choose not to, because of your personal interests,
> Does that make you a hypocrite?


No. That is a preference to stay out of something. If however I post a comment, you post one as well and then I call you an idiot for posting THEN I am a hypocrite and also an idiot. 

Hypocrisy: "To be duplicitous, to engage in double-dealing. The expression comes from Plautus; it continues “to bear a stone in one hand, a piece of bread in the other.” Thus, the expression indicates that a person is prepared to act in totally contradictory ways to achieve his purposes."


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Davelli0331 said:


> All patently false.
> 
> If basic moralities crumbled before biology, then I could go tune up my boss and take his place as the alpha.
> 
> *Keep dreaming if this is what you understand from morality.*
> 
> My wife would leave me the very instant that a more valuable mate became available, and I would be spreading my seed to all possible viable recipients. And it would all be ok, because like you said, basic morality crumbles before biological forces and everyone would know that.
> 
> The problem with MMSL, game theory, and the "biological imperative" is that they are small, tenuous grains of truth dressed out in scads of pseudoscience dripping with a juvenile understanding of relationship dynamics.


Our neocortex is the only thing stopping us from going animalistic and doing the stuff you mentioned. 

Look, you can disregard those stuff all you want, I choose to understand it and act accordingly.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> "Its NEVER as simple as that."
> 
> I know many people for whom it is as simple as that.


If it were,
The world would be a much happier place,
And there would be no need for TAM.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM...I didn't say MARRIAGE itself was as simple as that. I said finding others who are sexually attracted to YOU (whoever you are) is as simple as that.


----------



## tacoma

Faithful Wife said:


> CM...I didn't say MARRIAGE itself was as simple as that. I said finding others who are sexually attracted to YOU (whoever you are) is as simple as that.


Says a woman....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## inarut

Caribbean Man said:


> The issue is not about immorality.
> If it were, then all that has to be done is change the value system and presto!
> Its fixed.
> People date in order to find a proper life mate.
> He's thinking: If she had sex with me so easily on the first date, then maybe ,she's having sex with them too.
> He has no evidence either way, so he uses his instinct.
> Automatically, in his mind, she's no longer a viable choice for him to marry and have his offspring with, because he wants to know that his kids are indeed, his.
> In order for him to know that she must be faithful.
> In order to judge whether she's faithful, he makes an assessment on her attitude towards sex.
> Because they never spoke about it, he can only judge her on her actions.
> 
> 
> The woman also has her very ,own criteria she judges him by.


I'm not disagreeing.

He said there was no moral insinuation in the post. I am saying there was and that it is one sided. And yes, I am questioning the ethics attached to "sales tactics" he mentioned.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> No. That is a preference to stay out of something. If however I post a comment, you post one as well and then I call you an idiot for posting THEN I am a hypocrite and also an idiot.
> 
> Hypocrisy: "To be duplicitous, to engage in double-dealing. The expression comes from Plautus; it continues “to bear a stone in one hand, a piece of bread in the other.” Thus, the expression indicates that a person is prepared to act in totally contradictory ways to achieve his purposes."


And I'm saying we all act in contradictory ways to achieve our purposes.
Every one of us.

So if I choose not to respond to your post because I think I would look like an idiot, but still hold the same belief, in a small way,that makes me a hypocrite.
The rules of the game is one should concede when he is unable to defend his position.
But that act of " hypocrisy " does not define me. It does not make me a hypocrite.
I am not " obligated " to respond.

Balance is needed in everything, hence the loaf & the stone.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

inarut said:


> Then where does the loss of respect come from?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's what I was talking about with biology and sales tactics. It's the first date, so it can be assumed that he has close to none emotional investment, thus there is no reason for his neocortex to see her as a viable LTR mate. He has "spread his seed", although with today's contraceptive usage, it's just a term, so no biological excuse to stay with her. Also he has gotten what he has desired, there was no stringing-along or anticipation building, so not very successful when seen from a sales view.

Is it valid? Yes. Is it okay? Depends.


----------



## Wiserforit

Davelli0331 said:


> Haven't read the whole thread. Apologies if I'm repeating anything.
> 
> While I do agree that some parts of "game" can be useful, I have a myriad of problems with the whole notion of "game".
> 
> 1) It has taken under its umbrella behaviors that were once considered good traits for a man (or anyone) to have.
> 
> For example, if I take my wife out to dinner, smile, make her laugh, gently tease her, engage in witty banter, touch her in suggestive ways, then we go home and hop in the sack, that used to be called _charming_. Now it's called "gaming your wife".
> 
> Another example: I'm terribly shy but love to meet and talk to new people. It's taken me years to become good at casual conversation. When I do engage in casual conversation, it's a very conscious effort on my part to think of meaningful questions to ask and to establish common ground. That used to be called _being a good conversationalist_, but now that's considered "gaming someone", especially if that someone is a woman.
> 
> Listening to your wife, being confident, letting her know when she's crossed a boundary and enforcing your boundaries when need be, those things aren't "game", those are just good relationship skills. Calling them "game" makes it sound juvenile.
> 
> 2) "Game" is a hodge-podge of ideas and frameworks, some of which are useful, some of which reek of social pseudo-science, but all of which are treated like gospel when in real life they are hit or miss.
> 
> 3) "Game" forces a man to focus on the woman instead of himself. "Game" is successful if the man gets the woman, whether that means sex or a LTR. "Game", therefore, makes the woman the objective, when the objective should be being the best man one can be and letting a woman be drawn to you naturally.
> 
> 4) "Game" shows a man how to pass himself off as the type of man that "game theory" implies a woman wants, but it doesn't show a man how to actually be that man.
> 
> If a woman is attracted to me, I want it to be because of the integrity, values, intellect, charm, and charisma that I've (hopefully) cultivated over my life, not because I came in the door peac0cking, negged her, then AMOGed the jock sitting next to her while displaying social proof and high-valued sex rank.


You've got it. 

Look how "being a good conversationalist" doesn't frame things by putting the woman down as a lowly object of the master manipulator. 

But calling it "game" pretends just that: she is now the lowly "target", the object of the master manipulator, a mere thing that responds to his power and secret knowledge. 

That view is what's so repulsive about it - the incessant need to frame things in a master/slave relationship - but at the same time deny that's what you are doing. Oh no, we're all about self improvement.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Actually women are hypergamous and this is a widely studied and talked upon issue both in MMSL and Game areas. A woman wants the best mate she can get. This is her biological imperative and it explains much of the cad/dad, alpha/beta dichotomies, attraction, cheating etc.
> 
> I never think biology is an excuse. But it is a very important factor. Basic moralities generally crumble before the cold hard truth of biology.


I would hesitate to put "studied" and MMSL in the same sentence. While many parts of that book resonated with me, it is his opinion and little more. 

Hypergamy? Who doesn't want the best mate possible? This is also why you see men throwing away their wives for somebody younger, because she is perceived as "better". I have no idea why hypergamy is only assigned to women. It just goes to show you how biology can be skewed to ones objective.


----------



## inarut

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Our neocortex is the only thing stopping us from going animalistic and doing the stuff you mentioned.
> 
> Look, you can disregard those stuff all you want, I choose to understand it and act accordingly.


But we do have a neocortex now don't we. This fact seems basically dismissed. We are not animals who act soley on instincts and biological drives.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Therealbrighteyes said:


> All of us are hypergamous. Who doesn't want the best mate possible? This is also why you see men throwing away their wives for somebody younger, because she is perceived as "better". I have no idea why hypergamy is only assigned to women. It just goes to show you how biology can be skewed to ones objective.


Well, because the higher drive caused from testosterone causes a male to be more polygamic than a woman.(I realize I'm just asking for trouble and I'm going to be framed as saying "men are polygamous shouldn't be faulted for cheating bla bla bla.") Men sleep around to get the most mate count and spread his genes, women sleep around to get the best mate and genes. Obviously not the only factor, but a very important one nonetheless. 

Also a poster cited an interesting study in a thread here about men's pickiness going down when aroused and women's pickiness going up. Obviously not with those words, but it was very eye opening.


----------



## inarut

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> That's what I was talking about with biology and sales tactics. It's the first date, so it can be assumed that he has close to none emotional investment, thus there is no reason for his neocortex to see her as a viable LTR mate. He has "spread his seed", although with today's contraceptive usage, it's just a term, so no biological excuse to stay with her. Also he has gotten what he has desired, there was no stringing-along or anticipation building, so not very successful when seen from a sales view.
> 
> Is it valid? Yes. Is it okay? Depends.


I totally get what you are saying but (and I know you will disagree) we as a species have largely moved beyond this. Its still there and has some influence but to a significantly lesser degree. Its not his neocortex that says she isn't viable anymore, its his sense of ethics.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

inarut said:


> But we do have a neocortex now don't we. This fact seems basically dismissed. We are not animals who act soley on instincts and biological drives.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And I don't disagree. But the same neocortex is the brain part which causes justifications and rationalizations about situations: for example infidelity. Give the hamster enough momentum and it will run the exact opposite way.


----------



## Wiserforit

Davelli0331 said:


> All patently false.
> 
> If basic moralities crumbled before biology, then I could go tune up my boss and take his place as the alpha. My wife would leave me the very instant that a more valuable mate became available, and I would be spreading my seed to all possible viable recipients. And it would all be ok, because like you said, basic morality crumbles before biological forces and everyone would know that.
> 
> The problem with MMSL, game theory, and the "biological imperative" is that they are small, tenuous grains of truth dressed out in scads of pseudoscience dripping with a juvenile understanding of relationship dynamics.


Welcome to the thread. 

I had game theory in my PhD training along with a lot of other higher mathematics. I mean a whole course in it, along with topology, complex variables, calculus through differential equations, etc. You see exactly the same pseudoscience and juvenile characterization about what game theory actually is in this pick-up-artist arena.

If you have actually taken Game Theory as a subject then in the proper definition of the subject found in higher mathematics then yes all human interaction falls under the principles of Game Theory.

But not this extremely narrow, and yes juvenile framing with the man as the principle and the woman as agent. That framing captures a small proportion of human interaction and is more suited to examining situations such as employer-employee or parent-child relationships. Except there are a lot of other problems with it like not understanding the repeated game contex and the various strategies players can employ.


----------



## Caribbean Man

inarut said:


> *We are not animals who act soley on instincts and biological drives.*


Well based on some of these conversations on TAM, and what humans are evolving to.,
I sometimes wonder.....


----------



## Davelli0331

Wiserforit said:


> Welcome to the thread.
> 
> I had game theory in my PhD training along with a lot of other higher mathematics. I mean a whole course in it, along with topology, complex variables, calculus through differential equations, etc. You see exactly the same pseudoscience and juvenile characterization about what game theory actually is in this pick-up-artist arena.
> 
> If you have actually taken Game Theory as a subject then in the proper definition of the subject found in higher mathematics then yes all human interaction falls under the principles of Game Theory.
> 
> But not this extremely narrow, and yes juvenile framing with the man as the principle and the woman as agent. That framing captures a small proportion of human interaction and is more suited to examining situations such as employer-employee or parent-child relationships. Except there are a lot of other problems with it like not understanding the repeated game contex and the various strategies players can employ.


Forgive my poor choice in verbiage: When I said "game theory", I meant game in the context of this thread, specifically "PUA theory." 

I did not mean the theory involving mathematical models and decision-making. Poor choice of words on my part.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

inarut said:


> we as a species have largely moved beyond this.


Have we really?

I believe we are just one step more evolved than animals in that we have learned to rationalize our actions, according to our needs, our upbringing, our experiences and social stigma.


----------



## inarut

Caribbean Man said:


> Well based on some of these conversations on TAM, and what humans are evolving to.,
> I sometimes wonder.....


Some people just suck. You will never hear anyone say .....damn there must have been a blip in that neocortex!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> So if I choose not to respond to your post because I think I would look like an idiot, but still hold the same belief, in a small way,that makes me a hypocrite.
> 
> 
> Balance is needed in everything, hence the loaf & the stone.


If you chose not to respond to something, that doesn't make you a hypocrite. If you however respond to something and then call out somebody else for doing the exact same thing, you are a hypocrite. 

Balance is needed but hypocrisy shouldn't be tolerated in any way.


----------



## Wiserforit

Davelli0331 said:


> Forgive my poor choice in verbiage: When I said "game theory", I meant game in the context of this thread, specifically "PUA theory."
> 
> I did not mean the theory involving mathematical models and decision-making. Poor choice of words on my part.


Oh no, forgive me instead.

I am totally in support of your position, and did not mean to criticize you for this. 

It is one of the annoying things about PUA proponents though: that is the hubris of pretending they actually understand Game Theory. 

They do not understand Game Theory at all.


----------



## Wiserforit

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> And...
> 
> I have to make myself clearer on my view about pickup and game.
> 
> I have no qualms about manipulation.


Now and then a proponent is honest, so thumbs-up to you here for this. 

Let's look at the definition of manipulation:




> Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the perception or behavior of others through *underhanded, deceptive, or even abusive tactic*


Psychological manipulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A manipulative tactic is to re-define manipulation as "influence", and claim all we are doing is influencing people.

That tactic is underhanded, deceptive, and yes abusive for being disengenuous in debate. 

If a person is talking about _influence_, then he does not champion literature on _manipulation_.


----------



## inarut

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Have we really?
> 
> I believe we are just one step more evolved than animals in nJthat we have learned to rationalize our actions, according to our needs, our upbringing, our experiences and social stigma.


Yes. The cognitive abilities humans have....that's no small feat.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Wiserforit said:


> Now and then a proponent is honest, so thumbs-up to you here for this.
> 
> Let's look at the definition of manipulation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psychological manipulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> A manipulative tactic is to re-define manipulation as "influence", and claim all we are doing is influencing people.
> 
> That tactic is underhanded, deceptive, and yes abusive for being disengenuous in debate.
> 
> If a person is talking about _influence_, then he does not champion literature on _manipulation_.


Actually, I don't even believe there is a difference. It's the viewpoint that matters. 

I change aspects of myself, people change according to it I have influenced them to change. Or in the modern new-age term, I have "manipulated" them to change.

Edit: Ah, you are the guy from a couple pages back  Believe whatever you will.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Men sleep around to get the most mate count and spread his genes, women sleep around to get the best mate and genes. Obviously not the only factor, but a very important one nonetheless.


I never understood this and perhaps you can help me to. A woman has more to gain by sleeping around than a man does, biologically wise. Best genetics from various different men. Wouldn't it behoove a woman to sleep around more than a man? She gets to raise the most superior genetic offspring, while a man who sleeps around doesn't. I fail to see why a guy sleeping around is his "biological imperative". If anything, I would think it to be the opposite. Sleeping around with multiple women means he isn't going to be there to raise his offspring, offspring that if the wild tells us anything will try and kill him someday. So why again is it considered okay and "biological" for a man to have multiple partners and not so for a woman if we rely on biology alone? It should be the opposite. I have my theories but am curious to hear yours and others.


----------



## tacoma

Wiserforit said:


> Now and then a proponent is honest, so thumbs-up to you here for this.
> 
> Let's look at the definition of manipulation:


I would if you'd post it.

You didn't post the definition of manipulation at all.

Here ya go..


Manipulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Figure it out.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I never understood this and perhaps you can help me to. A woman has more to gain by sleeping around than a man does, biologically wise. Best genetics from various different men. Wouldn't it behoove a woman to sleep around more than a man? She gets to raise the most superior genetic offspring, while a man who sleeps around doesn't. I fail to see why a guy sleeping around is his "biological imperative". If anything, I would think it to be the opposite. Sleeping around with multiple women means he isn't going to be there to raise his offspring, offspring that if the wild tells us anything will try and kill him someday. So why again is it considered okay and "biological" for a man to have multiple partners and not so for a woman when if we rely on biology alone, it should be the opposite.


A womans biological investment no matter how many men she sleeps with is in one single child.
She must find and isolate one desirable male in order to do this.
(quality)
In fact sleeping around dilutes her chances.

A mans biological investment is semen and he's more likely to have offspring if he spreads as much of it around as he can.
(quantity)
Sleeping around increases his chances.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

tacoma said:


> I would if you'd post it.
> 
> You didn't post the definition of manipulation at all.
> 
> Here ya go..
> 
> 
> Manipulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Figure it out.


He uses manipulative tactics by taking out just parts of my text


----------



## Faithful Wife

I don't want to start a whole thread about this but I will if anyone thinks this is thread jacking...

For the men here, do you or don't you think that women want sex?

Just sex itself.

Not saying anything about the type of sex, whether within a relationship or not....just sex itself. Do you men think that women want sex?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> A womans biological investment no matter how many men she sleeps with is in one single child.
> She must find and isolate one desirable male in order to do this.
> (quality)
> In fact sleeping around dilutes her chances.
> 
> A mans biological investment is semen and he's more likely to have offspring if he spreads as much of it around as he can.
> (quantity)
> Sleeping around increases his chances.


A womans biological investment is in children, not always one, as multiples exist....I am one of them.  That said, it would seem like humping as many men possible in a very short period of ovulating time would increase her chances of getting the best genetic offspring, would it not? If not, then why is the penis shaped the way it is in humans? Biologists, Anthropologists and other "ists" have studied this for years and came to the conclusion that the human penis is shaped that way to remove other semen from the woman in order to help their own chances of impregnating a woman. Would that alone not suggest that women have a greater biological imperative to screw as many men possible when even the human penis recongnizes this?  How does this dilute her chances, if anything it increases them as only the strongest of sperm will impregnate her.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I never understood this and perhaps you can help me to. A woman has more to gain by sleeping around than a man does, biologically wise. Best genetics from various different men. Wouldn't it behoove a woman to sleep around more than a man?


Well, it would if she could produce more than one egg at a time or become pregnant with more than one partner.

I agree with what tacoma said. But on the other hand, if she cannot make the desirable mate stay with her, she will choose a safer, less-desirable mate. So the dad/cad dichotomy ensues. Cuckold him and get the best genes but take a risk at destroying the safe environment or just sigh and settle with subpar genes.

We may think that this is all hypothethical and fcked up but the deal is studies show that differing with place there is %5-30 raising other male's kids (without knowing) going on.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Faithful Wife said:


> For the men here, do you or don't you think that women want sex?


Yes. That is exactly why I don't see PUA tactics as evil as some people do. Basically you are giving something to someone who already wants it. Gee, what a terrible offer.

Edit: If this question is asked to rule out "biological imperative", then the same goes for men, too. Both genders want sex, that's what sexual drive is for. But what sexual drive is for is another topic.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Therealbrighteyes said:


> A womans biological investment is in a child, not always one as multiples exist....I am one of them.  That said, it would (to me) seem like humping as many men possible in a short period of ovulating time would increase her chances of getting the best genetic offspring, would it not?


There is a much more chance of a woman starting an extramarital affair in that period, so I guess, yes. But still, it's not as sleeping around as looking for a desirable mate.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Okay, I just read the thread's title again. How the f did we get here?


----------



## Faithful Wife

SN said: "Yes. That is exactly why I don't see PUA tactics as evil as some people do. Basically you are giving something to someone who already wants it. Gee, what a terrible offer."

Then why not just "let nature takes its course"? Why try to "coerce" women into wanting to have sex with you? Versus just finding the ones who are already into you?

If *NO FEMALE ANYWHERE* is sexually into you, then you are doing something really wrong, like not keeping up hygiene.

But I don't know any man for whom no woman anywhere is into.

So what is up with the "game"?

(I'm asking, but I do already understand it....I'm just confused on why men would feel the need to pursue women who are not already indicating interest? Why pursue the ones who are NOT indicating interest, and do a bunch of smoke and mirrors until she is indicating interest? Meanwhile, a perfectly good woman is somewhere else, already indicating interest in you).


----------



## ravioli

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't want to start a whole thread about this but I will if anyone thinks this is thread jacking...
> 
> For the men here, do you or don't you think that women want sex?
> 
> Just sex itself.
> 
> Not saying anything about the type of sex, whether within a relationship or not....just sex itself. Do you men think that women want sex?


Most women can't handle just sex itself. Yes women want sex, but they need the emotional attachment and the other things that come with it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Yes women want sex, but they need the emotional attachment and the other things that come with it."

Yes, no argument.

But it doesn't change my point.

Why go after the one you need to "game" when there is another one already into you?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Well, it would if she could produce more than one egg at a time or become pregnant with more than one partner.
> 
> I agree with what tacoma said. But on the other hand, if she cannot make the desirable mate stay with her, she will choose a safer, less-desirable mate. So the dad/cad dichotomy ensues. Cuckold him and get the best genes but take a risk at destroying the safe environment or just sigh and settle with subpar genes.
> 
> We may think that this is all hypothethical and fcked up but the deal is studies show that differing with place there is %5-30 raising other male's kids (without knowing) going on.


No she can't become pregnant with more than one partner but doesn't semen stay in the human body for something like 18 hours? I could be wrong but the fact that it can "live" suggests that women have an imperative to have sex with as many men possible during ovulation to ensure the most superior sperm gets to the egg. 

Why should a woman settle for sub-par genes? As you said, she only has one egg at a time so impregnating that egg by the best would be her imperative, no matter how many men it took. 

Of course you know I am posting this tongue and cheek. My point is, biology can explain plenty of things but to use it to excuse crappy behavior is just that.........an excuse. Again, never heard a woman here use it though, despite having the most invested in it.


----------



## ravioli

Faithful Wife said:


> "Yes women want sex, but they need the emotional attachment and the other things that come with it."
> 
> Yes, no argument.
> 
> But it doesn't change my point.
> 
> Why go after the one you need to "game" when there is another one already into you?


Some women you don't "need" to game, they are already salivating at one's presence. It's the thrill of the chase, or achieving a conquest. It's like climbing mount everest. Men like to hunt.

Sometimes you don't want the chick that's already in your face. A male wants to showcase his game by getting the chick that hundreds of men tried to get and only he can get. The chick that is showing interest in you is probably some average chick you can knock off with no effort.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't want to start a whole thread about this but I will if anyone thinks this is thread jacking...
> 
> For the men here, do you or don't you think that women want sex?
> 
> Just sex itself.
> 
> Not saying anything about the type of sex, whether within a relationship or not....just sex itself. Do you men think that women want sex?


With a man or a battery operated device? Women want sex with the highest quality male they can get. Not so much with dweebs.


----------



## Machiavelli

ravioli said:


> Sometimes you don't want the chick that's already in your face. A male wants to showcase his game by getting the chick that hundreds of men tried to get and only he can get. The chick that is showing interest in you is probably some average chick you can knock off with no effort.


Good point. I got chased by 4-8s, never 9-10.


----------



## Wiserforit

Therealbrighteyes said:


> While much of it is how to manipulate others, what many of the men here pointed out is that for them, it was a tool to understand what they are doing wrong in their marriage. If it helped them, isn't that a good thing?


That has been asked and answered numerous times. There is plenty of literature that has none of the manipulative, misogynistic material in it. 

You can read fitness books, go to toastmasters, etc. just as you can read books on Public Administration instead of Hitler's Mein Kampf. 

In reading Mein Kampf, I agree with Hitler that direct democracy is an inefficient form of government. That is something our founding fathers agreed with too. But I not only fail to recommend Mein Kampf despite agreeing with that observation of Hitler - I strongly condemn it. I recommend the Federalist Papers over Mein Kampf.

I don't say that you should take what is useful from Mein Kampf and discard the rest. I reject it, and also reject the idea that the people reading it are really interested in Public Administration instead of Antisemetic Fascism. 

Do you see that strong rejection of the mosogynistic, manipulative material so impregnated in the PUA literature? No, you don't. That is quite telling.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Faithful Wife said:


> SN said: "Yes. That is exactly why I don't see PUA tactics as evil as some people do. Basically you are giving something to someone who already wants it. Gee, what a terrible offer."
> 
> Then why not just "let nature takes its course"? Why try to "coerce" women into wanting to have sex with you? Versus just finding the ones who are already into you?
> 
> If *NO FEMALE ANYWHERE* is sexually into you, then you are doing something really wrong, like not keeping up hygiene.
> 
> But I don't know any man for whom no woman anywhere is into.
> 
> So what is up with the "game"?
> 
> (I'm asking, but I do already understand it....I'm just confused on why men would feel the need to pursue women who are not already indicating interest? Why pursue the ones who are NOT indicating interest, and do a bunch of smoke and mirrors until she is indicating interest? Meanwhile, a perfectly good woman is somewhere else, already indicating interest in you).


Well, one of the basics is that female sexuality is "responsive" rather than "initiative" in general. 

When you go into a bar or club, if your "target" is already interested in you, then great. But more often than not, she's not going to be going "Oooh look at that studly guy, let me jump at his bones" at once. So you have to do some work to seduce. Open,set,close. Instigate, escalate, isolate.

The ones we are attracted to cannot be always into us at the same moment we are into them. This way, I'm giving them the opportunity to be into me. If not, sucks, moving on.

This stuff is as old as human civilization. Then, they had to do it subconsciously and they were called charming. Now some have to learn and do these stuff consciously and it's being called manipulative.

Same thing, different viewpoints.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Right so several of you are admitting that there are already women around who are into you, but you don't want them because they "not hot enough".

Instead, you would rather "game" the ones who are out of your league and see if you can bag them.

Which I already knew, but wanted to say it here on this thread.

So Game is when you want to bag a chick who isn't already into you and who is hotter than you.

Meanwhile, you will turn your nose up at the girls who are in your league and who are already into you, and want sex. But by displaying that they want sex, you deem them undateable.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> SN said: "Yes. That is exactly why I don't see PUA tactics as evil as some people do. Basically you are giving something to someone who already wants it. Gee, what a terrible offer."
> 
> Then why not just "let nature takes its course"? Why try to "coerce" women into wanting to have sex with you? Versus just finding the ones who are already into you?
> 
> If *NO FEMALE ANYWHERE* is sexually into you, then you are doing something really wrong, like not keeping up hygiene.
> 
> But I don't know any man for whom no woman anywhere is into.
> 
> So what is up with the "game"?
> 
> (I'm asking, but I do already understand it....I'm just confused on why men would feel the need to pursue women who are not already indicating interest? Why pursue the ones who are NOT indicating interest, and do a bunch of smoke and mirrors until she is indicating interest? Meanwhile, a perfectly good woman is somewhere else, already indicating interest in you).


How many things can a human truly do well without learning?

I had to learn to do my job. 

I had to learn to compete in sports.

I had to learn to interact with others.

Why not do the same for something so important as this.

Why is it ok for women to do the same things? Why do women look for relationship advice and it is not called manipulation?

We critisize men for not asking for directions and when they do they are ridiculed. Whatup with that?

We ALL have to learn in life. I guess some of us put too much siginificance in being a good husband. That must be it.

I suppose if men spent more time bedding more women they would learn this stuff. Traditionally indeed women have desired men with more experience with women.

This is NOT coersion. These are skills.

I guess you are all back on the single PUA stuff. Sorry, I keep thinking marriage here for some reason.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy, did you see that in my examples, I was not talking about married people?

Not sure why you are trying to mix up the points. They are not the same.


----------



## Davelli0331

Entropy3000 said:


> How many things can a human truly do well without learning?
> 
> I had to learn to do my job.
> 
> I had to learn to compete in sports.
> 
> I had to learn to interact with others.
> 
> Why not do the same for something so important as this.
> 
> Why is it ok for women to do the same things? Why do women look for relationship advice and it is not called manipulation?
> 
> We critisize men for not asking for directions and when they do they are ridiculed. Whatup with that?
> 
> We ALL have to learn in life. I guess some of us put too much siginificance in being a good husband. That must be it.


None of that is "game", that's just learning to be a good husband, lover, employee, teammate, etc. It is a disgrace that such things have come to be labeled "game".

I feel that there needs to be a dividing line between "self/relationship awareness improvement" and "game".


----------



## tacoma

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't want to start a whole thread about this but I will if anyone thinks this is thread jacking...
> 
> For the men here, do you or don't you think that women want sex?
> 
> Just sex itself.
> 
> Not saying anything about the type of sex, whether within a relationship or not....just sex itself. Do you men think that women want sex?


Most definitely but most women won't admit it openly.

Another game


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy, let me say for the record that in my opinion, a married man getting marriage advice is a WONDERFUL thing.

Do I think MMSL is "marriage advice"? No, I don't.

Sorry we disagree on that one.

A man could read so many other things for advice.

Why not Schnarch? Harley? Gottman? Glover? Deida?


----------



## Wiserforit

tacoma said:


> I would if you'd post it.
> 
> You didn't post the definition of manipulation at all.
> 
> Here ya go..
> 
> 
> Manipulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Figure it out.


Yes, I did. See how you quoted nothing? And what is so ironic about the link you just gave is that is exactly as I said 

Here is the contents quoted directly from your link: 



> 1 *As underhand influence*
> 2 In a physical context
> 3 In technology


If you look at the most popular men, they are musicians, actors, athletes, etc. Men of very high achievement.

They are not "naturals" with "game". That is just a silly statement by proponents of game who want to claim that these highly popular men are doing psychological manipulation instead of being men of high achievement.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy, did you see that in my examples, I was not talking about married people?
> 
> Not sure why you are trying to mix up the points. They are not the same.


Yes, I see that. I have not been paying attention. My bad.

I think all this is valid discussion I just tend to answer in the context of marriage on TAM. Out of habit if nothing else.

I am a Harley fan. But most books are flat too PC. At some point we guys need some more blunt stuff.


----------



## tacoma

ravioli said:


> Most women can't handle just sex itself. Yes women want sex, but they need the emotional attachment and the other things that come with it.


There's that myth again.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Can we have a separate thread for just Boy/Girl Game for Married People? So that we can talk about these issues separately? Or is that overkill?

I keep wanting to discuss the married part of this topic, but to me, it is completely separate.


----------



## Entropy3000

Davelli0331 said:


> None of that is "game", that's just learning to be a good husband, lover, employee, teammate, etc. It is a disgrace that such things have come to be labeled "game".
> 
> I feel that there needs to be a dividing line between "self/relationship awareness improvement" and "game".


Feel free to be disgraced. I am pragmatic. Learning is learning. It helped my marriage. No matter how shameful you think it is. There can be nothing shameful about meeting my wifes needs. How repressive is that? LOL. 

I honestly do not take actions based on what people think to be sure.

Folks, how about people hold this kind of indignation for real stuff. Like child abuse and genicide. Some of you all see disgrace in way to much normal stuff.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Right so several of you are admitting that there are already women around who are into you, but you don't want them because they "not hot enough".


Where was that even said?



> Instead, you would rather "game" the ones who are out of your league and see if you can bag them.
> 
> Which I already knew, but wanted to say it here on this thread.
> 
> So Game is when you want to bag a chick who isn't already into you and who is hotter than you.
> 
> Meanwhile, you will turn your nose up at the girls who are in your league and who are already into you, and want sex. But by displaying that they want sex, you deem them undateable.


Again, where was this said? If I read correctly, SN said that if a woman at the bar was already into you, great! But it's not always realistic to think that there will always be a woman into you at the same time a guy is into them. And he certainly said nothing about getting a woman who was "out of his league" just so he could brag about it. Only one guy said that. And even if that _was_ what he said, so what? We're talking about sex here, not relationships. Don't we women want the hottest guy we can get? Even if he's out of our league? Even if Average Joe Schmoe wants sex with us?


----------



## Davelli0331

Entropy3000 said:


> Feel free to be disgraced. I am pragmatic. Learning is learning. It helped my marriage. No matter how shameful you think it is. There can be nothing shameful about meeting my wifes needs. How represive is that? LOL.
> 
> I honestly do not take actions based on what people think to be sure.


I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I think learning to be a better husband and lover is one of the greatest things a man can do for his marriage.

I didn't say or imply anywhere in the post you're quoting that learning to be a better husband is bad, shameful, disgraceful, or wrong, or that anyone should repress themselves. All I said was that I don't consider that "game", and to call it "game" is to do it a disservice.


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> There's that myth again.


I agree that is total BS. So many women today are off on the hookup sites just hooking up.


----------



## ravioli

Faithful Wife said:


> Right so several of you are admitting that there are already women around who are into you, but you don't want them because they "not hot enough".
> 
> Instead, you would rather "game" the ones who are out of your league and see if you can bag them.
> 
> Which I already knew, but wanted to say it here on this thread.
> 
> So Game is when you want to bag a chick who isn't already into you and who is hotter than you.
> 
> Meanwhile, you will turn your nose up at the girls who are in your league and who are already into you, and want sex. But by displaying that they want sex, you deem them undateable.


Lol. You have things kind of twisted. You need more knowledge on game.

Never said "I don't want them". Gaming a female is not just about gaming someone out of your league, It's about your non verbal and verbal communication in achieving an interest from your suitor.

A man can have game if he's getting decent looking females in his league. (Now to personally if he's bagging 5's and 6's and then saying he has game, then I can't respect it, therefore his game is deemed weak unless he steps the beauty factor up.) But his game is respected more if the chicks that he's tagging are 8's 9's 10's on a consistent basis. If the male and female are at the same standard looks wise and he's able to pull the female, then yes his game is verified. 

If a female is into me and she meets my standards then yes I'll take her, but then I didn't really display any game, I just fell into a good situation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created...I get it that you don't like many of the things I have to say. You have already copy and pasted me on several things you took issue with. I get it and accept it. But since I don't feel you truly want to hear my POV and are just wanting to point out how much you disagree, I don't see the point in answering you. No hard feelings, hopefully. I just don't see there being any "love" between us because you've already deemed me to be off base.


----------



## Entropy3000

Davelli0331 said:


> I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I think learning to be a better husband and lover is one of the greatest things a man can do for his marriage.
> 
> I didn't say or imply anywhere in the post you're quoting that learning to be a better husband is bad, shameful, disgraceful, or wrong, or that anyone should repress themselves. All I said was that I don't consider that "game", and to call it "game" is to do it a disservice.


And that is fine. That said, and you can look back at my post on Kino and I believe that there is game in marriage.

But we can disagree on that point. Thank you for clarifying. 

I feel I have gleened some positive things from the game stuff and applied it to my marriage. It is not the only source by any means for this. Just more data.


----------



## Davelli0331

Entropy3000 said:


> And that is fine. That said, and you can look back at my post on Kino and I believe that there game in marriage.
> 
> But we can disagree on that point. Thank you for clarifying.
> 
> I feel I have gleened some positive things from the game stuff and applied it to my marriage. It is not the only sourse by any means for this. Just more data.


LOL, I'm not making my point very well.

I agree with everything you have said 100%. I just don't like calling it "game". I agree that some of the facets of "game" are applicable in marriages, I just don't like that specific word because of it's connotation with pickup.

Whatever happened to calling that stuff, when in the confines of marriage, being a good lover and husband? You can call it "game" if you want, but I just see it as being the best man that you can.


----------



## ravioli

Faithful Wife said:


> Meanwhile, you will turn your nose up at the girls who are in your league and who are already into you, and want sex. But by displaying that they want sex, you deem them undateable.


No smart man will turn down a chick that's in his league unless he looks like Shrek. If the girls are decent, of course I'll take them in a heartbeat. If Someone is just handing out the kitty, you think I'm going to turn it down? Unless she's ugly or has been ran through chances are most men will take it. 

If they want sex, they are not long term material. One or two dates here and there, so you won't have a woman scorned and throwing dirt on your name.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Created2Write said:


> Where was that even said?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, where was this said? If I read correctly, SN said that if a woman at the bar was already into you, great! But it's not always realistic to think that there will always be a woman into you at the same time a guy is into them. And he certainly said nothing about getting a woman who was "out of his league" just so he could brag about it. Only one guy said that. And even if that _was_ what he said, so what? We're talking about sex here, not relationships. Don't we women want the hottest guy we can get? Even if he's out of our league? Even if Average Joe Schmoe wants sex with us?


What's "out of your league", looks or the total package?  There's alot that may look good to the eye that doesn't have much going on for itself or cannot do much for you? Is there a different sex rank on male and female?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ravioli said: "(Now to personally if he's bagging 5's and 6's and then saying he has game, then I can't respect it, therefore his game is deemed weak unless he steps the beauty factor up.) But his game is respected more if the chicks that he's tagging are 8's 9's 10's on a consistent basis. If the male and female are at the same standard looks wise and he's able to pull the female, then yes his game is verified."

So when you say you wouldn't be impressed with a man who is pulling in 5's or 6's, and he needs to up the beauty factor...can you explain this for us please? What if the man himself is a 5 or 6?


----------



## Faithful Wife

"If they want sex, they are not long term material. One or two dates here and there, so you won't have a woman scorned and throwing dirt on your name."

Right, if they want sex, they are not long term material.


----------



## Entropy3000

Davelli0331 said:


> LOL, I'm not making my point very well.
> 
> I agree with everything you have said 100%. I just don't like calling it "game". I agree that some of the facets of "game" are applicable in marriages, I just don't like that specific word because of it's connotation with pickup.
> 
> Whatever happened to calling that stuff, when in the confines of marriage, being a good lover and husband? You can call it "game" if you want, *but I just see it as being the best man that you can.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> And I assure you it is me. I am posting and doing work at the same time.
> 
> So we are probably violently agreeing. LOL.
> 
> Cool. Thanks for your patience with me today.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Created...I get it that you don't like many of the things I have to say. You have already copy and pasted me on several things you took issue with. I get it and accept it. But since I don't feel you truly want to hear my POV and are just wanting to point out how much you disagree, I don't see the point in answering you. No hard feelings, hopefully. I just don't see there being any "love" between us because you've already deemed me to be off base.


Actually, I am very interested in hearing your POV. TBH I do not get what your POV even is. Your opinions seem to be incredibly inconsistent. So how exactly am I supposed to understand your opinion if I don't point out the things that confuse me? Yeah, I disagree with a lot of the things you've said about women...especially the things you like to apply to us as a whole. But it's incredibly confusing when you declare women to be the most sexually attracted to men with great bodies, and more likely to have sex with them, but then you act disappointed and even disgusted with men for doing the same thing? Something can't be okay or natural for one gender and then suddenly be shallow for the other. Especially since we're talking about casual sex here, and not relationships. 

But if you don't want to answer me, that's fine. I get it. I really don't want you to think that my only goal is to argue or try to prove you wrong. I am interested in knowing what your opinions are.


----------



## ravioli

Faithful Wife said:


> "If they want sex, they are not long term material. One or two dates here and there, so you won't have a woman scorned and throwing dirt on your name."
> 
> Right, if they want sex, they are not long term material.


Yes if they just want sex and are making a sexual presentation to you.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

I'll channel AFEH and bend the men over my knee, slap them on the ass and shuttle them off the where they belong.


----------



## Created2Write

DaddyLongShanks said:


> What's "out of your league", looks or the total package? There's alot that may look good to the eye that doesn't have much going on for itself or cannot do much for you? Is there a different sex rank on male and female?


That's a good question. Given the context(casual sex and sexual attraction), "out of his league" would be nothing but the physical appearance.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> "If they want sex, they are not long term material. One or two dates here and there, so you won't have a woman scorned and throwing dirt on your name."
> 
> Right, if they want sex, they are not long term material.


For me. I decided I was not interested in a woman who just felt sex was sex. 

Personally I am probably obsessive when it comes to sex. BUT, sex for just sex sake lost it's allure for me a long time ago. 

Soooo. Guys who feel the way I do would value a woman who is not just into sex for sex sake as much. 
I would be looking for someone who loved sex but who after some maturity sought it out in a monogamous relationship. I see that as compatible with me. YMMV.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Created2Write said:


> That's a good question. Given the context(casual sex and sexual attraction), "out of his league" would be nothing but the physical appearance.


What if certain personality types or cultural norms would make a certain body image undesireable? I know when guys are in a "I got to get me some mode", its almost like a dog, so it really doesn't matter whats in the brains.


----------



## Davelli0331

Even when talking about casual sex and ONSes (which Deejo specifically said he was not talking about in the OP), why not learn to be a calm, cool, collected, and confident man instead of faking the funk using contrived if-then-else tactics to worm your way into a woman's bed?

Years ago when I was into "game" and PUA, a common trumpeted ideal was that it was a numbers game. The more HBs you approached, the more you slept with. Of course, the math there shows the pitfalls of "game": If you target more woman but you're success rate is still 30%, are you any better a PUA than before?

Still, I'd rather know that a ONS or friend with benefits was sleeping with me bc there was something genuinely interesting she found in me, not bc I was able to perform a complex series of social dance steps.


----------



## ravioli

Faithful Wife said:


> Ravioli said: "(Now to personally if he's bagging 5's and 6's and then saying he has game, then I can't respect it, therefore his game is deemed weak unless he steps the beauty factor up.) But his game is respected more if the chicks that he's tagging are 8's 9's 10's on a consistent basis. If the male and female are at the same standard looks wise and he's able to pull the female, then yes his game is verified."
> 
> So when you say you wouldn't be impressed with a man who is pulling in 5's or 6's, and he needs to up the beauty factor...can you explain this for us please? What if the man himself is a 5 or 6?


A man can't really boast or proclaim he has game if all he is picking up are bebop and rocksteady looking broads. 5's and 6's any man can pull at the end of the night. I'm personally not impressed by this, but maybe some men are. I guess it depends on one's social circle. If the man is a 5 or 6 then that sucks for him. His game is still weak. There are no Betty Crocker brownie points or honorable mentions for an ugly man pulling ugly females.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I'll channel AFEH and bend the men over my knee, slap them on the ass and shuttle them off the where they belong.


What is AFEH? I am slower than usual today.

Some men would pay that I suppose.


----------



## Entropy3000

Davelli0331 said:


> Even when talking about casual sex and ONSes (which Deejo specifically said he was not talking about in the OP), why not learn to be a calm, cool, collected, and confident man instead of faking the funk using contrived if-then-else tactics to worm your way into a woman's bed?
> 
> Years ago when I was into "game" and PUA, a common trumpeted ideal was that it was a numbers game. The more HBs you approached, the more you slept with. Of course, the math there shows the pitfalls of "game": If you target more woman but you're success rate is still 30%, are you any better a PUA than before?
> 
> Still, I'd rather know that a ONS or friend with benefits was sleeping with me bc there was something genuinely interesting she found in me, not bc I was able to perform a complex series of social dance steps.


So we really are on the same page. I have always been the very calm cool and collective guy.

Let them come to you kinda guy.

----

Anyway, I need to just watch the thread today ....


----------



## Machiavelli

Machiavelli said:


> Good point. I got chased by 4-8s, never 9-10.


I take that back, but the 9s were 18 yrs old when I was 21. I just didn't want to do that cradle robbing thing, since I'd only dated older women and was "broken in" by a girl who was 2 years older. Also, I was afraid of what my parents would say with such young girls.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created - here's a quick snapshop of my opinion...and I will apologize upfront for sounding like I am speaking for all women...I am not, but this is my opinion which I do feel applies to many women...I am not sure of what percentage, however:

Women do want to be with a man who they are physically attracted to, PLUS they also want the whole package if we are speaking about a relationship. This is in opposition to the idea that "women don't care that much about looks", which is something I have heard sinch childhood. And yet when you get women alone and talking about men or sex and who is hot, they are always going to be talking about how PHYSICALLY hot a guy is, even if this or that trait is a personal preference. This does not negate the fact that we need the whole package in a relationship, but every woman I know who goes off on how hot some guy is is not talking about anything other than looks.

I also feel that there is someone for everyone. No matter who you are, you are someone's SR10 (or maybe many someone's).

Please note I also said for myself, that I want a hot man. But I never anywhere said "hotter than myself". I only want what I can give. I don't want more than that, and have never said that I did.

I think that men believe women need to be duped into having sex, whereas I believe women WANT sex. So instead of just becoming more observant as to which women are specifically into them personally and sexually, they will instead ignore women who are "not hot enough" and will continually try to get with women who are "hotter than they are". Yes, this is a big old generalization, but I have seen it in person many times.

These terms obviously can't be nailed down: hot, hotter than me, less hot than me. I know this is shaky ground and I making general statements that can't be supported. Again, in this post, I'm giving you a quick run down on my opinion, because you said you were genuinely interested.

I have been in and around the dating game for a lotta years and have seen a lot, good and bad, on both sides. This is where I'm gleaning my opinion from.

I think men and women both want sex, they both want to be physically attracted, and that nature will take its course and they will end up together over and over and over.

But when you interupt nature's course, by trying to get someone into you who isn't naturally into you (male OR female), you end up with broken hearts and homes.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Wiserforit said:


> Do you see that strong rejection of the mosogynistic, manipulative material so impregnated in the PUA literature? No, you don't. That is quite telling.


Perhaps a cursory glance at my previous posts are in order. As for "telling", you say that without reading anything I have ever posted before. Every single person here would disagree with you in that I "support misogyny" and many men actually change their language when responding to me because if they don't, they know I will rip their azzhole apart.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ravioli said: "A man can't really boast or proclaim he has game if all he is picking up are bebop and rocksteady looking broads. 5's and 6's any man can pull at the end of the night. I'm personally not impressed by this, but maybe some men are. I guess it depends on one's social circle. If the man is a 5 or 6 then that sucks for him. His game is still weak. There are no Betty Crocker brownie points or honorable mentions for an ugly man pulling ugly females."

Thank you for making my point. I think many men feel like you do.

Which is sad, but true.


----------



## inarut

Davelli0331 said:


> Even when talking about casual sex and ONSes (which Deejo specifically said he was not talking about in the OP), why not learn to be a calm, cool, collected, and confident man instead of faking the funk using contrived if-then-else tactics to worm your way into a woman's bed?
> 
> Years ago when I was into "game" and PUA, a common trumpeted ideal was that it was a numbers game. The more HBs you approached, the more you slept with. Of course, the math there shows the pitfalls of "game": If you target more woman but you're success rate is still 30%, are you any better a PUA than before?
> 
> Still, I'd rather know that a ONS or friend with benefits was sleeping with me bc there was something genuinely interesting she found in me, not bc I was able to perform a complex series of social dance steps.


Exactly! And what a disservice is this to yourself....unless all you really want is to get laid and that is your objective

Shadow said in another post he changes himself to fit the situation....and he thinks he is the manipulator...ha....if his objective is anything other than getting laid he is only hurting himself..
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Davelli0331

Entropy3000 said:


> So we really are on the same page. I have always been the very calm cool and collective guy.
> 
> Let them come to you kinda guy.
> 
> ----
> 
> Anyway, I need to just watch the thread today ....


Exactly. Instead of pretending to be the guy who is attractive to women for the sake of attracting women, actually become the guy who is attractive to women, but do it to better yourself.

Like I said, remove all the fluff, and "game" is about seeking approval from women so that you feel better about yourself. Why not instead actually become a better person?

It's a subtle difference:
Learn to be a better conversationalist to improve yourself
vs
Learn to be a better conversationalist to bag a 9 or 10

Learn to dress well because you care about your appearance
vs
Learn to dress well to impress that 9 or 10

Learn how to joke and banter with women to be more naturally charming
vs
Learn how to neg a woman so that you can throw her off balance

I don't have a problem with self improvement, I have a problem with the objectives: One version, you're improving yourself in order to be a better person. In the other version, you're learning to fake self improvement so that you can score an 8 or 9 and impress yourself and friends.


----------



## Davelli0331

inarut said:


> Exactly! And what a disservice is this to yourself....unless all you really want is to get laid and that is your objective.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'd rather be a man that a woman is naturally attracted to, even if it's for an ONS, than a guy who knows how to artificially inflate myself to her.

Again, it's a subtle difference. To the outside observer, they may even appear to be the exact same. The difference is that the first guy doesn't hinge his self worth on whether or not he scores that HB9. *He's just calm, cool, collected, and good with women because that's who he is, not because he seeks approval.*


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> Right so several of you are admitting that there are already women around who are into you, but you don't want them because they "not hot enough".
> 
> Instead, you would rather "game" the ones who are out of your league and see if you can bag them.
> 
> Which I already knew, but wanted to say it here on this thread.
> 
> So Game is when you want to bag a chick who isn't already into you and who is hotter than you.


that's PUA game.



Faithful Wife said:


> Meanwhile, you will turn your nose up at the girls who are in your league and who are already into you, and want sex. But by displaying that they want sex, you deem them undateable.


The 9s, a ten has never been seen BTW, generally don't need to come on to a guy out of the box. They will only signal to a male equal or above or be more subtle. The exception for me was a time back in the 70's when I was running the sound board for a band at a dance and blonde came up behind me and mashed her boobs in my back and asked me to explain the board. She was a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader. The 8's and under, who are still pretty hot, will come sit in your lap and introduce themselves. Avis has to try harder. 

I'm not going to give a number on my wife, I think she was plenty hot and she still is for her age, but at the time we started dating she was asking around about me to mutual friends and they told her she had no chance with me, since she was not 5'9, blonde and blue eyed. Nevertheless, the more attention I get from other women, which didn't happen after I got fat, the more attentive and sexual she gets with me. That's part of LTR game. In a nutshell, it's about being the most attractive guy on deck, both in physique and attitude. If you've got those two things going, you can beat the guy with the wallet.


----------



## ravioli

Faithful Wife said:


> Ravioli said: "A man can't really boast or proclaim he has game if all he is picking up are bebop and rocksteady looking broads. 5's and 6's any man can pull at the end of the night. I'm personally not impressed by this, but maybe some men are. I guess it depends on one's social circle. If the man is a 5 or 6 then that sucks for him. His game is still weak. There are no Betty Crocker brownie points or honorable mentions for an ugly man pulling ugly females."
> 
> Thank you for making my point. I think many men feel like you do.
> 
> Which is sad, but true.


Why is it sad?

So do you think females are just innocent pure lovable, soft cuddly lambs and are not about having game such as males?


----------



## inarut

Davelli0331 said:


> Exactly. Instead of pretending to be the guy who is attractive to women for the sake of attracting women, actually become the guy who is attractive to women, but do it to better yourself.
> 
> Like I said, remove all the fluff, and "game" is about seeking approval from women so that you feel better about yourself. Why not instead actually become a better person? JI
> 
> It's a subtle difference:
> Learn to be a better conversationalist to improve yourself
> vs
> Learn to be a better conversationalist to bag a 9 or 10
> 
> Learn to dress well because you care about your appearance
> vs
> Learn to dress well to impress that 9 or 10
> 
> Learn how to joke and banter with women to be more naturally charming
> vs
> Learn how to neg a woman so that you can throw her off balance
> 
> I don't have a problem with self improvement, I have a problem with the objectives: One version, you're improving yourself in order to be a better person. In the other version, you're learning to fake self improvement so that you can score an 8 or 9 and impress yourself and friends.


Yes
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ravioli - LOL! Funny you would assume that. Haven't read my posts then, eh?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Oh man... 38 pages already... I'm never gonna catch up to this one. lol


----------



## tacoma

Davelli0331 said:


> Like I said, remove all the fluff, and "game" is about seeking approval from women so that you feel better about yourself. Why not instead actually become a better person


Because that's not what "game" is about.

Game is about nothing more than getting with a particular woman.

That's it, there's nothing more to it.

The vast majority of women I've been with have come to me to initiate interest so game to me is what I use to keep a woman interested during a relationship.

However there have been a few high quality women who didn't and were never going to approach me and I just had to have them in my life and that's where game comes in.

It's to get noticed, it's to separate yourself from the pack, it's to get her in an environment where she can get to know you to begin with.

Within a marriage where a woman has lost all sexual interest in her husband it is an attempt to reignite that sexual interest.

Y'all keep making it sound so nefarious.
Game is now and always has been a part of courtship.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> Women do want to be with a man who they are physically attracted to, PLUS they also want the whole package if we are speaking about a relationship. *This is in opposition to the idea that "women don't care that much about looks", which is something I have heard sinch childhood.*


But guys want to believe this. It's one of the "big lies" of our times, but it's going down fast.



Faithful Wife said:


> And yet when you get women alone and talking about men or sex and who is hot, they are always going to be talking about how PHYSICALLY hot a guy is, even if this or that trait is a personal preference. This does not negate the fact that we need the whole package in a relationship, but every woman I know who goes off on how hot some guy is is not talking about anything other than looks.


Correct.



Faithful Wife said:


> I also feel that there is someone for everyone. No matter who you are, you are someone's SR10 (or maybe many someone's).


For a woman, yes there is some guy who thinks you're hot; remember the Bell Curve. However, that someone for everyone is about which guy the girl will eventually settle for as her beta provider. That will work for 4-7 years, then it's time for her to get some real excitement and she clicks onto AM.



Faithful Wife said:


> Please note I also said for myself, that I want a hot man. But I never anywhere said "hotter than myself". I only want what I can give. I don't want more than that, and have never said that I did.


You are somewhat unusual, remember the Bell Curve. I used to be dumbfounded when girls who were 4 or 5 ranks down would be very sexual with me when I was minding my own business. Especially married girls who weren't that hot, but they were just expecting they could bag me, because most guys are just not discriminating. Furthermore, they would be pissed like hell, when I didn't take them up on it. It's like Steve F McQueen was very well known for getting it on with any hotel maid within reach. He figured it was his responsibility to make their week. I never felt that way.



Faithful Wife said:


> I think that men believe women need to be duped into having sex, whereas I believe women WANT sex.


This is true, but unlike you, they only really want it with the highest ranking 5-10% or so. After that, they're settling. Remember the Duke Slvt?



Faithful Wife said:


> So instead of just becoming more observant as to which women are specifically into them personally and sexually, they will instead ignore women who are "not hot enough" and will continually try to get with women who are "hotter than they are". Yes, this is a big old generalization, but I have seen it in person many times.


Sure, because sometimes guys get lucky. But you'll notice that their standards get lower as the night goes on. Eventually, these guys will marry women more or less on their same level, but only because the woman settled.



Faithful Wife said:


> These terms obviously can't be nailed down: hot, hotter than me, less hot than me. I know this is shaky ground and I making general statements that can't be supported. Again, in this post, I'm giving you a quick run down on my opinion, because you said you were genuinely interested.
> I have been in and around the dating game for a lotta years and have seen a lot, good and bad, on both sides. This is where I'm gleaning my opinion from.
> 
> I think men and women both want sex, they both want to be physically attracted, and that nature will take its course and they will end up together over and over and over.


Sound about right.




Faithful Wife said:


> But when you interupt nature's course, by trying to get someone into you who isn't naturally into you (male OR female), you end up with broken hearts and homes.


What has been documented is that most men will readily go several steps below their own SMV for short term NSA sex and women can go several steps higher than their own SMV for STR NSA sex. When it comes to an LTR, not so much.


----------



## Davelli0331

tacoma said:


> However there have been a few high quality women who didn't and were never going to approach me and I just had to have them in my life and that's where game comes in.


I completely dig on that. Totally understand it.

But why allow a woman to have so much power over you?


----------



## Created2Write

DaddyLongShanks said:


> What if certain personality types or cultural norms would make a certain body image undesireable? I know when guys are in a "I got to get me some mode", its almost like a dog, so it really doesn't matter whats in the brains.


That is a good question, and is precisely why I don't buy into the idea that women will look at the physical attributes first. While _some_ women might have casual sex and ONS with a guy just because he's attractive, I really don't think that most women would.


----------



## ravioli

Faithful Wife said:


> Ravioli - LOL! Funny you would assume that. Haven't read my posts then, eh?


I read them but I can't remember every post. But what did you say about women and game? Most of the posts I seen from you were about men and why do they need to convince women to have sex with them and that they are interfering with nature.


----------



## Davelli0331

tacoma said:


> Within a marriage where a woman has lost all sexual interest in her husband it is an attempt to reignite that sexual interest.
> 
> Y'all keep making it sound so nefarious.
> Game is now and always has been a part of courtship.


Agree with these points 100%.

I don't find "game" nefarious, I find it pathetic. _Be_ charming, _be_ witty, _be_ funny, _be_ that guy, don't act it, whether in a marriage, ONS, or anything in between.


----------



## inarut

tacoma said:


> Because that's not what "game" is about.
> 
> Game is about nothing more than getting with a particular woman.
> 
> That's it, there's nothing more to it.
> 
> The vast majority of women I've been with have come to me to initiate interest so game to me is what I use to keep a woman interested during a relationship.
> 
> However there have been a few high quality women who didn't and were never going to approach me and I just had to have them in my life and that's where game comes in.
> 
> It's to get noticed, it's to separate yourself from the pack, it's to get her in an environment where she can get to know you to begin with.
> 
> Within a marriage where a woman has lost all sexual interest in her husband it is an attempt to reignite that sexual interest.
> 
> Y'all keep making it sound so nefarious.
> Game is now and always has been a part of courtship.


You're talking about getting an "in" to even have a chance. You either are what a woman wants or you're not. You can't fake it beyond initial superficial exchanges.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Machiavelli

ravioli said:


> A man can't really boast or proclaim he has game if all he is picking up are bebop and rocksteady looking broads. 5's and 6's any man can pull at the end of the night. I'm personally not impressed by this, but maybe some men are. I guess it depends on one's social circle. If the man is a 5 or 6 then that sucks for him. His game is still weak. There are no Betty Crocker brownie points or honorable mentions for an ugly man pulling ugly females.


I disagree and here's why: women only have sexual attraction to the top tier of men, but most guys are attracted to most women. It's the Pareto Principle 80/20, only worse. The bottom 50% of guys probably are not intended by mother nature to reproduce at all. The rise of monogamy via the spread of the Roman Empire and the RCC is the only thing that has made it possible for most men being able to marry and have offspring. As hypergamy continues to be unrestrained, this will change.


----------



## Machiavelli

Davelli0331 said:


> Agree with these points 100%.
> 
> I don't find "game" nefarious, I find it pathetic. _Be_ charming, _be_ witty, _be_ funny, _be_ that guy, don't act it, whether in a marriage, ONS, or anything in between.


But first, you have to learn that you actually need those things. I couldn't have LTRs with women until I learned they needed that and then how to bring it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> Most definitely but most women won't admit it openly.
> 
> Another game


Oh bull ****. Most would admit it openly if it weren't for men like plenty here who view women as somehow less then. She's a slvt for liking the same thing a man does. God damn, really? It isn't a "game" to them, it is about self preservation and not being ridiculed. 

This isn't you Tacoma but a collective you. I'll say it flat out. I like sex and [email protected] you if you think something different of me. That makes YOU the hypocrite, NOT me.


----------



## tacoma

Davelli0331 said:


> I completely dig on that. Totally understand it.
> 
> But why allow a woman to have so much power over you?


Because a high quality woman is rare and worth a bit of investment.

Whenever I found one I figured I should at least give it a shot because it could be awhile before I found one again.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well Ravioli....I'm a big wh0re who is married to a Sex God. So there ya go, the short version.

Little fluffy bunnies?

No.


----------



## ravioli

Faithful Wife said:


> Please note I also said for myself, that I want a hot man. But I never anywhere said "hotter than myself". I only want what I can give. I don't want more than that, and have never said that I did.


This usually means you just don't want the competition. I hear women say this from time to time. I mean its understandable though. But a lot of this is in context to man that looks androgynous and is deemed pretty. If a man was "hotter" than you and displayed very masculine traits you, would you turn him down?

Not saying you do this, but a lot of females like uglier or sexually ranked lower men because they would put them on a pedastal.


----------



## Davelli0331

Machiavelli said:


> But first, you have to learn that you actually need those things. I couldn't have LTRs with women until I learned they needed that and then how to bring it.


But that's not "game", that's self improvement IMO.

"Game", to me, is when you're faking something to get a woman. Instead of being charming, witty, and all that, you're relying on a memorized and choreographed set of steps, almost like a lame ass workflow diagram to pretend to be charming, witty, and all that.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Oh bull ****. Most would admit it openly if it weren't for men like plenty here who view women as somehow less then them for liking the exact same thing they do. God damn, really? It isn't a "game" to them, it is about self preservation.


OK, I'll give you that but I hope you can figure out why I didn't consider it.



The knowledge doesn't help me in my own perspective of women though


----------



## inarut

tacoma said:


> Because a high quality woman is rare and worth a bit of investment.
> 
> Whenever I found one I figured I should at least give it a shot because it could be awhile before I found one again.


Then develop in yourself all the things you use game to project. Its not about the lines you use....its who you are.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TiggyBlue

Does it sound bad that I don't really care about PUA or 'gaming' ?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ravioli....You'll have to skip back a page to see my answer to you.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Created - here's a quick snapshop of my opinion...and I will apologize upfront for sounding like I am speaking for all women...I am not, but this is my opinion which I do feel applies to many women...I am not sure of what percentage, however:


Understood. And I apologize if my way of responding is annoying, but I do agree with some of the things you've said and I want to make it clear what things I agree with and what things I don't, and what things might be confusing.



> Women do want to be with a man who they are physically attracted to,


Absolutely agree.



> PLUS they also want the whole package if we are speaking about a relationship.


By itself, I agree with this statement. 



> This is in opposition to the idea that "women don't care that much about looks", which is something I have heard sinch childhood.


I've heard it too, and I don't care for the statement at all. I don't care for any statement that includes an entire gender under its umbrella. I firmly believe that there are some women who care about looks a lot. Likewise, I absolutely believe that there are women who really _don't_ care about looks as much as others.



> And yet when you get women alone and talking about men or sex and who is hot, they are always going to be talking about how PHYSICALLY hot a guy is, even if this or that trait is a personal preference. This does not negate the fact that we need the whole package in a relationship, but every woman I know who goes off on how hot some guy is is not talking about anything other than looks.


I agree with this too...at least, to a point. Because for many of us(myself included) personal preferences _can_ and _do_ make a man even hotter than just his physical body alone. Given the context of the kind of discussion you listed, I think that mostly they're talking about looks. But they can _also_ be talking about personal preferences, especially when talking about sex. I really wouldn't have sex with a guy just because he was smokin' hot. There absolutely MUST be other attributes present before I would ever consider having sex, even if I never saw the guy again. I doubt that I'm the only woman like that.



> I also feel that there is someone for everyone. No matter who you are, you are someone's SR10 (or maybe many someone's).


I agree.



> Please note I also said for myself, that I want a hot man. But I never anywhere said "hotter than myself". I only want what I can give. I don't want more than that, and have never said that I did.


I never said you did. But there _are_ men who aren't attractive physically and they get women who are much more attractive then them. I know one couple specifically; the guy is really obese and his wife is fit and absolutely gorgeous. He was interested in her in high school, he asked her out, she said yes, they got married and have been married for like, twenty years. So, just because _you_ don't expect to get more than you can give, it doesn't mean that there aren't genuine cases where a man or woman does get a SO more attractive then them. 



> I think that men believe women need to be duped into having sex, whereas I believe women WANT sex. So instead of just becoming more observant as to which women are specifically into them personally and sexually, they will instead ignore women who are "not hot enough" and will continually try to get with women who are "hotter than they are". Yes, this is a big old generalization, but I have seen it in person many times.


So what? If there's someone for everyone, then those women who "weren't hot enough" will find someone else. I absolutely do NOT believe that we need to only look for ONS, casual sex hook ups or relationships within the people who are seeking us out. If we did that, I wouldn't be with my husband. Because, while I was looking for a specific kind of guy, the only guys interested in me at the time were the ones who only wanted casual sex and nothing else. Just because a woman wants sex with a guy doesn't mean he's a d!ck for not wanting sex with her. 



> These terms obviously can't be nailed down: hot, hotter than me, less hot than me. I know this is shaky ground and I making general statements that can't be supported. Again, in this post, I'm giving you a quick run down on my opinion, because you said you were genuinely interested.
> 
> I have been in and around the dating game for a lotta years and have seen a lot, good and bad, on both sides. This is where I'm gleaning my opinion from.
> 
> I think men and women both want sex, they both want to be physically attracted, and that nature will take its course and they will end up together over and over and over.


Okay...



> But when you interupt nature's course, by trying to get someone into you who isn't naturally into you (male OR female), you end up with broken hearts and homes.


But this last statement isn't directly related. For instance, not every woman is the kind to make it incredibly obvious that they want sex. Some women like to be chased a little before consenting to sex. Some women want to get to know the guy a little bit before consenting to sex. Some women don't like to wear their sexuality on their sleeve; they don't want to seem "easy". So, while she may not immediately be into him once their gaze locks from across the bar, after a bit of conversation she _might_ be. I don't see anything wrong with men looking for the best time they can get, any more than it is for women to try and get the best time they can get. It is just sex we're talking about here, not looking for a potential spouse.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Davelli0331 said:


> Like I said, remove all the fluff, and "game" is about seeking approval from women so that you feel better about yourself. Why not instead actually become a better person?
> 
> It's a subtle difference:
> Learn to be a better conversationalist to improve yourself
> vs
> Learn to be a better conversationalist to bag a 9 or 10
> 
> Learn to dress well because you care about your appearance
> vs
> Learn to dress well to impress that 9 or 10
> 
> Learn how to joke and banter with women to be more naturally charming
> vs
> Learn how to neg a woman so that you can throw her off balance
> 
> I don't have a problem with self improvement, I have a problem with the objectives: One version, you're improving yourself in order to be a better person. In the other version, you're learning to fake self improvement so that you can score an 8 or 9 and impress yourself and friends.


I don't see how conversation, dressing well, charm, or any of those traits as making you a "better person". They make you more likeable to men and women, but they don't make you a better person. They are social skills - period. What one does with them is up to them. The driving force behind attaining those skills being the desire to be more attractive to women means those skills are fake? I'd argue that women wearing makeup is more "fake" than one developing social skills (aka game). I've never picked up someone to impress myself and friends.

Its not so much seeking approval - for some perhaps. Its about being able to put yourself out there in a likeable way. Subtle difference. I didn't change political ideology because it wasn't popular in my region. haha

One quick thing on neging... I think most people get a horrible impression of it, and they have it all wrong. Just call it teasing. Its nothing more than an exchange that shows you're not going goo goo ga ga. You're secure and you don't have her on a pedastal - so much so that you're willing to take jabs and tease playfully. You aren't overly impressed, because you're ACCUSTOMED to girls like her - you don't need to blow smoke up her a$$. Its key and its confident.

Some argue for a side effect of lowering her value relative to yours. I'm not sure I buy it that way. What it really does is show that you're not trying to get anything from her and it plays into to disarming her.

I talking to a girl last year (friend of a friend) who touched my head at a get together and said something like... 

Her: "wow, you're really bald [Dvls]". 
Me: "I know, I wish I was hairy like you." (she wasn't hairy at all)
Her: *gasp* "I am NOT hairy!"
Me: "Okay side burns."

End encounter.

Talking to her again later at same event and meeting some other people...

Her: "... and this is [dvls]. He thinks I'm hairy because he's bald!" *faux angry face*
Me: "Okay... maybe hairy was too extreme... how about fuzzy?"
Her: "Yeah well you're short. And bald. Bald man."

I wasn't able to pursue her for real at the time. But I'd see her from time to time, and this sort of teasing was our thing. So I shoot her a random message on facebook... "How's it going Yeti?" We had a lot of facebook and text conversations after that.

Eventually it became a fun, cute thing we did and it led to us going out a for a little while and what not. I told a girl she was hairy and we ended up dating for a bit because of it. True story.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Ravioli said: "A man can't really boast or proclaim he has game if all he is picking up are bebop and rocksteady looking broads. 5's and 6's any man can pull at the end of the night. I'm personally not impressed by this, but maybe some men are. I guess it depends on one's social circle. If the man is a 5 or 6 then that sucks for him. His game is still weak. There are no Betty Crocker brownie points or honorable mentions for an ugly man pulling ugly females."
> 
> Thank you for making my point. I think many men feel like you do.
> 
> Which is sad, but true.


What about the women who do the same thing? The women who only have sex with men who are smokin' hot? Is it sad that they do that? Or is it only sad when men do it?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created...again, it was a quick, non-inclusive snap shot.

I never said anyone "needs" to look for ONS or hookups or casual sex. I said that they DO.

I also never said a guy is a d*ck for not wanting her, necessarily...but many of them will straight up reject a willing woman, because he thinks if she wants casual sex (even though he does as well) that she is undateable.

There are always exceptions.

I'm not saying these things are concrete.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"The women who only have sex with men who are smokin' hot? Is it sad that they do that? Or is it only sad when men do it?"

The only women I know who have sex with *only* smokin' hot men are also smokin' hot. So no, I don't think that is sad.

The women I know who will have sex with any man who pays her attention, without being self-aware of what her intentions are, are sad.


----------



## Wiserforit

Davelli0331 said:


> I don't find "game" nefarious, I find it pathetic. _Be_ charming, _be_ witty, _be_ funny, _be_ that guy, don't act it, whether in a marriage, ONS, or anything in between.


Exactly. 

Going back to the comment from the "gamer" about how a woman was not going to look at you and say "what a stud"...

Same thing. You can _be a stud_. That was my business for many years - producing athletic champions after retiring from competition myself.

They were't doing it to pick up girls. They wanted to win competitions. But because they made themselves into studs, the girls were attracted to them. 

Likewise with all the other skills like public speaking, etc. - they have ancillary benefits in that women are attracted to men with great speaking skills. You can _be_ a good public speaker. 

It is the difference between being something and faking something.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Created...again, it was a quick, non-inclusive snap shot.


Which is exactly why I'm asking questions. Hey, don't get me wrong, I agreed with parts of what you said. I do, however, feel that with you, certain things are okay for women, but when men do them, you think it's shallow. To me, that reeks of hypocrisy. 



> I never said anyone "needs" to look for ONS or hookups or casual sex. I said that they DO.


You misunderstood me, I think. You said that when men go looking for sex with women who aren't interested that it breaks hearts and homes. So, essentially, you think that men should _only_ look for sex in the women who are already obviously willing. I disagree with that. I think men _and_ women should be able to pursue sex with who they want, so long as that person isn't in a monogamous relationship. If that means rejecting the people who are already willing, so be it. 

And, frankly, so what? It's not like ONS and casual sex are sacred things that _mean_ something. Who cares if a man or woman is only interested in laying the hottest person they can, regardless of whether they are just as hot? It's not meant to mean something, like a relationship does.



> I also never said a guy is a d*ck for not wanting her, necessarily...but many of them will straight up reject a willing woman, because he thinks if she wants casual sex (even though he does as well) that she is undateable.


So? We're talking about nothing but sex here. We're not talking about dating. So why a man has sex with a woman really makes no difference. 



> There are always exceptions.
> I'm not saying these things are concrete.


Okay. I still think that you have a lot of double standards. I could be misunderstanding you and, if so, I ask for clarification.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> "The women who only have sex with men who are smokin' hot? Is it sad that they do that? Or is it only sad when men do it?"
> 
> The only women I know who have sex with *only* smokin' hot men are also smokin' hot. So no, I don't think that is sad.
> 
> The women I know who will have sex with any man who pays her attention, without being self-aware of what her intentions are, are sad.


So it's okay for women to only have sex with hot guys so long as they are hot themselves? Your issue is with men who pursue sex with women who are hotter than they are, while other women who are in the same league as the man are willing to have sex? So, essentially, people shouldn't have sex with anyone who is more hot than they are?

That's not condescending or shallow at all...


----------



## inarut

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't see how conversation, dressing well, charm, or any of those traits as making you a "better person". They make you more likeable to men and women, but they don't make you a better person. They are social skills - period. What one does with them is up to them. The driving force behind attaining those skills being the desire to be more attractive to women means those skills are fake? I'd argue that women wearing makeup is more "fake" than one developing social skills (aka game). I've never picked up someone to impress myself and friends.
> 
> Its not so much seeking approval - for some perhaps. Its about being able to put yourself out there in a likeable way. Subtle difference. I didn't change political ideology because it wasn't popular in my region. haha
> 
> One quick thing on neging... I think most people get a horrible impression of it, and they have it all wrong. Just call it teasing. Its nothing more than an exchange that shows you're not going goo goo ga ga. You're secure and you don't have her on a pedastal - so much so that you're willing to take jabs and tease playfully. You aren't overly impressed, because you're ACCUSTOMED to girls like her - you don't need to blow smoke up her a$$. Its key and its confident.
> 
> Some argue for a side effect of lowering her value relative to yours. I'm not sure I buy it that way. What it really does is show that you're not trying to get anything from her and it plays into to disarming her.
> 
> I talking to a girl last year (friend of a friend) who touched my head at a get together and said something like...
> 
> Her: "wow, you're really bald [Dvls]".
> Me: "I know, I wish I was hairy like you." (she wasn't hairy at all)
> Her: *gasp* "I am NOT hairy!"
> Me: "Okay side burns."
> 
> End encounter.
> 
> Talking to her again later at same event and meeting some other people...
> 
> Her: "... and this is [dvls]. He thinks I'm hairy because he's bald!" *faux angry face*
> Me: "Okay... maybe hairy was too extreme... how about fuzzy?"
> Her: "Yeah well you're short. And bald. Bald man."
> 
> I wasn't able to pursue her for real at the time. But I'd see her from time to time, and this sort of teasing was our thing. So I shoot her a random message on facebook... "How's it going Yeti?" We had a lot of facebook and text conversations after that.
> 
> Eventually it became a fun, cute thing we did and it led to us going out a for a little while and what not. I told a girl she was hairy and we ended up dating for a bit because of it. True story.


And you might get that girl to go out with you....let's not forget that her comment and rudeness should have excluded her from your dating pool....not to mention she now wants you because you dissed her so now due to her own low self esteem she has something to prove....if you don't keep playing this stupid game you won't keep her. And what a prize she will be if you win!!!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created: Ok you disagree with some, agree with some, and think I have double standards. I don't, but you are free to believe so.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"So, essentially, people shouldn't have sex with anyone who is more hot than they are?"

I think that ONLY going for people who they think are hotter than themselves is shallow. My opinion. And I know many men who do this, who have lovely women who want them, but they reject them for not being hot enough. THAT is what I am saying, can you please stop twisting me around?


----------



## tacoma

inarut said:


> Then develop in yourself all the things you use game to project. Its not about the lines you use....its who you are.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And game isn't about using lines.

I can develop whatever I want but that still isn't going to get me anywhere with anyone who won't take a moment to appreciate what I've developed.

Game is about getting that moment.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Machiavelli

Davelli0331 said:


> But that's not "game", that's self improvement IMO.
> 
> "Game", to me, is when you're faking something to get a woman. Instead of being charming, witty, and all that, you're relying on a memorized and choreographed set of steps, almost like a lame ass workflow diagram to pretend to be charming, witty, and all that.


LTR game and PUA game.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> "So, essentially, people shouldn't have sex with anyone who is more hot than they are?"
> 
> I think that ONLY going for people who they think are hotter than themselves is shallow. My opinion. And I know many men who do this, who have lovely women who want them, but they reject them for not being hot enough.


It's their right to choose who they want to have sex with. The point of casual sex and ONS, from my understanding, is simply to have some physical fun and enjoyment. There still needs to be some attraction there for fun and enjoyment to be possible. As a woman, I can say with certainty that I would be mortified to find out that a guy only had sex with me because he couldn't find it anywhere else. I don't want to be some guy's after thought, his Plan B. If he genuinely believes that I'm not hot enough, why would I want to have sex with him anyway? 

Besides, you keep talking about how dumb it is for men to actively pursue sex with women who aren't interested; couldn't the same be said of those lovely women who want sex with those men who aren't interested? If you think those men are dumb, then you should think the same about those women. Otherwise, it _is_ a double standard.



> THAT is what I am saying, can you please stop twisting me around?


I'm calling it how I see it, FW.


----------



## tacoma

inarut said:


> And you might get that girl to go out with you....let's not forget that her comment and rudeness should have excluded her from your dating pool....not to mention she now wants you because you dissed her so now due to her own low self esteem she has something to prove....if you don't keep playing this stupid game you won't keep her. And what a prize she will be if you win!!!!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't know where you're from but where I'm from what this girl did isn't "rude" it's courtship.

She was doing the same thing he was doing only she initiated it.
This is how people express interest in other people.
I think some cultures call it "flirting"

This is the game.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ravioli

Faithful Wife said:


> "So, essentially, people shouldn't have sex with anyone who is more hot than they are?"
> 
> I think that ONLY going for people who they think are hotter than themselves is shallow. My opinion. And I know many men who do this, who have lovely women who want them, but they reject them for not being hot enough. THAT is what I am saying, can you please stop twisting me around?


But how would a man know that a woman wants them? Do you just fall for the first man that you see? I'm basically saying this in a light hearted way.


----------



## Machiavelli

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You know, I have held off responding to you because in some small way I thought you were kidding. Now I see you are not. You constantly respond with things like "All women".Not some women, not a few women......all women. I am curious. With 3.3 billion women on the planet, how is it that you know all of us?
> If nothing else, take what you write and minus 1. I am nothing as you claim us women are, so you cannot claim "all".


I don't say "all women." I just say "women." If I said "all women this" or "all women that", it should just be "women this" and "women that." However, all women do fall somewhere within or on the Bell Curve for any given trait or behavior. We can say "all women ± X sigma" but it's okay to say "women" since the bell curve is a given.


----------



## inarut

tacoma said:


> And game isn't about using lines.
> Hi
> I can develop whatever I want but that still isn't going to get me anywhere with anyone who won't take a moment to appreciate what I've developed.
> 
> Game is about getting that moment.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ok but you better back it up with some substance.....and I don't mean the cheesey, disrespectful stuff so predominant in PUA literature.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ravioli

Davelli0331 said:


> But that's not "game", that's self improvement IMO.
> 
> "Game", to me, is when you're faking something to get a woman. Instead of being charming, witty, and all that, you're relying on a memorized and choreographed set of steps, almost like a lame ass workflow diagram to pretend to be charming, witty, and all that.


Your post is funny.

But to me, being charming, witty, funny is all part of one's reportoire of a man's game portfolio. It's his natural tools that he uses to garner a woman's interest.

But the Football diagram set ups that PUA professors uses to overcharge social misfits is pretty lame and I can agree with you on that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created: "Besides, you keep talking about how dumb it is for men to actively pursue sex with women who aren't interested; couldn't the same be said of those lovely women who want sex with those men who aren't interested?"

If she keeps pursuing for sex with a man who isn't interested, yes that is sad and she is not being very observant.

No double standard.


----------



## tacoma

inarut said:


> You're talking about getting an "in" to even have a chance. You either are what a woman wants or you're not. You can't fake it beyond initial superficial exchanges.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Totally agree, but often you just need that "in" as you say.


----------



## ravioli

Machiavelli said:


> I disagree and here's why: women only have sexual attraction to the top tier of men, but most guys are attracted to most women. It's the Pareto Principle 80/20, only worse. The bottom 50% of guys probably are not intended by mother nature to reproduce at all. The rise of monogamy via the spread of the Roman Empire and the RCC is the only thing that has made it possible for most men being able to marry and have offspring. As hypergamy continues to be unrestrained, this will change.


I agree with the 80/20 rule, but would you give a man high praise for only being able to get 5 or 6's? Would you claim that this man has game?


----------



## tacoma

inarut said:


> Ok but you better back it up with some substance.....and I don't mean the cheesey, disrespectful stuff so predominant in PUA literature.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Of course, if you actually want a relationship with anybody you'd better back it up with something.

This whole things getting off track because the game haters seem to think we're talking about roofying up a couple chicks and dragging them off to the sex dungeon.

This conversation starting within the concept of "Game in Marriage" and it's having a real hard time staying there.


----------



## Created2Write

ravioli said:


> But how would a man know that a woman wants them? Do you just fall for the first man that you see? I'm basically saying this in a light hearted way.


I said/asked something similar, and I'm curious to know her answer. Because I seriously doubt that a man and woman will lock eyes from across the bar and magically know that the other wants to do them. In fact, I would imagine that flirting and playing a little hard to get could make the night more exciting, and the sex afterward more pleasurable. Going for the first girl who flashes a flirty smile just doesn't seem appealing, even to me. And as a woman who lives for the chase and the feeling of desirability, I can definitely appreciate the idea of withholding ones sexual interest for a short period of time to see whether or not the guy is going to give up right away, or persist. 

In fact, my husband did something very similar, just not sex related, when he wanted to know if I was into him. We were talking through myspace; I had send him a message that wasn't long, but it wasn't short. I'd asked him a few questions, and he intentionally didn't answer them. Any of them. His message was, literally, two sentences long. My first reaction was, "Crap! I came on too strong, too fast! He hates me!" I had had this happen one other time with a guy I was really attracted to so I was nearly positive that the same thing was happening again. To be sure, I sent another message. I asked different questions, made small talk about some things I knew he was interested in, and now we're married. He intentionally wanted to see if I was only talking to him to be polite, or if I was really interested. 

If my husband did this as a twenty-year old looking for a relationship, I can definitely see other men and women doing this when looking for a hook up.


----------



## inarut

tacoma said:


> I don't know where you're from but where I'm from what this girl did isn't "rude" it's courtship.
> 
> She was doing the same thing he was doing only she initiated it.
> This is how people express interest in other people.
> I think some cultures call it "flirting"
> 
> This is the game.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm aware of the concept of flirtng. I'm also aware that men can be particularly sensitive about balding.....I would have rubbed his head and said something else.....she must subscribe to insulting and back handed compliments. I don't.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Created: "Besides, you keep talking about how dumb it is for men to actively pursue sex with women who aren't interested; couldn't the same be said of those lovely women who want sex with those men who aren't interested?"
> 
> If she keeps pursuing for sex with a man who isn't interested, yes that is sad and she is not being very observant.
> 
> No double standard.


Fair enough. 

Also, is there any particular reason why you only respond to parts of my posts?


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Machiavelli said:


> I disagree and here's why: women only have sexual attraction to the top tier of men, but most guys are attracted to most women. It's the Pareto Principle 80/20, only worse. The bottom 50% of guys probably are not intended by mother nature to reproduce at all. The rise of monogamy via the spread of the Roman Empire and the RCC is the only thing that has made it possible for most men being able to marry and have offspring. As hypergamy continues to be unrestrained, this will change.


Damn guy, you make the future sound so promising for men


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created...feel free to PM me. I just feel we are totally thread jacking.

I'm happy to discuss anything with you.


----------



## Deejo

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Okay, I just read the thread's title again. How the f did we get here?



It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he,
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant 
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!


I never said that how others view, talk about or use game were or were not misogynistic.

I never said that the core of game was or wasn't a fundamental understanding of human interaction.

I don't much care if I look a stand-up guy or a scum-bag.

I read a few books dealing with pick-up and game. Some of what the books had to say, I felt was not useful to me. Some of it was.

The stuff I deemed useful, I implemented and it made me a more interesting date ... sometimes. Other times it made clear the date was going nowhere and it was time to cut losses, which I had struggled with when younger.

In sum ... and this addresses some of the other stuff that has gone around the horn here.

In any given interaction with a woman, I let it go where it could go. 

Whether that meant one date and no connection, one date and back to her place, or four dates before a kiss felt comfortable ... I didn't care. I rolled with it. I personally made no judgment about whether or not a woman wanted to have sex. If we were intimate very early in the relationship, the only assumption I made is that she wanted to have sex ... no manipulation, lies, or chicanery required.


----------



## Created2Write

Will do.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Just to clarify FW(because I'm still a bit lost): when it comes to the choices men make in who they want to have sex with, do you believe that they should only seek women who are obviously into them?"

I believe that if we were all just very in tuned to who is into us (something that can be learned if it doesn't come naturally to us) that nature would sort us out into couples beautifully, based on who we are genetically most compatible with in our areas. Can I prove this, no? My opinion.

For shy guys, there are still women who are into them. They might need some coaching on how to notice them.

Same for shy girls.

For extroverts, in some cases I think they should be more observant and less assertive, so they can watch for the cues.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Created...feel free to PM me. I just feel we are totally thread jacking.
> 
> I'm happy to discuss anything with you.


The thread was for better or worse ... opened by a mod.

You are granted permission to thread-jack if the subject matter has remotely to do with men and women and intimate relationships.

Or shoes ... that would be ok too.


----------



## always_alone

Davelli0331 said:


> Like I said, remove all the fluff, and "game" is about seeking approval from women so that you feel better about yourself. Why not instead actually become a better person?


Yes. This. The men who game seem to think they have no other way to communicate with women that they find attractive. Being direct and honest doesn't occur to them, or if it does they reject that because "she'll just dismiss me as a creep."

At base, I think the draw to "game" is rooted in insecurity. That and sheer resentment of women who might have the nerve to reject an advance. How else could you stomach the idea of hitting on as many women as possible just to increase odds of success? Smells a bit like self loathing to me.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

always_alone said:


> Yes. This. The men who game seem to think they have no other way to communicate with women that they find attractive. Being direct and honest doesn't occur to them, or if it does they reject that because "she'll just dismiss me as a creep."
> 
> At base, I think the draw to "game" is rooted in insecurity. That and sheer resentment of women who might have the nerve to reject an advance. How else could you stomach the idea of hitting on as many women as possible just to increase odds of success? Smells a bit like self loathing to me.


Some women are so used to seeing and hearing the format of the game, they don't expect anything different. Anything different is weird...


----------



## ravioli

always_alone said:


> Yes. This. The men who game seem to think they have no other way to communicate with women that they find attractive. Being direct and honest doesn't occur to them, or if it does they reject that because "she'll just dismiss me as a creep."
> 
> At base, I think the draw to "game" is rooted in insecurity. That and sheer resentment of women who might have the nerve to reject an advance. How else could you stomach the idea of hitting on as many women as possible just to increase odds of success? Smells a bit like self loathing to me.


What is your definition of game? Is it strictly the PUA type of game. Many men have described that their game just consists of their natural ability to effectively communicate with a woman and garner interest, without having to have a choreographed or rehearsed set ups.

I think your defintion of game is off from a lot of others.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> "Just to clarify FW(because I'm still a bit lost): when it comes to the choices men make in who they want to have sex with, do you believe that they should only seek women who are obviously into them?"
> 
> I believe that if we were all just very in tuned to who is into us (something that can be learned if it doesn't come naturally to us) that nature would sort us out into couples beautifully, based on who we are genetically most compatible with in our areas. Can I prove this, no? My opinion.
> 
> For shy guys, there are still women who are into them. They might need some coaching on how to notice them.
> 
> Same for shy girls.
> 
> For extroverts, in some cases I think they should be more observant and less assertive, so they can watch for the cues.


The problem with this is that it is NOT that simple. At all. Just because someone is into _us_ does _not_ mean that we would _ever_ be into them. There is a guy I know who has been into me since I was fourteen. He's a nice guy and all, and not ugly(though due to some medical issues he was very overweight), but his personality was simply awful. We had nothing in common, he was a pessimist about everything, and when he was funny and nice, it would be ruined with him trying to be right about everything...all the time. He asked me out, his mother talked to my mother constantly about him and I dating, his sister talked about us dating, and I was avid that it had to be no. 

Just because someone is into us doesn't mean that "nature" put us together. Even ONS and casual sex really shouldn't be left up to nothing more than who shows an interest in us. What's the purpose of having a ONS with someone we can barely stay awake to listen to?

I agree that there is someone for all of us sexually, and that we can, as people, learn to better ourselves so that we can be a better sexual partner, whether in a relationship or not. But part of being a good partner is also being honest, and that includes being true to yourself and your standards. It sounds shallow, but in the end I think it's the best thing to do. You said pursuing people who aren't into you breaks hearts and homes. Likewise, I think having sex with someone you're _not_ into breaks hearts as well.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Trenton said:


> For the win!!!!!!


I agree for the most part, but in the "bar" pickup scenario, the Athol Kay is not a bad model. His model doesn't factor in that some women want a good guy who is NOT the alpha, some of them hate that. They all want different things.


----------



## Created2Write

DaddyLongShanks said:


> I agree for the most part, but in the "bar" pickup scenario, the Athol Kay is not a bad model. His model doesn't factor in that some women want a good guy who is NOT the alpha, some of them hate that. They all want different things.


Which is why the book isn't meant to be the be all, end all to sexual relationship help. In fact, there isn't a single marriage/communication/relationship/individual self-help book that _is_ meant to be the be all, end all to self-help books. The books are written for very specific types of people and situations. Which is why I find it absurd that so many people get outraged against MMSL or 5LL or HNHN. If you don't agree with it, then it obviously doesn't apply to you. But it doesn't mean the entire book is worthless, or that basic principles can't improve a person/situation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Likewise, I think having sex with someone you're not into breaks hearts as well."

I agree, but where did I ever say anyone should have sex with someone they are not into?


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Faithful Wife said:


> "Likewise, I think having sex with someone you're not into breaks hearts as well."
> 
> I agree, but where did I ever say anyone should have sex with someone they are not into?


People do it all the time in these "hookups".


----------



## Faithful Wife

I don't think they should, my opinion.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't think they should, my opinion.


People do it all the time until the grow out of it. Some people do it for 20 years or more and never grow out of it. When your going through that stage it's the most interesting thing in the world.


----------



## ravioli

Created2Write said:


> I said/asked something similar, and I'm curious to know her answer. Because I seriously doubt that a man and woman will lock eyes from across the bar and magically know that the other wants to do them. In fact, I would imagine that flirting and playing a little hard to get could make the night more exciting, and the sex afterward more pleasurable. Going for the first girl who flashes a flirty smile just doesn't seem appealing, even to me. And as a woman who lives for the chase and the feeling of desirability, I can definitely appreciate the idea of withholding ones sexual interest for a short period of time to see whether or not the guy is going to give up right away, or persist.


Yes, I agree with this. Nothing with playing a little hard to get. Isn't that the beauty of male-female relationships? More or less an art form and not something that's just mechanical.


----------



## Entropy3000

Look, all the really good men are taken. So anyone else is just going to be settling for less. It is what it is though.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Yes. This. The men who game seem to think they have no other way to communicate with women that they find attractive. Being direct and honest doesn't occur to them, or if it does they reject that because "she'll just dismiss me as a creep."
> 
> At base, I think the draw to "game" is rooted in insecurity. That and sheer resentment of women who might have the nerve to reject an advance. How else could you stomach the idea of hitting on as many women as possible just to increase odds of success? Smells a bit like self loathing to me.



Do you truly believe I didn't think that being 'direct and honest' were a good place to start when dating a woman?

How direct? How honest? Do I offer up how I came to be divorced? That I have prostate issues that could impact the sex life we don't have ... but I want you to know just in case? Do I ask her if she has resolved all of the baggage with her ex? Is her ex crazy? Is she crazy? What is she looking for in dating? Does she want to remarry?

I am of course emphasizing some of the absurd. But I get a kick out of the presumption here that most guys _should just know what to do ..._ I'm not accusing you of being cruel, but your use of the word insecure in the context of guys not always being sure about how to approach a woman is like a kick in the groin.

Direct and honest don't add up to a hill of beans if you are unfamiliar with how the nuances of those very positive qualities can bring someone closer to you, or scare the living sh!t out of them upon first meeting.

I think equating dating to dancing is an apt analogy as well. I needed lessons. Then I needed practice. And eventually, I deemed myself a good 'dater' and dancer.

Am I ever going to be the guy with an open shirt and sleeve tats, approaching hundreds of women? Hell no ...

But I'm not trying to shirk the fact that I USED content directly from those sources I listed previously ... and they BENEFITED my interactions with women.

Which is why I don't much care about the smack talk on either side of the debate.


----------



## Machiavelli

ravioli said:


> I agree with the 80/20 rule, but would you give a man high praise for only being able to get 5 or 6's? Would you claim that this man has game?


Yes. If he is less than 7, has less than $1M in the bank, and gets regularly and frequently scores with women over 4, he's a master.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Deejo, just looked up my quote in your signature. Damn you went back to find that rare jewel. I re-watched it and still want to kick them in the balls. If they were women and behaving similarly, I want you to know that I'd want to kick them in the boobs.
> 
> Maybe I have anger management issues.


Swear I laughed out loud for about 5 minutes when I rediscovered it. 

Had to be a signature. I think it captures you nicely.


----------



## Davelli0331

Deejo said:


> Do you truly believe I didn't think that being 'direct and honest' were a good place to start when dating a woman?
> 
> How direct? How honest? Do I offer up how I came to be divorced? That I have prostate issues that could impact the sex life we don't have ... but I want you to know just in case? Do I ask her if she has resolved all of the baggage with her ex? Is her ex crazy? Is she crazy? What is she looking for in dating? Does she want to remarry?
> 
> I am of course emphasizing some of the absurd. But I get a kick out of the presumption here that most guys _should just know what to do ..._ I'm not accusing you of being cruel, but your use of the word insecure in the context of guys not always being sure about how to approach a woman is like a kick in the groin.
> 
> Direct and honest don't add up to a hill of beans if you are unfamiliar with how the nuances of those very positive qualities can bring someone closer to you, or scare the living sh!t out of them upon first meeting.
> 
> I think equating dating to dancing is an apt analogy as well. I needed lessons. Then I needed practice. And eventually, I deemed myself a good 'dater' and dancer.


I think people get tripped up because most people don't think of what you have there as "game", that's self-improvement. We're just arguing semantics at this point, but when many people hear game, they think the idiotic, cartoonish PUA drivel that gets thrown about.



Deejo said:


> Am I ever going to be the guy with an open shirt and sleeve tats, approaching hundreds of women? Hell no ...


That's what many people think of when they hear "game". 

Of course, again, that's all just semantics.


----------



## inarut

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Damn guy, you make the future sound so promising for men [/QUOTE
> 
> Yea, beause god creates and puts all these people on earth who are not even worthy of reproduction
> ....not cute enough.....not strong enough to be worth a pittance. Just trash to devour and throw away. Yea. God creates trash.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Deejo said:


> Do you truly believe I didn't think that being 'direct and honest' were a good place to start when dating a woman?
> 
> How direct? How honest? Do I offer up how I came to be divorced? That I have prostate issues that could impact the sex life we don't have ... but I want you to know just in case? Do I ask her if she has resolved all of the baggage with her ex? Is her ex crazy? Is she crazy? What is she looking for in dating? Does she want to remarry?
> 
> I am of course emphasizing some of the absurd. But I get a kick out of the presumption here that most guys _should just know what to do ..._ I'm not accusing you of being cruel, but your use of the word insecure in the context of guys not always being sure about how to approach a woman is like a kick in the groin.
> 
> Direct and honest don't add up to a hill of beans if you are unfamiliar with how the nuances of those very positive qualities can bring someone closer to you, or scare the living sh!t out of them upon first meeting.
> 
> I think equating dating to dancing is an apt analogy as well. I needed lessons. Then I needed practice. And eventually, I deemed myself a good 'dater' and dancer.
> 
> Am I ever going to be the guy with an open shirt and sleeve tats, approaching hundreds of women? Hell no ...
> 
> But I'm not trying to shirk the fact that I USED content directly from those sources I listed previously ... and they BENEFITED my interactions with women.
> 
> Which is why I don't much care about the smack talk on either side of the debate.


I think the Athol Kay example is while it's not an exact formula, there are portions of your strategy, attributes and image that you can improve and it will improve your odds.

I agree with this part to an extent, and his model drives the point home.


----------



## inarut

Entropy3000 said:


> Look, all the really good men are taken. So anyone else is just going to be settling for less. It is what it is though.


Don't say that...its not true....just as its true that there are also good women and men that are taken but not recognized as such. I would go for a divorced person before someone who has never been married anyday. You just don't know unless you have been there.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> "Likewise, I think having sex with someone you're not into breaks hearts as well."
> 
> I agree, but where did I ever say anyone should have sex with someone they are not into?


You said it often...they we should limit who we pursue based on who is already into us. What if we aren't into people who are already into us?


----------



## Created2Write

ravioli said:


> Yes, I agree with this. Nothing with playing a little hard to get. Isn't that the beauty of male-female relationships? More or less an art form and not something that's just mechanical.


Right, exactly. The thrill of "being chased".


----------



## Faithful Wife

"What if we aren't into people who are already into us?"

There are enough of them that there should be one or more that you are into.

I believe there are literally thousands of people for each of us.


----------



## Deejo

Davelli0331 said:


> I think people get tripped up because most people don't think of what you have there as "game", that's self-improvement. We're just arguing semantics at this point, but when many people hear game, they think the idiotic, cartoonish PUA drivel that gets thrown about.
> 
> 
> That's what many people think of when they hear "game".
> 
> Of course, again, that's all just semantics.


So basically I started a thread about using game, and I'm not really using game?

How embarrassing ...

I do agree. I wanted to be honest about my source material. And wanted to be honest about what MY implementation of it looked like, which I have always stated, doesn't look like disrespectful posturing, cheesy lines, or approaching women like a door to door salesman. It isn't pickup, but it also isn't an organic execution of my God given brilliant insight into women combined with my charm.

It's a template. It's an outline that I use to determine if a woman and I may have some chemistry. I am more relaxed as a date, more interesting to talk to, and more confident.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Created2Write said:


> Right, exactly. The thrill of "being chased".


That was part of the thrill and excitement of the "game" in pickup/hookups. The thrill of the chase and being chased, the potential for immediate gratifications, etc.


----------



## inarut

Deejo said:


> Do you truly believe I didn't think that being 'direct and honest' were a good place to start when dating a woman? Mi
> 
> How direct? How honest? Do I offer up how I came to be divorced? That I have prostate issues that could impact the sex life we don't have ... but I want you to know just in case? Do I ask her if she has resolved all of the baggage with her ex? Is her ex crazy? Is she crazy? What is she looking for in dating? Does she want to remarry?
> 
> I am of course emphasizing some of the absurd. But I get a kick out of the presumption here that most guys _should just know what to do ..._ I'm not accusing you of being cruel, but your use of the word insecure in the context of guys not always being sure about how to approach a woman is like a kick in the groin.
> 
> Direct and honest don't add up to a hill of beans if you are unfamiliar with how the nuances of those very positive qualities can bring someone closer to you, or scare the living sh!t out of them upon first meeting.
> 
> I think equating dating to dancing is an apt analogy as well. I needed lessons. Then I needed practice. And eventually, I deemed myself a good 'dater' and dancer.
> 
> Am I ever going to be the guy with an open shirt and sleeve tats, approaching hundreds of women? Hell no ...
> 
> But I'm not trying to shirk the fact that I USED content directly from those sources I listed previously ... and they BENEFITED my interactions with women.
> 
> Which is why I don't much care about the smack talk on either side of the debate.


I agree but you seem to be an exception in those following pua literature. Knowng how to approach a woman and actually developing a relationship are two different things. Your success has more to do with the understanding of women you have come to learn, what they want and need that goes far beyond the drivel these sources provide yet contemptuously distort.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> Y'all keep making it sound so nefarious.
> Game is now and always has been a part of courtship.


:iagree:
Man these guys are funny!


----------



## Machiavelli

Trenton said:


> Dude. I feel like I'm studying for my LSAT.


Don't go to law school. Trust me, it's a trap.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

When I first opened this thread I thought the full title was "Pickup and game never ever ends!" ;-)


----------



## inarut

tacoma said:


> Of course, if you actually want a relationship with anybody you'd better back it up with something.
> 
> This whole things getting off track because the game haters seem to think we're talking about roofying up a couple chicks and dragging them off to the sex dungeon.
> 
> This conversation starting within the concept of "Game in Marriage" and it's having a real hard time staying there.


It didn't start out as game in marriage. It was game in dating and there are more than you might like to know who use it to "roofy some chick up and throw her in a dungeon" ....or....more simply have her until he has had his fill and that is what I reject and despise. I'm not saying women have no responsibility in their own choices but some are taken by the game, don't even know to look out for it. They are naive to it and think ....this guys in love with me. I abhor a man who decieves vulnerable women in this way. In no way am I saying all men are like this but some are and the literaturev you guys support...supports that thinking.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tacoma

Faithful Wife said:


> "What if we aren't into people who are already into us?"
> 
> There are enough of them that there should be one or more that you are into.
> 
> I believe there are literally thousands of people for each of us.


Says a woman...


----------



## tacoma

inarut said:


> It didn't start out as game in marriage and there are more than you might like to know who use it to "roofy some chick up and throw her in a dungeon" ....or....more simply have her until he has had his fill and that is what I reject and despise. In no way am I saying all men are like this but some are and the lit you guys support...supports that thinking.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No no it doesn't

This discussion was brought up and based around this exact concept...

Married Man Sex Life | How to have the marriage you thought you were going to have. By which I mean doing it like rabbits.

That is "the lit you guys support"

That concept has nothing to do with the PUA y''all keep dragging into here.

I can't remember deejos OP exactly perhaps he did reference some other source but if he did I'm quite sure it's just as innocent as MMSL

Edit:
Where is Athol anyway?
Gets rich and famous with his "nefarious PUA handbook" and can't be bothered to post here anymore.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

coffee4me said:


> *WHAT???* First, I find out that I have low sex rank because I'm over 40! and now this. I am going to have to settle for less.
> 
> This thread is more than I can take


 how much does "Over 40" kill you by? What if all your sex rank qualitiies were greater than a 30-35 years old.

1. Physique.
2. Money
3. Personality
4. Dress
5. Social standing
6. Intelligence
7. etc, etc
8. Energy, drive and motivation

And the only thing "worse" was the numerical value of age.

Is the 40 year old going to be dinged super heavily even if he is "better" in all the categories by a distinguishable amount?

I'm just wondering how much over 40 kills you, and if it kills men more than women or vice versa?

And Oh, the dating selection pool was 30-55, and occasionally dipping down to 25 just for "dates"...


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> Edit:
> Where is Athol anyway?
> Gets rich and famous with his "nefarious PUA handbook" and can't be bothered to post here anymore.


That's what i said in that last thread when they were giving his books the usual beat down.
Athol's way smarter than all of them. He looked at their condition and saw a good business opportunity._ He's got game !_

These discussions are good when they make sense., otherwise, they are a waste of energy.

As for me, I'm tired trying to explain the same thing over and over to men don't even know how lost they are.

I'm logging off now.
I had a long tiring day and my wife's waiting to give me a nice back rub with some warm sandalwood oil.

I'll see you guys in the morning.....


----------



## Davelli0331

tacoma said:


> No no it doesn't
> 
> This discussion was brought up and based around this exact concept...
> 
> Married Man Sex Life | How to have the marriage you thought you were going to have. By which I mean doing it like rabbits.
> 
> That is "the lit you guys support"
> 
> That concept has nothing to do with the PUA y''all keep dragging into here.
> 
> I can't remember deejos OP exactly perhaps he did reference some other source but if he did I'm quite sure it's just as innocent as MMSL
> 
> Edit:
> Where is Athol anyway?
> Gets rich and famous with his "nefarious PUA handbook" and can't be bothered to post here anymore.


The reason that the PUA stuff gets dragged into any discussion about "game" is because for years, that's exactly what "game" was, and nothing more.

My brother and I got into "game" waaaay back in the day when SoSuave was the website to visit for the latest Doc Love articles. We waited at the bookstore for the day that The Game was released. We watched The Pickup Artist religiously, trying to learn all of Mystery's methods. The lay guide. NLP. The Art Of Seduction.

All that stuff was early to mid 2000s. It has only been a recent development, maybe last 3-4 years, that some parts of "game" were thought to be applicable to LTRs and marriages to keep interest and romance alive.

It's unfortunate, bc the idiocy that my bro and I prescribed to was the idiotic stuff: Peac0cking, AMOGing, sarging, wingmans, negging, kino, ladder theory, friend zones, all that stuff that, while sometimes applicable, was certainly not universal and looks downright stupid in retrospect.

But that stuff is what many people think of when they hear "game".

A lot of the stuff talked about here, like seducing your wife, building sexual tension, all that, I don't consider that game. That's being a dynamic lover and husband. The stupid stuff listed above, that's what I consider "game".


----------



## cantmove

coffee4me said:


> *WHAT???* First, I find out that I have low sex rank because I'm over 40! and now this. I am going to have to settle for less.
> 
> This thread is more than I can take


It's all relative. You might have low sex rank because you're 40 to the 20 somethings but for the women in their 40's that would give you high sex rank. But I agree this thread is also more than I can take.


----------



## inarut

inarut said:


> It didn't start out as game in marriage. It was game in dating and there are more than you might like to know who use it to "roofy some chick up and throw her in a dungeon" ....or....more simply have her until he has had his fill and that is what I reject and despise. I'm not saying women have no responsibility in their own choices but some are taken by the game, don't even know to look out for it. They are naive to it and think ....this guys in love with me. I abhor a man who decieves vulnerable women in this way. In no way am I saying all men are like this but some are and the literaturev you guys support...supports that thinking.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


_Posted via Mobile Device_

@tacoma

Look back to what sources are referenced and what has been said. I will take a look at the one you are suggesting. I can't respect a man who takes advantage of a womans naivette or vulnerability. Not all women are naive....some are on the same page as men....looking for the same thing...that's all good...nobody gets hurt. But these books teach men to get over.


----------



## Entropy3000

The Greatest Trick The Devil Ever Pulled - YouTube


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> The Greatest Trick The Devil Ever Pulled - YouTube


Hmm.


----------



## tacoma

Entropy3000 said:


> The Greatest Trick The Devil Ever Pulled - YouTube


I love that flick.


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> No no it doesn't
> 
> This discussion was brought up and based around this exact concept...
> 
> Married Man Sex Life | How to have the marriage you thought you were going to have. By which I mean doing it like rabbits.
> 
> That is "the lit you guys support"
> 
> That concept has nothing to do with the PUA y''all keep dragging into here.
> 
> I can't remember deejos OP exactly perhaps he did reference some other source but if he did I'm quite sure it's just as innocent as MMSL
> 
> Edit:
> Where is Athol anyway?
> Gets rich and famous with his "nefarious PUA handbook" and can't be bothered to post here anymore.


I think Jennifer is posting on this thread. To run up the publicity for the book. Bashing MMSL is good publicity.


----------



## inarut

Entropy3000 said:


> I think Jennifer is posting on this thread. To run up the publicity for the book. Bashing MMSL is good publicity.


Is that directed at me? 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tacoma

Entropy3000 said:


> I think Jennifer is posting on this thread. To run up the publicity for the book. Bashing MMSL is good publicity.


I wouldn't be surprised a bit.

:smthumbup:


----------



## tacoma

inarut said:


> Is that directed at me?...although I have no idea what it means.....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Jennifer is Athol Kays (The author of MMSL) wife.

She posts on the blog as well.


----------



## Entropy3000

inarut said:


> Is that directed at me?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## inarut

tacoma said:


> Jennifer is Athol Kays (The author of MMSL) wife.
> 
> She posts on the blog as well.


Well, I'm not her...if the comment is being directed at me.....from what you say, mmsl is different from what has been discussed here. Can't comment on it since I don't know what it says. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Do you truly believe I didn't think that being 'direct and honest' were a good place to start when dating a woman?
> 
> How direct? How honest? Do I offer up how I came to be divorced? That I have prostate issues that could impact the sex life we don't have ... but I want you to know just in case? Do I ask her if she has resolved all of the baggage with her ex? Is her ex crazy? Is she crazy? What is she looking for in dating? Does she want to remarry?
> 
> I am of course emphasizing some of the absurd. But I get a kick out of the presumption here that most guys _should just know what to do ..._ I'm not accusing you of being cruel, but your use of the word insecure in the context of guys not always being sure about how to approach a woman is like a kick in the groin.
> 
> Direct and honest don't add up to a hill of beans if you are unfamiliar with how the nuances of those very positive qualities can bring someone closer to you, or scare the living sh!t out of them upon first meeting.
> 
> I think equating dating to dancing is an apt analogy as well. I needed lessons. Then I needed practice. And eventually, I deemed myself a good 'dater' and dancer.
> 
> Am I ever going to be the guy with an open shirt and sleeve tats, approaching hundreds of women? Hell no ...
> 
> But I'm not trying to shirk the fact that I USED content directly from those sources I listed previously ... and they BENEFITED my interactions with women.
> 
> Which is why I don't much care about the smack talk on either side of the debate.


I am not meaning to be cruel. I have said it before and will say it again: I don't really think that what you and a few others here are talking about is gaming as presented in MMSL and PUA books. Frankly, I 'm still amazed that you were able to find any gems at all in that mess.

I have given a few examples of the types of things I find completely objectionable, all of them deceitful, manipulative, and hypocritical. And most of them used when a simpler, more honest approach would be much preferable (eg. negging)

And I get that guys would turn to this literature precisely when they are feeling insecure. But to me it's a sad thing that this is the best that they can find. You yourself can see how filled with resentment and hatred it is. I've seen you say as much. Sadly some who read it aren't as able to extract the gold from the ore. Instead they use it to put others down in order to boost themselves up.

Why else would they so quickly lose respect for the ones they've gamed? Why the relentless pursuit of more and better? 

The gamer is encouraged to judge his worth by the number and quality of his conquests, not in his sense of self or ability. But it's a mug's game because there is always a hotter, more amazing girl that, if only he could get her, he could finally feel really good about himself. But then he gets her, and automatically loses respect for her, and so he's off to the next one. Or two, or three. It's ego massage math: three 8s equal a nine, but even bagging a dozen sevens can't get you to 10. Up your game, man, if ya want to be a real playa!

That's what I was referring to when I brought up insecurity.


----------



## Entropy3000

You know, I have made a career at finding gems when other people could not find them. I am not bragging. The thing is that not everyone sees the value in things. I tend to see the yin and yang. The good and the bad and the gray in between. I thought everyone did that.

When I first started out in Engineering I was given the not so great projects. However other more senior Engineers would complain to our boss that the new guy was getting the best projects. Seriously. He had to tell them that they turned them down. I was able to see the good in them and build on that goodness. Find the good stuff and optimize what you find.

Some people can turn green baby crap into ice cream. Others just give you back hammered baby crap. LOL.

You have to be motivated first off. You can see something that resonates with you. It is easy to have tunnel vision. 

If you jsut see the negatives in things you miss out.

If you just see the positives in things you miss out.

So I offer no apology for finding some good things where others do not. Good for me.


----------



## inarut

always_alone said:


> I am not meaning to be cruel. I have said it before and will say it again: I don't really think that what you and a few others here are talking about is gaming as presented in MMSL and PUA books. Frankly, I 'm still amazed that you were able to find any gems at all in that mess.
> 
> I have given a few examples of the types of things I find completely objectionable, all of them deceitful, manipulative, and hypocritical. And most of them used when a simpler, more honest approach would be much preferable (eg. negging)
> 
> And I get that guys would turn to this literature precisely when they are feeling insecure. But to me it's a sad thing that this is the best that they can find. You yourself can see how filled with resentment and hatred it is. I've seen you say as much. Sadly some who read it aren't as able to extract the gold from the ore. Instead they use it to put others down in order to boost themselves up.
> 
> Why else would they so quickly lose respect for the ones they've gamed? Why the relentless pursuit of more and better?
> 
> The gamer is encouraged to judge his worth by the number and quality of his conquests, not in his sense of self or ability. But it's a mug's game because there is always a hotter, more amazing girl that, if only he could get her, he could finally feel really good about himself. But then he gets her, and automatically loses respect for her, and so he's off to the next one. Or two, or three. It's ego massage math: three 8s equal a nine, but even bagging a dozen sevens can't get you to 10. Up your game, man, if ya want to be a real playa!
> 
> That's what I was referring to when I brought up insecurity.


Its fear based. The age old game of dehumanizing that which you can't control or understand becaue it is so differnent from you. Its been done with women and people of other races....africans, jews...throughout history...its out of the realm of understanding, so you must make them less than you to feel safe and in control. Some day they they will realize we pose no actual threat 

Those who can't extract the gems from the rubbish.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

inarut said:


> Its fear based. The age old game of dehumanizing that which you can't control or understand becaue it is so differnent from you. Its been done with women and people of other races....africans, jews...throughout history...its out of the realm of understanding, so you must make them less than you to feel safe and in control. Some day they they will realize we pose no actual threat.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Absolutely. So lets drop this fear and open our minds.

Lets put away the fear. 

Let's stop spreading the FUD.

Fear ... Uncertainty ... Doubt


----------



## Nsweet

always_alone said:


> I didn't mean to offend you, and I certainly didn't call you a rapist or a monster. But the way you wrote that one post it sure sounded like you deliberately made a play for women knowing full well that you would respect them less if they said yes. If that isn't a **** test, I don't know what it.
> 
> If I misread you, I'm sorry. But I also kind of hope that you lost as much respect for yourself as you did for those women.


My computer died before I could post this. 

I'm very well aware I sometimes talk and write like a "bro", and offend people every once in a while. But I assure you I don't act like a ********* in that way. I'm a very nice guy who has used this knowledge to protect some of these women from daterape. Oddly the first time was hours after I ran a short K run for sexual assault rape intervention in the Navy, irony.

When I say things that seem offensive about what I did with these, you misunderstand me. This was all in a short period between my first kiss with that lesbian at 19, my first time with a stripper, and when I learned the game well enough to find "the ONE" and marry my ex wife all in a year's time frame. Although, I admit I really should of gotten to know her better and mabe looked around first before marrying out of fear of death and abandonment. And a lot of the time I did those things for the excitement and risk, before medication was prescribed:rofl:

Now I teach what I know in a whole new game, part of which is telling you women what to watch out for to c*ck block the jerks. And second I use the knowledge I gained to help spouses here turn around and 180 or reconcile with natural game. I realize now this thread is a lost cause for an advice column because too many cooks have spoiled the pot, but I do intend to write one for women with the best advice I have, as well as some quotes from other female pua authors. Oh yeah, female players do exist and they are damn good.


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> You know, I have made a career at finding gems when other people could not find them. I am not bragging. The thing is that not everyone sees the value in things. I tend to see the yin and yang. The good and the bad and the gray in between. I thought everyone did that.
> 
> When I first started out in Engineering I was given the not so great projects. However other more senior Engineers would complain to our boss that the new guy was getting the best projects. Seriously. He had to tell them that they turned them down. I was able to see the good in them and build on that goodness. Find the good stuff and optimize what you find.
> 
> Some people can turn green baby crap into ice cream


I was with you right up to green baby crap ice cream. Some projects are just not worth getting into!


----------



## Holland

Nsweet said:


> My computer died before I could post this.
> 
> I'm very well aware I sometimes talk and write like a "bro", and offend people every once in a while. But I assure you I don't act like a ********* in that way. I'm a very nice guy who has used this knowledge to protect some of these women from daterape. Oddly the first time was hours after I ran a short K run for sexual assault rape intervention in the Navy, irony.
> 
> When I say things that seem offensive about what I did with these, you misunderstand me. This was all in a short period between my first kiss with that lesbian at 19, my first time with a stripper,* and when I learned the game well enough to find "the ONE" and marry my ex wife all in a year's time frame. Although, I admit I really should of gotten to know her better and mabe looked around first before marrying out of fear of death and abandonment.* And a lot of the time I did those things for the excitement and risk, before medication was prescribed:rofl:
> 
> ............


Which is exactly why all this game stuff is daft. If you are playing a game don't expect quality, your catch was caught by a game.

As I said earlier it is easy for most women, we go out and pick up if we choose to do so, our game is just being female. But it seems that men that glorify the PUA etc lifestyles are missing one big point about women, that being we like men, we want to meet men and we want to have sex with them. So just be the best man you can be and get out there, talk to us, chat us up.

I guess it comes down to quality v's quantity. If you want a new chick every few days do it but if you want a quality relationship invest yourself into it, you have to be a real person to find a real person. You have to be a good, decent man in order to find a good, decent woman.


----------



## inarut

I agree....with trenton.

You can't even make a point wthout it going off in varying directions to obscure it. Frustrating!

But wouldn't it be nice if what you say, were so.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> I was with you right up to green baby crap ice cream. Some projects are just not worth getting into!


Life is what you make it.

Most people should not tackle those projects. I agree. I take projects others run from if I see enough value versus the risks.

Some people have vision is the point. So just because you cannot see the good does not mean that it is not there. Some folks are just not ready yet.


----------



## Machiavelli

Trenton said:


> A trap that is the only way to reform laws that dictate what can and can't be done in regards to our most vulnerable children?
> 
> I'll fall into that trap any day of the week...gladly.


Politicians, or I should say the lobbyists who pay them, write the laws. Are you going into politics or lobbying?


----------



## inarut

Entropy3000 said:


> Absolutely. So lets drop this fear and open our minds.
> 
> Lets put away the fear.
> 
> Let's stop spreading the FUD.
> 
> Fear ... Uncertainty ... Doubt


Sure, let's change the world! Where do we start???
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> ENT: You know, I've chosen to make a career trying to stop abuses that happened to me and when I got into it I did so to save myself only to find out that I had it easy.
> 
> I find much of this to be trivial, semantics.
> 
> I don't get why so many (including myself at times) spend so much time with semantics or trying to prove some futile point that has little baring on the outcome.
> 
> What I want is for men and women to respect one another and to understand that there are differences, both separated by gender and by individual. What this means is that there are countless avenues to explore and discover. Which is by itself exciting.
> 
> This entire thread, like so many, is a practice in futility.
> 
> But rather, an example of the many different and varying assumptions, experiences and beliefs that surround relationships.


I applaud your work. But invoking africans and jews? No. I am throwing the challenge flag.

Just no.

Deejo, wanted to share with us. He did. So often the party gets spoiled. I do not call this thread futile. Some folks work to make threads futile because they do not like them. That is a tactic. Not to win. But to block and obfuscate. This can be on purpose or not.


----------



## Entropy3000

inarut said:


> Sure, let's change the world! Where do we start???
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


With our next post. By throwing away our fear. But we do not start by burning books.

We recognize that while we may not agree with someone else they may actually see something we do not.

I absolutely get what many see as offensive. But I do not discount others that see something of value.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Omgzzz wth are you talking about?! Call me ignorant but I am at a total loss!
> 
> Applaud all you want. It's hardly applaud worthy. We all have our own motives and I'm not disillusioned as to mine.
> 
> As to Jews and Africans and any other stereotype you'd like to throw in there, please do.
> 
> If your comment is a deliberate attempt at exclusion; I have absolutely no need or desire to even address it or hold you in regard if for a moment you would think that, for me, exclusion of any individual is feasible. Confusion and inadequacy in regards to empathy--absolutely--disregard, never.


I see you are not reading all the posts. I can't blame you. I called FUD based on a post that invoked africans and jews.

Yes, earlier I invoked blueberry pancakes. That was really just a commentary on what my wife was sharing with me at the time. Trying to keep it light.


----------



## inarut

Entropy3000 said:


> With our next post. By throwing away our fear. But we do not start by burning books.
> 
> We recognize that while we may not agree with someone else they may actually see something we do not.
> 
> I absolutely get what many see as offensive. But I do not discount others that see something of value.


Burning books??? Really! Is that what you think I subscribe to? I see the offense and the value as well as you do.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Nsweet

Holland said:


> Which is exactly why all this game stuff is daft. If you are playing a game don't expect quality, your catch was caught by a game.
> 
> As I said earlier it is easy for most women, we go out and pick up if we choose to do so, our game is just being female. But it seems that men that glorify the PUA etc lifestyles are missing one big point about women, that being we like men, we want to meet men and we want to have sex with them. So just be the best man you can be and get out there, talk to us, chat us up.
> 
> I guess it comes down to quality v's quantity. If you want a new chick every few days do it but if you want a quality relationship invest yourself into it, you have to be a real person to find a real person. You have to be a good, decent man in order to find a good, decent woman.


I get what your saying, but I was never the type to sleep with a new woman every night, nor would I ever be. Let's face it the first time is always a little uncomfortable and having ONS that much would take away a lot of the fun of real sex. It's like how could you enjoy women if you made dating them and having sex with them a job. You couldn't!

The way I always thought about it was, attracting women is all about treating them like you would treat any other female friend. A lot of them women I met and kissed or what have you, I did so after they had been hit on mercilessly and I just sort of joked around with them and we talked about her life mostly. It's not that it's hard meeting women, but guys don't understand how to meet their needs. Most never married guys anyways. 

What I found after doing this over and over what that women go to bars and clubs for the same reasons guys do, some go looking for sex, some just want to drink, but a lot of women want to find someone they can relate to that's not one of their girlfriends. I mean if there's one thing a woman hate it's another woman, lol:rofl: Seriously, if you suppress your creepy desire to eyef*ck her and just talk with her about her day, you're half way there. Good practice for marriage BTW, you'll end up talking about things she wants to talk about anways. 

I ended up going along with the Steve Harvey rules in "Think like a man" 90 days of getting to know them before sex is a damn good rule. It's not what I want to do with some of these women, my GOD, but it gives you a good chance to get to know them and makes first time sex a lot less awkward. And if you're sexually compatable and find someone who's willing to work with you, you've basically won the lonely game at that point and found a catch.


----------



## Entropy3000

inarut said:


> Burning books??? Really! Is that what you think I subscribe to? I see the offense and the value as well as you do.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Good. Then we agree.

Some folks are obsessed with MMSL from either direction. I found the book of some value to my marriage. I threw it out last month because I got what I wanted from it.

But the whole Jennifer comment earlier was based on the bashing of the book. Ok fine some folks do not like it because they found some stuff offensive. I get that. I even understand their view. But I am saying we really need to back down the rhetoric here. 

Just my opinion.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> What? You can't do the leg work for me? Sheesh...


We are definitely circular now. I grant you that. 

I can see us going in a direction that is not so helpful or going in a positive direction. I know you have tried to steer this in the positive direction.

I find it interesting that many of us guys do recognize what we call good game from the female side. You may not call it game. 

I see game as seduction. I think seduction is awesome. We use seduction in many ways. It is certainly sales. Nothing happens until someone sells something. ABC. Always Be Closing.

I always had my Engineers carry their own dry markers. Blue or Black. Because having a good idea is not enough. You have to be able to sell it.
You have to seduce someone. I do not see seduce as a bad word. It can be. It is not demeaning to me however. But it may be to some.

So I think a man should romance / seduce his wife and vice versa.


----------



## inarut

Entropy3000 said:


> Good. Then we agree.
> 
> Some folks are obsessed with MMSL from either direction. I found the book of some value to my marriage. I threw it out last month because I got what I wanted from it.
> 
> But the whole Jennifer comment earlier was based on the bashing of the book. Ok fine some folks do not like it because they found some stuff offensive. I get that. I even understand their view. But I am saying we really need to back down the rhetoric here.
> 
> Just my opinion.


I understand. You were just pretty harsh on me though, especially with the comparison I made, which I stand by although its about the perception, not any particular book. I don't know much about mmsl. I was speaking more about the "pick up stuff" and articles from the website.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## inarut

Trenton said:


> So are you Jen or Jewish or African? I don't know why it matters but I'm all sorts of paranoid now.


I'm a woman. Spanish and Italian. Anything else I should clarify?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> You want to know something funny?
> 
> I'm going to tell you anyway...
> 
> I've never read even one of these books. Am I ignorant?
> 
> I bet I could describe them to a T based upon forums and men's weaknesses. That should tell you something.
> 
> P.S. I'm not Jen so if you think for a second that's me then ping me or SSH into my machine.
> 
> Quite frankly, my transparency is ridiculous in its proportions but its also what makes me lovable.
> 
> Which, fyi, is why vulnerability is lovable by default.
> 
> Just sayin'


You are gaming me with secure shell. Shameless.

Just be careful about someone NMAPing your ports. Are you sure there are no root kits on your computers? 

Trenton. Yes you ARE loveable. So now you are going to tie me around your finger again aren't you?

You are a master PUA!! You would have to be in your work. Yes? You need to make sure your work gets funded. So you do have mad skilz.

Look, I think the mating ritual is an awesome thing.
It is a dance. It IMO is much more important than the physical.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Hot! But I don't know if you should clarify. Oh what the hell, go for it! Clarify!


I wanted to say that but it would not have been appropriate. You would make a great wingman.

You have just showed off some awesome skills. Bravo. You are demonstrating what most men could only dream of.

You are the AFOG. Alpha Female Of the Group.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Hehehehe I once learned a hard lesson to not log in as root from a Swede who I still hold dear to me. Strangely, I refused to learn it. I'm the type that's like, "Go ahead, F with my root, I'll figure out what you did!"
> 
> I've found, and been told, that my complete lack of acknowledgement that my naivety is naivety is adorable. I'm sticking with it. Is it game? I doubt it since the core of me is unquestionably incapable of understanding it at this point.
> 
> The mating ritual is a devastating thing as it can be hacked just like the root, the shell, the anything we create. So what we need to do instead is take care of it.
> 
> Who do we want the gatekeepers of that to be? Those who wish to profit or objectify it for their own greed/well being or the Gnu people who wish to compliment, explore and evolve it?
> 
> Do you understand what I'm saying?
> 
> It's why the speakers or masters of the craft and their core beliefs are so important to the future well being of the natural dance that will inevitably result between men and women.
> 
> Those who are dictating policy, and their core values, do ABSOLUTELY matter.


Write the book. Write the book that tells the story you think should be told. Seriously. Maybe co-write it with Deejo. The book could even have some yin and yang. Like ok here is where Deejo is right and here is what I think he is missing. He could do the same. The result might actually shed some real light on this stuff.

AND you could agree that the book do no harm to anyone.


----------



## inarut

My parents....mother spanish, father italian.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

What the hell is this thread about again? Is this Ancestery.com? All I know is I'm hungry for blueberry pancakes. I have blueberries, I have the pancake mix but it's nearly midnight. Do calories magically disappear at the witching hour?


----------



## inarut

Trenton said:


> That's cool. Did you learn both languages?
> 
> My husband speaks Spanish (though South American and not actually Spanish...obviously) but our kids only speak English since I did most of the child rearing they missed out on that oh so important feature. Now I wish I forced him to somehow teach them and made them less stereo-typically white American. They don't look as they are as a result as my husband's genes are physically, and quite obviously, dominant. Sigh.


Second generation. Wish I had learned each language but didn't.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> It would do harm because I love Deejo and I don't think I could keep that love out of it so I'd probably end up hating myself for being willing to do something so bold only to end up being so cliche.
> 
> See what I'm saying? I know my limits.


I get knowing ones limits. I gravitate towards reaching for things that are just outside my sure grasp though. Risks you know. You do this too. Safe is ... so boring. 

But I do see what you are saying. I am not saying either that you cannot write your own views alone. But if you wish to bridge some ot these things there may be advantage to co-writing it. 

I guess I am intrigued at your interactions you have on these topics. The result is greater than the sum kinda thing.

Just a thought.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> What the hell is this thread about again? Is this Ancestery.com? All I know is I'm hungry for blueberry pancakes. I have blueberries, I have the pancake mix but it's nearly midnight. Do calories magically disappear at the witching hour?


I had a dream my wife brought me those pancakes and she was wearing pattern stockings ...


----------



## inarut

You all can get back to your discussion. I won't be commenting on this thread anymore....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

inarut said:


> You all can get back to your discussion. I won't be commenting on this thread anymore....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Hey.

Seriously now. Please continue to comment.

I went off the deep end because I was afraid ( fear ) we would go down a volatile road. I should have just let it go. I got your point about PUA being fear based.

I am all about diversity. Do not be run off. You have every right to your views.


----------



## inarut

Trenton said:


> inarut, please don't feel offended! You should always comment if you have something to say. I have personally enjoyed all of your comments and I'm still confused as to how you brought in Africans or Jews or why it's presumed that you are either Athol or Jen, but it's better to call it all out and clear the crap than it is to let it bubble under the surface and be left to hints or confusing inclinations.


I have no clue why its presumed I may be either athol or jen. 

As for the reason I brought in africans and jews it was based on what another poster said. I feel much of the lierature demeans women. My point was throughout history those who are deemed "different" have been dehumanized out of fear and lack of understanding. I used women, africans and jews as examples of this phenomena.
.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

Cheese and Rice ....

So will all the womens' cycles sync up on this thread?

----

Waiting for Brighteyes to say ... no but the mens' will.


----------



## Deejo

inarut said:


> Sure, let's change the world! Where do we start???
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Why my place of course ... over some spiced chai that I blended myself ...


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> Waiting for Brighteyes to say ... no but the mens' will.


Don't need to, you just did.


----------



## Entropy3000

My reference to Jennifer was not aimed at anyone in particular. Just that publicity good or bad for these things often increases sales period.

Indeed Jennifer can be an easy target. I am sure my comment was unfair. Sorry Jennifer.


----------



## Entropy3000

Deejo said:


> Why my place of course ... over some spiced chai that I blended myself ...


Oh wow. That was good.


----------



## Deejo

Entropy3000 said:


> Oh wow. That was good.


Right?


----------



## Entropy3000

Deejo said:


> Right?


Indeed. I confess I did not see that. I chose to castle king side and you did knight takes queen. Nice.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

So now we are talking chess and Chai tea? You guys are going to laugh but I asked Jon if he would ever open an account here. He reads here and thinks there is good advice but has said the posts devolve in to other things and go so off topic he cannot wrap his brain around it. He said "Most of the time it is you who does it, Bright". Ha ha. I'll be happy to show him this thread to which I had nothing to do with it derailing.


----------



## Deejo

Just keeping it light and cheesy.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Those are the posts I like the most. Lots of serious stuff here and it's fun when one evolves in to humor. I love to laugh, do it often and it keeps me sane, well as much as possible.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So now we are talking chess and Chai tea? You guys are going to laugh but I asked Jon if he would ever open an account here. He reads here and thinks there is good advice but has said the posts devolve in to other things and go so off topic he cannot wrap his brain around it. He said "Most of the time it is you who does it, Bright". Ha ha. I'll be happy to show him this thread to which I had nothing to do with it derailing.


Are you inferring that chess and chai tea have nothing to do with game?

His play was brilliant for sure. IRL, he would have gotten a positve result from that question. If only a smile. But for a moment the person would consider it. I dare say it took a challenge and turned into an opportunity to take things to a next level. The person may come back and say no but we could meet for coffee sometime. Hey maybe they end having chai tea. I mean the tea alone is some amount of oxytocin. The invitation itself dopamine. 

And this is why he is the master. I am playing chess ( alone ) and he is having chai tea with a lady. Then again, a whole other story but chess helped me meet girls. LOL. No lie. Smart AND good looking ones. No not Dear Penthouse.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> Are you inferring that chess and chai tea have nothing to do with game?
> 
> His play was brilliant for sure. IRL, he would have gotten a positve result from that question. If only a smile. But for a moment the person would consider it. I dare say it took a challenge and turned in to an opportunity to take things to a next level. The person may come back and no but we could meet for coffee sometime. Hey maybe they end having chai tea. I mean the tea alone is some amount of oxytocin. The invitation itself dopamine.
> 
> And this is why he is the master. I am playing chess ( alone ) and he is having chai tea with a lady.


^^^ I like this!
Therin lies the irony of this thread.

The OP opened, stated_ his_ case and exactly how [I]his game[/I] has worked _for him._
He gave us a ball by ball commentary.

Meanwhile the naysayers had their say, full of doubt, for almost 50 pages.......

He closes his case with a cup of Chai Tea and _his_ companion.
lol,
To the OP,
"..._*Hats off Keyser Söze* .._."

:toast:


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> His play was brilliant for sure. IRL, he would have gotten a positve result from that question. If only a smile. But for a moment the person would consider it. I dare say it took a challenge and turned in to an opportunity to take things to a next level.


Maybe. Such an invitation could also be viewed as patronizing or dismissive. An unnecessary deflection towards the bedroom.

It wasn't directed at me, but I did not find it masterful at all. Just cheesy. (No offense, Deejo)

Whereas your response was thoughtful, engaging seriously with the questioner. More compelling to my mind.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Maybe. Such an invitation could also be viewed as patronizing or dismissive. An unnecessary deflection towards the bedroom.
> 
> It wasn't directed at me, but I did not find it masterful at all. Just cheesy. (No offense, Deejo)
> 
> Whereas your response was thoughtful, engaging seriously with the questioner. More compelling to my mind.


A person's perception is often times,
Their reality.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> He closes his case with a cup of Chai Tea and _his_ companion.
> lol,
> To the OP,
> "..._*Hats off Keyser Söze* .._."
> 
> :toast:


Perhaps you should see what inarut's (and other women's) responses are before you get too far into the back-slapping and high-fiving.

I've put in my vote, and will be interested to see what the others say.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

inarut said:


> And you might get that girl to go out with you....let's not forget that her comment and rudeness should have excluded her from your dating pool....not to mention she now wants you because you dissed her so now due to her own low self esteem she has something to prove....if you don't keep playing this stupid game you won't keep her. And what a prize she will be if you win!!!!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


A lot of these types of comments aren't actually rude. They are a sort of social test - some of it is tone of voice and body language. Guys for example, generally find something about other guys to pick at... and the trait being teased generally becomes part of that guy's "charm". Its generally not something you *don't like* about someone. Its something that makes that person different and interesting. In my experience, people don't like seemingly perfect people... people like flaws. People like human beings.

For example... one guy in my group at work is a hot head. He's easily frustrated and once set off will spend half the day ranting and raving. So the guys in my group took to calling him a bear some time ago... and we drew up and printed a color coded dial that says "bear threat indicator" and put it on his door. There are bear jokes at lunch, there are bear photo shoppped pics. And if he complains about something in an internal meeting, someone often says "[Jay] smash!!" and we all pound the desk once. Once you make one connection on something with someone, even one as silly as this, its easier to make additional connections with the same person.

Pretty much everyone has a trait that gets some friendly ribbing and it honestly makes the group more like family. The worst thing you can do is actually take offense. It indicates you're insecure and standoff-ish. You can't poke fun at yourself. A lot of people experience this on the playground as a child. The girl/guy that likes you will often tease you.

We become adults, but we're all still big kids.

This girl and I didn't work out because we had totally opposite schedules (I work week days, she works weekends and nights) and we just rarely got to see each other.

The thing about PUA skills is that they're primarily geared toward being a confident desireable guy. Neging... teasing, is just one of the traits of such a guy. It contributes to an air of "this guy isn't trying to impress me".


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> Maybe. Such an invitation could also be viewed as patronizing or dismissive. An unnecessary deflection towards the bedroom.
> 
> It wasn't directed at me, but I did not find it masterful at all. Just cheesy. (No offense, Deejo)
> 
> Whereas your response was thoughtful, engaging seriously with the questioner. More compelling to my mind.


That is fair. It was entertaining albeit cheesy. I suggest he was also trying to defuse things in his own way on this thread. 

For the average Joe though I think the lesson may be to certainly be genuine but do not be afraid to take things to the next level if that is the way you feel. Avoiding a missed opportunity. The missed opportunity being less about hooking up and more about continuing the dance another time. Being able to connect intellectually would be a must for me, but there also needs to be the right level of excitement for a romantic relationship.


----------



## Entropy3000

My wife and I can be very playful and be negging each other. I will mix in some self deprecating humor as well. They are like mini fitness tests. Ultimately it is about me showing confidence and have a good sense of humor. Strangely this leads to greater intimacy. It is part of the dance. 

When a woman feels free to hit you playfully you know you are doing ok. Typically the back slap to ones arm / shoulder. My wife will typically give me this back hand and immediately following up with a rather senuous hug.

Sometimes my wife will acknowledge my physical prowess by punching my stomache, chest or shoulders and so on. Sometimes I just laugh it off. Sometimes I give her a firm hug and do the pin against the wall thing and give her a kiss. She will get a pat on the behind at the least. Maybe I lift her up and carry her off. Hey she is telling me she wants to play. She wants my attention.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



always_alone said:


> Maybe. Such an invitation could also be viewed as patronizing or dismissive. An unnecessary deflection towards the bedroom.
> 
> It wasn't directed at me, but I did not find it masterful at all. Just cheesy. (No offense, Deejo)
> 
> Whereas your response was thoughtful, engaging seriously with the questioner. More compelling to my mind.


It's ok that you didn't find it masterful or humorous. Despite the fact that it was both ...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

inarut said:


> You're talking about getting an "in" to even have a chance. You either are what a woman wants or you're not. You can't fake it beyond initial superficial exchanges.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Agree and disagree.

Ultimately, it is an "in"... but it is a CONSTANT in. Whether you call these things self-improvement or faking is really irrelevant. Once learned and practiced, its ALWAYS on. One of the repeat themes in PUA is to talk to EVERYONE... including guys. The more you start conversations with strangers, the more comfortable in social situations you become and ultimately the easier it is to pick up women. You know what doesn't work? Being the couple guys who just quietly sit and drink while watching the girls all night. They don't dance. They don't engage. They sit and they watch ME leave with the girl. Probably wondering "how the hell did HE get HER?" like I once did. I was once the guy sitting there waiting for a girl to notice me. Now, I make the girl notice me... and there's nothing fake about it.

Its not memorization of lines beyond maybe having a couple stories on standby and kickstarters... which are ONLY to be used when there's nothing else about her or the situation to key on. The vast majority is improvisational. Rather than memorization, it is understanding patterns of conversation and thinking quick on your feet. When you meet a good conversationalist, do you automatically think he's faking something? C'mon, its a skill like any other. Every single pickup dialogue I've used and posted on this forum was totally improvised (although I'm paraphrasing and sometimes shortening somewhat - I don't necessarily remember the exact words used - but its pretty close).


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> * Being able to connect intellectually would be a must for me, but there also needs to be the right level of excitement for a romantic relationship.*


^^This basically is what is meant by " game ", in marriage and LTR.
No one wants a boring companion.
No woman wants a boring husband.
lol,
I'm surprised that so many refuse to think out of the box.

Two Saturday mornings ago, @ 5AM I woke my wife.
Told her to get ready, we're going somewhere, didn't say.
She didn't resist,
Because she knows me, and this part of me gets her excited.
Took her down to one of her favourite waterfront cafe. 
Had breakfast whilst enjoying the sunrise.
We talked and laughed a lot.
She said thanks for breakfast, but I wasn't finished.
Took her down to the marina., had some fun on a boat.
Back to the beach, then to the boardwalk. 
We had lunch , kicked off our shoes and enjoyed the sand between our toes and the waves ponding our feet.
She posed for pics, I posed for pics , had fun with each other.

Later that even she gave me a big hug and some love, the kind that I like.......
One of the things that builds her attraction is my unpredictability. I'm not talking about instability, we've been married almost 18 years. I'm talking about that something which keeps her assured,but just a bit on the edge.
Even in bed I'm unpredictable and spontaneous .

Some may argue that I was just being myself and that is not
" game ", and they may be right. But to the guy who hasn't got a clue , whose wife is getting restless and bored, adapting some of these traits can save his marriage, and change the dynamic.
Me telling him to " just be himself " would be horrible advice ., because being himself is what got his wife bored and restless.
To him,
Its " game."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

tacoma said:


> i don't know where you're from but where i'm from what this girl did isn't "rude" it's courtship.
> 
> She was doing the same thing he was doing only she initiated it.
> This is how people express interest in other people.
> I think some cultures call it "flirting"
> 
> this is the game.
> _posted via mobile device_


exactly!!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

inarut said:


> I'm aware of the concept of flirtng. I'm also aware that men can be particularly sensitive about balding.....I would have rubbed his head and said something else.....she must subscribe to insulting and back handed compliments. I don't.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I have a shaved head. Its not like I'm trying to hide my balding. 

Noting that I'm bald and rubbing my head, when I'm OBVIOUSLY intentionally shaved head bald... is flirting.

I forgot to add this to a previous post, but after we started seeing each other we would often laugh about how we got together by "insulting" each other. She confessed that she thinks guys with shaved heads are sexy and she just wanted to touch my head lol. I replied that I just really thought she was hairy.

She punched me in the arm. 

This is the game.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^This basically is what is meant by " game ", in marriage and LTR.
> No one wants a boring companion.
> No woman wants a boring husband.
> lol,
> I'm surprised that so many refuse to think out of the box.
> 
> Two Saturday mornings ago, @ 5AM I woke my wife.
> Told her to get ready, we're going somewhere, didn't say.
> She didn't resist,
> Because she knows me, and this part of me gets her excited.
> Took her down to one of her favourite waterfront cafe.
> Had breakfast whilst enjoying the sunrise.
> We talked and laughed a lot.
> She said thanks for breakfast, but I wasn't finished.
> Took her down to the marina., had some fun on a boat.
> Back to the beach, then to the boardwalk.
> We had lunch , kicked off our shoes and enjoyed the sand between our toes and the waves ponding our feet.
> She posed for pics, I posed for pics , had fun with each other.
> 
> Later that even she gave me a big hug and some love, the kind that I like.......
> One of the things that builds her attraction is my unpredictability. I'm not talking about instability, we've been married almost 18 years. I'm talking about that something which keeps her assured,but just a bit on the edge.
> Even in bed I'm unpredictable and spontaneous .
> 
> Some may argue that I was just being myself and that is not
> " game ", and they may be right. But to the guy who hasn't got a clue , whose wife is getting restless and bored, adapting some of these traits can save his marriage, and change the dynamic.
> Me telling him to " just be himself " would be horrible advice ., because being himself is what got his wife bored and restless.
> To him,
> Its " game."


Yes. This is something that men are suggested to do to keep some excitement. Women can get bored. One of the things folks get out of dating is the unknown. The excitement of experiencing things spontaneously. Call it a trick. Call it a tactic. But this is a great way in which a husband can add some excitement to his marriage. He is actually meeting his wifes needs. SHE benefits greatly from this.

Oh and it is a lot of fun. Marriage can get so routine.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I believe that if we were all just very in tuned to who is into us (something that can be learned if it doesn't come naturally to us) that nature would sort us out into couples beautifully, based on who we are genetically most compatible with in our areas. Can I prove this, no? My opinion.


Do you wear makeup?

Shouldn't nature be sorting you based on your natural skin quality?


----------



## inarut

What has been said these past few pages make sense.....cariibbean man,dvlsadvc8, entropy. I have no issue with it, sounds great. I think for me it all comes down to motive, objective and not all men usung this stuff have the same motives as you. Also, someone tell me why all the deragatory stuff about women? Why is it there? What's its purpose? Clearly not inspiring respect for women. This is what bothers me and makes me question why men who read it with higher intentents and purposes who do respect women support it so wholeheartedly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

inarut said:


> What has been said these past few pages make sense.....cariibbean man,dvlsadvc8, entropy. I have no issue with it, sounds great. I think for me it all comes down to motive, objective and not all men usung this stuff have the same motives as you. Also, someone tell me why all the deragatory stuff about women? Why is it there? What's its purpose? Clearly not inspiring respect for women. This is what bothers me and makes me question why men who read it with higher intentents and purposes who do respect women support it so wholeheartedly.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Is improving your "presentation" necessary a bad thing? The person could like or love you, but a more interesting presentation to them would light more sparks and cause stronger attraction.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Yes. This. The men who game seem to think they have no other way to communicate with women that they find attractive. Being direct and honest doesn't occur to them, or if it does they reject that because "she'll just dismiss me as a creep."
> 
> At base, I think the draw to "game" is rooted in insecurity. That and sheer resentment of women who might have the nerve to reject an advance. How else could you stomach the idea of hitting on as many women as possible just to increase odds of success? Smells a bit like self loathing to me.


Sigh.

Does everything I say just hit a wall before it gets to your brain... or are you willfully ignoring me?

"Being direct and honest doesn't occur to them" - I'm direct. I'm honest now. Where is the dishonesty in starting a conversation with someone? Oh wait, I wasn't honest about telling a girl she was hairy. I was teasing her. It was intentional, and she was OBVIOUSLY not hairy.

You really don't understand game at ALL to the degree its comical. #1 is outcome independence. There is no resentment for a rejection. The conversation is enjoyed on its own merit even if the pick up is unsuccessful. The rejection says nothing about you personally. Maybe she's gay. Maybe she's faithful to a boyfriend. Maybe she likes fat guys. Maybe she thinks your cologne stinks. Who cares? I still get rejected occassionally. Heck I posted in another thread about a night where I had nothing going at all and my friend and I ended up talking about social-psychology all night lol. It was still a good night.

Its wrong to hit on mutliple women? So after getting rejected by the first, a guy should wimper and go home? lol

Here's the thing, when I'm out, I don't obsess on a girl. I'm hitting on EVERYONE... which is to say, I'm talkative, friendly and teasing with everyone. People aren't generally out alone. If I really like a girl sitting with a table of other girls, after I've made the intro I'm talking and flirting with ALL of them... even the ones I'm totally not attracted to. I might even talk/flirt LESS to the one I'm really interested in - it really depends on the vibe. Its more disarming to talk to everyone. "He seems friendly. He seems nice. My friends like him. He isn't trying to *get* someone." I'm having fun and I get everyone involved. You'd think I was hot by the way the girls end up laughing and giggling. I don't think I'm some kind of stud, I'm just friendly. I have plenty of time to show interest in the girl I want... and its fluid. I might end up hitting it off better with another girl at the table if she's in the same neighborhood looks-wise but there is better chemistry.

The guy who looks like he's going from girl to girl trying to pick someone up has zero game. The guy who is just having fun, being playful and friendly and flirty with everyone simultaneously knows what he's doing or has natural game. Even the guys like that guy. Guys hate the dude sequentially going from girl to girl. He looks desperate and lame.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls....Yes, I wear make up. I don't get that point, no matter how many times any guy makes it. If a guy goes tanning, works out his body, shaves his face/head/anything....I think this is a good thing and has nothing to do with the topic of discussion here. Good presentation and hygiene are not "game". I work for a living and trust me, no one at my office wants to see what I look like without make up. Does that mean I am trying to pick up men or something? Even though I am married? 

Please do explain the point some of you guys have tried to make about make up. I don't get it, but am curious.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Faithful Wife said:


> Good presentation and hygiene are not "game".


I think a lot of PUAs would have a heartattack if they saw this sentence...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ravioli said:


> Yes, I agree with this. Nothing with playing a little hard to get. Isn't that the beauty of male-female relationships? More or less an art form and not something that's just mechanical.


Even in art there are techniques.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

inarut said:


> Also, someone tell me why all the deragatory stuff about women? Why is it there? What's its purpose? Clearly not inspiring respect for women.


Locker room talk. Not much else. Makes for fun times and enjoyable reading.

And frankly, seeing as society's and general feminism's view about masculinity and men, I hardly see the stuff on PUA blogs as deragatory.


----------



## Entropy3000

Presentation is part of game. It sure is for a woman in upping her SR for that evening. Wearing perfume. Showing off her body. Her movements. Her flirty behavior. These things are about drawing attention. In the traditional dance it is about this presentation to entice men to approach. I say traditional as again, I never found the need to approach in this traditional manner.

Some people express their level of game in a gender specific way initially. It does not have to be this way. Even now women seem comfortable in approaching me. Some like to flirt. 

This will keep coming up despite you wanting to exclude it because guys are being accused of being fake and having a facade.

Women play games too. In my experience it is the woman who makes the suggestive comments. Some feel the need for shock value. Maybe a protective mechanism for some. Some women are just playing out their own game in breaking down barriers. Now I will be honest here ... these women are a bit of a turnoff beyond playful banter. I suppose if one is looking to hookup then fine.

I have been off the market a long time, but in general I have never been a night at the roxbury guy. But even these days women will engage with me by coming by and sitting down where I am and flirt. I would blow it all off as them being safe with the married guy but I have been offerred room keys on two occasions in recent years. I am just saying that some women are out gaming and that some women like the guy who sits back and lets things come to him. Perhaps they like a guy who is not so easily intimidated. Idunno. Maybe they are sure I will turn it down and it was just a bit of fun.

But if I was still single I would rather have sex with a woman who was nice looking and had a clue than some hottie without one. Again I am having sex with the whole woman. I may just be kinky.


----------



## Deejo

inarut said:


> What has been said these past few pages make sense.....cariibbean man,dvlsadvc8, entropy. I have no issue with it, sounds great. I think for me it all comes down to motive, objective and not all men usung this stuff have the same motives as you. Also, someone tell me why all the deragatory stuff about women? Why is it there? What's its purpose? Clearly not inspiring respect for women. This is what bothers me and makes me question why men who read it with higher intentents and purposes who do respect women support it so wholeheartedly.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That one's easy.

Emotional preservation. In order to make a true, deep, emotional connection, at some point you need to take a risk and be vulnerable. Fundamentally that means that you open yourself up to the possibility of emotional harm, as well as emotional reward.

Disinterest, if not open disdain is an unfortunate concept that can be propagated if an individual sees women as 'targets' and 'conquests' rather than as peers, people or partners.

I believe that 'in the community' that the posturing is also part of the game. It's harder for a woman, any woman, to hurt me if I function under the premise that they don't truly know what they want, and at their core are duplicitous and conniving b!tches ... but I'll show them ... I'll treat them like trading cards, take what I want, and enjoy myself. 'They' don't matter. All that matters are my results. 

Yeah ... at the very least I hope it has become evident at this point there are no men here ... particularly in this thread that subscribe to this line of thinking. Game or not.
And I'm not saying that so that women will think we're cool or 'nice' (God forbid). We conduct ourselves the way we do, because that is what we have chosen. Whether you 'like' or appreciate it is immaterial. Just like those guys on the other side of the coin that are disrespectful.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Davelli0331 said:


> That's what many people think of when they hear "game".
> 
> Of course, again, that's all just semantics.


Hahaha... that's very poor game.

As I said, these are just social skills. Some people have a lot innately - maybe they had a more social upbringing - maybe its just innate personality; others have little social acumen. Most people fall in between.

All the hate is really directed at the motivation of being more appealing to women... and I'm not really sure why. Who doesn't want to attract a better mate? Do the single ladies get all skimpy clothed, snazzy hair, and done up when they go to the club? I think they do. Its clearly them just being themselves.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Please do explain the point some of you guys have tried to make about make up. I don't get it, but am curious.


Deal. We'll use the socratic method. Why did women first begin to wear makeup?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls, sweetie...just say it. I can't be bothered to help you make your point, but I'll be happy to read it and try to understand it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls said: "All the hate is really directed at the motivation of being more appealing to women... and I'm not really sure why."

But not one woman on this thread (or anywhere that I have EVER read or heard) has said anything close to this. Why on earth would we complain and be haters about you guys being more appealing?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls, sweetie...just say it. I can't be bothered to help you make your point, but I'll be happy to read it and try to understand it.


What he's saying is that women too,
Have game.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls, sweetie...just say it. I can't be bothered to help you make your point, but I'll be happy to read it and try to understand it.


To distinguish themselves from other women and appear more attractive to men. Girl game.


----------



## Entropy3000

Deejo said:


> That one's easy.
> 
> Emotional preservation. In order to make a true, deep, emotional connection, at some point you need to take a risk and be vulnerable. Fundamentally that means that you open yourself up to the possibility of emotional harm, as well as emotional reward.
> 
> Disinterest, if not open disdain is an unfortunate concept that can be propagated if an individual sees women as 'targets' and 'conquests' rather than as peers, people or partners.
> 
> I believe that 'in the community' that the posturing is also part of the game. It's harder for a woman, any woman, to hurt me if I function under the premise that they don't truly know what they want, and at their core are duplicitous and conniving b!tches ... but I'll show them ... I'll treat them like trading cards, take what I want, and enjoy myself. 'They' don't matter. All that matters are my results.
> 
> Yeah ... at the very least I hope it has become evident at this point there are no men here ... particularly in this thread that subscribe to this line of thinking. Game or not.
> And I'm not saying that so that women will think we're cool or 'nice' (God forbid). We conduct ourselves the way we do, because that is what we have chosen. Whether you 'like' or appreciate it is immaterial. Just like those guys on the other side of the coin that are disrespectful.


And this is what I mean by a man removing his armor. Putting down his shield. Allowing himself to be vulnerable with a woman of quality.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"To distinguish themselves from other women and appear more attractive to men. Girl game."

Even if I am married and just going to work, my husband will not even see me that day, and I simply feel that I look pasty and sad without make up...I'm still running game by wearing it?

Even for my 72 y/o mother who is a widow, does not want to ever be in a relationship again (loves her independance), but yet she will not step foot out the door without make up....SHE is wearing make up to run game?


----------



## Davelli0331

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Hahaha... that's very poor game.
> 
> As I said, these are just social skills. Some people have a lot innately - maybe they had a more social upbringing - maybe its just innate personality; others have little social acumen. Most people fall in between.
> 
> All the hate is really directed at the motivation of being more appealing to women... and I'm not really sure why. Who doesn't want to attract a better mate? Do the single ladies get all skimpy clothed, snazzy hair, and done up when they go to the club? I think they do. Its clearly them just being themselves.


For me, it really is an issue of semantics. As I said, the kind of "game" that I was familiar with years ago was the over top weirdo sh!t, not the stuff that you, CarribeanMan, Entropy, Deejo, and some of the other guys are talking about. As you say, (most) of what you're talking about are good social skills whether you're talking about a coworker, friend, ONS, or wife, and I agree with that.

It's the word "game" that trips everyone up. If you replaced the word "game" in Deejo's OP with "good, romantic social skills" and rephrased it as "constantly pursuing and building interest in your W/long term partner/gf/ONS", no one would bat an eyelash. This thread would have petered out as everyone thought, "Duh, of course that's part of a healthy relationship."

But the instant you start calling it "game", everyone starts thinking of the idiotic sh!t I referenced earlier. It doesn't matter that the objective of keeping your marriage interesting and your W happy is the same, you called it "game", so you must really be talking about the juvenile sh!t that most agree is for 9th graders, though in reality you're talking about good, romantic social skills (for the most part).

If good, romantic social skills are the new (to me) definition of "game", then I don't have a problem with that type of game. As Machiavelli said earlier, that I guess is the difference between PUA and LTR "game". It's whatev.

And we'll just have to agree to disagree re: motivation.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Faithful Wife said:


> "To distinguish themselves from other women and appear more attractive to men. Girl game."
> 
> Even if I am married and just going to work, my husband will not even see me that day, and I simply feel that I look pasty and sad without make up...I'm still running game by wearing it?
> 
> Even for my 72 y/o mother who is a widow, does not want to ever be in a relationship again (loves her independance), but yet she will not step foot out the door without make up....SHE is wearing make up to run game?


Personally I don't think makeup is a good example of "game" because while some makeup applications can be for gaming purposes other applications we do for ourselves to pick us up or brighten our mood.
I always considered most makeup as something fun and worn for yourself.When I pass by a mirror I'd rather see a bit of color on my face and some definition to my lashes rather than the pasty plain face I see when I wake up.If I'm vamping it up though and doing the smokey eyed techniques...that's game


----------



## inarut

Entropy3000 said:


> And this is what I mean by a man removing his armor. Putting down his shield. Allowing himself to be vulnerable with a woman of quality.


Can't have a a truly intimate relationship if your not willing to be vulnerable.

Reminds me of the song by john mayer.....lay your weapon down...don't know the title.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

Deejo said:


> That one's easy.
> 
> Emotional preservation. In order to make a true, deep, emotional connection, at some point you need to take a risk and be vulnerable. Fundamentally that means that you open yourself up to the possibility of emotional harm, as well as emotional reward.
> 
> Disinterest, if not open disdain is an unfortunate concept that can be propagated if an individual sees women as 'targets' and 'conquests' rather than as peers, people or partners.
> 
> I believe that 'in the community' that the posturing is also part of the game. It's harder for a woman, any woman, to hurt me if I function under the premise that they don't truly know what they want, and at their core are duplicitous and conniving b!tches ... but I'll show them ... I'll treat them like trading cards, take what I want, and enjoy myself. 'They' don't matter. All that matters are my results.
> 
> *Yeah ... at the very least I hope it has become evident at this point there are no men here ... particularly in this thread that subscribe to this line of thinking. Game or not.*
> And I'm not saying that so that women will think we're cool or 'nice' (God forbid). We conduct ourselves the way we do, because that is what we have chosen. Whether you 'like' or appreciate it is immaterial. Just like those guys on the other side of the coin that are disrespectful.


Absolutely.


----------



## Entropy3000

FrenchFry said:


> This was my makeup when I met my husband.  This one was all for me.


That's hot.  LOL.


----------



## Entropy3000

inarut said:


> Can't have a a truly intimate relationship if your not willing to be vulnerable.
> 
> Reminds me of the song by john mayer.....lay your weapon down...don't know the title.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Exactly.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> "To distinguish themselves from other women and appear more attractive to men. Girl game."
> 
> Even if I am married and just going to work, my husband will not even see me that day, and I simply feel that I look pasty and sad without make up...I'm still running game by wearing it?
> 
> Even for my 72 y/o mother who is a widow, does not want to ever be in a relationship again (loves her independance), but yet she will not step foot out the door without make up....SHE is wearing make up to run game?


See? You women really DON'T know do you?

You wear makeup because you are controlled by a male dominated society that holds an iron grip on your own sense of self, beauty, and worth ... and we have dictated that you, and your 72 year old mother MUST wear makeup without any thought or consideration for the reasons why, other than we demand it.

Or ... I guess you could answer the question for yourself


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Does everything I say just hit a wall before it gets to your brain... or are you willfully ignoring me?
> 
> "Being direct and honest doesn't occur to them" - I'm direct. I'm honest now. Where is the dishonesty in starting a conversation with someone? Oh wait, I wasn't honest about telling a girl she was hairy. I was teasing her. It was intentional, and she was OBVIOUSLY not hairy.
> 
> You really don't understand game at ALL to the degree its comical. #1 is outcome independence. There is no resentment for a rejection. The conversation is enjoyed on its own merit even if the pick up is unsuccessful. The rejection says nothing about you personally. Maybe she's gay. Maybe she's faithful to a boyfriend. Maybe she likes fat guys. Maybe she thinks your cologne stinks. Who cares? I still get rejected occassionally. Heck I posted in another thread about a night where I had nothing going at all and my friend and I ended up talking about social-psychology all night lol. It was still a good night.
> 
> Its wrong to hit on mutliple women? So after getting rejected by the first, a guy should wimper and go home? lol


It's true, I really don't understand game and probably never will. Maybe that's even comical, but it's one of the reasons I encouraged Deejo to open this thread. Thought I might learn something. 

My comment about not approaching directly was actually in reference to a few comments here that "she" will dismiss a guy as a creep if he tries to hit on her. Tacoma's story about a date to a concertis an example of this. He was absolutely convinced that there was no way she would pay attention to him, even though he had these sold-out tickets to her favourite band. So he chose to play this convoluted game with her. It worked out for him, so the story has a happy ending, but I'm willing to bet that it would have worked out equally well if he had simply said to her "hey, I can get you an extra ticket to that show. Wanna come with me?". 

When I was writing about insecurity, I actually had a post written by you in mind. One that struck me in particular because it showed quite a significant amount of resentment against women for overlooking you in the past, and gave me the sense that your current drive to score is very much about revenge for that. Maybe I'm way off base about that, or at least about you, but the whole tone of PUA is totally misogynistic (including MMSL) and vengeful. 

And so many guys are happy to "overlook" that or dismiss it as just "locker room chat', but frankly, I find the acceptance of it a key indicator of deeper attitudes.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo: Wha....???

I thought this was supposed to be a legit argument?


----------



## Entropy3000

ScarletBegonias said:


> Personally I don't think makeup is a good example of "game" because while some makeup applications can be for gaming purposes other applications we do for ourselves to pick us up or brighten our mood.
> I always considered most makeup as something fun and worn for yourself.When I pass by a mirror I'd rather see a bit of color on my face and some definition to my lashes rather than the pasty plain face I see when I wake up.If I'm vamping it up though and doing the smokey eyed techniques...that's game


This is a good point. Brightening ones own mood is an awesome thing to do. You are taking actions to feel good about oneself. Self gaming? Maybe, but I think we should consider that part of this gaming is about changing ones attitude toward life period. It is not something one turns on and then turns off. 

Done right it becomes part of who we are. Maybe not game per se but this feeds the soul. This is a very positive thing and will show dividends in our actions with others. Comfortable in our own skin type thing. Our approach to life. This attitude can be very seductive to others. I am not saying this is its purpose. But some people we are flat drawn to.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Maybe, but I think we should consider that part of this gaming is about changing ones attitude toward life period."

What if someone never had a bad attitude towards life to begin with? And she wears make up? That means she is gaming.....????


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Why else would they so quickly lose respect for the ones they've gamed?


Not a single person I've picked up lost respect for me... even the one who hated PUA and I later told her about all the ways I used it on her. She hit me with her purse, laughed and said "You sneaky rat!" and "well played" or "clever" or something like that. That was while driving to HER apt that night. We still hooked up... so, so much for that theory.



always_alone said:


> Why the relentless pursuit of more and better?


Are you going to marry the first person you're attracted to? Probably not. You keep pursuing *more* until you find one you want to stay with. Not really rocket science is it?

Better? Who doesn't want the best they can get? Is there anyone out there who proposes thinking... "well, she's alright. I guess she'll do." lol



always_alone said:


> The gamer is encouraged to judge his worth by the number and quality of his conquests, not in his sense of self or ability. But it's a mug's game because there is always a hotter, more amazing girl that, if only he could get her, he could finally feel really good about himself. But then he gets her, and automatically loses respect for her, and so he's off to the next one. Or two, or three. It's ego massage math: three 8s equal a nine, but even bagging a dozen sevens can't get you to 10. Up your game, man, if ya want to be a real playa!
> 
> That's what I was referring to when I brought up insecurity.


Huh?  Sure, its ego massaging when a woman is into me. It feels good to be liked. Who doesn't like being liked? The number is worthless however. You don't go "omg I'm so awesome I've slept with over 100 women!!! go me!!!" when you're single. lol There's pride in having social skills just like any other skills. Lo and behold, getting better feedback during social events tends to lead to enjoying social situations more. 

Insecurity and a host of other reasons might lead someone to pick up a PUA book. So what? Is it really bad for a guy who is too insecure to approach a woman to learn how to approach and appeal to one? I don't get the hate. I really don't.

Its ultimately about developing confidence in social situations. There's nothing evil, fake or deceptive about it.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo: Wha....???
> 
> I thought this was supposed to be a legit argument?


Oh, it's legit. I'm still being charming and playful. I don't really get indignant or angry ... much.

The question as you posed it, was ... once again, a set-up. A game 

You already had a counter-response planned for the lay-up answer of 'women want to look good for men'.

I have read on several occasions that the origin of lipstick was a visual indicator of a working Egyptian woman's willingness to perform fellatio. Do you suppose that is why women wear lipstick now?

The paradigms and contexts may shift and change. But ... let's face it, most of the time we want to look good to feel good about ourselves and project that notion to others who see and interact with us.

Is it game from the perspective of what we have been talking about it? Not really, but it is most definitely a tool used for purposes of attraction.

Oh ... and I was negging you with the 'don't know what you want' comment. Were you feeling it?


----------



## Faithful Wife

C'mon now Trenton...how are any of us supposed to compete with you if you cheat like that?


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> I'm never wearing clothes or makeup again. Screw it.


Some women will dress to impress men or other women.

But a woman who can celebrate her own feelings openly in the way she dresses can be a seductive thing. What she expresses matters of course.

A woman dressed in a very classy way can be way more meaningful and sexy than one who is just is trying to maximize skin exposure for example. It reveals something about the person. Maximizing skin will get some attention. But not always the best.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls said: "All the hate is really directed at the motivation of being more appealing to women... and I'm not really sure why."
> 
> But not one woman on this thread (or anywhere that I have EVER read or heard) has said anything close to this. Why on earth would we complain and be haters about you guys being more appealing?


So what is the hate about then? I get the sexist language issues. Meh. Its color not content. Its my impression the haters would still have issues with it... certainly Always Alone.

X is more attractive. You don't have X. You go get X. You are now more attractive. How dare you thwart nature? Is that it?

Please explain.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said: "You already had a counter-response planned for the lay-up answer of 'women want to look good for men'."

No, I didn't. Sorry, should I have had one? Not sure what it was supposed to be.

"Is it game from the perspective of what we have been talking about it? Not really, but it is most definitely a tool used for purposes of attraction."

Again, I will ask....it is used for the purposes of attraction when it is my 70 y/o mother wearing it, who does not want another partner in her life?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls...it really is just about the sexist language issues, to me. It is not about upping your attraction...none of that has ever been a problem for me, why would it be? I want men to be more attractive. Why would I hate on them for that?


----------



## tacoma

Trenton said:


> I'm never wearing clothes or makeup again. Screw it.


That's not using game, that's an unfair advantage.


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> That's not using game, that's an unfair advantage.


She toys with us.


----------



## Davelli0331

I think Deejo and Entropy have the right attitudes about it: Glean the wheat from the chaff and discard what doesn't work for you.

Having said that, I think far too much credence is given to things like MMSL, sex rank, and a lot of the other idioms used as the foundation of all this stuff. Sex rank is (and a lot of the other stuff), IMO, like the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment: It's a decent, but not universal, thought experiment that can be useful for examining certain situations, but that's it. You don't see entire branches of physics devoted to Schrödinger's cat, nor do you see entire proofs for or against it, because Schrödinger's cat is just a metaphor, it's not the actual physics.

But then you have people who elevate mediocre metaphors like MMSL and Sex Rank into these pillars of male-female relationship dynamics and treating it like it's science, and therefore fact, which it clearly isn't.

Again, that's not me saying that MMSL, Sex Rank, or any of the other isn't useful in limited applications, but there's so much crap to sift through that it can be tiresome.

And I do agree, in _some _of the works I've mentioned, I feel a not-so-subtle subtext "I couldn't get the girls when I was younger, so now I've studied it ad naeseum, come up with a workable framework, and now I'm gonna slay the women I never could get!"


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo said: "You already had a counter-response planned for the lay-up answer of 'women want to look good for men'."
> 
> No, I didn't. Sorry, should I have had one? Not sure what it was supposed to be.
> 
> "Is it game from the perspective of what we have been talking about it? Not really, but it is most definitely a tool used for purposes of attraction."
> 
> Again, I will ask....it is used for the purposes of attraction when it is my 70 y/o mother wearing it, who does not want another partner in her life?


Sorry ... not biting anymore. Quid pro quo.

Why do YOU think your 72 year old mother started wearing makeup when she was a 22 year old young woman, or yourself, or nieces?


No. It' isn't game. It simply becomes part of your personal behavior and who you are ... just ... like ... game.


----------



## tacoma

Just a little off topic irony to point out.

Davelli, what is the character in your avatar most known for?


----------



## Deejo

tacoma said:


> Just a little off topic irony to point out.
> 
> Davelli, what is the character in your avatar most known for?


Best Bond ever ...

The man borders on being a sociopath. Love watching the new Bond films.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Not a single person I've picked up lost respect for me... even the one who hated PUA and I later told her about all the ways I used it on her. She hit me with her purse, laughed and said "You sneaky rat!" and "well played" or "clever" or something like that. That was while driving to HER apt that night. We still hooked up... so, so much for that theory.


It's not the gamee that loses respect, it is the gamer. This was in response to a post from nsweet who said quite specifically that he lost respect for women if he was able to have sex with them on the first night.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> "To distinguish themselves from other women and appear more attractive to men. Girl game."
> 
> Even if I am married and just going to work, my husband will not even see me that day, and I simply feel that I look pasty and sad without make up...I'm still running game by wearing it?
> 
> Even for my 72 y/o mother who is a widow, does not want to ever be in a relationship again (loves her independance), but yet she will not step foot out the door without make up....SHE is wearing make up to run game?


Its girl game. The original makeup wearers were attempting to be more attractive to men by emulating the traits of women men find attractive.

ALL women eventually did it to avoid being at a disadvantage to the women who did.

Women continue to wear makeup today, even long after their mate selection days, because it has become cultural norm. Everyone does it to such degree that many women feel ugly if they don't. Its now a part of your self image.

If makeup provided a sexual advantage for men, we'd all be wearing it too. I made this point before related to a man's looks being lower priority for women. Flawless looking skin isn't apparently an advantage for men over the confidence in the skin they have. Heavier weighting of non-physical traits.

Techniques described by PUA provide a distinct sexual advantage to the men who do them naturally, and to those who learn to employ them properly... unfortunately (or fortunately for the guy with game), its not as easy as buying makeup.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Faithful Wife said:


> it really is just about the sexist language issues, to me.


See this I don't get about the women posting here. Have you ever seen a mildly "progressive" feminist blog and the garbage spewed inside? Have you ever seen radical feminist sites? Have you ever watched a standard TV show where the men are bumbling buffoons and the women rescue the day by using wits that obviously men don't have? Even as a slightly recent event, have you heard of the t-shirt labels of "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them."

I am not seeing many women up in arms against the ongoing war against men and masculinity. Yet, oh noes, the PUAs have called us their targets. OH noes!


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Trenton said:


> I'm never wearing clothes or makeup again. Screw it.


But then you'd be naked...and all natural.That's game


----------



## Davelli0331

tacoma said:


> Just a little off topic irony to point out.
> 
> Davelli, what is the character in your avatar most known for?


Def best Bond ever.

And it's not ironic at all. Bond doesn't rely on a set of retarded, choreographed workflow diagrams to pull a woman. His life experiences have turned him into the man he is: A ruthless, sociopathic (good word, Deejo) spy who accomplishes his mission no matter what. 

He oozes charm, charisma, and machismo, but not because he studied a bunch of internet forums so that he could bag HB8s and HB9s. He oozes those things because that's the man he's worked to become. He doesn't give even half a F if anyone else approves of his attitude, his attire, his language, or his skillset.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It's a subtle difference, and to the observer, they appear the same, but the true charm and charisma that Bond represents (to me) is because he chooses to be his own man, not a pantomiming dummy whose sole objective is to gain the approval of women.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> It's not the gamee that loses respect, it is the gamer. This was in response to a post from nsweet who said quite specifically that he lost respect for women if he was able to have sex with them on the first night.


Ah... news to me. No one I know personally thinks any less of a woman for sleeping with them on the first night... or any less for holding out.

I don't have a double standard. Sex is fun.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Huh?  Sure, its ego massaging when a woman is into me. It feels good to be liked. Who doesn't like being liked? The number is worthless however. You don't go "omg I'm so awesome I've slept with over 100 women!!! go me!!!" when you're single. lol There's pride in having social skills just like any other skills. Lo and behold, getting better feedback during social events tends to lead to enjoying social situations more.


Perhaps you haven't read the scoring posts on this thread calculating what counts as successful PUA? Or reflected on your own posts about looks? Numbers do matter because 9-10 is all that counts. The rest is just for when you are hungry at the end of evening. To be gobbled up and discarded.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SN: "Have you ever seen a mildly "progressive" feminist blog and the garbage spewed inside?"

No, I haven't....because I don't bother to read hate speech, no matter who is saying it about whom.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Entropy3000 said:


> This is a good point. Brightening ones own mood is an awesome thing to do. You are taking actions to feel good about oneself. Self gaming? Maybe, but I think we should consider that part of this gaming is about changing ones attitude toward life period. It is not something one turns on and then turns off.
> 
> Done right it becomes part of who we are. Maybe not game per se but this feeds the soul. This is a very positive thing and will show dividends in our actions with others. Comfortable in our own skin type thing. Our approach to life. This attitude can be very seductive to others. I am not saying this is its purpose. But some people we are flat drawn to.


Deep thoughts

Self gaming,that's a whole different thread Sometimes I feel like the man up thing and the alpha thing should be treated as self gaming more than outward gaming to get women.Basically increasing your self worth for you and if that attracts others,well,that's a bonus.

I like the self improvement aspects of literature aimed at men and the stuff aimed at women.What I can't get on board with is the self improvement in order to get women or in order to get men aspect of many blogs,books,and magazines.

*edited to add that I think a lot of men DO start out using the alpha/man up stuff to get women or improve their marriage but then it turns into a journey of self improvement simply bc they realize it makes them feel better about themselves regardless of whether or not they get the girl or improve the marriage.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls...ok I read your argument. I see why you might think the way you do about make up. And I guess since you also think women don't know what they want or why they do things, it makes sense that you think you know why I wear make up but I do not.

For the record, I love men in make up. Gimme some Adam Ant.


----------



## tacoma

Davelli0331 said:


> Def best Bond ever.
> 
> And it's not ironic at all. Bond doesn't rely on a set of retarded, choreographed workflow diagrams to pull a woman. His life experiences have turned him into the man he is: A ruthless, sociopathic (good word, Deejo) spy who accomplishes his mission no matter what.
> 
> He oozes charm, charisma, and machismo, but not because he studied a bunch of internet forums so that he could bag HB8s and HB9s. He oozes those things because that's the man he's worked to become. He doesn't give even half a F if anyone else approves of his attitude, his attire, his language, or his skillset.
> 
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It's a subtle difference, and to the observer, they appear the same, but the true charm and charisma that Bond represents (to me) is because he chooses to be his own man, not a pantomiming dummy whose sole objective is to gain the approval of women.


If James Bond isn't the biggest and most notorious sexist "Game Player" in all of human literature there are no game players in human reality.

Don't get me wrong, I love the character too but c'mon...


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Davelli0331 said:


> , but the true charm and charisma that Bond represents (to me) is because he chooses to be his own man,


Ummm, Bond is an agent, a spy that makes his living by manipulating and deceiving. Also, his skill sets, attires and languages etc are all taught to him from an external source, he wasn't born that way.


----------



## Entropy3000

Davelli0331 said:


> Def best Bond ever.
> 
> And it's not ironic at all. Bond doesn't rely on a set of retarded, choreographed workflow diagrams to pull a woman. His life experiences have turned him into the man he is: A ruthless, sociopathic (good word, Deejo) spy who accomplishes his mission no matter what.
> 
> He oozes charm, charisma, and machismo, but not because he studied a bunch of internet forums so that he could bag HB8s and HB9s. He oozes those things because that's the man he's worked to become. He doesn't give even half a F if anyone else approves of his attitude, his attire, his language, or his skillset.
> 
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: It's a subtle difference, and to the observer, they appear the same, but the true charm and charisma that Bond represents (to me) is because he chooses to be his own man, not a pantomiming dummy whose sole objective is to gain the approval of women.


And he is a very traditional man at that. So much so the persona had to be tweaked going into the 70s.

I know you are talking about this Bond. I did like Sean though. But this new bond is a man's man as well.


----------



## Davelli0331

tacoma said:


> If James Bond isn't the biggest and most notorious sexist "Game Player" in all of human literature there are no game players in human reality.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love the character too but c'mon...


I agree that at times he works a mark to accomplish his mission, but outside of that, I certainly don't see him as a gaming PUA. Women are drawn to his masculinity, he does not manufacture it to draw women.

That's just my interpretation, though, and I obviously see it through a very specific lens.


----------



## Ikaika

Game? someone said game?

http://youtu.be/SMANWCh-Xdc

oh wait wrong game. Never mind carry on.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ummm.....guys? Bond is a fictional character. Just sayin'.

Fictional dudes get to be whatever their creator decided they are.


----------



## Davelli0331

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Ummm, Bond is an agent, a spy that makes his living by manipulating and deceiving. Also, his skill sets, attires and languages etc are all taught to him from an external source, he wasn't born that way.


That's working a mark as part of his tradecraft to accomplish a mission, not going sarging to score HB9s so he can brag to Internet Strangers.


----------



## Davelli0331

Faithful Wife said:


> Ummm.....guys? Bond is a fictional character. Just sayin'.
> 
> Fictional dudes get to be whatever their creator decided they are.


Forgive the slight thread derailment.

Because this thread has been on target all 50 some odd pages.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Davelli0331 said:


> For me, it really is an issue of semantics. As I said, the kind of "game" that I was familiar with years ago was the over top weirdo sh!t, not the stuff that you, CarribeanMan, Entropy, Deejo, and some of the other guys are talking about. As you say, (most) of what you're talking about are good social skills whether you're talking about a coworker, friend, ONS, or wife, and I agree with that.
> 
> It's the word "game" that trips everyone up. If you replaced the word "game" in Deejo's OP with "good, romantic social skills" and rephrased it as "constantly pursuing and building interest in your W/long term partner/gf/ONS", no one would bat an eyelash. This thread would have petered out as everyone thought, "Duh, of course that's part of a healthy relationship."
> 
> But the instant you start calling it "game", everyone starts thinking of the idiotic sh!t I referenced earlier. It doesn't matter that the objective of keeping your marriage interesting and your W happy is the same, you called it "game", so you must really be talking about the juvenile sh!t that most agree is for 9th graders, though in reality you're talking about good, romantic social skills (for the most part).
> 
> If good, romantic social skills are the new (to me) definition of "game", then I don't have a problem with that type of game. As Machiavelli said earlier, that I guess is the difference between PUA and LTR "game". It's whatev.
> 
> And we'll just have to agree to disagree re: motivation.


The writing is pretty juvenile. The guys writing it are pretty juvenile. They're writing to an audience who is largely juvenile (late teen boys early 20s men?).

What works and what doesn't however is anything but weirdo sh*t in spite of the color of the writing. Neging, which I think you mentioned, WORKS. There are differences of opinion as to why it works, but it does... and its NOT just insulting a girl. Neging is really just a form of teasing, and like everything, it has a time and place. Both men and women actually do it. I once clued into a girl liking me because of her dissing my shoes all the time. She was teasing me (and I wore boots too much because I was usually on a motorcycle).

A lot of this junk just works. The names are stupid. The manner it is present with is often stupid and sexist... but most of it works pretty well once it becomes second nature. There are some things that women just connect with. The more recent application of these things to marriage means some apply and some don't... but married women are still women.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> "Maybe, but I think we should consider that part of this gaming is about changing ones attitude toward life period."
> 
> What if someone never had a bad attitude towards life to begin with? And she wears make up? That means she is gaming.....????


I think she is just expressing herself. Same effect. 

No shame in being who we are.


----------



## Ikaika

Trenton said:


> I'm starting to think this is a no win situation.


Oh no, you got that all wrong, it would be a win for some of us males


----------



## Entropy3000

ScarletBegonias said:


> Deep thoughts
> 
> Self gaming,that's a whole different thread Sometimes I feel like the man up thing and the alpha thing should be treated as self gaming more than outward gaming to get women.Basically increasing your self worth for you and if that attracts others,well,that's a bonus.
> 
> I like the self improvement aspects of literature aimed at men and the stuff aimed at women.What I can't get on board with is the self improvement in order to get women or in order to get men aspect of many blogs,books,and magazines.
> 
> *edited to add that I think a lot of men DO start out using the alpha/man up stuff to get women or improve their marriage but then it turns into a journey of self improvement simply bc they realize it makes them feel better about themselves regardless of whether or not they get the girl or improve the marriage.


Insightful.


----------



## Davelli0331

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The writing is pretty juvenile. The guys writing it are pretty juvenile. They're writing to an audience who is largely juvenile (late teen boys early 20s men?).
> 
> What works and what doesn't however is anything but weirdo sh*t in spite of the color of the writing. Neging, which I think you mentioned, WORKS. There are differences of opinion as to why it works, but it does... and its NOT just insulting a girl. Neging is really just a form of teasing, and like everything, it has a time and place. Both men and women actually do it. I once clued into a girl liking me because of her dissing my shoes all the time. She was teasing me (and I wore boots too much because I was usually on a motorcycle).
> 
> A lot of this junk just works. The names are stupid. The manner it is present with is often stupid and sexist... but most of it works pretty well once it becomes second nature. There are some things that women just connect with. The more recent application of these things to marriage means some apply and some don't... but married women are still women.


Negging is a perfect example of the semantic problem I have with the stuff: Calling it negging makes it sound retarded.

But when you call it "light, witty banter", well, then I'm on board with it. Few things get my wife in the mood like some light trash talking with her.

But please don't call it negging.

And put a heel shifter on your bike. I have to wear dress shoes to work, and the heel shifter on mine was a godsend.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Okay, yeah, let's not call it negging, next thing we know we have stopped saying things like "extraction to the location of seduction"...

Do we really want to live in a world like that?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

ScarletBegonias said:


> If I'm vamping it up though and doing the smokey eyed techniques...that's game


Exactly. Its no longer just makeup... its now scale. When a woman is going out she also tends to wear sexier clothes. She wants to be thought appealing even if she's taken. You feel good because you feel more attractive. You KNOW you are more attractive because you get more attention. A guy, having developed some game feels more attractive. He KNOWS he's more attractive because he's getting more attention.

Know what to wear, how to do your makeup and hair, how to carry yourself... etc etc. Girl game is more widespread and mainstream than guy game. Girls, for the most part, are taught/learn/develop the elements of how to be more attractive to a man even in childhood. Boys are not. We're told to just be ourselves and some good girl will find us. Sure, but I didn't like them... and I figured out how to get the girls I did want. I upped my game. I put on more makeup so to speak... still ME, with better presentation.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



Davelli0331 said:


> Forgive the slight thread derailment.
> 
> Because this thread has been on target all 50 some odd pages.


Like a laser ...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Perhaps you haven't read the scoring posts on this thread calculating what counts as successful PUA? Or reflected on your own posts about looks? Numbers do matter because 9-10 is all that counts. The rest is just for when you are hungry at the end of evening. To be gobbled up and discarded.


You've totally lost me. When you said "number", you were obviously referring to number of women slept with - as if its ego massaging. I replied on point. Rather than asking rhetorical questions, or asking me to evaluation someone elses notion of what successful PUA, how about actually responding directly to what I say.

9-10 refers to sex rank... quality. Do I feel good about snagging a 9? Damn right I do! She's hot! Am I supposed to be depressed I have a hot woman? lol Woe is me. 

Seriously, I don't get your logic. Yes, I keep mediocre girls in little goodie bags in the pantry, just in case I feel like a midnight snack.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



coffee4me said:


> This thread has many confusing aspects. It's also making me watch people's behavior when I'm out.
> 
> I guy walks up to a group of 8 gals. They are laughing and talking, he puts his arm around one of them and within 10 mins they are all laughing at whatever he is saying. Before he leaves the group he gets a hug from 5 of the 8.
> 
> So, I wonder. Was he gaming? Should the gals be insulted by what he did or said? Was there a target?
> 
> He walks back to his 2 guy friends and they pat him on the back and say, "He's got game" "They wish they could do that"
> 
> "What did you say?"
> He said that he only knew one of the gals. He put his arm around a gal he did not know and told the group he already knew her. She of course said that she did not know him. He told her that it was time they stopped hiding their 3 year relationship. That he wanted everyone to know that he was her man. To which the whole group laughed and chit chat ensued.
> 
> I looked at this behavior and thought even to myself, "he's got game" NOT "he's running a game"


Correct. In pua terms I could say he was demonstrating high value.

In practice he was displaying that he is a fun, comfortable, confident guy.

I don't care what the terms are. I care about behavior according to my own principles, and what works.

That's actually a great story, thanks for sharing.


----------



## Wiserforit

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Locker room talk. Not much else. Makes for fun times and enjoyable reading.


The relentless minimization of misogyny in PUA speaks louder than words about noble intentions.

The market for PUA is guys that have resentments over women, so the misogyny is self-explanatory. 

I spent over three decades in the locker room with very high achievers including over a dozen olympic champions - and we never discussed PUA. 

We didn't assign women numbers nor speak of them as targets nor use any of this silly, pretentious terminology. This is not locker room talk in my experience. I find these sites pathetic, not fun and enjoyable reading. 




> And frankly, seeing as society's and general feminism's view about masculinity and men, I hardly see the stuff on PUA blogs as deragatory.


Sexism of one kind does not justify sexism of another.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

^You are the king. I hear you roar.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



Davelli0331 said:


> Negging is a perfect example of the semantic problem I have with the stuff: Calling it negging makes it sound retarded.
> 
> But when you call it "light, witty banter", well, then I'm on board with it. Few things get my wife in the mood like some light trash talking with her.
> 
> But please don't call it negging.


Yes ... rather juvenile word.

Although and I kid you not, I will occasionally lob cheese just to see if it sticks, or show that I'm not afraid to look a bit foolish .

I was on a date and she commented on my "witty banter."
I responded dead pan, "I give good banter."

Saw each other for a few months. Don't know if that line clinched it or not ...

But ... in my early twenties? No where near as relaxed and spontaneous as I am now.

Dating became fun.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Perhaps you haven't read the scoring posts on this thread calculating what counts as successful PUA? Or reflected on your own posts about looks? Numbers do matter because 9-10 is all that counts. The rest is just for when you are hungry at the end of evening. To be gobbled up and discarded.


the vast, vast majority of guys (95%) can't snag a 9, without coercion of some kind, under any circumstances. A 10 has never been seen.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls...ok I read your argument. I see why you might think the way you do about make up. And I guess since you also think women don't know what they want or why they do things, it makes sense that you think you know why I wear make up but I do not.
> 
> For the record, I love men in make up. Gimme some Adam Ant.


Does your husband wear makeup? C'mon FW. Lets stay in the real world. The world where women constantly complain about being unable to find men of a certain type, while only going after men who are nothing like that type.

It used to frustrate me a bit, but I've since just accepted it. Its not meant to be a put down. Many things (not all, but many) that women say they want, aren't actually what they want. Its like there are two brains at work - because in a way, there are.

Men have seen this throughout history (if there is any guy here who hasn't, please speak up) and it is the reason for the oft cited "MYSTERY" of womanhood.

What you want and what you say you want - no... lets take it further, what you THINK you want... quite often don't match up at all.


----------



## Machiavelli

Davelli0331 said:


> Negging is a perfect example of the semantic problem I have with the stuff: Calling it negging makes it sound retarded.
> 
> But when you call it "light, witty banter", well, then I'm on board with it. Few things get my wife in the mood like some light trash talking with her.
> 
> But please don't call it negging.


We used to call it "teasing".


----------



## LouAnn Poovy

Wiserforit said:


> The relentless minimization of misogyny in PUA speaks louder than words about noble intentions.
> 
> The market for PUA is guys that have resentments over women, so the misogyny is self-explanatory.
> 
> I spent over three decades in the locker room with very high achievers including over a dozen olympic champions - and we never discussed PUA.
> 
> We didn't assign women numbers nor speak of them as targets nor use any of this silly, pretentious terminology. This is not locker room talk in my experience. I find these sites pathetic, not fun and enjoyable reading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sexism of one kind does not justify sexism of another.


*Thank God. I was beginning to wonder if my high regard for men was misplaced. Thank you for posting that! :smthumbup:*


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Is the number thing based on looks alone then?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Davelli0331 said:


> Negging is a perfect example of the semantic problem I have with the stuff: Calling it negging makes it sound retarded.
> 
> But when you call it "light, witty banter", well, then I'm on board with it. Few things get my wife in the mood like some light trash talking with her.
> 
> But please don't call it negging.
> 
> And put a heel shifter on your bike. I have to wear dress shoes to work, and the heel shifter on mine was a godsend.


Hey, I didn't come up with the word. We're discussing PUA... I'll use their word. I consider it teasing. 

Yeah, no heel shifter for me. I ride sportbikes. I prefer a GP style shifter (reverse shift) on both bikes for the track.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

ScarletBegonias said:


> Is the number thing based on looks alone then?


Knowing the dance is important for women, too.

In fact, there are female PUAs (while not as much male ones) who use their type of "game" to get higher quality men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls said: "What you want and what you say you want - no... lets take it further, what you THINK you want... quite often don't match up at all."

Sigh...ok, you win again. You don't know me, don't know what I want, don't know what my husband is or is not, don't know what I've ever said I did want or didn't want and whether I got it or not (the very FEW posts on these threads do not present a whole picture of what I want by the way so please don't try to point to those)...yet somehow, you feel qualified to tell me that what I think I want and what I really want are not the same thing AND that YOU can tell me what it is that I really want.

Really?

I guess I just don't see why I would even try to argue with this, how or why could I try to change your mind from that very strange position?

Also, I just can't stick around while people like ravioli are typing trash like this: "A woman that's fat and sloppy, bad built or just plain unattractive is for the hungry wolves at the end of the night."

I'll be reading but posting seems futile. I do enjoy many people's insights, so reading is always fun.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Trenton said:


> It's so stupid isn't it?


It's at a bar or a club and it's a ONS. Yeah, tell me how much her knowing world history should come into the equation.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Trenton said:


> It's so stupid isn't it?


Maybe the one nighter scale is based just on looks but the relationship scale includes the other important stuff


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> It's so stupid isn't it?


In PUA lingo essentailly yes, but Athol goes on to point out that SR is influenced by how a woman dresses and her willingness to have sex.

IRL, of course this is silly when evaluating actual value. 

But women do the same thing when they talk about a hot guy.

I will say that at least from my view this sends the wrong message to women.


----------



## Almostrecovered

games?

I prefer poker, spades, and Trivial Pursuit


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Almostrecovered said:


> games?
> 
> I prefer poker, spades, and Trivial Pursuit


This thread just died.


----------



## Almostrecovered

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> This thread just died.


well somebody told me this thread needed it


----------



## tacoma

Almostrecovered said:


> well somebody told me this thread needed it


Don't bring me into this
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ravioli

Faithful Wife said:


> Also, I just can't stick around while people like ravioli are typing trash like this: "A woman that's fat and sloppy, bad built or just plain unattractive is for the hungry wolves at the end of the night."
> 
> I'll be reading but posting seems futile. I do enjoy many people's insights, so reading is always fun.


Sounds like you can't handle the truth. I can't sugar coat this stuff to make you feel better. Do your own experiment. Go to any bar/ club and tell me what the closing time females look like?
Prettier girls tend to leave early. I'm sorry if the truth is not easily digested.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> Would you like to play a game of global thermal nuclear war?
> 
> Sorry, on a movie kick today.


I prefer good old fashioned warfare, ala Risk. Total world domination. That's the kind of game I can get in to. 
What a bizarre turn this thread has made. Fascinating to read though and pehaps we should all just agree that we won't agree.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

coffee4me said:


> I heard from the guys on this and I really wanted *answers from the ladies. *(no offensive guys)
> 
> Should these gals be offeneded by what this guy did?
> 
> You say men should be themselves, what if this is his personality. Are you only offended if he read it in a book?
> 
> How would you know the difference, if he read it or it's really him?
> 
> If he ends up dating one of these girls, does it matter that he did this to meet her? Or does it only matter if he read it in a book?


Maybe I'm too serious or a complete prude but that wouldn't go over well with me.I wouldn't say he had game if it was happening to me directly.I'd say he was obnoxious,overbearing and rude for not only intruding but also for putting his arm around a female he had never met.I wouldn't care if it was his personality or if he read it in a book.it simply wouldn't work for me at all bc people like that always come off as fake or trying too hard.Just my opinion,of course.

If he ended up dating one of the girls,that means they're into that sort of personality or book based game so good for them.


----------



## Machiavelli

Wiserforit said:


> The relentless minimization of misogyny in PUA speaks louder than words about noble intentions.
> 
> The market for PUA is guys that have resentments over women, so the misogyny is self-explanatory.


See, the old fashioned PUA rote forms are for guys who can't get any female attention. Have you ever seen Mystery or Style. It's a miracle they could get sex from any woman.

the big push for the old-style PUA market is now for "inner game". It's a holistic approach to improving a guy's sex rank. However, in no way does it negate the underlying truths discovered by PUA's about women and how to gain access. The problem was, they got access but then couldn't keep it once they ran out of little apps to run on the girl. Inner game ups the guy's real base sex rank.

I spent over three decades in the locker room with very high achievers including over a dozen olympic champions - and we never discussed PUA. [/QUOTE]

I spent lots of time setting up, playing, tearing down, loading out, with some first class musicians and we never discussed PUA. Were the girls waiting? yes they were. Sex rank.

I spent lots of time working out with guys with zero athletic ability, but great physiques, all the way to Olympians. Did we discuss PUA? No. did the girls ask us for help with diet, form, and stress relief? Yes, they did. Sex rank.





Wiserforit said:


> *We didn't assign women numbers* nor speak of them as targets nor use any of this silly, pretentious terminology.


You must be British. Here in the States we usually start rating the girls when we hit puberty. You guys may be exposed to more endocrine disrupters than we are, or maybe you're quite a bit younger than me and got exposed to them in your formative years. Ever had your T checked?



Wiserforit said:


> This is not locker room talk in my experience. I find these sites pathetic, not fun and enjoyable reading.


Locker room? I think you were in a bathhouse. Not the same thing.







Wiserforit said:


> Sexism of one kind does not justify sexism of another.


Sexism is a fact of nature. Women are much better and bearing children, men are much better at killing their opponents.


----------



## inarut

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> It's at a bar or a club and it's a ONS. Yeah, tell me how much her knowing world history should come into the equation.


Everytime I start to come around and think, ok maybe its not really all about getting sex from women I see a comment like this and just think ewwww....and all that good stuff about being fun, charming and engaging to make a connection is all erased.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

ScarletBegonias said:


> Maybe the one nighter scale is based just on looks but the relationship scale includes the other important stuff


Yes.

But it is not just a noble thing. I honestly think a woman who may be rated as a 9-10 from this scale may be a 4 in actual value. Even sexually.


----------



## Machiavelli

Trenton said:


> Got you. So ONS = One Night Stand. Well, that's easy enough to avoid so no worries.
> 
> How many women can orgasm with a complete stranger? I never understood why a woman would want to go on a ONS regardless of being a 10 or a 2 unless she was insecure and just needs to pretend she's desired, loved, whatever.
> 
> Maybe there are women who can orgasm with strangers but not this woman. The ONS has an attraction rating for me of -5 billion.


Of course there are women who can orgasm with a guy they just met. Seriously?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Wiserforit said:


> The relentless minimization of misogyny in PUA speaks louder than words about noble intentions.


Who said anything about noble intentions? My intentions change day to day. Today I might just want to get laid and find a good looking girl who's down for it - good thing I've become such a good conversationalist. Oh dear... thy honor is tarneshed because someone slept with me on the first night. Gimme a break. Maybe I like her and call her up, maybe not... maybe she calls me, maybe not. You want mysogny? I think its what many here are doing by outsourcing a woman's responsibility for herself to some guy hitting on her. I hold women responsible for their OWN behavior. I didn't twist her arm to come home with me. She didn't blow me with a gun to her head. She liked me, I liked her... but unless I was really really drunk I sure as hell didn't put a ring on her finger and we're not dating after one night. I'm not deceiving and drugging her to take off to my rape house.

Some of the mysogny is funny and none of it is serious. Kinda like someone on here has a quote saying the "three wise *women" would have arrived on time, helped deliver the baby, baked at cake... yada yada yada. Funny. Yeah, I laugh at farts and people falling down too... sue me. 



Wiserforit said:


> The market for PUA is guys that have resentments over women, so the misogyny is self-explanatory.
> 
> I spent over three decades in the locker room with very high achievers including over a dozen olympic champions - and we never discussed PUA.
> 
> We didn't assign women numbers nor speak of them as targets nor use any of this silly, pretentious terminology. This is not locker room talk in my experience. I find these sites pathetic, not fun and enjoyable reading.


Yes, you know the market for PUA because you spent three decades in locker rooms that never discussed picking up women.

Jordan fades back.... :::swish:::

There's no mysogny in locker rooms... except every one I've ever been in. Oh, but that was just high school football and the Marine Corps... not Olympic champions.


----------



## Machiavelli

Entropy3000 said:


> Yes.
> 
> But it is not just a noble thing. I honestly think a woman who may be rated as a 9-10 from this scale may be a 4 in actual value. Even sexually.


Fookin' A


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Machiavelli said:


> A 10 has never been seen.


If Kezia Noble ain't a 10, I don't know what is.

I didn't mean what, I meant who! Goddammit objectification!


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Machiavelli said:


> Have you ever seen Mystery or Style. It's a miracle they could get sex from any woman.


Mystery is like the geekiest PUA ever. Even the tophat with goggles is screaming Steampunk FRP.


----------



## Deejo

Sincerely, thanks for posting this.

Many, many, men that come here and find themselves on the brink of marriage meltdown, sexless, or with unfaithful spouses receive advice on this matter.

Falls under the category of you can't explain it, you have to live it.

Yes they want to keep the women they love. They are hurt and desperate to do so.

So yes, often the man-up stuff starts with the hope of, "If I get this right, she will love me again."

Let's be real, this is why Athol was able to quit his day job. Men wanted answers ... and ... so did women.

You hear the phrase 'Inner Game' too. I think it's been mentioned on this thread.

But you are very, very, right SB. The journey often starts one place, and carries you some place very different than where you expected it to. And it isn't an end-point.

I suppose I could stop calling it 'gaming' and call it dating strategy, social dynamics or something. 





ScarletBegonias said:


> Deep thoughts
> 
> Self gaming,that's a whole different thread Sometimes I feel like the man up thing and the alpha thing should be treated as self gaming more than outward gaming to get women.Basically increasing your self worth for you and if that attracts others,well,that's a bonus.
> 
> I like the self improvement aspects of literature aimed at men and the stuff aimed at women.What I can't get on board with is the self improvement in order to get women or in order to get men aspect of many blogs,books,and magazines.
> 
> *edited to add that I think a lot of men DO start out using the alpha/man up stuff to get women or improve their marriage but then it turns into a journey of self improvement simply bc they realize it makes them feel better about themselves regardless of whether or not they get the girl or improve the marriage.


----------



## Davelli0331

Machiavelli said:


> See, the old fashioned PUA rote forms are for guys who can't get any female attention. Have you ever seen Mystery or Style. It's a miracle they could get sex from any woman.


Those are the tards I think of when people start talking about "game". Apparently the definition of "game" has shifted. Maybe that's why I'm more hung up on terms than I am on the underlying mechanics.

BTW I still have a leather-bound copy of "The Game". Haven't read it in years, but even when I did, I remember thinking, "This sounds so idiotic."


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Would you like to play a game of global thermal nuclear war?
> 
> Sorry, on a movie kick today.


ssh wopr

login as: root
password: joshua


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

inarut said:


> Everytime I start to come around and think, ok maybe its not really all about getting sex from women I see a comment like this and just think ewwww....and all that good stuff about being fun, charming and engaging to make a connection is all erased.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yeah, I am pretty obnoxious like that. *farts*


----------



## Davelli0331

Entropy3000 said:


> ssh wopr
> 
> login as: root
> password: joshua


I used to use SSH tunneling to bypass the company firewall at my last job. True story.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> What's ONS?


Oracle Notification Service

Used in helping to loadbalance RAC


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Me too! Love Risk!


Holding the middle east is not so easy.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Just got done watching Top Gear UK. They cited a study about men and testosterone based on what car they drive. All things to add to your game boys. Buy a sports car. 

Fast cars boost men's testosterone levels: research - Telegraph


----------



## Entropy3000

Davelli0331 said:


> I used to use SSH tunneling to bypass the company firewall at my last job. True story.


You can even tunnel nfs. Yes. You are not alone sir.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls said: "What you want and what you say you want - no... lets take it further, what you THINK you want... quite often don't match up at all."
> 
> Sigh...ok, you win again. You don't know me, don't know what I want, don't know what my husband is or is not, don't know what I've ever said I did want or didn't want and whether I got it or not (the very FEW posts on these threads do not present a whole picture of what I want by the way so please don't try to point to those)...yet somehow, you feel qualified to tell me that what I think I want and what I really want are not the same thing AND that YOU can tell me what it is that I really want.
> 
> Really?
> 
> I guess I just don't see why I would even try to argue with this, how or why could I try to change your mind from that very strange position?
> 
> Also, I just can't stick around while people like ravioli are typing trash like this: "A woman that's fat and sloppy, bad built or just plain unattractive is for the hungry wolves at the end of the night."
> 
> I'll be reading but posting seems futile. I do enjoy many people's insights, so reading is always fun.


Yep. You're the exception... but hey, there are always exceptions right? Every woman on this forum is probably an exception too. You know what, maybe its an age thing and I should start using under 30 - over 30 qualifiers (maybe even 40). btw, you didn't say whether your husband wears makeup or not.

One thing guys who've gotten stuck stuck in the friendzone know really well is the degree to which women's verbalized wants very often don't match what they pursue.

Its cool. Maybe you're not one of them. That's my analysis regardless.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> One thing guys who've gotten stuck stuck in the friendzone know really well is the degree to which women's verbalized wants very often don't match what they pursue.


"God, I am so tired of a-holes and players. You're such a nice guy, you will make a girl very happy one day". Then strolls off to date another jerk/badboy/a-hole/d-bag(generally her words of describing the men she's dating) etc etc. Then comes to cry some more.

Observing the same interaction over and over again in a lot of beta orbiter male-female relationships gets kinda boring after a while. Then you learn game.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Stop trying to woo me!


iptables --verbose --insert INPUT --protocol tcp --destination-port 22 --jump ACCEPT

tcpdump port 22 &

nmap -A -v -sUT -p1-12000 shogun.puaguys.net

ssh shogun.puaguys.net

login as: root
password: root

shogun:~


----------



## inarut

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Yeah, I am pretty obnoxious like that. *farts*



Charming.....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Ikaika

Machiavelli said:


> the vast, vast majority of guys (95%) can't snag a 9, without coercion of some kind, under any circumstances. A 10 has never been seen.


I don't know recently I was told I was a 9.5 (I will not pull up the quote because I don't want to embarrass her)... I was confused because I thought she was referring to my IQ 

I liked the comment, but in light of this discussion, bleh... I don't need it. I am happily married and don't have to play games. My beautiful bride is a 10 all the way in my eyes.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Yeah, you know most go straight for Australia...I go for Asia as a rule.


This says much.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

inarut said:


> Everytime I start to come around and think, ok maybe its not really all about getting sex from women I see a comment like this and just think ewwww....and all that good stuff about being fun, charming and engaging to make a connection is all erased.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Pickup techniques are the gun. But really, I don't see anything wrong with it being used for sex or to charm the right woman, or hell... make business contacts. Whatever. Women are responsible for their own behavior.

If I just want sex, I'm not gonna spend a week seducing you if there's another girl just as good looking that I can get tonight. If I go home with a girl on the first night, that doesn't mean I'm not going to continue to pursue her afterwards. I wanted sex, but I just go with the flow. What she gives me is up to her. Hey, I've had a ONS where SHE ignored MY calls... lol... I was all set to go out again. Another flat out didn't want a relationship... we just had random lunchtime hookups. I don't feel used. There was no committment implied.

If you're not ok with going without committment, you're probably not gonna go home with the guy and have sex the night you met. The night you meet isn't much time to establish committment.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Guns don't kill people. People kill people.


If guns were outlawed, only the outlaws would have guns.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> Oracle Notification Service
> 
> Used in helping to loadbalance RAC


He got game.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Ah the friendzone. For the record, friendship is when you care about another person's well-being. Friendship isn't biding your time until your "friend" trusts you enough to fall in to bed with you. That's manipulation, and don't be surprised when the woman you are trying to manipulate takes offense when she realizes that you were being nice to her not because you care about her well being, but because you wanted to bang her. 
Maybe that's the attraction for some women to "bad boys"? They don't play the passive aggressive game that "Nice Guys" do. Frankly, I find the first to be more appealing in that at least they are honest about their intentions for the most part.

**"You" is not anybody specific here.It's a collective "you" of anybody with this mindset**


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> From what I can tell it is pretty much enmeshed with "game" and even the good guys can only say "well, I don't pay attention to it" rather than actually say, you know, this is an ugly aspect and we should work on it.
> 
> *shrugs*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is ugly and we should work on it.

But it still makes me laugh, sorry.


----------



## inarut

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
> 
> Pickup techniques are the gun. But really, I don't see anything wrong with it being used for sex or to charm the right woman or whatever. Women are responsible for their own behavior.
> 
> If I just want sex, I'm not gonna spend a week seducing you if there's another girl just as good looking that I can get tonight. If I go home with a girl on the first night, that doesn't mean I'm not going to continue to pursue her afterwards. I wanted sex, but I just go with the flow. What she gives me is up to her. Hey, I've had a ONS where SHE ignored MY calls... lol... I was all set to go out again. Another flat out didn't want a relationship... we just had random lunchtime hookups. I don't feel used. There was no committment implied.
> 
> If you're not ok with going without committment, you're probably not gonna go home with the guy and have sex the night you met. The night you meet isn't much time to establish committment.


I completely agree that women are responsible for their behavior. I'm just going to leave it at that and exit this thread.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> He got game.


Chicks dig Linux


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Therealbrighteyes said:


> **You is collective you, not anybody specific here**


You specifically meant me, didn't you? I could see it, because you said "you". That's me.


----------



## Davelli0331

Entropy3000 said:


> Chicks dig Linux


Chicks dig Macs. FTFY.

I won't go into why.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Ah the friendzone. For the record, friendship is when you care about another person's well-being. Friendship isn't biding your time until your "friend" trusts you enough to accept your penis. That's manipulation, and don't be surprised when the woman you are trying to manipulate takes offense when she realizes that you were being nice to her not because you care about her well being, but because you wanted to bang her.


So a guy who still wants to date a girl even though she's not into him, in spite of their awesome friendship... is "biding his time"?

That's manipulation? My goodness yall hate even the guys who are too soft, sweet and hopeful! Meanwhile he's just sitting there thinking maybe one day she'll realize who it was that always stuck by her? Oh the deception.

I want to shake the living sh*t out of these guys. What women say: "I want to marry my best friend". What women do... well, lets just say that friendzones must be figments of my imagination.



Therealbrighteyes said:


> Maybe that's the attraction for some women to "bad boys"? They don't play the passive aggressive game that "Nice Guys" do. Frankly, I find the first to be more appealing in that at least they are honest about their intentions for the most part.


Ironic. The bad boy is going to hurt you. Mr. Friendzone will cherish you. But its like I've always said, conscious brain is in the car, but primal brain is at the wheel.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> You specifically meant me, didn't you? I could see it, because you said "you". That's me.


Ha, ha. No, I didn't mean anybody here. I meant anybody with this mindset. My wording on "you" was off. You as in anybody who thinks a female friend owes you sex because of friendship, that you.


----------



## Deejo

Davelli0331 said:


> Those are the tards I think of when people start talking about "game". Apparently the definition of "game" has shifted. Maybe that's why I'm more hung up on terms than I am on the underlying mechanics.
> 
> BTW I still have a leather-bound copy of "The Game". Haven't read it in years, but even when I did, I remember thinking, "This sounds so idiotic."


By all accounts I'm aware of, the definition has shifted away from what it was with those early books. I remember reading at the end of "The Game" by Strauss, he emphasized that as well.

Good a time as any to continue the shifting.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So a guy who still wants to date a girl even though she's not into him, in spite of their awesome friendship... is "biding his time"?
> 
> That's manipulation? My goodness yall hate even the guys who are too soft, sweet and hopeful! Meanwhile he's just sitting there thinking maybe one day she'll realize who it was that always stuck by her? Oh the deception.
> 
> I want to shake the living sh*t out of these guys. What women say: "I want to marry my best friend". What women do... well, lets just say that friendzones must be figments of my imagination.


Pretending to be a friend while secretly pining away for a night of sex with her, never making those feelings known and secretly disliking her fo dating others? Yup, manipulation.


----------



## Entropy3000

Davelli0331 said:


> Chicks dig Macs. FTFY.
> 
> I won't go into why.


There are always bsd chicks.










But I digress.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So a guy who still wants to date a girl even though she's not into him, in spite of their awesome friendship... is "biding his time"?
> 
> That's manipulation? My goodness yall hate even the guys who are too soft, sweet and hopeful! Meanwhile he's just sitting there thinking maybe one day she'll realize who it was that always stuck by her? Oh the deception.
> 
> I want to shake the living sh*t out of these guys. What women say: "I want to marry my best friend". What women do... well, lets just say that friendzones must be figments of my imagination.


It's the goddamn stupid programming they get when they are kids and teenagers. Every feel-good Hollywood movie with the nerd herbling getting the hot girl in the end, every children's tale with a "happily ever after", every idiot saying "Women want men who listen to them, women want men who are emotional..." etc etc.

It's like the world is designed to knock the inner game out of males from birth.


----------



## Wiserforit

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> ^You are the king. I hear you roar.


Observe that so long as the PUA groupies can falsely assert men of high achievement use "game", they can be spoken of fondly. 

But if one is actually here and speaks against it then look how that same resentment against women is directed at them. I suppose in the same way you hated the jocks in high school? 

Look at all the wrong lessons the PUA groupies use for James Bond. He is a fictional character. Whereas the movie actors portraying Bond are men of high achievement. You emulate the reality, not the fiction. 




LouAnn Poovey[/quote said:


> Thank God. I was beginning to wonder if my high regard for men was misplaced. Thank you for posting that!


Thank you *LouAnn* - just look at the context the PUA groupies are using. We did not have the kind of time these guys do for bars because we were too busy doing our jobs training hard every day on top of our academic work.

You had practice taking up 3pm-6pm every day plus a short work-out in the morning either aerobics or weights on top of a full-time scholastic schedule. Week-ends were competition, which a lot of the time involved long distance travel. 

So where is the time to do pick-up? Our "stories" do not involve going to bars and playing pick-up games. You meet women in classes or in the gym or the dormatory or whatever. 

Sure, occasionally you went to bars and got hammered after a big event or something but the PUA crowd is all about closing down bars while an athlete is all about working his ass off. Most of us had steady girlfriends so even then it wasn't about picking up girls so much as dancing and blowing off steam. 

The actor playing Bond, the athlete, the successful businessman - whatever walk of life they are from it is hard work behind who they are. Not game.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I want to shake the living sh*t out of these guys. What women say: "I want to marry my best friend". What women do... well, lets just say that friendzones must be figments of my imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic. The bad boy is going to hurt you. Mr. Friendzone will cherish you. But its like I've always said, conscious brain is in the car, but primal brain is at the wheel.


I cannot speak for other women so yes, I did want to marry my best friend. He turned in to my "best" friend after attraction, common goals, sex, etc. came before. 

Will the "bad boy" hurt me? Not sure. Maybe, maybe not but at least he's honest about his intentions. Mr. Friendzone with his manipulative tactics has already shown to be dishonest. Again, this is my belief. I only speak for myself and my own experiences.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> By all accounts I'm aware of, the definition has shifted away from what it was with those early books. I remember reading at the end of "The Game" by Strauss, he emphasized that as well.
> 
> Good a time as any to continue the shifting.


Very interesting points being made in this thread Deejo and thank you for starting it. I have opened my eyes to many things, most noteably that women definately "game" as well. Skipping the "dolling up" aspects, there are countless books for women about how to snag a man, keep a man, marry a millionaire, etc. The only difference is those books are called "self help" which perhaps sounds more palatable but it still is about game.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Ha, ha. No, I didn't mean anybody here. I meant anybody with this mindset. My wording on "you" was off. You as in anybody who thinks a female friend owes you sex because of friendship, that you.


Consider the message being received by young men who hear "I want to marry my best friend."

"Awesome, that's me!! I'm your best friend!! Wait... you won't even date me... wtf?"

The guy basically has severe one-itis, and while some girls are just incredibly naive about their friendzoned pal, others are basically toying with his affections... and he puts up with it, because he's just that beta. He really thinks she's going to realize he's the one, one day... if he just stays supportive and caring. The girl can have their ever caring ever loving friend locked up in a "break in case of emergency" glass, sure to give him just enough scraps to keep him there... while seeking out that bad boy alpha she really wants. The guy who is more of a challenge to tame.

I'd be less cynical if looks were even the deciding factor. Its not looks, its attitude.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Very interesting points being made in this thread Deejo and thank you for starting it. I have opened my eyes to many things, most noteably that women definately "game" as well. Skipping the "dolling up" aspects, there are countless books for women about how to snag a man, keep a man, marry a millionaire, etc. The only difference is those books are called "self help" which perhaps sounds more palatable but it still is about game.


Wow. Very nice.


----------



## Deejo

Not trying to dodge this issue.

If I'm honest about it, I don't really know quite how to handle it. I have a very strong personal code about the treatment of women.

I also recognize that I can't control how others think.

And as I have indicated, I have partaken of subject matter that unquestionably can be applied disrespectfully, and makes folks downright angry.

I suppose I am complicit. That is not my goal.

I call it where I see it. I haven't felt compelled to focus on that aspect of it here ... because I've been offering up how I consumed and applied said material.

The overwhelming majority of the men on this site are respectful.
Are there going to be times that the conversation between males encompasses subject matter or other content that is distasteful or even offensive to women?

Of course. Just about every 'man up' thread ever posted has had some negative responses from women or a subset of men.

I initially wanted to genuinely answer questions about how a guy, me, read about and used game.

I wasn't looking for fist bumps or to sing the praises of easy, gullible women, who fall into my bed after a few cheese-ball lines.

I sucked at being interesting and attractive, and moreover, aware of and grounded in myself. Now? I suck less.

I do not approve of or tolerate using tactics to take advantage of, exploit or harm women.

If however, I turn on the charm and as a result she really digs me, and that is qualified as exploitation, then I don't see how we ever get to consensus.






FrenchFry said:


> Deejo, this is where the feminism similarity argument ends in my book.
> 
> I don't tolerate misandry in my personal framework. If I'm talking with another feminist, and she becomes misandric while talking or blows off any concerns of misandric behavior, I no longer consider her a feminist or really, a socially concious person. Allowing misandry in clearly tarnishes the overall goal and I'm happy to call it out within that particular community.
> 
> So far, I'm less than impressed with the calling out of misogyny here. From what I can tell it is pretty much enmeshed with "game" and even the good guys can only say "well, I don't pay attention to it" rather than actually say, you know, this is an ugly aspect and we should work on it.
> 
> *shrugs*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The guy basically has severe one-itis, and while some girls are just incredibly naive about their friendzoned pal, others are basically toying with his affections... and he puts up with it, because he's just that beta. He really thinks she's going to realize he's the one, one day... if he just stays supportive and caring. The girl can have their ever caring ever loving friend locked up in a "break in case of emergency" glass, sure to give him just enough scraps to keep him there... while seeking out that bad boy alpha she really wants. The guy who is more of a challenge to tame.
> .


Oh don't get me wrong, I am not denying there are some women who play the part as well. Knowing that a guy likes you, keep him around as Plan B and toy with his heart is just evil. I was however referring to those young men/men who befriend women under a premise of friendship when the reality is that they want to get them in to bed. Both types are wrong. Hopefully you didn't think I only saw one side to this.


----------



## Davelli0331

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Consider the message being received by young men who hear "I want to marry my best friend."
> 
> "Awesome, that's me!! I'm your best friend!! Wait... you won't even date me... wtf?"
> 
> The guy basically has severe one-itis, and while some girls are just incredibly naive about their friendzoned pal, others are basically toying with his affections... and he puts up with it, because he's just that beta. He really thinks she's going to realize he's the one, one day... if he just stays supportive and caring. The girl can have their ever caring ever loving friend locked up in a "break in case of emergency" glass, sure to give him just enough scraps to keep him there... while seeking out that bad boy alpha she really wants. The guy who is more of a challenge to tame.
> 
> I'd be less cynical if looks were even the deciding factor. Its not looks, its attitude.


Friend zone is another one of those parts of game that I think is useful as a thought experiment but is not some fundamental axiom by which women operate.

I agree that _some_ women act this way, that _some_ women intentionally lead on smitten male friends because of a sick enjoyment of that male attention, but I think it's far, far fewer women than the picture you're painting.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Pretending to be a friend while secretly pining away for a night of sex with her, never making those feelings known and secretly disliking her fo dating others? Yup, manipulation.


The friendzoned guy isn't interested in just a night of sex. I've been there, I wasn't. They're best friends remember? This is likely his dream girl you're talking about. He legitimately cares for her.

Those feelings usually come to a head and get expressed. This is what you get: "I couldn't date you! You're like my brother!!" He just doesn't know he took a wrong turn in being her friend in the first place... but being her friend gets an aweful lot of her attention... he just doesn't know its a dead end. She's never going to date him.

Women here have talked a lot about how men shouldn't objectify them and should approach them as people and connect as people... pursue common interest, value her person and not her body. Well, the friendzoned guy does just that.

"Game" is the complete opposite approach, and his best friend isn't a woman for damn sure.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> Just a little off topic irony to point out.
> 
> Davelli, what is the character in your avatar most known for?


^^^^:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Resurrection......


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Best Bond ever ...
> 
> The man borders on being a sociopath. Love watching the new Bond films.



Nah.

I prefer the Scotsman.

That guy was_ sooooo_ Alpha, 
He made a plaid skirt look good on a man.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The friendzoned guy isn't interested in just a night of sex. I've been there, I wasn't. They're best friends remember? This is likely his dream girl you're talking about. He legitimately cares for her.
> 
> Those feelings usually come to a head and get expressed. This is what you get: "I couldn't date you! You're like my brother!!" He just doesn't know he took a wrong turn in being her friend in the first place... but being her friend gets an aweful lot of her attention... he just doesn't know its a dead end. She's never going to date him.
> 
> Women here have talked a lot about how men shouldn't objectify them and should approach them as people and connect as people... pursue common interest, value her person and not her body. Well, the friendzoned guy does just that.
> 
> "Game" is the complete opposite approach, and his best friend isn't a woman for damn sure.


You have your experiences and I have mine. I was speaking purely for myself and nobody else. I appreciate what you wrote and can understand that it would be very frustrating and hurtful, just as mine was.


----------



## Deejo

I like your style.

It's fairly obvious that you function from a place of discipline and character.
You're indignant about this stuff. I respect that too. I don't have a problem with your position.

But ... I say this a lot ... context is everything. You keep referring to your top tier athletic experience, rigorous hard work and discipline and how you and your peers didn't refer to pickup or cheap tricks to become involved with women. Me? I wasn't that guy. Hell I couldn't run up and down a field without having an asthma attack as a teenager.

The schism I see here maybe can be applied in the same way I talk about what I used from the PUA crap. MY experience with top tier athlete males?
They were entitled pr!cks who passed women around and used them like kleenex, and the women willingly signed up.
'The Town Bicycle' didn't get her nickname from the chess club, she got it from the football team.
Some people saw them as admirable, high achieving young men. Other saw them as a gang of arrogant predators ... especially once 'gang rape' was being whispered about town. Guess who they blamed in that whole fiasco?

I'm not looking for p!ssing match parity here. You sound like a stand up guy. I can only assure you that despite my reference material and learning curve, so am I.

So are most of the guys here.



Wiserforit said:


> Observe that so long as the PUA groupies can falsely assert men of high achievement use "game", they can be spoken of fondly.
> 
> But if one is actually here and speaks against it then look how that same resentment against women is directed at them. I suppose in the same way you hated the jocks in high school?
> 
> Look at all the wrong lessons the PUA groupies use for James Bond. He is a fictional character. Whereas the movie actors portraying Bond are men of high achievement. You emulate the reality, not the fiction.
> 
> 
> Thank God. I was beginning to wonder if my high regard for men was misplaced. Thank you for posting that!


Thank you *LouAnn* - just look at the context the PUA groupies are using. We did not have the kind of time these guys do for bars because we were too busy doing our jobs training hard every day on top of our academic work.

You had practice taking up 3pm-6pm every day plus a short work-out in the morning either aerobics or weights on top of a full-time scholastic schedule. Week-ends were competition, which a lot of the time involved long distance travel. 

So where is the time to do pick-up? Our "stories" do not involve going to bars and playing pick-up games. You meet women in classes or in the gym or the dormatory or whatever. 

Sure, occasionally you went to bars and got hammered after a big event or something but the PUA crowd is all about closing down bars while an athlete is all about working his ass off. Most of us had steady girlfriends so even then it wasn't about picking up girls so much as dancing and blowing off steam. 

The actor playing Bond, the athlete, the successful businessman - whatever walk of life they are from it is hard work behind who they are. Not game.[/QUOTE]


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You've totally lost me. When you said "number", you were obviously referring to number of women slept with - as if its ego massaging. I replied on point. Rather than asking rhetorical questions, or asking me to evaluation someone elses notion of what successful PUA, how about actually responding directly to what I say.
> 
> 9-10 refers to sex rank... quality. Do I feel good about snagging a 9? Damn right I do! She's hot! Am I supposed to be depressed I have a hot woman? lol Woe is me.
> 
> Seriously, I don't get your logic. Yes, I keep mediocre girls in little goodie bags in the pantry, just in case I feel like a midnight snack.


No, I wasn't talking about the number of women. If I had been, I surely would have gone higher than 10. I was talking about sex rank, and how insecure PUA artists look for their sense of self-worth in the eyes of hot women. But when they get it, they either lose respect for the woman, or interest in her -- perhaps it wasn't enough of a challenge, or perhaps she's only an 8 or 9, or perhaps her opinion just doesn't count because she was stupid enough to fall for that trick. Whatever the reason, he's off after another. There is no end to this game, and at no point will such a PUA find the worth he is seeking because he is looking for it outside himself.

The reference to "hungry at the end of the evening" is to a couple of posts that basically said that men will considerably lower their standards in order to avoid going home alone, but that these women were throwaways. (They didn't use that word, but it was something to that effect.)


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Wiserforit said:


> But if one is actually here and speaks against it then look how that same resentment against women is directed at them. I suppose in the same way you hated the jocks in high school?


Really? I played football, baseball and ran track.




Wiserforit said:


> We did not have the kind of time these guys do for bars because we were too busy doing our jobs training hard every day on top of our academic work.


Hmm... I find time to go out on the weekends even though I work full time, run a business on the side, box 3 nights a week, and lift 4-5 days a week.

The girl I'm currently dating I didn't meet in a bar. I met her in a bookstore, and I still drew on pickup experience.



Wiserforit said:


> The actor playing Bond, the athlete, the successful businessman - whatever walk of life they are from it is hard work behind who they are. Not game.


You think improving your social skills isn't hard work? lol

I'm quite a successful guy in most areas of my life, and you're right its all hard work. I wasn't content with the kind of women I was attracting and I went about improving my social skills to the degree that I attract a LOT better looking women today. I don't just sit back and hope she notices me or that chance interevenes. I don't come across awkward or rely on introductions. I know what to say. I know how to engage virtually anyone. Just like I know how to run my business and I know how to do my job well. It was all learned, and it was all hard work.

You didn't need to learn from PUA. You didn't want to. You settled for what you drew. You have natural game. You just got lucky. Doesn't really matter to me. I learned what I needed to know to get what I want and now I have it.

Life is good. :smthumbup:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Davelli0331 said:


> Friend zone is another one of those parts of game that I think is useful as a thought experiment but is not some fundamental axiom by which women operate.
> 
> I agree that _some_ women act this way, that _some_ women intentionally lead on smitten male friends because of a sick enjoyment of that male attention, but I think it's far, far fewer women than the picture you're painting.


Its definitely not a thought experiment bro. lol I know two younger guys in the friendzone right now.

I didn't offer a picture of how many women keep a guy in the friendzone. For the most part, I don't think its the women doing it at all. Its a GUY who thinks he can win her over by being her friend. Its usually his fault.

I agree with Nirvana... all the crap that men are told to be, simply isn't what draws women. Its just not. I've done this enough to know pretty damn well. Sensitive and good listener? I got a friendzone reserved for that guy.

Sensitivity and listening have a place much further down the road.


----------



## Deejo

Caribbean Man said:


> Nah.
> 
> I prefer the Scotsman.
> 
> That guy was_ sooooo_ Alpha,
> He made a plaid skirt look good on a man.


I loved Connery because he played Bond as cool, he knows it, and doesn't care.

I love Craig because he plays Bond as damaged, he knows it, and doesn't care.

Connery always struck me as cool.
Craig strikes me as dangerous.
Both kinds of characters are attractive.

Felt like they went out of their way to paint a picture of Bond as a self-serving sociopath in Casino Royale ... until he falls in love with the girl and has his heart broken ... then it's back to sociopath.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> *I prefer good old fashioned warfare, ala Risk. Total world domination. That's the kind of game I can get in t*o.


One of my favourite old school!


----------



## Machiavelli

coffee4me said:


> I heard from the guys on this and I really wanted *answers from the ladies. *(no offensive guys)


You already know the answer to this.



coffee4me said:


> Should these gals be offeneded by what this guy did?
> 
> You say men should be themselves, what if this is his personality.


If it's his real personality, we will call this "Alpha" personality for lack of a better term, this kind of behavior is perfectly okay.



coffee4me said:


> Are you only offended if he read it in a book?


Yes, this is highly offensive to women. Women only want Alphas who are being their gregarious and dominant selves, so-called "naturals" who do this without faking the alpha traits and behaviors.



coffee4me said:


> How would you know the difference, if he read it or it's really him?


9 months later, when this liaison produces a Beta or Delta introvert son who stammers around grade 5 and up female infants, she'll know she's been had.



coffee4me said:


> If he ends up dating one of these girls, does it matter that he did this to meet her? Or does it only matter if he read it in a book?


It's a DNA bait and switch scam. These women think they're collecting "Grade A" (A is for Alpha) wild oats, but they're actually getting "Grades B, D, and Z). This should be a felony offense.


----------



## Conrad

Deejo said:


> I loved Connery because he played Bond as cool, he knows it, and doesn't care.
> 
> I love Craig because he plays Bond as damaged, he knows it, and doesn't care.
> 
> Connery always struck me as cool.
> Craig strikes me as dangerous.
> Both kinds of characters are attractive.
> 
> Felt like they went out of their way to paint a picture of Bond as a self-serving sociopath in Casino Royale ... until he falls in love with the girl and has his heart broken ... then it's back to sociopath.


Pierce Brosnan will always be a girly man.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> If it's his real personality, we will call this "Alpha" personality for lack of a better term, this kind of behavior is perfectly okay.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, this is highly offensive to women. Women only want Alphas who are being their gregarious and dominant selves, so-called "naturals" who do this without faking the alpha traits and behaviors.


I will just take this opportunity to chime in as yet another woman who would think this guy is an utter dork and not worth the time of day.

I would add that I'd actually feel better about him if I found out he *had* read it in a book, because it shows he is just misguided and there may still be hope for him. If it was his natural personality, then I'd avoid at all costs.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> I loved Connery because he played Bond as cool, he knows it, and doesn't care.
> 
> I love Craig because he plays Bond as damaged, he knows it, and doesn't care.
> 
> Connery always struck me as cool.
> Craig strikes me as dangerous.
> Both kinds of characters are attractive.
> 
> Felt like they went out of their way to paint a picture of Bond as a self-serving sociopath in Casino Royale ... until he falls in love with the girl and has his heart broken ... then it's back to sociopath.


Ok I hear that,

But the " heart broken " part just ain't in the best tradition of 007 to me.
IMO, Craig seemed to allow women and his boss, M to spook him, In addition he wasn't aggressive enough in his encounter with the Asian Bond Girl [ Berenice Marlohe ] in Skyfall.

On the other hand, I liked how Sean Connery _got_ his women.

He seemed to have a " fetish" for sexy ,dangerous, mercenary type women.Women who carried guns , and were not afraid to use them.
It was like Russian Roulette, but he always won.
He had the lines, and game!
And I like how he handled his boss , M.


----------



## Machiavelli

ScarletBegonias said:


> Deep thoughts
> 
> Self gaming,that's a whole different thread Sometimes I feel like the man up thing and the alpha thing should be treated as self gaming more than outward gaming to get women.Basically increasing your self worth for you and if that attracts others,well,that's a bonus.


It's been reported that a man can raise his own testosterone level by merely standing erect, shoulders back, feet slightly wider than shoulder width. Power posing, if you will.



ScarletBegonias said:


> I like the self improvement aspects of literature aimed at men and the stuff aimed at women.What I can't get on board with is the *self improvement in order to get women* or in order to get men aspect of many blogs,books,and magazines.


Sorry, but the prime directive for a man is to "get women." This is our primary purpose on this earth. Everything else we have done is about sex rank.



ScarletBegonias said:


> *edited to add that I think a lot of men DO start out using the alpha/man up stuff to get women or improve their marriage but then it turns into a journey of self improvement simply bc they realize it makes them feel better about themselves regardless of whether or not they get the girl or improve the marriage.


Sure, but all advances and many declines for humankind ultimately devolve to a man raising his sex rank, either directly or by proxy (earning more).


----------



## Caribbean Man

Conrad said:


> Pierce Brosnan will always be a girly man.


 :iagree:^^Haha!


----------



## Machiavelli

Trenton said:


> Or so you think. Perhaps that is a girl's game.
> 
> She wants adoration, attention and to be desired.
> 
> She plays the man into believing he is a sex God which is what he wants and pretends to orgasm to give him this.
> 
> Sad part is it's all game on top of game on top of game.
> 
> Dumb.


Your feminine solipsism is showing. Remember, Trenton, all human behaviors and traits fall on a bell curve.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok I get that,
> 
> But the " heart broken " part just ain't in the best tradition of 007 to me.
> IMO, Craig seemed to allow women and his boss, M to spook him, In addition he wasn't aggressive enough in his encounter with the Asian Bond Girl [ Berenice Marlohe ] in Skyfall.
> 
> On the other hand, I liked how Sean Connery _got_ his women.
> 
> He seemed to have a " fetish" for sexy ,dangerous, mercenary type women.Women who carried guns , and were not afraid to use them.
> It was like Russian Roulette, but he always won!
> And I like how he handled his boss , M.


I bought the 50 years of Bond set. I really enjoy the added content. Anyway, Sean Connery IS James Bond. I do like the latest Bond.

But Bond has varied with the times.


----------



## Machiavelli

ScarletBegonias said:


> Maybe the one nighter scale is based just on looks but the relationship scale includes the other important stuff


Not just the one nighter scale, but the attraction scale. A girl has to be reasonably hot to not get the brush off when she approaches me. If she's not too far below my rank, I'll engage her on her opening and we'll go from there. If she's just too stupid, I'll try to get rid of her. If she combines hotness with a brain then game on. Of course, this was my MO 30+ years ago.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Are we going to talk about who made the best Bruce Wayne next? He's way more alpha than all the Bonds put together.


----------



## Machiavelli

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Are we going to talk about who made the best Bruce Wayne next? He's way more alpha than all the Bonds put together.


Without question: Adam West


----------



## Davelli0331

machiavelli said:


> without question: Christian bale


ftfy


----------



## Machiavelli

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> If Kezia Stone ain't a 10, I don't know what is.
> 
> I didn't mean what, I meant who! Goddammit objectification!


Post a pic and I'll render judgement.


----------



## Machiavelli

Davelli0331 said:


> Those are the tards I think of when people start talking about "game". Apparently the definition of "game" has shifted. Maybe that's why I'm more hung up on terms than I am on the underlying mechanics.


PUA game, and it's all they had. These poor guys were meant by mother nature to be, shall we say, sifted out of the gene pool. PUA game is all they got, except for Style, who became a multimillionaire, thus upping his sex rank by about 5 steps. Well, maybe 3.5. But that's still huge.



Davelli0331 said:


> BTW I still have a leather-bound copy of "The Game". Haven't read it in years, but even when I did, I remember thinking, "This sounds so idiotic."


But it works. The fact that any of these guys could get ANY woman less than 240# to walk out of a bar with them is proof that it works.


----------



## WyshIknew

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Are we going to talk about who made the best Bruce Wayne next? He's way more alpha than all the Bonds put together.


Well I think James Bond is a pretty cool guy.:awink:


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Are we going to talk about who made the best Bruce Wayne next? He's way more alpha than all the Bonds put together.


Christian Bale. No contest.

On a related note I found this documentary interesting on the pyschology of that character. --> Batman Unmasked - The Psychology of the Dark Knight 

Bale plays this extremely well.

The character has been fleshed out the last decade and Bale IS The Dark Knight ... The Batman. But Bruce Wayne is the real persona here. The man without the armor. Triumph over fear.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Val Kilmer was sexy but then I like cheekbones that can grate cheese. Best performance was probably Christian Bale.


----------



## Davelli0331

Interesting that those two characters came up in this discussion. Bond and Batman are two of the fictional characters that possess values and traits that I try to incorporate into myself.

And yes, I am aware of how nerdy that sounds. Sue me.

ETA: This is one of the most bizarrely meandering threads I've ever seen on TAM. We're lucky a mod hasn't shut it down yet.

Oh wait...


----------



## Davelli0331

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Val Kilmer was sexy but then I like cheekbones that can grate cheese. Best performance was probably Christian Bale.


The Schumacher films don't count. I'm not for public censorship, but all copies of those films should be burned and never mentioned in the public consciousness again.


----------



## Entropy3000

Davelli0331 said:


> Interesting that those two characters came up in this discussion. Bond and Batman are two of the fictional characters that possess values and traits that I try to incorporate into myself.
> 
> And yes, I am aware of how nerdy that sounds. Sue me.
> 
> ETA: This is one of the most bizarrely meandering threads I've ever seen on TAM. We're lucky a mod hasn't shut it down yet.
> 
> Oh wait...


As silly as this sounds there is so much about this persona that mirrors many choices I have made in my life. I have beat myself up over this from time to time and I have only recently decided to embrace that this is very much who I am and my values have driven this, often to my own detriment. 

I am also the guy that gets called in to save things when it has all gone to sh!t. I usually can pull things out. Hero complex? Maybe. F^ck it, someone has to do it. Why not me? LOL.

But the character is compelling and I think a lot of good men can identify with it to one extent or another. The guy chooses to be a bad @$$ but he is truly a good guy. He works within the system but he is not limited by it when the system fails. He puts himself in harms way. He is bushido.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> As silly as this sounds there is so much about this persona that mirrors many choices I have made in my life. I have beat myself up over this from time to time and I have only recently decided to embrace that this is very much who I am and my values have driven this, often to my own detriment.
> 
> I am also the guy that gets called in to save things when it has all gone to sh!t. I usually can pull things out. Hero complex? Maybe. F^ck it, someone has to do it. Why not me? LOL.
> 
> But the character is compelling and I think a lot of good men can identify with it to one extent or another. The guy chooses to be a bad @$$ but he is truly a good guy. He works within the system but he is not limited by it when the system fails. He puts himself in harms way. He is bushido.


So your an admitted "White knight", "Knight in Shining armor", "hero complex" guy?


----------



## FalconKing

FrenchFry said:


> Deejo, this is where the feminism similarity argument ends in my book.


Actually I think they are more similar than you think.



> I don't tolerate misandry in my personal framework. If I'm talking with another feminist, and she becomes misandric while talking or blows off any concerns of misandric behavior, I no longer consider her a feminist or really, a socially concious person. Allowing misandry in clearly tarnishes the overall goal and I'm happy to call it out within that particular community.


Do you feel the term feminist is subjective? A lot of woman who consider themselves feminist find views on men irrelevant. I know some feminist writers that would not say you are a feminist because you may at times sympathize with men. Who decides all of these? Who decides who has cred on that? A woman being proud of herself as a woman does not mean she hates men. Even if some women who classify themselves the same as you, do. Maybe you share similar views on some issues but that doesn't mean you are the same. If you read a book written by a woman who clearly had disdain for men yet she said things that were helpful to you as a woman does that mean you are the same as her? Should you not have read the book? How would you feel if a man was telling you shouldn't read those books because it means you have the same views about men as that author? How much of an insult would that be to your intelligence?



> So far, I'm less than impressed with the calling out of misogyny here. From what I can tell it is pretty much enmeshed with "game" and even the good guys can only say "well, I don't pay attention to it" rather than actually say, you know, this is an ugly aspect and we should work on it.
> 
> *shrugs*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What do you think should be done? Do you find the misogyny to be general or specific to certain posters. Some people here have nothing good to say about the opposite sex and have a lot of bitterness towards them. And people are liking their comments. I don't think you can put this hat on just men. Misogyny is the hatred and dislike of women. I see a lot of frustration. But not that.


----------



## FalconKing

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Very interesting points being made in this thread Deejo and thank you for starting it. I have opened my eyes to many things, most noteably that women definately "game" as well. Skipping the "dolling up" aspects, there are countless books for women about how to snag a man, keep a man, marry a millionaire, etc. The only difference is those books are called "self help" which perhaps sounds more palatable but it still is about game.


I always like how try to point the similarities of behavior between men and women when we have threads like these. Or at least you view things objectively and with an open mind.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FalconKing said:


> What do you think should be done? Do you find the misogyny to be general or specific to certain posters. *Some people here have nothing good to say about the opposite sex and have a lot of bitterness towards them. And people are liking their comments. I don't think you can put this hat on just men.* Misogyny is the hatred and dislike of women. I see a lot of frustration. But not that.


:iagree:

But like I said yesterday,
Its a type of hypocrisy, but its tolerable and I don't think it of itself, defines a person.
We are the sum total of our life's experiences, either for good or bad.
We all have a bit of that " hamster " in our minds and even when we look in the mirror , we sometimes see what we want to see, and not reality.
People develop at different stages. Self actualization is the work of a lifetime.
I guess that's why in dating, people NEVER show who they really are.
That's why we all need GAME!


----------



## FalconKing

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> But like I said yesterday,
> Its a type of hypocrisy, but its tolerable and I don't think it of itself, defines a person.
> We are the sum total of our life's experiences, either for good or bad.
> We all have a bit of that " hamster " in our minds and even when we look in the mirror , we sometimes see what we want to see, and not reality.
> People develop at different stages. Self actualization is the work of a lifetime.
> I guess that's why in dating, people NEVER show who they really are.
> That's why we all need GAME!


CB are you saying that people never show who the are because we are always changing, learning, and experiencing?

I never thought if it like that.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

FalconKing said:


> Do you feel the term feminist is subjective? A lot of woman who consider themselves feminist find views on men irrelevant. I know some feminist writers that would not say you are a feminist because you may at times sympathize with men. Who decides all of these? Who decides who has cred on that?
> 
> Do you find the misogyny to be general or specific to certain posters. Some people here have nothing good to say about the opposite sex and have a lot of bitterness towards them. And people are liking their comments. I don't think you can put this hat on just men. Misogyny is the hatred and dislike of women. I see a lot of frustration. But not that.


To me, the term feminism must be subjective in that it has been used to label some women who I myself find to be anything but. Entitled princesses on one end and on the other side of the spectrum truly angry women who want to destroy men. Because of this, many people hear the term and think all kinds of negative connotations which I find sad but understandable. 

As to those here regarding misogyny, no I do not find it to be a general thing at all. There are several however who really do dislike women and it borders on hatred. I have them set to ignore as I no longer have the energy nor care to discuss anything with them.


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> So your an admitted "White knight", "Knight in Shining armor", "hero complex" guy?


No.

I am talking about not selling out. Not able to be bought. Standing up for your values. Doing the right thing. Defend those who cannot defend themselves. Not valuing money over people. A man of honor. I summed it up with Bushido.

But indeed my career is full of heroics. And that is just who I am because I can. It comes with the territory. To much is give much is expected.

My comment is that I asked myself about the hero complex and I have come to grips with the fact that my values drive me. So I am at peace with this.

A White Knight has a whole other specific connotation as does Nice Guy. I am neither. But if you hit your wife in front of me I will kick your @$$ and to hell with the consequences. If that counts as a White Knight then ok I am. I have no problem telling men in power no if I feel they are in the wrong. Like things that could compromise DoD security just so they can get their bonus no matter how that would impact my career. We all make choices. Basically standing by and watching something you know is wrong is incredibly weak to me. I choose to say no. I have done that consistantly in my life. Many people are this way.


----------



## FalconKing

Entropy3000 said:


> Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. He was an @$$hole.


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Entropy3000

FalconKing said:


> :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


And of course he did some really great things too.

I can judge him for his flaws but I can also praise him for what he did right.


----------



## sisters359

Here's the thing (and yes, I know I'm coming to the conversation late): if a person cannot manage interesting conversation and he wants to attract someone WITH something like interesting conversation, then he needs to learn it. The catch, however, is: has he improved himself, changed, grown up, matured because of his efforts--or is he just playing a role to get what he wants? If the former, making a positive change for a positive reason is great. If the latter, the change is superficial and any relationship initiated by the role playing will fall apart when the act ends. 

I see the conversation has moved onto the meaning of the word "feminism," and I will--until the day I die--refuse to yield its meaning to those who have abused it. Feminism is about equality for women--and therefore, begins with the premise that equality--not privilege or superiority--is the goal. Should we throw out the term "democracy" because North Korea calls itself the Democratic Republic of Korea? Of course not. If people are not thoughtful or intelligent enough to understand that feminism is about equality and that its goal remains good despite the extremists, then I'm not going to worry about them. I'll focus my energy on people who can understand the difference because they are the ones who can make a difference.


----------



## Machiavelli

FalconKing said:


> Misogyny is the hatred and dislike of women.


That's the old definition. The new definition of 

misogyny/məˈsäjənē/ noun: 1) The belief that women are not inherently morally superior to men. 2) The belief that women do not have the physical ability to serve as 81-mm mortarmen. 3) Linking to Roissy.


----------



## Holland

sisters359 said:


> Here's the thing (and yes, I know I'm coming to the conversation late): if a person cannot manage interesting conversation and he wants to attract someone WITH something like interesting conversation, then he needs to learn it. The catch, however, is: has he improved himself, changed, grown up, matured because of his efforts--or is he just playing a role to get what he wants? If the former, making a positive change for a positive reason is great. If the latter, the change is superficial and any relationship initiated by the role playing will fall apart when the act ends.
> 
> *I see the conversation has moved onto the meaning of the word "feminism," and I will--until the day I die--refuse to yield its meaning to those who have abused it. Feminism is about equality for women--and therefore, begins with the premise that equality--not privilege or superiority--is the goal. Should we throw out the term "democracy" because North Korea calls itself the Democratic Republic of Korea? Of course not. If people are not thoughtful or intelligent enough to understand that feminism is about equality and that its goal remains good despite the extremists, then I'm not going to worry about them. I'll focus my energy on people who can understand the difference because they are the ones who can make a difference.*


100% agree with this. I am a feminist, was raised by one who was raised by one. I come from a long line of strong, independent woman and is being passed onto my DD. 
Equality for women is a just cause and we are still not there in so many ways however I will never engage in the mindset of feminism means less equality for men.



> Therealbrighteyes
> ..........
> 
> As to those here regarding misogyny, no I do not find it to be a general thing at all. There are several however who really do dislike women and it borders on hatred. I have them set to ignore as I no longer have the energy nor care to discuss anything with them.


 There are many intelligent and wise men on this forum and quite a few I will seek to specifically read their words but yes as IRL there is a misogynistic element, also a raving and ranting element, those get set to ignore, life is too short


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Wow that's big!


On TAM a 10 is only slightly larger than average unless you are speaking centimeters.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> No.
> 
> I am talking about not selling out. Not able to be bought. Standing up for your values. Doing the right thing. Defend those who cannot defend themselves. Not valuing money over people. A man of honor. I summed it up with Bushido.
> 
> But indeed my career is full of heroics. And that is just who I am because I can. It comes with the territory. To much is give much is expected.
> 
> My comment is that I asked myself about the hero complex and I have come to grips with the fact that my values drive me. So I am at peace with this.
> 
> A White Knight has a whole other specific connotation as does Nice Guy. I am neither. But if you hit your wife in front of me I will kick your @$$ and to hell with the consequences. If that counts as a White Knight then ok I am. I have no problem telling men in power no if I feel they are in the wrong. Like things that could compromise DoD security just so they can get their bonus no matter how that would impact my career. We all make choices. Basically standing by and watching something you know is wrong is incredibly weak to me. I choose to say no. I have done that consistantly in my life. Many people are this way.


And if the wife physically assaulted the husband in front of you, you'd restrain her and be a valid witness for the authorities?


----------



## sisters359

By the way, no one has ever said that PUA stuff "never" works. That would be stupid. But real PUA stuff only works on specific types of women--usually those too young, drunk, or stupid enough to think clearly. When a guy says to a girl, "You'd look awesome with longer hair," she thinks it is a compliment. When he says it to a woman, she thinks--and says--"Do you think I care what you think? Your mistake." As a basis for a healthy relationship, PUA stuff (again, not what Deejo has taken from it, b/c of course there will be grains of insight even in its crap-filled sewers) totally fails. It might get someone a lot of sex, but it will never lead to a truly loving, supportive, relationship where each partner can depend on and trust the other--because it is premised on deceit. Of course, no one claims it will lead to those things, either.


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> And if the wife physically assaulted the husband in front of you, you'd restrain her and be a valid witness for the authorities?




Ask me a serious question.

My first example I have had to deal with. Not this one. It is a hypothetical.

But if you are in an abusive relationship and are afraid of your wife, I say you do not have to put up with it. Do not give into fear.


----------



## Machiavelli

sisters359 said:


> Here's the thing (and yes, I know I'm coming to the conversation late): if a person cannot manage interesting conversation and he wants to attract someone WITH something like interesting conversation, then he needs to learn it. The catch, however, is: has he improved himself, changed, grown up, matured because of his efforts--or is he just playing a role to get what he wants? If the former, making a positive change for a positive reason is great. If the latter, the change is superficial and any relationship initiated by the role playing will fall apart when the act ends.
> 
> I see the conversation has moved onto the meaning of the word "feminism," and I will--until the day I die--refuse to yield its meaning to those who have abused it. Feminism is about equality for women--and therefore, begins with the premise that equality--not privilege or superiority--is the goal. Should we throw out the term "democracy" because North Korea calls itself the Democratic Republic of Korea? Of course not. If people are not thoughtful or intelligent enough to understand that feminism is about equality and that its goal remains good despite the extremists, then I'm not going to worry about them. I'll focus my energy on people who can understand the difference because they are the ones who can make a difference.


The early feminists were actually about female superiority. Men could rise to equality with women by granting women the vote and "engaging in lust-free, alcohol-free, tobacco-free marriages." That last bit from suffragist, communist, lesbian Frances Willard.T


----------



## FalconKing

sisters359 said:


> I see the conversation has moved onto the meaning of the word "feminism," and I will--until the day I die--refuse to yield its meaning to those who have abused it. Feminism is about equality for women--and therefore, begins with the premise that equality--not privilege or superiority--is the goal. Should we throw out the term "democracy" because North Korea calls itself the Democratic Republic of Korea? Of course not. If people are not thoughtful or intelligent enough to understand that feminism is about equality and that its goal remains good despite the extremists, then I'm not going to worry about them. I'll focus my energy on people who can understand the difference because they are the ones who can make a difference.


That's the point i'm making about becoming more attractive to the opposite sex. If you read about dating tips and a book some PUA wrote. They may say a lot of the same things but the end goal is different. Knowledge of something doesn't make you that. And i'm not attacking feminism. But I see what you are saying. Should we advise men who read books like these to not worry about women say if it works? I read books for women about picking up men. One book, written just like a male PUA book, was giving women play by play on what to do and say to get a man to marry you. You don't know if a woman is using this material just to get married or she is dedicated to trying to maintain the attraction and keeping her man happy. But i didn't really find it offensive. It just made me think.


----------



## FalconKing

sisters359 said:


> By the way, no one has ever said that PUA stuff "never" works. That would be stupid. But real PUA stuff only works on specific types of women--usually those too young, drunk, or stupid enough to think clearly. When a guy says to a girl, "You'd look awesome with longer hair," she thinks it is a compliment. When he says it to a woman, she thinks--and says--"Do you think I care what you think? Your mistake." As a basis for a healthy relationship, PUA stuff (again, not what Deejo has taken from it, b/c of course there will be grains of insight even in its crap-filled sewers) totally fails. It might get someone a lot of sex, but it will never lead to a truly loving, supportive, relationship where each partner can depend on and trust the other--because it is premised on deceit. Of course, no one claims it will lead to those things, either.


Hmmm...I dunno. There are some really insecure people out there. Which means that don't have to be lied to to be manipulated. Also, if a woman is a fixer than she might be drawn to some badboy BS a guy may be trying to sell her. 

Btw, I don't think I could ever have a truly loving and supportive relationship if a woman can't take a compliment


----------



## Entropy3000

Ok, so WTH was Trenton posting about? What did I miss?

And ...

Sometimes guys just get distracted by women in life


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Who knows, maybe she was sexting her husband and posted it instead of hitting send.


----------



## Entropy3000

I married my best friend.

Over time we became close friends and then best friends. I began to realize she was the one I was looking for.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> The vast majority will say they are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *'s* when they marry... as it should be....
> 
> But...I wonder statistically how many were "Best friends" BEFORE unleashing the stirrings of Lust on each other -that was lurking underneath ...as they were getting to know each other in other ways, very important ways......taking their sweet time to not rush the sexual... where an emotional attachment was growing as well.
> 
> It just seems the *Bedroom* comes *Before* the status of *BEST* in the majority of relationships...today, most feel to be friends 1st is counterproductive...
> 
> Men fear being Friend Zoned....Women Friend Zone...so a rush to make it Hot & Heavy = at least I'm not Friend Zoned...


Simply,
You made me smile with this post.
Actually , my wife was my best [ female ] friend long before we were married.
I had " friend zoned " her , not because she was ugly or anything like that, but I just thought that she was not 
" that type of girl " like those whom I ran around with. She was always good to me, she respected herself, and hence my respect for her was high. 
She always had my back. Many people thought we were seeing each other , but we were not at that time. We were that close!
She would take me out on dates, she never asked , she just used to " inform " me that Saturday night we would be going somewhere etc.
It was fun and exciting, but at the same time I was confused. She played her cards very close to her chest.
Funny thing was I ALWAYS sought her advice, even though we were not even dating. She was actually my confidante. I told her everything , and she was always willing to listen.

The transition from best friend to lovers [ dating ], and then marriage was a natural progression in many ways, for both of us.
She will ALWAYS be my best friend!


----------



## Deejo

I'll be very honest with you SA.
And I don't mean it to sound disrespectful, but for me, and my life? I don't have that kind of time.

I'm in no hurry to jump in the sack. But if I'm being honest, I follow MY timetable and I decide how I think and feel the relationship is going. And if it doesn't sit well with me ... I bounce. This happened probably about a dozen times while dating. Women were looking for me to be a patient white knight, while they presumed their time, and their desires were more important than mine.
The moment I even sniff that mentality now? I'm gone.
When I was young, I followed the lead of the girl/woman. I let her set the pace, let her send the signals, made sure she was happy, comfortable, etc.

I thought that was respectful. If it leads to a relationship like yours all the time, I'm sure that would be the default model. But it doesn't. Sure didn't in my case, and you don't have to look far on these boards for former white knights who have come here after their wives shut down on them, or worse, start banging someone else.

Now? As a middle-aged man? I see that kind of thinking reserved for young women looking for their first sweetheart.

I don't have the time or stomach for it. Again, one of the things I took from reading all of that 'crap'. Women are people, not the wiser, emotionally smarter, more loving, delicate flowers that I used to perceive them to be. I respect them if they earn it. It is no longer my default setting.

I know if we are going to be friends following the first date. I know if we are going to be long term lovers following the second date. Haven't been wrong yet, must be my smooth game ...  

It simply isn't part of my mental paradigm to try to become her friend. The way I think now is, "does she deserve me?". And most of them don't.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I'm another one who wanted to marry my
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...We were THIS before our 1st kiss ...even though we were still "going together"...it took him awhile to break me down on a walking trail... I suppose being Best Friends 1st can knock you down a few pegs in the excitement realm of dopamine's surging role in Lust....but it's still a great foundation to be laid.... there was "attachment" there before we indulged in the Lust, that's all.
> 
> I've thought of doing a thread on this - to ask others how they feel about that... I can almost guarantee that many will :rofl: at the notion of being FRIENDS 1st... but I never would...
> 
> I cared so much about this ... I purposely looked for a Wedding invitation that captured this part our Union......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sensitive man is a MAN who will consider others -because he deeply cares...he will care for you/ treasure you ...he will hurt if you hurt....and a good listener...if a woman skimps here... with the type that pushes her to her GF's / doesn't have time to hear her out... how can this not be a warning to her -a peek into her very future...how such a man will deal with his children [email protected]#$%^ I would be highly irritated with a man without these qualities HIGH on my list....
> 
> I've noticed so many say this in their posts....you emphasized the *NEVER *... ..I can't say this was true of us....really...we really were "just who we are" ...simple non gamers....from the get go..... Maybe that makes us a little boring... though we didn't feel that way... I was emotionally comfortable around him from the time we met...my flaws, vulnerabilities, hopes, dreams , fears, all laid bare....It's a wonder he didn't think I was a little whacked to be honest.
> 
> I knew him like the back of my hand, he knew me... really, we haven't changed all that much over the years...just gotten a little more refined -to the Good.....the same dreams we had THEN...we would do them all over again.
> 
> I've read online articles against men being "White Knights"... they call it a syndrome...it's something BAD to be avoided at all costs...... I've always looked upon him as my..... and I the "Damsel in distress".... the story kinda fits our beginnings.....he was a sucker for the Damsel & truly wanted to rescue me from my home life... He was everything I seem to need at that time....and our love story grew from that..... It can't always be a BAD thing for every couple.....as in all things... I guess it depends on the "damsel" !


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Deejo said:


> Women are people, not the wiser, emotionally smarter, more loving, delicate flowers that I used to perceive them to be. I respect them if they earn it. It is no longer my default setting.


I like what you said but this stuck out the most to me as something men need to remember. Women need to remember this about men also.I think if people had this in mind when dating there would be less disappointment and bitterness in the long run.


----------



## Almostrecovered

women are more fun to squeeze however


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Almostrecovered said:


> women are more fun to squeeze however


yeah,I noticed the harder you squeeze a man the more he winces and cringes  They don't like a firm squeeze...


----------



## Almostrecovered

wonder if you're squeezing in the wrong place?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Almostrecovered said:


> wonder if you're squeezing in the wrong place?


 the location of squeeze depends on whether or not he has been behaving.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> Simply,
> You made me smile with this post.
> Actually , my wife was my best [ female ] friend long before we were married.
> I had " friend zoned " her , not because she was ugly or anything like that, but I just thought that she was not
> " that type of girl " like those whom I ran around with. She was always good to me, she respected herself, and hence my respect for her was high.
> She always had my back. Many people thought we were seeing each other , but we were not at that time. We were that close!
> She would take me out on dates, she never asked , she just used to " inform " me that Saturday night we would be going somewhere etc.
> It was fun and exciting, but at the same time I was confused. She played her cards very close to her chest.
> Funny thing was I ALWAYS sought her advice, even though we were not even dating. She was actually my confidante. I told her everything , and she was always willing to listen.
> 
> The transition from best friend to lovers [ dating ], and then marriage was a natural progression in many ways, for both of us.
> She will ALWAYS be my best friend!


Yes. This is it. All the while I was deepening my friendship with my wife I was pursuing others. And yes she would give me advice. I was in a transition period in my life where the type of woman I was interested in was changing. She had much to do with it in hindsight.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> *So our friendship has built over time but that's icing on the cake.
> *


^^^That's what matters most.
But like I've seen you post before, you're and " outlier ."
Different yes, but risky.
Had I rejected my wife's " conditions" and married any one of my
" sex buddies ", my story here today would have been drastically different.
In these matters, there would always be an infinite number of possibilities or alternative universe.
But I'm very mathematical and logically inclined.Probability and chance cannot be easily manipulated.
Most of the women who I had that " sex first " type of relationship with in the past ,are today either still single [ never married ] or divorced.

I was taught by my mother, that women should not be treated as sex objects and that marriage is forever.... Maybe that's why I wanted no part of it initially, however, my wife changed all of that. Haha!
I was cynical about women, just like Dejoo's attitude in his last post. I was jaded by a woman I " fell in love with " who manipulated me, badly with lots of sex.
I then found out that all the time she was engaged to another man.
She had him for money & security, and me just for the sex. She was of course, much older than me.
I was too young and naive to know that she was playing me.
I actually thought she loved me.
There are many ways to build a house,different types of materials that could be used. But there is only one , sure way to make it strong enough to withstand the vagaries of nature.
That is, build a strong foundation FIRST.


----------



## Entropy3000

Oh and to be clear ladies. Just because you have a guy friend does not mean that he does not lust after you. I know this bothers many if not most of you. You may have friend zoned the guy.

Anyway, indeed I had sexual feelings for my wife early on, but hey at 22 years old if you only friend women who you are not attracted to, you have zero female friends.

But my wife was conservative in her life style. I was a sailor. I am sure we both changed to make it happen.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Deejo said:


> I'll be very honest with you SA.
> And I don't mean it to sound disrespectful, but for me, and my life? I don't have that kind of time.
> 
> I'm in no hurry to jump in the sack. But if I'm being honest, I follow MY timetable and I decide how I think and feel the relationship is going. And if it doesn't sit well with me ... I bounce. This happened probably about a dozen times while dating. Women were looking for me to be a patient white knight, while they presumed their time, and their desires were more important than mine.
> The moment I even sniff that mentality now? I'm gone.
> When I was young, I followed the lead of the girl/woman. I let her set the pace, let her send the signals, made sure she was happy, comfortable, etc.
> 
> I thought that was respectful. If it leads to a relationship like yours all the time, I'm sure that would be the default model. But it doesn't. Sure didn't in my case, and you don't have to look far on these boards for former white knights who have come here after their wives shut down on them, or worse, start banging someone else.
> 
> Now? As a middle-aged man? I see that kind of thinking reserved for young women looking for their first sweetheart.
> 
> I don't have the time or stomach for it. Again, one of the things I took from reading all of that 'crap'. Women are people, not the wiser, emotionally smarter, more loving, delicate flowers that I used to perceive them to be. I respect them if they earn it. It is no longer my default setting.
> 
> I know if we are going to be friends following the first date. I know if we are going to be long term lovers following the second date. Haven't been wrong yet, must be my smooth game ...
> 
> It simply isn't part of my mental paradigm to try to become her friend. The way I think now is, "does she deserve me?". And most of them don't.


Yes, but women are people, so your saying you could never be friends with a woman? A woman can make as excellent friend as a man could.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Deejo said:


> I'll be very honest with you SA.
> And I don't mean it to sound disrespectful, but for me, and my life? I don't have that kind of time.
> 
> I'm in no hurry to jump in the sack. But if I'm being honest, I follow MY timetable and I decide how I think and feel the relationship is going. And if it doesn't sit well with me ... I bounce. This happened probably about a dozen times while dating. Women were looking for me to be a patient white knight, while they presumed their time, and their desires were more important than mine.
> The moment I even sniff that mentality now? I'm gone.
> When I was young, I followed the lead of the girl/woman. I let her set the pace, let her send the signals, made sure she was happy, comfortable, etc.
> 
> I thought that was respectful. If it leads to a relationship like yours all the time, I'm sure that would be the default model. But it doesn't. Sure didn't in my case, and you don't have to look far on these boards for former white knights who have come here after their wives shut down on them, or worse, start banging someone else.
> 
> Now? As a middle-aged man? I see that kind of thinking reserved for young women looking for their first sweetheart.
> 
> I don't have the time or stomach for it. Again, one of the things I took from reading all of that 'crap'. Women are people, not the wiser, emotionally smarter, more loving, delicate flowers that I used to perceive them to be. I respect them if they earn it. It is no longer my default setting.
> 
> I know if we are going to be friends following the first date. I know if we are going to be long term lovers following the second date. Haven't been wrong yet, must be my smooth game ...
> 
> It simply isn't part of my mental paradigm to try to become her friend. The way I think now is, "does she deserve me?". And most of them don't.


 WOW, you gave it to me STRAIGHT Deejo ... 

Sorry I get stuck in the past/ Youth (I speak on it alot), I am sure it has much to do with raising teen sons right now / Gf's in the picture... 

So given your experience in the past, how it hurt you ...and countless other men everywhere.....does this mean as well as putting our daughters on Birth control at 15 (many feel if we don't , we are negligent parents...I've been dumped on for that here)...

If we truly care about our sons... we'll hand them a couple PUA books - to knock any and all of this wrong immature old fashioned thinking out of them at the earliest age possible....to spare them from selfish women who only know how to take ....and never give. 

I think this hit me in the wrong way, but that's OK. This IS how MEN feel... I'm learning.


----------



## Deejo

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Yes, but women are people, so your saying you could never be friends with a woman? A woman can make as excellent friend as a man could.


Not remotely am I saying that.

Had a woman 'friend' throughout my marriage. It poisoned the well ... for my now ex-wife.

No. I don't try to propagate or maintain a 'friendship' with women. My choice. You may make different choices, that's fine. I am 'friendly' with many women.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> No, I wasn't talking about the number of women. If I had been, I surely would have gone higher than 10.


This is what you actually said:



always_alone said:


> Why the relentless pursuit of *more* and better?
> 
> The gamer is encouraged to judge his worth by the* number *and quality of his conquests, not in his sense of self or ability.


You first say the PUA judges himself on the number of women he's gotten, and then the quality of those women. SR speaks to quality... but you did in fact talk about the number of women, distinctly separate from SR - "*more* AND better" - "*number* AND quality". 

I responded on point:



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Are you going to marry the first person you're attracted to? Probably not. You keep pursuing *more* until you find one you want to stay with. Not really rocket science is it?
> 
> Better? Who doesn't want the best they can get? Is there anyone out there who proposes thinking... "well, she's alright. I guess she'll do." lol


I later clarified that the number of women doesn't matter. It does nothing for me. If I sleep with 500 women and am alone on Tuesday night, I'm still alone on Tuesday night. I'm not getting an ego boost out of the number. It does add to the confidence I have that I *can* pick up a girl I like - *knowing* that I'm going to be appealing, but that's about it. This is the closest that the seeking validation or confirmation attack gets to me. "Seeking" is a little inaccurate though - its more on the other end - "resulting in". To expand a bit on what I said earlier, I *am* more confident around women now, because of the greater success I've had with women. So it is somewhat confirming, and perhaps I was seeking this when I first started (confirmation of higher value I believed I was, in contrast to who I drawing), but that goes away once you get comfortable and have a little success. Some people say confidence built on success, an external factor, is faux confidence. Doesn't bother me any. I'm still happy with where I've gotten myself and the women who now find me appealing. To me, faux confidence is someone who is confident with no evidence of ability. The guy who thinks he's Don Juan, when he can't pick someone up to save his life.

As for the "quality" of the women I get... of course I want the best I can get. And if I snag a really hot woman and am getting dirty looks from other guys who were interested in her, absolutely I get an ego boost out of it. I'm competitive.

It might take me a little while to determine the winning strategy, but I'll find it, and I'll win. 

While I think pickup lends itself to meaningless hookups at first, pickup ability can also speak to relationship sincerity: having gotten a lot better at picking up women and becoming a lot more picky... its more meaningful that I really want a relationship with someone. Afterall, she knows I'm witty, fun and charming and have plenty of good options. Heck, I might be able to pick up a good looking girl tonight if I wanted to... but if I'm in a relationship, it means I value her more than all the random hookups I could get. I'm desireable, and I only desire her. The socially awkward and quiet guy I was before I pushed myself this direction couldn't say that.

Its no different than what women learn in order to be more desireable, or draw the attention of more desireable men.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> Oh and to be clear ladies. Just because you have a guy friend does not mean that he does not lust after you. I know this bothers many if not most of you. You may have friend zoned the guy.


Friendzoned is a made up term by men who weren't honest about their intentions with the "friend" in the first place and it backfired on them. How you put this on women however is beyond me.


----------



## Deejo

I think the world of you SA, and I admire your marriage and your family.

I think it would be wonderful if we didn't have to teach our kids 'emotional defense', both young men and young women, but we do ... and for the most part in my opinion, we aren't very good at it. It doesn't sink in until AFTER the experience ... that first rush of love, first heartbreak, or the horror of discovering you're pregnant at 16, or your sexual exploits are on Facebook and Youtube.

You and I dodged that bullet. For your kids and my kids? It's a whole different ballgame. Behavior has now gone truly 'social'.

I would never, ever, put into the hands of a teenager, ANY of the PUA books I read. Not appropriate, and not what is required.

Apparently there is a book I need to write ...



SimplyAmorous said:


> WOW, you gave it to me STRAIGHT Deejo ...
> 
> Sorry I get stuck in the past/ Youth (I speak on it alot), I am sure it has much to do with raising teen sons right now / Gf's in the picture...
> 
> So given your experience in the past, how it hurt you ...and countless other men everywhere.....does this mean as well as putting our daughters on Birth control at 15 (many feel if we don't , we are negligent parents...I've been dumped on for that here)...
> 
> If we truly care about our sons... we'll hand them a couple PUA books - to knock any and all of this wrong immature old fashioned thinking out of them at the earliest age possible....to spare them from selfish women who only know how to take ....and never give.
> 
> I think this hit me in the wrong way, but that's OK. This IS how MEN feel... I'm learning.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I didn't "friend zone" anybody. I have guy friends, that is all. What they chose to think might happen in the future is on them, not me. This whole notion that it's the woman who does this is maddening. It's the guy who is pretending is it not? It's the guy who has intentions beyond true friendship, is it not? It is the guy who is being dishonest, is he not? So tell me again how this would be on me?
> 
> FWIW, I have 5 guy friends all of whom are also either the best friend of my husband or very close with him. None of them are "friend zoned" in that they aren't passive aggressive jerks who pretended to be my friend to get in to my pants. They are friends who happen to be male. If I got a whiff of anything else, bye.
> 
> How you manage to put this on the woman is beyond me. I am not responsible for somebody elses actions, only my own.


I am referring to the plethora of posts where we see women claim to have many close guy friends and that there are no sexual feelings on either side.

This is for sure another thread ... that recurs often enough.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Wait a sec here, are you saying we're not friends or that we are but it's convenience and no reason to 'maintain' it?
> 
> Pfft. See if you get a Christmas card this year!


We're friends because you're hot ...


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Entropy3000 said:


> I am referring to the plethora of posts where women claim to have many close guy friends and that there are no sexual feelings on either side.


I can count maybe twice I was able to do that in real life.I envy women who can be real friends with a guy and not feel anything sexual toward him. I'd rather not be friends with men at all in real life than risk having my boundaries slip.Acquaintances are no problem.But close friends? not for me.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Yeah, that's why I'm friends with you too, so we're even.


Pre-selection, helps us both. See? You got game.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> I am referring to the plethora of posts where we see women claim to have many close guy friends and that there are no sexual feelings on either side.
> 
> This is for sure another thread ... that recurs often enough.


I revised my post. Still, who knows what their real feelings are but that's on them, not me. I know they are friends, lifelong ones at that and just because they are men (now) does not mean "friendzoning" in that they were always and will always be friends of mine, not a backup plan.


----------



## Entropy3000

ScarletBegonias said:


> I've can count maybe twice I was able to do that in real life.I envy women who can be real friends with a guy and not feel anything sexual toward him. I'd rather not be friends with men at all in real life than risk having my boundaries slip.Acquaintances are no problem.But close friends? not for me.


I thought I could. I have a good number of female friends. I avoid getting too close. No one on one time. I have female colleagues that I consider friends. Our work brings us closer and can involve one on one time especially on business trips. My teams business trips are often intend for team bonding. So the key is to invite others when one one one time can happen. 

Anyway, call it what they will there is typically some sexual tension in these types of things when needs have been being met between friends. It may be something that is not at the forefront but may surface during emotional times.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Pre-selection, helps us both. See? You got game.


God, we're back to pre-selection? Maybe she just likes you because you are funny and smart. Ever thought of that?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I will just take this opportunity to chime in as yet another woman who would think this guy is an utter dork and not worth the time of day.
> 
> I would add that I'd actually feel better about him if I found out he *had* read it in a book, because it shows he is just misguided and there may still be hope for him. If it was his natural personality, then I'd avoid at all costs.


I was talking about this last night with my gf and a couple of her friends. They're all in their 20s and they thought it was a pretty funny play... the guy would at least get more attention and conversation even if they didn't give him a number.

They said touching a girl he had never even talked to would be a little creepy though. Concensus was that this set would run better if its at a bar or other gregarious event, the girls are all standing there talking - not leaving... and the guy had already had a brief conversation with the girl he ends up putting his arm around - such as chit chat while waiting for a drink, or the bathroom, or some other situation where she was separate from the group. This is probably how I would run this same set if the opportunity presented itself.

Even though I'd find it difficult to pull off with my demeanor (****y isn't my strongest game), I maintained that if the guy seems genuinely friendly, is fairly attractive and pulls it off naturally... nobody would actually mind. Its awkward only when discussed as a hypothetical. In real life, there is an energy that would totally erase the awkward potential... its hard to describe. Its that moment of pressure, mild intimidation, a tingle of fear... its that moment when you're put on the spot and surprised. Most people can do nothing but act surprised and laugh... they don't pick up awkwardness unless the guy acts awkward. In fact, his boldness would be exciting and they'd all tell the story later to anyone who would listen. Which is exactly what the guy wants - to rent some space in her mind.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Friendzoned is a made up term by men *who weren't honest about their intentions with the "friend" in the first place *and it backfired on them. How you put this on women however is beyond me.


^^That's why its necessary for men to have " game."
Women generally friend zone nice , decent , respectable men who put a woman's needs above their own.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Maybe she just likes you because you are funny and smart. Ever thought of that?


If you have no game, she's less likely to ever know that you're funny or smart.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^That's why its necessary for men to have " game."
> Women generally friend zone nice , decent , respectable men who put a woman's needs above their own.


I think I need to stop talking about "friendzoning". It hurts my head and is futile here apparently.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I have lots of female friends and my wife has male friends.
But , they are both our friends or friends of our marriage.

When we purchase gifts its from both of us and when they purchase gifts for us its for both of us.

However, there is no " texting relationship" or " regular casual dates" going on behind each other's back.....:rofl:


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> God, we're back to pre-selection? Maybe she just likes you because you are funny and smart. Ever thought of that?


Of course I have thought of that. My point is ... that her being friends with a funny, smart, and fiendishly handsome devil such as myself ... _helps her_. Pre-selection goes both ways.

And if you think my post is completely serious, I want to run some more cat-string game on you. 

Also a joke.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Don't make me game you into believing that I'm attractive, friendly and smart!
> 
> You know a strange concept...just be attractive, friendly and smart and to those who don't think so or see, well, who cares?
> 
> What this actually comes down to is insecurity but that's an ugly negative word and that's what creates the need for semantics. It protects from vulnerability.


In a perfect world, the nice guy with good manners a healthy self esteem and good morals gets the pretty girl. They get married, have kids and live fulfilling lives.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Ah me. I like the sound of that world. Sigh.


.........but like you said earlier:

"....._I'm not sure that there is any one perfect way to an ideal relationship or that there is even an ideal relationship out there to be had without first discovering what works for the individual_...."

And as Dejoo aid, its never that simple.
People get burned, scorched.
They want to pass on good values to their kids, but they must be honest with them.
We learn these things ,after.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> I never got the pre selection thing. You brought it up in the thread I did on the experiment for my psych class.
> 
> Is the idea that relationships help both partners?
> 
> If they don't then there's no way to maintain those partnerships?


There was and will always be pre selection. It is part of 
" the order of things."
There are also various, differing types of pre selection.


----------



## Davelli0331

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I think I need to stop talking about "friendzoning". It hurts my head and is futile here apparently.


I think it might help to realize that at some point, some of the concepts go from "slightly helpful" to "idiotic" when they enter the realm of characterizing all women as spiteful, mean-spirited opportunists.

Take friend zone, for example. I can accept that women have opposite-sex friends that they would never sleep with. I don't really see how that's exclusive to women, but whatever. I can further accept that some men who are these kinds of friends secretly pine away for that woman. Been there, done that.

But where I start rolling my eyes is when the concept of friend zone is elevated into this grandiose Machiavellian scheme that all women play, constantly maintaining a spreadsheet in their minds of who they would sleep with vs who they wouldn't but would keep around as Plan Bs.

Yes, some women do that. Some women are also evil attention wh0res.

Or take sex rank. Again, I can buy that relationships where one spouse is far more attractive than the other can be headed for trouble.

But again, where I start rolling my eyes is when the claim is made that "any woman two points higher in sex rank than her partner will immediately begin seeking out the BBD and divorce/cheating is imminent and will continue climbing until she finds parity in a partner". Again, this characterizes all women as evil, Machiavellian opportunists that are completely unable to think or act past their basic primal drives.

And of course, some women are Machiavellian opportunists. Therein lies the problem. A decade or so of anecdotal evidence has suddenly promoted concepts like sex rank and friendzone to the status of "fact" when it's still pseudoscience at best.

I'm not saying they don't work. I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying that they're not universally applicable, and that, taken too far, they do paint women as evil. That's why so many people, myself included, hear so much bitterness in the extremes of PUA and game, though not as it is necessarily expressed in this thread.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Friendzoned is a made up term by men who weren't honest about their intentions with the "friend" in the first place and it backfired on them. How you put this on women however is beyond me.


I didn't see anyone put it ON the woman. I put it on the man personally, with acknowledgement that many women like having a guy like that in their pocket and actively work to keep him there. Its still his weakness that is ultimately to blame. Its more applicable to young people, but I think its a terrible terrible thing for both imo. She's being naive and he's trying to get the girl in a dysfunctional way. If she's genuine, she ends up feeling betrayed. If she's not, she hands out enough scraps to keep him in orbit - "If only I could find a guy like you." Really? This is pure evil imo, with the subtlety of a woman. Perhaps I'm biased, but this seems a lot worse than what he's doing... trying to show her he has the traits she says she wants. The poor guy is just clueless. If she's nice, she ends up hating him for the "betrayal" of friendship (which I don't get... to him, he's courting by showing the traits she said she wants... which are basically the traits of a good beta husband; no wonder he's baffled by her repeatedly choosing a$$holes). If she's malignant, then he gets just enough to want to stay in orbit. Oh so evil.

She said she wanted sensitive. She said she wanted a good listener. She said she wanted to marry her best friend. She complains "all guys want is sex". The friendzoned guy is still under the illusion that he can appeal to a woman by catering to what she says she wants. 

This is why a guy needs game.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I revised my post. Still, who knows what their real feelings are but that's on them, not me. I know they are friends, lifelong ones at that and just because they are men (now) does not mean "friendzoning" *in that they were always and will always be friends of mine, not a backup plan.*


No worries Brighteyes. I think this whole topic is relevant.

I think if you have a friend there are all sorts of aspects about that friend that one can be drawn to.
A factor in all of it is gender. It plays a role to a varying degree. It cannot be defined by an SR alone of course. Sure that plays a role. But friends are about emotions. It is a slurry of things.

So in the social context of a man networking and searching for a love life he may find female friends. I suppose that this becomes a distraction for him. Wasted emotional investment as it pertains to the singleness of his goal but I think it is great in its own right. But indeed as Deejo states he does not have time for that.

But if people do not develop friendships and fall in love with a freind then it really does put a premium on the topic of this thread. So while a man needs to connect at some point emotionally he needs to make sure that it is clear he is interested in a romantic / sexual relationship. --check.

So maybe this is why so many people feel that they will not fall in love with a close friend after they marry. I see!! Wow.

Oh and I totally get where you are coming from. It just added to my thought process here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Women are friend zoned, too.

What is the big deal with it?

If you, male or female, "like like" someone and they have friend zoned you, it is because they are not that into you. What is so difficult to understand about this? Find someone who IS into you.

I've never known any woman who deliberately kept a male friend around as a plan B.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Davelli0331 said:


> I think it might help to realize that at some point, some of the concepts go from "slightly helpful" to "idiotic" when they enter the realm of characterizing all women as spiteful, mean-spirited opportunists.
> 
> Take friend zone, for example. I can accept that women have opposite-sex friends that they would never sleep with. I don't really see how that's exclusive to women, but whatever. I can further accept that some men who are these kinds of friends secretly pine away for that woman. Been there, done that.
> 
> But where I start rolling my eyes is when the concept of friend zone is elevated into this grandiose Machiavellian scheme that all women play, constantly maintaining a spreadsheet in their minds of who they would sleep with vs who they wouldn't but would keep around as Plan Bs.
> 
> Yes, some women do that. Some women are also evil attention wh0res.
> 
> Or take sex rank. Again, I can buy that relationships where one spouse is far more attractive than the other can be headed for trouble.
> 
> But again, where I start rolling my eyes is when the claim is made that "any woman two points higher in sex rank than her partner will immediately begin seeking out the BBD and divorce/cheating is imminent and will continue climbing until she finds parity in a partner". Again, this characterizes all women as evil, Machiavellian opportunists that are completely unable to think or act past their basic primal drives.
> 
> And of course, some women are Machiavellian opportunists. Therein lies the problem. A decade or so of anecdotal evidence has suddenly promoted concepts like sex rank and friendzone to the status of "fact" when it's still pseudoscience at best.
> 
> I'm not saying they don't work. I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying that they're not universally applicable, and that, taken too far, they do paint women as evil. That's why so many people, myself included, hear so much bitterness in the extremes of PUA and game, though not as it is necessarily expressed in this thread.


Quite an interesting summary on how you think men view women in this dating game.
What's your view on how women view men in the dating game. 
You think there are any similarities?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Women are friend zoned, too.
> 
> What is the big deal with it?
> 
> If you, male or female, "like like" someone and they have friend zoned you, it is because they are not that into you. What is so difficult to understand about this? Find someone who IS into you.


 My point exactly!
I had " friend zoned" my wife for years.
I never , ever thought at first that we would be even dating.
She was never my type of girl.
But as our friendship and my respect for her grew, so too did my sexual attraction.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> I never got the pre selection thing. You brought it up in the thread I did on the experiment for my psych class.
> 
> Is the idea that relationships help both partners?
> 
> If they don't then there's no way to maintain those partnerships?
> 
> Yeah, I knew you were joking, but too late because I already told all of Facebook & Twitter that Deejo thinks I'm hot.


The pre-selection thingy is this notion that a person who has attractive people around them makes them more attractive to others. In other words, if I rent 5 Houston Firefighters to hang around me at a function, hot men will just flock to me because they can't help it. Consequently, if my husband rented 5 Houston Texan cheerleaders for the function, "10's" will flock to him. 

Challenge accepted, I mean what's the downside for either of us! :rofl:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The pre-selection thingy is this notion that a person who has attractive people around them makes them more attractive to others. In other words, if I rent 5 Houston Firefighters to hang around me at a function, hot men will just flock to me because they can't help it. Consequently, if my husband rented 5 Houston Texan cheerleaders for the function, "10's" will flock to him.
> 
> Challenge accepted, I mean what's the downside for either of us! :rofl:



Try it,
I guarantee ,you WILL be surprised!

In the marketing business, its called " endorsements."

Why do you think Fire fighters are hot BTW?
Or why do_ women_ think fire fighters are hot?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I maintained that if the guy seems genuinely friendly, is fairly attractive and pulls it off naturally... nobody would actually mind. Its awkward only when discussed as a hypothetical. In real life, there is an energy that would totally erase the awkward potential... its hard to describe.


Meh. Maintain all you want. I have been in analogous scenarios and I know how I would react. Guy who pulls that on me would find himself the target up my PDA (put down artistry).

But it's quite possible that I'm unfriendlier than most. I don't shock or surprise easily, nor am I one to go along with things just because everyone else is


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

sisters359 said:


> By the way, no one has ever said that PUA stuff "never" works. That would be stupid. But real PUA stuff only works on specific types of women--usually those too young, drunk, or stupid enough to think clearly. When a guy says to a girl, "You'd look awesome with longer hair," she thinks it is a compliment. When he says it to a woman, she thinks--and says--"Do you think I care what you think? Your mistake." As a basis for a healthy relationship, PUA stuff (again, not what Deejo has taken from it, b/c of course there will be grains of insight even in its crap-filled sewers) totally fails. It might get someone a lot of sex, but it will never lead to a truly loving, supportive, relationship where each partner can depend on and trust the other--because it is premised on deceit. Of course, no one claims it will lead to those things, either.


This isn't true. It works on all women. Okay... well, at least everyone under 35, if by "works" you mean creates attraction or the appeal necessary to sleep with. I've never pursued someone over 35 so I can't really say what goes on up there. If you take sex out of the equation and define "works" as just creating appeal, a LOT of it works with EVERYONE.... I've observed this because I basically do it all the time now. There are some elements that even make you more appealing to men; not sexually, but as a more likeable and charismatic guy they WANT to know. Which, in turn actually makes you more appealing to women too. Its one of those pre-selection things. The women are naturally drawn to guys that the guys like... in other words, the guy with social status. In every social situation, men establish an order amongst themselves whether they realize it or not. Women's attraction is heavily influenced by this ordering. What we all think we know and want is just the tip of the iceburg. Most of what is really going on is under the surface of our awareness.

These are just social skills that have been written about many times before without a sexual context; Pickup is just the narrowed focus on appealing to women specifically. Having read a number of books on socializing, conversational skills etc while progressing from an introvert to an extrovert, I will tell you there is A LOT of overlap.

Oh and just as an aside. A guy with game generally doesn't compliment her. A hot girl gets compliments all the time. A guy with game doesn't generally compliment looks, because he's used to getting girls like this. This is normal. THATS the attitude of a guy with good game. Like I've said before, its all quite counterintuitive when you hear it for the first time. It doesn't mean he's a d*ck... he's perfectly nice, but he doesn't tip his hand. He holds his value.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Don't make me game you into believing that I'm attractive, friendly and smart!
> 
> You know a strange concept...just be attractive, friendly and smart and to those who don't think so or see, well, who cares?
> 
> What this actually comes down to is insecurity but that's an ugly negative word and that's what creates the need for semantics. It protects from vulnerability.


I do not just think it is insecurity. I know you do not mean it but the whole insecurity thing while being accurate at times is really a big put down as well. It is an easy way to dismiss someone. 

Many men feel they can be themselves and trust that the woman sees his quality and therefore may be attracted to him for who he is. This can take time. You hear from women who say that they can determine whether they will ever have sex with a man in so many seconds.

This favors the agressive guy. Ok fine. Hence the preference for what some call a "bad boy". Now what a bad boy really is is up for definition and debate. On the one hand I have always been a good guy but in another context I could have been seen by my wife as a bad boy. 

So this comes full circle. 

While guys may see this funny and witty guy as a complete douche and @$$hole women may see him as charming. What a great guy. 

The example earlier of the guy doing the PUA on the group of girls for example.

So to me anyway it makes sense that some men feel they need to change their approach and be more agressive. The douche is getting all the play. Eventually he may get noticed because afterall he has a good job. LOL.

Shades of gray world. The thing is that guys are gaming women all of the time. They may not call it game. Some guys just learn by watching what works and what does not.

But how much time does a guy have before he is on the friend heap? Is it before he opens his mouth?


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> I have lots of female friends and my wife has male friends.
> But , they are both our friends or friends of our marriage.
> 
> When we purchase gifts its from both of us and when they purchase gifts for us its for both of us.
> 
> However, there is no " texting relationship" or " regular casual dates" going on behind each other's back.....:rofl:


Get a VAR ... Ooops wrong thread.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Or I Should Make It Clear, It Is Stupid And We Need To Evolve Past It.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Trenton,
You made me smile....

But then, you're a Marxist like me!


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> In a perfect world, the nice guy with good manners a healthy self esteem and good morals gets the pretty girl. They get married, have kids and live fulfilling lives.


This can happen but he may be at the end of a long line of other suiters.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> Get a VAR ... Ooops wrong thread.


^^^^:rofl:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> we were arguing about something stupid (Easter gifts) and I was thinking in my head as he was talking 'you are so f'ing hot, you are so f'ing hot'.


I just want to say, that's awesome. :smthumbup:




Trenton said:


> So our friendship has built over time but that's icing on the cake.


I think this is the way it happens for most people. Icing. Exactly.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> This can happen but he may be at the end of a long line of other suiters.


"Wait your turn"?


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The pre-selection thingy is this notion that a person who has attractive people around them makes them more attractive to others. In other words, if I rent 5 Houston Firefighters to hang around me at a function, hot men will just flock to me because they can't help it. Consequently, if my husband rented 5 Houston Texan cheerleaders for the function, "10's" will flock to him.
> 
> Challenge accepted, I mean what's the downside for either of us! :rofl:


As I have always contended this does not work the same for both men and women.

But those five Victory Secret models probably improved that guys value.

But I think two is the right number.

Bruce Wayne did what? He showed off a persona with two hot women who jumped in the fountain. Yes a movie. But I contend that made ( handsome as he is ) good guy Bruce look even hotter. He came off as a little bit of a bad boy. He was even arrogant by buying the place. 

That scene was dripping with preselection and indeed confidence and status.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I've never known any woman who deliberately kept a male friend around as a plan B.


I've seen this a few times. And what I find interesting about it is that these women had very high SR and tons of "game." Men loved them to pieces and would leap through flaming hoops of fire for them.

I never quite got why because I could see what narcissistic, nasty, and selfish people they were. But I was told that I was just jealous and insecure. Of course she was the bees knees! Until they finally had to scrape their broken hearts off the bottom of her shoe.

All I can say is that this type of behaviour is exactly why I've never found "game" attractive, in either men or women. I prefer friends.


----------



## FalconKing

FrenchFry said:


> If a woman calls herself a feminist and uses misandry to define herself as such, I have no problem rejecting her outright and call into question every single one of her feminist conclusions. Even if they seem "right." I feel no better nor worse for reading the book, I just do not take it into my framework as a feminist.


 I agree with that. Some of those men may speak very intelligent. But that still does not excuse the bitterness and warped views they may have. Still I find it to be a study in psychology. 



> If a man in good faith said "Hey, this blog/book is misandrist," I'd take a good hard listen to what he was saying, no question of intelligence needed.


 But what i'm asking though is, should a man feel offended just because you read something and was able to point out something that may be valid? Even if you read the same thing in a self help book or sex and psychology? Can you not say, "This book is awful but at least it did talk about the importance of being confident." or "Yeah, that author hates guys but I do agree with her saying women should be self sufficient."




> This board is very toned down and not overly political, which is nice, but I'm not talking about this board nor the misogyny (or lack there of) on this board. I'm talking about the unrelenting, unchallenged, completely ridiculous [URL="http://krauserpua.com/prior-pithiness/"]stream[/URL] of misogyny that comes out of PUA sites forums and the less upstanding blogs. (Sorry, no MMSL this morning.)
> 
> At best it's regarded as a joke. Median-ly it's dismissed as "just the way men talk" and rug-swept or "Hey, there are some good things in there you know!" At worst it's enveloped into the entire game framework with an overarching tone of "Women are obviously crazy and stupid and you should manipulate the hell out of them as much as possible."


I see what you are saying. My bad, I thought you meant this board. You know a lot of those boards have little to do with PUA and are just heavens for white nationalists. I've lurked on a few of them. A lot of them don't even know they are trying to say. It's just hate and resentment. They talk about finding a good woman and then talk about how worthless women are. There is not much to be done with such damaged people. Sadly, they will continue to draw in others like them. 

You know I can understand why some of you women are offended by this. I really can. Why would anyone want to gain something from a source that the majority of people view as inappropiate? I think people are being unfair to Athol Kay though. That man does not hate women. He just uses off-hand humor and bluntness. And some women do make awful wives. That fact can not be ignored. It's also not his fault if a husband uses this material and it has negative effects on the marriage. It's called married man sex life. If you and your husband have a great sex life, date each other, and respect each other well I don't know why he would need the book. If only just to satisfy his curiosity. 

Anyways, I've experienced something like this myself. I have a single white female friend who lives alone. She mentioned to a group of us that she was buying a gun and taking shooting lessons. I thought that was cool. I was interested in that myself. I asked a few questions about it and she told me I shouldn't go. She said that the instructor hated black people. I thought to myself, "Why the hell are you learning to shoot a gun from a fvcking racist?" This is an obvious sore spot for me. But then I caught myself. This guy lives close to her home, and he gave her a good deal on the lessons and certification. Learning how to shoot a gun from this man doesn't mean she is the same as he. After all, she was married to black man. 



> But I'll put this out there: If on this board a poster is being misandrist in the name of feminism, shoot me a PM and I'll have zero problem in telling and citing them on how wrong they are.


Thanks but no thanks. I have no desire to direct you towards any tiresome conflict on this board. We all do good enough job of finding it ourselves


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Or I Should Make It Clear, It Is Stupid And We Need To Evolve Past It.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Buckle up this could take some time.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Caribbean Man said:


> Why do you think Fire fighters are hot BTW?
> Or why do_ women_ think fire fighters are hot?


Unfortunately the reality of firefighters rarely live up to the fantasy


----------



## Faithful Wife

AA...wow, ew. I guess I just don't know any women like that personally then. No doubt it does happen, I just don't know them. 

I have seen women clamour for a particular man before. I am a dancer (ballroom, salsa, swing) and this happens a lot in the dance world. It doesn't necessarily mean the women are into the man though in this instance. It sometimes just means she wants the best dances available.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> Meh. Maintain all you want. I have been in analogous scenarios and I know how I would react. Guy who pulls that on me would find himself the target up my PDA (put down artistry).
> 
> But it's quite possible that I'm unfriendlier than most. I don't shock or surprise easily, nor am I one to go along with things just because everyone else is


I think the fact that this does work with many is dissapointing at the least. If it works with only 10% ... it works. I think that number is way higher than 10% but is does not have to.

Let me be clear and I think Deejo has said repeatedly, these guys that run game are complete douches. But even as complete douches they can get a lot more female attention than some really great men. These really great men are dismissed until later down the road. They are not seen as dating material but may be seen as marriage material.


----------



## FalconKing

TiggyBlue said:


> Unfortunately the reality of firefighters rarely live up to the fantasy


:lol::rofl: You sound so disappointed!


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

always_alone said:


> I've seen this a few times. And what I find interesting about it is that these women had very high SR and tons of "game." Men loved them to pieces and would leap through flaming hoops of fire for them.
> 
> I never quite got why because I could see what narcissistic, nasty, and selfish people they were. But I was told that I was just jealous and insecure. Of course she was the bees knees! Until they finally had to scrape their broken hearts off the bottom of her shoe.
> 
> All I can say is that this type of behaviour is exactly why I've never found "game" attractive, in either men or women. I prefer friends.


There are plenty of men and women than have a "plan B", "plan C" at their disposal. Sometimes the other parties know and others they don't. I thought the selfishness and greed of it all also made them less attractive to me, usually very narcisistic and I couldn't imagine much fun to have sex with... Unless, you where one they have not conquest who had a high "value" in their game, perhaps then they would be nice to you and treat you right.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Women are friend zoned, too.
> 
> What is the big deal with it?
> 
> If you, male or female, "like like" someone and they have friend zoned you, it is because they are not that into you. What is so difficult to understand about this? Find someone who IS into you.
> 
> *I've never known any woman who deliberately kept a male friend around as a plan B.*


Intentions are one thing. How things play out are another. Any woman who has had an EA or PA with a male friend is a case against this.

So then who do women have affairs with? Hmmmmm. Then when do they say he is just a friend ... I wonder what they mean?


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

FalconKing said:


> :lol::rofl: You sound so disappointed!


They "like" ( and not all of them ) firefighters because of the phisod and attitude. They have to execute bravery and precision on their job on a day by day basis, so it becomes part of them.

There are other women this won't be as attractive to, because they don't just need a body or a "swag", but they want an intelligent man who is a good wage earner, who has charm in a different realm.

Different strokes for different folks. But I do see what draws a woman to a "firefighter", "police man", "soldier", it's in their essense ( swag )...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tiggy, so true!

However, I was present at the most bestest cutest birdies on your finger Disney-like first time meeting between this really wonderful gal, a friend of mine, and a firefigther guy. We (the gal and I) were at work and the firefighter came into our office (for a non-fire related reason). It was all business but I saw the guy checking her out. After he left, she was like "he was cute!" and I'm like "he was totally checking you out, too!"

A few days later, he came back specifically to get her number and ask her for coffee. He pursued and dated her for a year, and they've been married for several years now. I felt blessed to be there and see that mutual attraction spark.

One of the cool things too is that this gal's daddy was a fire chief and she is a total daddy's girl, so her new fire man husband fits right into her ideal picture.

They have babies now and are living happily ever after, the end.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy: that is a good point about EA's and PA's but that goes on both sides of the gender scale, right? I thought it was being said that women are the ones who do the friend zone plan B thing to men, but not the other way around.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DaddyLongShanks said:


> They "like" ( and not all of them ) firefighters because of the phisod and attitude. They have to execute bravery and precision on their job on a day by day basis, so it becomes part of them.
> .


^^^PRE SELECTION^^^IN^^PROGRESS.^^^

They " like " firefighters because other women, even those influential women in the mass media, think fire fighters are hot.

Down here in my country, fire fighters are NOT hot among women.
Men in the ARMED FORCES, Police , Air Guard , Military and Coast Guard [ Drug interdiction officers ] are hot.


----------



## TiggyBlue

FalconKing said:


> :lol::rofl: You sound so disappointed!


I think I saw to many firefighter posters and calenders in my youth.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

TiggyBlue said:


> Unfortunately the reality of firefighters rarely live up to the fantasy


Not for me. Two "saved" my life when I had a full blown panic attack, couldn't breathe and blacked out. When I came to, my co-workers told me that I looked at them and said "My GOD you guys are hot". I don't remember that at all. I just remember my sheer fear and changing many things afterwards about my life. Those two were very nice to me and comforting.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I've never known any woman who deliberately kept a male friend around as a plan B.


I have. In fact, my first affair was with a girl who kept several of these. I befriended them and eventually got things like "I gotta say, I hated you when we first met because I kinda have a thing for [], but you're pretty cool."

One of these guys had been her friend since 3rd grade.

She'd borrow money and get rides to work. One would randomly drive way out of his way to bring her lunch at work. Privately, she basically mocked them all. I asked "So what's up with you and []" and she said they're just friends. I said something like, "you know he's seriously into you right?"

Her reply: A laugh, and "yeah, he's always had a thing for me... but like that's ever gonna happen. ew. He just gives me gas money and brings me lunch."

Ouch. C'mon ladies, if a guy is going out of his way to give you gifts and do you favors without you even asking... he's not your friend, he's courting... and I think most of you know it.

I moved on from this girl basically because I could relate to the guys. The b*tch about her now exceeded her good looks. I'm still friends with two of the guys.

I've experienced it, and I've seen it often. Like a cat playing with a mouse.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM said: "Down here in my country, fire fighters are NOT hot among women.
Men in the ARMED FORCES, Police , Air Guard , Military and Coast Guard [ Drug interdiction officers ] are hot."

That is kinda interesting. Why do you think that fire fighters don't fall under the same "strong men protecting us from something" banner that the other guys do?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls...ok, yes, possibly in high school I saw that kind of thing happen. But I also saw girls baking cookies for and lending gas money to boys who they were friend zoned by. And again, it was high school.


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> "Wait your turn"?


LOL.

Not this guy.

If she is choosing a bunch of guys who are different from me in some substantial way it means we are not fully compatible and she is settling for me. No doubt I may have qualities she really does desire. 

I think things need to be hot pretty soon. Otherwise a guy runs the risk of marrying a woman who is not fully into him and eventually she will get very bored and either be miserable of seek attenton from the top seeds again.

It may be that she has matured herself. I see that in myself.

I think while a guy should be himself it is in his own interests to put his best foot forward. trying to get a chance for her to see him for who he is.

But if you have to work it too hard, she is not the woman for you ... long term.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> Intentions are one thing. How things play out are another. Any woman who has had an EA or PA with a male friend is a case against this.
> 
> So then who do women have affairs with? Hmmmmm. Then when do they say he is just a friend, I wonder what they mean?


You are talking about two completely different things and I suspect intentionally to muddy the waters. Friends are friends, nothing more. "Friends" as in wink, wink are a totally different subject matter.


----------



## FalconKing

Faithful Wife said:


> CM said: "Down here in my country, fire fighters are NOT hot among women.
> Men in the ARMED FORCES, Police , Air Guard , Military and Coast Guard [ Drug interdiction officers ] are hot."
> 
> That is kinda interesting. Why do you think that fire fighters don't fall under the same "strong men protecting us from something" banner that the other guys do?


You men why does he not think young women find fire fighters hot in his country?

wording is everything...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Huh? I'm asking CM a question about his country which I know nothing about. I believe him in his assessment, I'm just wondering why he thinks it is different from the US where it seems that fire fighters and other uniformed men are kinda in the same "league" so to speak. I don't understand what you just wrote.


----------



## Blue Firefly

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The pre-selection thingy is this notion that a person who has attractive people around them makes them more attractive to others. In other words, if I rent 5 Houston Firefighters to hang around me at a function, hot men will just flock to me because they can't help it. Consequently, if my husband rented 5 Houston Texan cheerleaders for the function, "10's" will flock to him.
> 
> Challenge accepted, I mean what's the downside for either of us! :rofl:


It doesn't mean people will lose their minds and suddenly throw themselves at you. It's actually a numbers game.

Let's say you decided to sit in a bar and rate all the men that walked in on sexual attractiveness using a scale of 0 to 10 (where 10 is the highest and 5 is average).

In walks Jack by himself, and you rate him a 5. If Jack had walked in with girl on his arm, you probably would have rated him higher. How much higher? Who knows? It might of been 6, 7, or only 5.1, but the odds are you would have given him a higher rating. That's the "social proof" concept I mentioned in an earlier post. It's a well documented phenomenon.

Notice, I didn't say you would throw yourself at him, I just said you would probably rate him as being more attractive than he would have been as a lone male.

Here's why that is important. The majority of men are going to fall into the average category. That's just the way stats work. Numbers tend to fall around the middle. That's why the bell curve shape is so common. If we use the 80/20 rule here and assume 80% of guys would be in the middle of the curve (average), then you end up with something like this:

10% < 5 (below avg attractiveness)
80% = 5 (avg attractiveness)
10% > 5 (above avg attractiveness)

What Jack did by walking in with a woman on his arm is move himself from the avg pool to the above-avg pool. Maybe he just squeaked in, or maybe he jumped right to the top. It doesn't matter, because he is now in the above-avg pool.

In a room with 100 men and 100 women, you'll only have about 10 guys in the above-avg pool, but 100 women with a preference for above-avg men. The laws of scarcity and supply & demand comes into play. You WILL have women making an *extra effort* to secure a man from their preferred, above-avg pool.

This is a common phenomenon in all kinds of areas. Scarcity (real or imagined) makes things more desirable. By improving his attractiveness just enough to move himself into the above-avg pool--the smaller, scarcer pool of men--Jack increased the demand for himself tremendously.

You can argue about the distribution of the numbers (80% might be too high for the average pool), but the majority of men (be it 51% or 80%) will fall in the middle of the attractiveness curve--average, which means the above-avg pool will always be the smaller, scarcer, more in demand pool of men.

It's not a trick. It's just a numbers "game."


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> Intentions are one thing. How things play out are another. Any woman who has had an EA or PA with a male friend is a case against this.
> 
> So then who do women have affairs with? Hmmmmm. Then when do they say he is just a friend, I wonder what they mean?


:iagree: my point exactly.

This whole argument is based on emotions and not reality.

Its like saying Pitbulls are not naturally aggressive dogs and they don't bite people if they are well trained.
In theory its true , but in my country, we just passed a law banning the breeding & importation of pitbulls, and placed serious restrictions on ownership.
Quite a lot of people have been either mauled or killed by pitbulls within a relative short time...

So in our context, pitbulls are dangerous dogs , that need to be banned or its breeding strictly controlled.

Much of what exists now in the dating game didn't just " drop from the sky ". PUA and game is a response to continuously eroding value systems and shifting social constructs.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree: my point exactly.
> 
> This whole argument is based on emotions and not reality.
> 
> Its like saying Pitbulls are not naturally aggressive dogs and they don't bite people if they are well trained.
> In theory its true , but in my country, we just passed a law banning the breeding & importation of pitbulls, and placed serious restrictions on ownership.
> Quite a lot of people have been either mauled or killed by pitbulls within a relative short time...
> 
> So in our context, pitbulls are dangerous dogs , that need to be banned or its breeding strictly controlled.
> 
> Much of what exists now in the dating game didn't just " drop from the sky ". PUA and game is a response to continuously eroding value systems and shifting social constructs.


Can we leave pibbles out of it?


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy: that is a good point about EA's and PA's but that goes on both sides of the gender scale, right? I thought it was being said that women are the ones who do the friend zone plan B thing to men, but not the other way around.


It is a balance. Men can friend zone too. I just think it is more common for women to do but in all candor not something I have given any real thought to.

That said, when the subject of OSFs friends come up we do see a lot of women saying it can be totally platonic and a lot of men saying that there is always some level of sexual feeling.

My comment was trying to be pragmatic that while we may intend for someone NOT to be Plan B it can work out that way.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I have. In fact, my first affair was with a girl who kept several of these. I befriended them and eventually got things like "I gotta say, I hated you when we first met because I kinda have a thing for [], but you're pretty cool."
> 
> One of these guys had been her friend since 3rd grade.
> 
> She'd borrow money and get rides to work. One would randomly drive way out of his way to bring her lunch at work. Privately, she basically mocked them all. I asked "So what's up with you and []" and she said they're just friends. I said something like, "you know he's seriously into you right?"
> 
> Her reply: A laugh, and "yeah, he's always had a thing for me... but like that's ever gonna happen. ew. He just gives me gas money and brings me lunch."
> 
> Ouch. C'mon ladies, if a guy is going out of his way to give you gifts and do you favors without you even asking... he's not your friend, he's courting... and I think most of you know it.
> 
> I moved on from this girl basically because I could relate to the guys. The b*tch about her now exceeded her good looks. I'm still friends with two of the guys.
> 
> I've experienced it, and I've seen it often. Like a cat playing with a mouse.


I'm going to say this gently. You can hardly compare a woman who engages in affairs with married men in the same league as women who have men as friends. The first has already shown to have very low character, accepting gifts is the least of it. Don't put me in the same category as her.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy: that is a good point about EA's and PA's but that goes on both sides of the gender scale, right? I thought it was being said that women are the ones who do the friend zone plan B thing to men, but not the other way around.


It is a balance. Men can friend zone too. I just think it is more common for women to do but in all candor not something I have given any real thought to.

That said, when the subject of OSFs come up we do see a lot of women saying it can be totally platonic and a lot of men saying that there is always some level of sexual feeling. I have actually reached a place with this to where I get it. The real gray for women happenes when there is an issue with their primary relationship. The problem is we all go through those periods. 

My comment was trying to be pragmatic that while we may intend for someone NOT to be Plan B it can work out that way.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Huh? I'm asking CM a question about his country which I know nothing about. I believe him in his assessment, I'm just wondering why he thinks it is different from the US where it seems that fire fighters and other uniformed men are kinda in the same "league" so to speak. I don't understand what you just wrote.


Because fire fighters are lesser compensated than other men in the protective services.
Also other men like police , air guards, coast guards and so forth carry weapons. Nobody fcuks around with their women ,or they would get shot.
Women tend to see them as good " accessories."
They are young , extremely aggressive.
Most women never get married to them however, for obvious reasons.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You are talking about two completely different things and I suspect intentionally to muddy the waters. Friends are friends, nothing more. "Friends" as in wink, wink are a totally different subject matter.


Oh Friends! Not "Friends". Yes. Sorry I get those confused sometimes.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ScarletBegonias said:


> Can we leave pibbles out of it?


Haha!
I thought of you when I posted that!

But I respect and admire your love for them


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Blue Firefly said:


> It doesn't mean people will lose their minds and suddenly throw themselves at you. It's actually a numbers game.
> 
> Let's say you decided to sit in a bar and rate all the men that walked in on sexual attractiveness using a scale of 0 to 10 (where 10 is the highest and 5 is average).
> 
> In walks Jack by himself, and you rate him a 5. If Jack had walked in with girl on his arm, you probably would have rated him higher. How much higher? Who knows? It might of been 6, 7, or only 5.1, but the odds are you would have given him a higher rating. That's the "social proof" concept I mentioned in an earlier post. It's a well documented phenomenon.
> 
> Notice, I didn't say you would throw yourself at him, I just said you would probably rate him as being more attractive than he would have been as a lone male.
> 
> Here's why that is important. The majority of men are going to fall into the average category. That's just the way stats work. Numbers tend to fall around the middle. That's why the bell curve shape is so common. If we use the 80/20 rule here and assume 80% of guys would be in the middle of the curve (average), then you end up with something like this:
> 
> 10% < 5 (below avg attractiveness)
> 80% = 5 (avg attractiveness)
> 10% > 5 (above avg attractiveness)
> 
> What Jack did by walking in with a woman on his arm is move himself from the avg pool to the above-avg pool. Maybe he just squeaked in, or maybe he jumped right to the top. It doesn't matter, because he is now in the above-avg pool.
> 
> In a room with 100 men and 100 women, you'll only have about 10 guys in the above-avg pool, but 100 women with a preference for above-avg men. The laws of scarcity and supply & demand comes into play. You WILL have women making an *extra effort* to secure a man from their preferred, above-avg pool.
> 
> This is a common phenomenon in all kinds of areas. Scarcity (real or imagined) makes things more desirable. By improving his attractiveness just enough to move himself into the above-avg pool--the smaller, scarcer pool of men--Jack increased the demand for himself tremendously.
> 
> You can argue about the distribution of the numbers (80% might be too high for the average pool), but the majority of men (be it 51% or 80%) will fall in the middle of the attractiveness curve--average, which means the above-avg pool will always be the smaller, scarcer, more in demand pool of men.
> 
> It's not a trick. It's just a numbers "game."


I've been thinking about this entire sex-rank system, and then thinking there are different categories of "attractiveness",

You have : "tough guy", "Suave guy", "money guy", "Manager guy", "musician guy", "player", etc, etc.

What's attractive depends on what they think is attractive, but there could be a "sex rank" within each realm of attractiveness.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM, ok, I see.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Meh. Maintain all you want. I have been in analogous scenarios and I know how I would react. Guy who pulls that on me would find himself the target up my PDA (put down artistry).
> 
> But it's quite possible that I'm unfriendlier than most. I don't shock or surprise easily, nor am I one to go along with things just because everyone else is


You're just delightful. Tell me, what in this scenario has the guy done to offend you? Its clearly a joke. Its intended to make you laugh. He's clearly expressing interest in you. I'm just curious, but where does "insult him now" figure into your thought process?

It seems awefully uptight and overserious; basically declaring a guy shallow and worthless because he made a witty approach to a girl he liked, hoping she would laugh and think he's a friendly guy. That's quite the crime.

Here's the thing... this is a known type of behavior. Its a form of sh*t test and I get them in one form or another all the time. Yours is just right off the bat. If I'm after you, I'm going to roll with all your attempted put downs... I think they're cute. I'll even help you with some self-deprication. I'll hit you back and turn what you say around in a funny way. If you're engaging me, I win... eventually.

My advice to the bitter inclined: just ignore him and walk away... don't play the game. Take your ball and go home. Seems like a sad way to live though (as in depressing, not sad as in insulting).


----------



## FalconKing

Faithful Wife said:


> Huh? I'm asking CM a question about his country which I know nothing about. I believe him in his assessment, I'm just wondering why he thinks it is different from the US where it seems that fire fighters and other uniformed men are kinda in the same "league" so to speak. I don't understand what you just wrote.


You are saying that now. Before you said this.



Faithful Wife said:


> That is kinda interesting. Why do you think that fire fighters don't fall under the same "strong men protecting us from something" banner that the other guys do?


You framed the question to say why does HE think that firefighters are not the same the other guys. So if he responds explaining to you what he sees and how women respond to them, it will sound like dissing firefighters. Then people will chime in defending firefighters and say how he doesn't just appreciate them. Then it will derail into some stupid debate about firefighters. Like I said, wording is everything.


----------



## Entropy3000




----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


>


I can see it. But if a woman likes men who have money and are suave she might just see a bunch of "dirty civil servants", and that is low on the totem pole of what excites her.


----------



## Entropy3000

Blue Firefly said:


> It doesn't mean people will lose their minds and suddenly throw themselves at you. It's actually a numbers game.
> 
> Let's say you decided to sit in a bar and rate all the men that walked in on sexual attractiveness using a scale of 0 to 10 (where 10 is the highest and 5 is average).
> 
> In walks Jack by himself, and you rate him a 5. If Jack had walked in with girl on his arm, you probably would have rated him higher. How much higher? Who knows? It might of been 6, 7, or only 5.1, but the odds are you would have given him a higher rating. That's the "social proof" concept I mentioned in an earlier post. It's a well documented phenomenon.
> 
> Notice, I didn't say you would throw yourself at him, I just said you would probably rate him as being more attractive than he would have been as a lone male.
> 
> Here's why that is important. The majority of men are going to fall into the average category. That's just the way stats work. Numbers tend to fall around the middle. That's why the bell curve shape is so common. If we use the 80/20 rule here and assume 80% of guys would be in the middle of the curve (average), then you end up with something like this:
> 
> 10% < 5 (below avg attractiveness)
> 80% = 5 (avg attractiveness)
> 10% > 5 (above avg attractiveness)
> 
> What Jack did by walking in with a woman on his arm is move himself from the avg pool to the above-avg pool. Maybe he just squeaked in, or maybe he jumped right to the top. It doesn't matter, because he is now in the above-avg pool.
> 
> In a room with 100 men and 100 women, you'll only have about 10 guys in the above-avg pool, but 100 women with a preference for above-avg men. The laws of scarcity and supply & demand comes into play. You WILL have women making an *extra effort* to secure a man from their preferred, above-avg pool.
> 
> This is a common phenomenon in all kinds of areas. Scarcity (real or imagined) makes things more desirable. By improving his attractiveness just enough to move himself into the above-avg pool--the smaller, scarcer pool of men--Jack increased the demand for himself tremendously.
> 
> You can argue about the distribution of the numbers (80% might be too high for the average pool), but the majority of men (be it 51% or 80%) will fall in the middle of the attractiveness curve--average, which means the above-avg pool will always be the smaller, scarcer, more in demand pool of men.
> 
> It's not a trick. It's just a numbers "game."


Yes.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> these guys that run game are complete douches


Hey, I resemble that remark. But you know what? Every woman needs a good douche from time to time. 

I kid! I kid! Put down the pitchforks ladies.


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> I've been thinking about this entire sex-rank system, and then thinking there are different categories of "attractiveness",
> 
> You have : "tough guy", "Suave guy", "money guy", "Manager guy", "musician guy", "player", etc, etc.
> 
> What's attractive depends on what they think is attractive, but there could be a "sex rank" within each *realm* of attractiveness.


Yes. Realm matters.

An AMOG is an AMOG in their realm.

Indeed there are men who transcend this but essentially it is relative.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Falcon King...um, I am sorry you see me in such a negative light. I asked a simple question that I was curious about, and whatever ulterior motive you think I had, I just don't have.


----------



## Davelli0331

Blue Firefly said:


> In a room with 100 men and 100 women, you'll only have about 10 guys in the above-avg pool, but 100 women with a preference for above-avg men. The laws of scarcity and supply & demand comes into play. You WILL have women making an *extra effort* to secure a man from their preferred, above-avg pool.


I'm not arguing your points either way, but this math contains a large logic flaw: That all 100 women consider the same 10 men as the top tier of men. More likely, while maybe 5 men might be found commonly attractive by all women, there will be variations among the other 5.


----------



## FalconKing

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Hey, I resemble that remark. But you know what? Every woman needs a good douche from time to time.
> 
> I kid! I kid! Put down the pitchforks ladies.


:rofl:

That was wonderfully awful:smthumbup:


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> I can see it. But if a woman likes men who have money and are suave she might just see a bunch of "dirty civil servants", and that is low on the totem pole of what excites her.


I totally agree.

But I can be attracted to :










I mean they are pretty women. But they are just actresses.

Besides, it would be a shame to break up the set. One would have to deal with both of them and one woman is hard enough to handle.


----------



## FalconKing

Faithful Wife said:


> Falcon King...um, I am sorry you see me in such a negative light. I asked a simple question that I was curious about, and whatever ulterior motive you think I had, I just don't have.


Are you that type of person where..anytime someone says something you don't like you respond with, "Do you hate me now?" or accusing everyone of having a drama?


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Hey, I resemble that remark. But you know what? Every woman needs a good douche from time to time.
> 
> I kid! I kid! Put down the pitchforks ladies.


Nothing personal. LOL


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^^PRE SELECTION^^^IN^^PROGRESS.^^^
> 
> They " like " firefighters because other women, even those influential women in the mass media, think fire fighters are hot.
> 
> Down here in my country, fire fighters are NOT hot among women.
> Men in the ARMED FORCES, Police , Air Guard , Military and Coast Guard [ Drug interdiction officers ] are hot.


Men of honor and action. Bottom line. Same reason women like a guy in uniform. He stands for something. He's doing something.

Helps that some are cherry picked for their physique to display in calendars too. haha


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls...ok, yes, possibly in high school I saw that kind of thing happen. But I also saw girls baking cookies for and lending gas money to boys who they were friend zoned by. And again, it was high school.


I've personally never see it the other way around.... where a guy has some girl he's not interested in so "under foot".


----------



## Faithful Wife

But FK, you are the one who accused ME of drama. Are you just playing with my head now or....?

I'm so confused.

I wanted to play nice.


----------



## FalconKing

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Men of honor and action. Bottom line. Same reason women like a guy in uniform. He stands for something. He's doing something.
> 
> Helps that some are cherry picked for their physique to display in calendars too. haha


I work in law enforcement. I'm probably in better shape than 90 percent of the guys I work with. To be honest though, I'd rather work in a library if it paid the same. And I like to work out. Not because of the job. But because I like wearing tight shirts.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls...there are a lot of women doing just that. Some even have sex with the guy and pretend they are ok with being FWB's but they really want to be his "real girlfriend".


----------



## Davelli0331

FalconKing said:


> I work in law enforcement. I'm probably in better shape than 90 percent of the guys I work with. To be honest though, I'd rather work in a library if it paid the same. And I like to work out. Not because of the job. But because I like wearing tight shirts.


You shop at the Baby Gap, I assume.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You are talking about two completely different things and I suspect intentionally to muddy the waters. Friends are friends, nothing more. "Friends" as in wink, wink are a totally different subject matter.


Most affairs I'm aware of were "just friends", no wink wink... for both genders. Then circumstance drops an ignition source. Friends are already connected. They're already emotionally intimate in many sense.


----------



## FalconKing

Faithful Wife said:


> But FK, you are the one who accused ME of drama. Are you just playing with my head now or....?
> 
> I'm so confused.
> 
> I wanted to play nice.


I said wording is everything.


----------



## Entropy3000

FalconKing said:


> I work in law enforcement. I'm probably in better shape than 90 percent of the guys I work with. To be honest though, I'd rather work in a library if it paid the same. And I like to work out. Not because of the job. But because I like wearing tight shirts.


Do they have calendars of Men Of The Library?

I have seen calendars for female librarians but I don't think they were really librarians.


----------



## FalconKing

Davelli0331 said:


> You shop at the Baby Gap, I assume.


Lung compression is how I roll.


----------



## Faithful Wife




----------



## FalconKing

Entropy3000 said:


> Do they have calendars of Men Of The Library?
> 
> I have seen calendars for female librarians but I don't think they were really librarians.


:rofl:


----------



## Davelli0331

Entropy3000 said:


> Do they have calendars of Men Of The Library?
> 
> I have seen calendars for female librarians but I don't think they were really librarians.


They're not. I looked. Got arrested. Banned from the library.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I'm going to say this gently. You can hardly compare a woman who engages in affairs with married men in the same league as women who have men as friends. The first has already shown to have very low character, accepting gifts is the least of it. Don't put me in the same category as her.


I wasn't putting you in any category. I'm just relating observed behavior.

If you really want to get your head stuck in a logical knot, think on the fact that I - a cheating husband - had moral issues with a girl who kept several friendzoned guys in orbit because of the advantages they provided.

Who says there's no honor among theives? Or maybe its just hypocrisy? My brain wasn't firing on all cylinders back then so a lot of my behavior is difficult for me to understand even now.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


>


Post Of The Day


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls...."My brain wasn't firing on all cylinders back then so a lot of my behavior is difficult for me to understand even now."

I'm sure there is a book written by a woman somewhere that can explain to you what you really wanted.

(its a joke...please don't set me on fire!)


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> AA...wow, ew. I guess I just don't know any women like that personally then. No doubt it does happen, I just don't know them.


Good. I have had the misfortune to know a few, but do try to keep such people out of my life.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> Nothing personal. LOL


Its all good.  You even provided me an opportunity to show how I roll with an insult and spin it with a charm that just says "no f*cks given".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> But FK, you are the one who accused ME of drama. Are you just playing with my head now or....?
> 
> I'm so confused.
> 
> I wanted to play nice.


I still love you Faithful.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Hey, I resemble that remark. But you know what? Every woman needs a good douche from time to time.
> 
> I kid! I kid! Put down the pitchforks ladies.


That ^^ is sexist D ,WTF?:rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Aw, thanks Dvls. Sent you a PM.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls...."My brain wasn't firing on all cylinders back then so a lot of my behavior is difficult for me to understand even now."
> 
> I'm sure there is a book written by a woman somewhere that can explain to you what you really wanted.
> 
> (its a joke...please don't set me on fire!)


Monty Python's Holy Grail - Burn The Witch - YouTube


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls...there are a lot of women doing just that. Some even have sex with the guy and pretend they are ok with being FWB's but they really want to be his "real girlfriend".


I'll give you the FWB thing. I do get that impression often and have experienced it. Somewhat different in character to the way it is experienced by guys however... but they're definitely cousins.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

God damnit guys. Stop just stop. I am dying laughing here. 

Okay, in all seriousness here, I want to go back to pre-selection. I will conceed that it does work with marketing and products. For example, the IPhone is the top selling phone in the world. Is it because it is the best or is it because it is deemed the coolest? Given what I know about it, it's because it is deemed as the coolest. The same could be said for Starbucks. Plenty of people drink their coffee because they want to be seen holding it, not necessarily because it is the best coffee. The same could be said about designer clothing, etc.

Here's the thing though, how does this work with free thinkers? I don't own an IPhone because I don't like them. I don't drink Starbucks because to me it tastes like burnt chicken and I don't wear clothing because it's trendy, I wear what I wear because I think it looks good on me. 

I think Devils made an excellent point that it probably works on younger people. I know when I was younger, being "cool" was of utmost importance. Anything that deviated from that was social suicide. Now that I am more mature, I don't follow the crowd. So is pre-selection an advantage for younger people or do you guys still think it works for all ages? :scratchhead:


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> I think the fact that this does work with many is dissapointing at the least. If it works with only 10% ... it works. I think that number is way higher than 10% but is does not have to.
> 
> Let me be clear and I think Deejo has said repeatedly, these guys that run game are complete douches. But even as complete douches they can get a lot more female attention than some really great men. These really great men are dismissed until later down the road. They are not seen as dating material but may be seen as marriage material.


Yes, disappointing to be sure. 

I think part of the problem is that we learn bad patterns of behaviour in high school trying to keep up with the "cool" kids, and some get stuck in that mindset. 

It doesn't help that all the dating advice and whatnot out there feeds these delusions.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> That ^^ is sexist D ,WTF?:rofl:


You laughed. Douche. 

:rofl:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I wasn't putting you in any category. I'm just relating observed behavior.
> 
> If you really want to get your head stuck in a logical knot, think on the fact that I - a cheating husband - had moral issues with a girl who kept several friendzoned guys in orbit because of the advantages they provided.
> 
> Who says there's no honor among theives? Or maybe its just hypocrisy? My brain wasn't firing on all cylinders back then so a lot of my behavior is difficult for me to understand even now.


I was going to point that out but as I said, I was being gentle.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I wear what I wear because I think it looks good on me.


Your perception of what looks good has already been influenced. This is probably a form of pre-selection... but you're leaving my ballpark so I'll defer.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I was going to point that out but as I said, I was being gentle.


Oh the ****** in my armor are a lot smaller than that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> God damnit guys. Stop just stop. I am dying laughing here.
> 
> Okay, in all seriousness here, I want to go back to pre-selection. I will conceed that it does work with marketing and products. For example, the IPhone is the top selling phone in the world. Is it because it is the best or is it because it is deemed the coolest? Given what I know about it, it's because it is deemed as the coolest. The same could be said for Starbucks. Plenty of people drink their coffee because they want to be seen holding it, not necessarily because it is the best coffee. The same could be said about designer clothing, etc.
> 
> Here's the thing though, how does this work with free thinkers? I don't own an IPhone because I don't like them. I don't drink Starbucks because to me it tastes like burnt chicken and I don't wear clothing because it's trendy, I wear what I wear because I think it looks good on me.
> 
> *I think Devils made an excellent point that it probably works on younger people. I know when I was younger, being "cool" was of utmost importance. Anything that deviated from that was social suicide. *Now that I am more mature, I don't follow the crowd. So is pre-selection an advantage for younger people or do you guys still think it works for all ages? :scratchhead:


You are correct.
After a woman crosses 30 yrs, lots of things change..........
Suddenly she begins to see the light.
With men, this happens somewhat a bit later, around 40+


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Your perception of what looks good has already been influenced. This is probably a form of pre-selection... but you're leaving my ballpark so I'll defer.


No pinch hitters needed. I'm interested in your opinion.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Bright Eyes said: "Okay, in all seriousness here, I want to go back to pre-selection..."

I'm fascinated by this, too. For arguments sake, I'll call the genre of information we are discussion "Up Your Attraction" or UYA literature instead of PUA literature.

So in the UYA lit I have come across, the main reason for sharing the idea of pre-selection to other guys, is that it works SUB-consciously. It is assumed to work in the same way, sub-consciously on everyone...that part I guess could be true (I haven't studied about it, but many who have are saying it is proven to be true to work on everyone.)

The fact that it is sub-conscious versus conscious is the important thing in the UYA literature. Because it is something any guy can do in small ways that will work to up his attraction to others, without having to do something in-your-face that will hit people in a conscious way.

Fiddling with the sub-conscious triggers is a big part of UYA literature. It is confusing when it is then discussed with us women, because since we likely don't do it consciously, we will then argue (in some cases) that "this doesn't affect us that way". 

So I guess what I'm coming to understand on the subject of pre-selection is that, yes, it probably does work on a sub-conscious level. But that even the UYA literature doesn't say then that this alone will ever cause a woman to fall madly in love or lust with you. Only that it *might* give you a tiny edge up over what you would have been "ranked" as without the pre-selection factor in the picture.

- - - - - 

When I'm thinking about this and comparing it to women's literature that is designed to UYA, usually a woman is reading that type of literature to hook or keep one particular man (usually not already her husband). She usually isn't reading it to just score random men, she has one man in mind who she is likely into and he's not that into her. Or she may be reading it after a series of break ups and she is trying to figure out "what am I doing wrong?"

I get what many of you guys are saying: That majority of you found UYA literature in the process of trying to keep your wives or make her fall in love with you...not just how to score lots of babes.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You laughed. Douche.
> 
> :rofl:


I really do want to thank you for making the rest of us look like much nicer guys. LOL.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> So I guess what I'm coming to understand on the subject of pre-selection is that, yes, it probably does work on a sub-conscious level. But that even the UYA literature doesn't say then that this alone will ever cause a woman to fall madly in love or lust with you. Only that it *might* give you a tiny edge up over what you would have been "ranked" as without the pre-selection factor in the picture.


Its not meant to make a girl fall madly in love with you.
Its just meant to get her attention , [ and helps with self confidence]. Almost like breaking the ice before approaching, or turning the tables and having the cards stacked in your favour.
So if you approach a girl, she gets nervous instead of you getting nervous.

Some men constantly face rejection because of it. They must wait at the end of the line, and maybe he might get her attention for a few seconds. If he does, he's hoping not to mess it up.
To some men, rejection is a powerful blow.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> Yes, disappointing to be sure.
> 
> I think part of the problem is that we learn bad patterns of behaviour in high school trying to keep up with the "cool" kids, and some get stuck in that mindset.
> 
> It doesn't help that all the dating advice and whatnot out there feeds these delusions.


Most people are looking for companionship. For someone to love. To be loved. To have a fulfilling sexual relationship with. To be appreciated and so on. Not everyone. But not such horrible things.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> It is accurate and it get rids of semantics. It is what it is. It's only insulting if you can't grasp the idea that insecurity is not a bad thing. Generally, everyone feels insecure when starting new things and relationships are not exempt.


Some folks are just not extroverted is where I was coming from.

Anyway, not my hill to die on for sure.

I think introverts need to enhance themselves enough to get noticed.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its all good.  You even provided me an opportunity to show how I roll with an insult and spin it with a charm that just says "no f*cks given".


So that makes me your wingman.

You can be my wingman anytime.

Years and years ago, I had a running mate who was a PUA. His nickname was Peterhead Paul. Mine was Hooker. I was not a PUA by any means but I can honestly say that I had a great time hanging with him. He was shameless. Very entertaining. He may have kept me around for muscle. LOL.

Oh and the nicknames were a Navy thing.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> You are correct.
> After a woman crosses 30 yrs, lots of things change..........
> Suddenly she begins to see the light.
> With men, this happens somewhat a bit later, around 40+


So then would it be fair to say that pre-selection only works on the immature? :scratchhead: If I only look at my sons as an example, one who is almost 16 he definately acts more like I did at his age. He wants everything "cool" and definately follows a heard mentality. My oldest though never was that way. He could care less what the heard thinks of him. There's nothing wrong with either, I'm just trying to figure pre-selection out and who it works on.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Blue Firefly said:


> It doesn't mean people will lose their minds and suddenly throw themselves at you. It's actually a numbers game.
> 
> Let's say you decided to sit in a bar and rate all the men that walked in on sexual attractiveness using a scale of 0 to 10 (where 10 is the highest and 5 is average).
> 
> In walks Jack by himself, and you rate him a 5. If Jack had walked in with girl on his arm, you probably would have rated him higher. How much higher? Who knows? It might of been 6, 7, or only 5.1, but the odds are you would have given him a higher rating. That's the "social proof" concept I mentioned in an earlier post. It's a well documented phenomenon.
> 
> Notice, I didn't say you would throw yourself at him, I just said you would probably rate him as being more attractive than he would have been as a lone male.
> 
> Here's why that is important. The majority of men are going to fall into the average category. That's just the way stats work. Numbers tend to fall around the middle. That's why the bell curve shape is so common. If we use the 80/20 rule here and assume 80% of guys would be in the middle of the curve (average), then you end up with something like this:
> 
> 10% < 5 (below avg attractiveness)
> 80% = 5 (avg attractiveness)
> 10% > 5 (above avg attractiveness)
> 
> What Jack did by walking in with a woman on his arm is move himself from the avg pool to the above-avg pool. Maybe he just squeaked in, or maybe he jumped right to the top. It doesn't matter, because he is now in the above-avg pool.
> 
> In a room with 100 men and 100 women, you'll only have about 10 guys in the above-avg pool, but 100 women with a preference for above-avg men. The laws of scarcity and supply & demand comes into play. You WILL have women making an *extra effort* to secure a man from their preferred, above-avg pool.
> 
> This is a common phenomenon in all kinds of areas. Scarcity (real or imagined) makes things more desirable. By improving his attractiveness just enough to move himself into the above-avg pool--the smaller, scarcer pool of men--Jack increased the demand for himself tremendously.
> 
> You can argue about the distribution of the numbers (80% might be too high for the average pool), but the majority of men (be it 51% or 80%) will fall in the middle of the attractiveness curve--average, which means the above-avg pool will always be the smaller, scarcer, more in demand pool of men.
> 
> It's not a trick. It's just a numbers "game."


I don't know how I didn't see this earlier and I apologize for not responding. Very interesting points you make. For me though, if Jack walked in with a woman on his arm, it ends. Nothing more as I don't poach other womens men. If however Jack walked in alone, had great posture, was confident and had a killer smile (and I was single), that would catch my attention. I must be really weird.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So then would it be fair to say that pre-selection only works on the immature? :scratchhead: If I only look at my sons as an example, one who is almost 16 he definately acts more like I did at his age. He wants everything "cool" and definately follows a heard mentality. *My oldest though never was that way. He could care less what the heard thinks of him.* There's nothing wrong with either, I'm just trying to figure pre-selection out and who it works on.


To a great extent, yes.
I was always like your oldest son. I didn't give a sh!t what anybody said or thought. I dressed in designer stuff, but I only dressed in what made me look good.
The pre selection thing never really affected me because I never liked a girl who had too much attention around her. I always hated competition from other men, and never had problems attracting women.

However, I was immature in my approach to relationships. Because I almost always went for exactly what I wanted,and didn't care what the girl wanted.

Growing up is a challenging period in a person's life.
It can be confusing trying to fit in and still " stand out " lol.

Pre selection hits young girl's self esteem the hardest. They want to be cool and fit in, they want to be " hot" like the others, they want to catch the guy's attention. It makes them do all sorts of things they regret when they get older.
It makes them tolerate abusive, degrading behaviour from men. It conditions their mind negatively and they devalues themselves.
That is the ugly side of " game."
That's why most men are very protective of their teen aged daughters.
Its a type of " bro speak."

Yes ,generally pre selection works on people who want to fit in.
[ And we all want to fit in, lol!]
So there must be different shades or varying degrees of how it affects different personalities.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I don't know how I didn't see this earlier and I apologize for not responding. Very interesting points you make. *For me though, if Jack walked in with a woman on his arm, it ends. Nothing more as I don't poach other womens men. If however Jack walked in alone, had great posture, was confident and had a killer smile (and I was single), that would catch my attention.* I must be really weird.


Very valid point here.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Caribbean Man said:


> To a great extent, yes.
> I was always like your oldest son. I didn't give a sh!t what anybody said or thought. I dressed in designer stuff, but I only dressed in what made me look good.
> The pre selection thing never really affected me because I never liked a girl who had too much attention around her. I always hated competition from other men, and never had problems attracting women.
> 
> However, I was immature in my approach to relationships. Because I almost always went for exactly what I wanted,and didn't care what the girl wanted.
> 
> Growing up is a challenging period in a person's life.
> It can be confusing trying to fit in and still " stand out " lol.
> 
> Pre selection hits young girl's self esteem the hardest. They want to be cool and fit in, they want to be " hot" like the others, they want to catch the guy's attention. It makes them do all sorts of things they regret when they get older.
> It makes them tolerate abusive, degrading behaviour from men. It conditions their mind negatively and they devalues themselves.
> That is the ugly side of " game."
> 
> Yes ,generally pre selection works on people who want to fit in.
> [ And we all want to fit in, lol!]
> So there must be different shades or varying degrees of how it affects different personalities.


There are always outliers, they do NOT like the "herd" mentality, and avoid it at all cost. They can be physically and mentally "hot" as well.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DaddyLongShanks said:


> There are always outliers, they do NOT like the "herd" mentality, and avoid it at all cost. They can be physically and mentally "hot" as well.


Are you speaking about Trenton?

_Just Kidding Trenton!_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> With men, this happens somewhat a bit later, around 40+


Sh*t.


----------



## Machiavelli

Therealbrighteyes said:


> God, we're back to pre-selection? Maybe she just likes you because you are funny and smart. Ever thought of that?


It's interesting how just about no matter what high sex rank guys (alpha, sigma) have to say, it is usually funny and smart to the woman he's addressing. If you're not in the high numbers, you have to be a pro standup to get a laugh out of a girl. Generally, the more attractive you are the funnier. YMMV, but that's a good general rule.


----------



## Created2Write

tacoma said:


> Says a woman...


Man, I'm gone for a day and there's dozens of new pages.

But yes, this. Such a simple statement, but also a true one. I don't buy into the idea that we all have one or two people in our lives at any given time that we are going to be mutually attracted to. I don't buy it at all.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I don't know how I didn't see this earlier and I apologize for not responding. Very interesting points you make. For me though, if Jack walked in with a woman on his arm, it ends. Nothing more as I don't poach other womens men. If however Jack walked in alone, had great posture, was confident and had a killer smile (and I was single), that would catch my attention. I must be really weird.


Sometimes it really is that simple.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Machiavelli said:


> It's interesting how just about no matter what high sex rank guys (alpha, sigma) have to say, it is usually funny and smart to the woman he's addressing. If you're not in the high numbers, you have to be a pro standup to get a laugh out of a girl. Generally, the more attractive you are the funnier. YMMV, but that's a good general rule.


So you literally get to smack them in the face and get paid for it, if you have a "high rank"?


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Sh*t.


Kinda hard to be a serious playa after 40.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> Kinda hard to be a serious playa after 40.


Why Men Act Strangely After 40 - AskMen

This is actually a good article ...


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Machiavelli said:


> It's interesting how just about no matter what high sex rank guys (alpha, sigma) have to say, it is usually funny and smart to the woman he's addressing. If you're not in the high numbers, you have to be a pro standup to get a laugh out of a girl. Generally, the more attractive you are the funnier. YMMV, but that's a good general rule.


Gosh, there are a lot of great points being made here today! I see this two ways from my own experience. Less conventionally attractive men sometimes use humor as a way to set themselves apart from other men. Very attractive men use humor because they are confident enough that they can "sell" the joke. I think it all boils down to confidence either way. A less attractive man knows he has to rely on other things and hones his skills accordingly. Being confident in who he is and puts himself out there. A more attractive man can rely on looks but also realizes that he is in competition with other attractive men so he has to use other tools as well.
My wording it probably off but hopefully the jist came across.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> You can be my wingman anytime.


If you remove the distinct homosexual connotation that comes with it and top gun in general, "I'm down." 

Its weird maybe, but I'm generally not so great with a wingman. He's more of a distraction and obligation on my time. My friends and I kind of have a standing agreement not to get pissed if someone gets ignored for awhile because someone else disappears off talking to some girl or other group for a long time. So its not often that two of us will go out. There's usually 3 or 4. Sometimes one of our married friends and his wife... who is awesome because she often notices the hot girl before we do. I once "saved" a girl from a guy hitting on her that you could tell she was totally not into and trying to get rid of.... ", because my friend's wife pointed her out. lol

Navy guy eh? You want shameless? Try hanging out with some Marines! That's really where I got started. Semper Fi.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I don't know how I didn't see this earlier and I apologize for not responding. Very interesting points you make. For me though, if Jack walked in with a woman on his arm, it ends. Nothing more as I don't poach other womens men. If however Jack walked in alone, had great posture, was confident and had a killer smile (and I was single), that would catch my attention. I must be really weird.


Its not that Jack with women expects you to move on him. Its that you noticed him.

So when he picks you out and moves on YOU, somewhere deep down in your female brain says "this guy is appealing to those hot women"... "he wants me" ... "I must be more than those hot women". It hits the right buttons of ego and desire... but its more subtle, as everything that operates on the subconscious level is.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> Why Men Act Strangely After 40 - AskMen


"..._The other way men try to prove their manhood and sexual impulses is to flirt with younger women. On some levels this is acceptable; however, sometimes it gets out of control. Lusting after younger women when you're in your 40s means that you're quickly going to get the nickname of "creepy old man" and it usually brings on stereotypes of problems at home and in the "old man's" social life. Having a young obsession might change this man's style, his eating habits, his social behavior, etc. __And these changes might look silly to everyone else but him_...."

I've always heard girls talking about these type of men.
I NEVER wanted to be in that category!
To me, its one of life's ironies....
Strange,
But true!


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Does everything I say just hit a wall before it gets to your brain... or are you willfully ignoring me?
> 
> "Being direct and honest doesn't occur to them" - I'm direct. I'm honest now. Where is the dishonesty in starting a conversation with someone? Oh wait, I wasn't honest about telling a girl she was hairy. I was teasing her. It was intentional, and she was OBVIOUSLY not hairy.
> 
> You really don't understand game at ALL to the degree its comical. #1 is outcome independence. There is no resentment for a rejection. The conversation is enjoyed on its own merit even if the pick up is unsuccessful. The rejection says nothing about you personally. Maybe she's gay. Maybe she's faithful to a boyfriend. Maybe she likes fat guys. Maybe she thinks your cologne stinks. Who cares? I still get rejected occassionally. Heck I posted in another thread about a night where I had nothing going at all and my friend and I ended up talking about social-psychology all night lol. It was still a good night.
> 
> Its wrong to hit on mutliple women? So after getting rejected by the first, a guy should wimper and go home? lol
> 
> Here's the thing, when I'm out, I don't obsess on a girl. I'm hitting on EVERYONE... which is to say, I'm talkative, friendly and teasing with everyone. People aren't generally out alone. If I really like a girl sitting with a table of other girls, after I've made the intro I'm talking and flirting with ALL of them... even the ones I'm totally not attracted to. I might even talk/flirt LESS to the one I'm really interested in - it really depends on the vibe. Its more disarming to talk to everyone. "He seems friendly. He seems nice. My friends like him. He isn't trying to *get* someone." I'm having fun and I get everyone involved. You'd think I was hot by the way the girls end up laughing and giggling. I don't think I'm some kind of stud, I'm just friendly. I have plenty of time to show interest in the girl I want... and its fluid. I might end up hitting it off better with another girl at the table if she's in the same neighborhood looks-wise but there is better chemistry.
> 
> The guy who looks like he's going from girl to girl trying to pick someone up has zero game. The guy who is just having fun, being playful and friendly and flirty with everyone simultaneously knows what he's doing or has natural game. Even the guys like that guy. Guys hate the dude sequentially going from girl to girl. He looks desperate and lame.


Just a side note, as a woman, I can attest that this would be really awesome. I was never into the casual sex game or anything, but there were times when I was hit on, and it was way _too_ obvious. I know that for some women, they want the brutal honesty right up front so that they know what to expect. But I can tell you, sometimes brutal honesty is just a turn off. It can come off as arrogance and self-centeredness, and can even sound braggy. If I sit and listen to a guy talk about himself for an hour and a half and in that time I find out he's in debt because he bought a sweet pickup truck, can't afford to insure the truck because of how in debt he is, has a crazy ex-girlfriend who keeps stalking him, and then he tells me he thinks I'm f-ing beautiful....there is no way in hell that I would _ever_ respond positively to him. (True story btw)

So, while I get that there are some guys who use women and they use "the game" to get what they want, I have to be honest and say that I _also_ get how "having game" can be an absolute necessity to having sexual success. I'm sure I'm using the wrong phrases, but there it is.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> "To distinguish themselves from other women and appear more attractive to men. Girl game."
> 
> Even if I am married and just going to work, my husband will not even see me that day, and I simply feel that I look pasty and sad without make up...I'm still running game by wearing it?
> 
> Even for my 72 y/o mother who is a widow, does not want to ever be in a relationship again (loves her independance), but yet she will not step foot out the door without make up....SHE is wearing make up to run game?


This is assuming that "game" is nothing more than sexual prowess.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> If you remove the distinct homosexual connotation that comes with it and top gun in general, "I'm down."
> 
> Its weird maybe, but I'm generally not so great with a wingman. He's more of a distraction and obligation on my time. My friends and I kind of have a standing agreement not to get pissed if someone gets ignored for awhile because someone else disappears off talking to some girl or other group for a long time. So its not often that two of us will go out. There's usually 3 or 4. Sometimes one of our married friends and his wife... who is awesome because she often notices the hot girl before we do. I once "saved" a girl from a guy hitting on her that you could tell she was totally not into and trying to get rid of.... ", because my friend's wife pointed her out. lol
> 
> Navy guy eh? You want shameless? Try hanging out with some Marines! That's really where I got started. Semper Fi.


I was in an F14 Fighter Squadron. So yeah think Top Gun.

I remember going to YUMA for ACM. Got along fine with those Marines. I was single then and even I would not go over to boys town.


----------



## Created2Write

ScarletBegonias said:


> Personally I don't think makeup is a good example of "game" because while some makeup applications can be for gaming purposes other applications we do for ourselves to pick us up or brighten our mood.
> I always considered most makeup as something fun and worn for yourself.When I pass by a mirror I'd rather see a bit of color on my face and some definition to my lashes rather than the pasty plain face I see when I wake up.If I'm vamping it up though and doing the smokey eyed techniques...that's game


But, even if we only did it for ourselves and no other reason, just by brightening our mood we're going to be displaying more confidence; more sexual appeal. Even if we don't intend to act on it, even if we're in a committed relationship. Because even in a committed relationship we could make the argument that we're _still_ in competition with other women. 

I know when I go out with my husband I want him to be proud to be associated with me. I want his heart to pound at having me on his arm. I work out, eat healthy, do my hair and makeup and wear flattering clothes firstly, because I am a girly girl and I enjoy those things but secondly, so that my husband can be proud to take me out. So, even though "the game" isn't in trying to get some random guy to bed me, I still think it can be considered a part of "the game".


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Kinda hard to be a serious playa after 40.


Do guys really want to though? I really don't know. I would think by that age they would want a woman who they love and who loves them back. 

There was a guy here many moons ago who used to refer to a "friend" (him) who only dated barely legal women. He would make all kinds of disgusting comments about women over the age of 30, relentlessly. He never wanted to settle down after his divorce and despite being highly educated, only wanted uneducated women he could easily manipulate. One Christmas morning he posted a "Hey anybody out there?" thread that I saw three days later. It was at that moment all my disgust for him melted away and I just felt sorry for him.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Gosh, there are a lot of great points being made here today! I see this two ways from my own experience. Less conventionally attractive men sometimes use humor as a way to set themselves apart from other men. Very attractive men use humor because they are confident enough that they can "sell" the joke. I think it all boils down to confidence either way. A less attractive man knows he has to rely on other things and hones his skills accordingly. Being confident in who he is and puts himself out there. A more attractive man can rely on looks but also realizes that he is in competition with other attractive men so he has to use other tools as well.
> My wording it probably off but hopefully the jist came across.


You are on a roll. Your brain must be tingling today.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> Kinda hard to be a serious playa after 40.


Sure you can.... Swing baby! Yeah!


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Do guys really want to though? I really don't know. I would think by that age they would want a woman who they love and who loves them back.
> 
> There was a guy here many moons ago who used to refer to a "friend" (him) who only dated barely legal women. He would make all kinds of disgusting comments about women over the age of 30, relentlessly. He never wanted to settle down after his divorce and despite being highly educated, only wanted uneducated women he could easily manipulate. One Christmas morning he posted a "Hey anybody out there?" thread that I saw three days later. It was at that moment all my disgust for him melted away and I just felt sorry for him.


Read that article on why men are strange after 40 ....


----------



## Entropy3000

Created2Write said:


> But, even if we only did it for ourselves and no other reason, just by brightening our mood we're going to be displaying more confidence; more sexual appeal. Even if we don't intend to act on it, even if we're in a committed relationship. Because even in a committed relationship we could make the argument that we're _still_ in competition with other women.
> 
> I know when I go out with my husband I want him to be proud to be associated with me. I want his heart to pound at having me on his arm. I work out, eat healthy, do my hair and makeup and wear flattering clothes firstly, because I am a girly girl and I enjoy those things but secondly, so that my husband can be proud to take me out. So, even though "the game" isn't in trying to get some random guy to bed me, I still think it can be considered a part of "the game".


Thank you for making this real for us married folks.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Do guys really want to though? I really don't know. I would think by that age they would want a woman who they love and who loves them back. .


No, I don't want to.

If I found myself single at my age (46) I think my pool of potential mates would come more from the school fundraiser set than the bar fly crowd.

I haven't a clue how to play that game.
Think I'll just stay where I am.

New PUA handbook "The Ultimate How to Game Hot Soccer Moms"

Anyone interested in a PDF?

:smthumbup:


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You've totally lost me. When you said "number", you were obviously referring to number of women slept with - as if its ego massaging. I replied on point. Rather than asking rhetorical questions, or asking me to evaluation someone elses notion of what successful PUA, how about actually responding directly to what I say.
> 
> 9-10 refers to sex rank... quality. Do I feel good about snagging a 9? Damn right I do! She's hot! Am I supposed to be depressed I have a hot woman? lol Woe is me.
> 
> Seriously, I don't get your logic. Yes, I keep mediocre girls in little goodie bags in the pantry, just in case I feel like a midnight snack.


ROFLOL. 

I'm confused too. What's so bad about wanting to score someone who's hot? I really don't get why that is so offensive.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> "..._The other way men try to prove their manhood and sexual impulses is to flirt with younger women. On some levels this is acceptable; however, sometimes it gets out of control. Lusting after younger women when you're in your 40s means that you're quickly going to get the nickname of "creepy old man" and it usually brings on stereotypes of problems at home and in the "old man's" social life. Having a young obsession might change this man's style, his eating habits, his social behavior, etc. __And these changes might look silly to everyone else but him_...."
> 
> I've always heard girls talking about these type of men.
> I NEVER wanted to be in that category!
> To me, its one of life's ironies....
> Strange,
> But true!





> women experience a loss of judgment during their middle-aged years.


The above from the article is out of context BUT it cracked me up.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> *Do guys really want to though? I really don't know. I would think by that age they would want a woman who they love and who loves them back. *
> 
> There was a guy here many moons ago who used to refer to a "friend" (him) who only dated barely legal women. He would make all kinds of disgusting comments about women over the age of 30, relentlessly. He never wanted to settle down after his divorce and despite being highly educated, only wanted uneducated women he could easily manipulate. One Christmas morning he posted a "Hey anybody out there?" thread that I saw three days later. It was at that moment all my disgust for him melted away and I just felt sorry for him.


I would hope this is true for most men but I do not really know. It is for me.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> The above from the article is out of context BUT it cracked me up.


I could see men over 40 easily pulling women down around 25 or older, happens all the time. The women are even more interested in these type of men who have more resources and experience and may look better to them.

I get where the article in question is pointing out that for some men they make all these changes and it looks wierd to everyone but him. The key will be not following and trying to "fit in" with that younger crowd/lifestyle, but being more of yourself and either meeting in the middle or letting the younger significant other come more your way.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> It's so stupid isn't it?


Um, no. We're talking about casual sex here, as far as I understand. If I were single I can say with certainty that I would not have casual sex with an ugly guy. Shallow? Perhaps. But it's casual sex. That, in and of itself, can be shallow. It's not meant to mean much, although people can get emotionally pleasurable experiences out of it and have fun. But that is entirely contingent on whether or not there is a mutual attraction.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're just delightful. Tell me, what in this scenario has the guy done to offend you? Its clearly a joke. Its intended to make you laugh. He's clearly expressing interest in you. I'm just curious, but where does "insult him now" figure into your thought process?
> 
> It seems awefully uptight and overserious; basically declaring a guy shallow and worthless because he made a witty approach to a girl he liked, hoping she would laugh and think he's a friendly guy. That's quite the crime.
> 
> Here's the thing... this is a known type of behavior. Its a form of sh*t test and I get them in one form or another all the time. Yours is just right off the bat. If I'm after you, I'm going to roll with all your attempted put downs... I think they're cute. I'll even help you with some self-deprication. I'll hit you back and turn what you say around in a funny way. If you're engaging me, I win... eventually.
> 
> My advice to the bitter inclined: just ignore him and walk away... don't play the game. Take your ball and go home. Seems like a sad way to live though (as in depressing, not sad as in insulting).


First and foremost: I would not stoop to insulting. That would be mean and unnecessary, and a very poor execution of Put-Down Artistry*

Second, I would not be offended. Just unimpressed. And I see no why I should play along pretending to think something is witty and cute when I do not. It's not a **** test at all, just a clear indication of what I think. 

See, the way these things usually go down is that alpha boy comes in with his play, everyone laughs and plays along, then he makes his exit. His less-than-alpha friends and him then all high-five and back-slap each other, and call him the "man". Meanwhile, back in the other camp, the group goes into a huddle wondering "who the eff was that guy"? If one of the girls finds him cute, she might say so. Then her pals might respond "yeah, but what a dweeb!"

So ultimately, my approach is just a little bit more up front. Instead of playing along pretending to be impressed and then laughing behind his back, I just let it be known that I'm not impressed. If you're after me, you will know that you are wasting your time; you will give up and move on to someone else. Everyone's happy! What's wrong with that?

And last, I don't see why *I* should be the one to pick up my ball and go home. I'm out having a great time with my friends, and have no intention of stopping. I just don't want to waste my time on BS or players. My right, as far as I'm concerned.


*I am joking when using this term, btw. I'm only saying that I won't be picked-up.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its not that Jack with women expects you to move on him. Its that you noticed him.
> 
> So when he picks you out and moves on YOU, somewhere deep down in your female brain says "this guy is appealing to those hot women"... "he wants me" ... "I must be more than those hot women". It hits the right buttons of ego and desire... but its more subtle, as everything that operates on the subconscious level is.


WRONG. Jack hits on me, then he is trying to cheat on the lady he walked in with.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Do guys really want to though? I really don't know. I would think by that age they would want a woman who they love and who loves them back.
> 
> There was a guy here many moons ago who used to refer to a "friend" (him) who only dated barely legal women. He would make all kinds of disgusting comments about women over the age of 30, relentlessly. He never wanted to settle down after his divorce and despite being highly educated, only wanted uneducated women he could easily manipulate. One Christmas morning he posted a "Hey anybody out there?" thread that I saw three days later. It was at that moment all my disgust for him melted away and I just felt sorry for him.


Brighteyes...
[ Some ] men have always done, and still do very strange things for their egos and sex.......


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> "..._The other way men try to prove their manhood and sexual impulses is to flirt with younger women. On some levels this is acceptable; however, sometimes it gets out of control. Lusting after younger women when you're in your 40s means that you're quickly going to get the nickname of "creepy old man" and it usually brings on stereotypes of problems at home and in the "old man's" social life. Having a young obsession might change this man's style, his eating habits, his social behavior, etc. __And these changes might look silly to everyone else but him_...."
> 
> I've always heard girls talking about these type of men.
> I NEVER wanted to be in that category!
> To me, its one of life's ironies....
> Strange,
> But true!


I agree. I can't even visualize myself going out the way I do now, going into my 40s. Kinda sucks because I'm having fun. What do you 40-somethings do?? 

Each moment has its sickle, emulous
Of Time's enormous scythe, whose ample sweep
Strikes empires from the root.
~Edward Young

Life has a funny way of forcing you on to the next thing just when you think you've mastered it.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Caribbean Man said:


> Brighteyes...
> [ Some ] men have always done, and still do very strange things for their egos and sex.......


Before Christ Even.

Before the egyptians Even.

Possibly back to the stone ages...


----------



## Created2Write

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Friendzoned is a made up term by men who weren't honest about their intentions with the "friend" in the first place and it backfired on them. How you put this on women however is beyond me.


How you can take one scenario and apply it universally across all friendzoned scenarios is beyond me. Sometimes they're friendly _before_ any romantic feelings take shape. They sit and watch her go through other relationships, unaware that they have any romantic feelings for her at all. You simply can not blame the men entirely. It's entirely unfair. Some guys, it's true, _don't_ speak up about their feelings, but that isn't necessarily because they're being manipulative. If they're honest about their feelings one of three things could happen: 1. They could find out the feelings are mutual. 2. They find out they're not, and it ruins the friendship. 3. They find out the feelings aren't mutual, but manage to hold to a friendship that is now even more painful than before because all hope of being with her is now gone. 

What's better? Keeping the friendship, even if it means never getting anything more, or voicing your feelings while risking the end of the friendship altogether?


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> It's interesting how just about no matter what high sex rank guys (alpha, sigma) have to say, it is usually funny and smart to the woman he's addressing. If you're not in the high numbers, you have to be a pro standup to get a laugh out of a girl. Generally, the more attractive you are the funnier. YMMV, but that's a good general rule.


That's just because all of the women's dating advice tells you to laugh at his jokes no matter how unfunny he is.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> ROFLOL.
> 
> I'm confused too. What's so bad about wanting to score someone who's hot? I really don't get why that is so offensive.


That was just a misinterpretation of something I said in an earlier post. My point was not that it is offensive to "score" someone hot, it had instead to do with the insecurities of the PUA and his reliance on validation from an array of hot woman in order to have a sense of self-worth.


----------



## ravioli

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Even though I'd find it difficult to pull off with my demeanor (****y isn't my strongest game), I maintained that if the guy seems genuinely friendly, is fairly attractive and pulls it off naturally... nobody would actually mind. Its awkward only when discussed as a hypothetical. In real life, there is an energy that would totally erase the awkward potential... its hard to describe. Its that moment of pressure, mild intimidation, a tingle of fear... its that moment when you're put on the spot and surprised. Most people can do nothing but act surprised and laugh... they don't pick up awkwardness unless the guy acts awkward. In fact, his boldness would be exciting and they'd all tell the story later to anyone who would listen. Which is exactly what the guy wants - to rent some space in her mind.


This is true. Touching a woman that you just met is a turn on for some if the guy is hot to them. This only works for some men, definitely not recommended if most women don't find you attractive.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Trenton said:


> Speak for yourself CM. *I do smashing in a herd.*
> 
> I C A N ' T B E L I E V E I J U S T T Y P E D T H A T !


"smashing in a herd" means what?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Second, I would not be offended. Just unimpressed. And I see no why I should play along pretending to think something is witty and cute when I do not. It's not a **** test at all, just a clear indication of what I think.


And just what exactly would you find witty and cute, pray tell?



always_alone said:


> See, the way these things usually go down is that alpha boy comes in with his play, everyone laughs and plays along, then he makes his exit. His less-than-alpha friends and him then all high-five and back-slap each other, and call him the "man". Meanwhile, back in the other camp, the group goes into a huddle wondering "who the eff was that guy"? If one of the girls finds him cute, she might say so. Then her pals might respond "yeah, but what a dweeb!"


We are visualizing two entirely different things if you'd think this guy was a dweeb. And you'd make this judgement of his character based on a clever introduction?



always_alone said:


> So ultimately, my approach is just a little bit more up front. Instead of playing along pretending to be impressed and then laughing behind his back, I just let it be known that I'm not impressed. If you're after me, you will know that you are wasting your time; you will give up and move on to someone else. Everyone's happy! What's wrong with that?


Please describe the suitable way a man should show his interest in you. You don't like clever, you don't like bravado, and you don't like humor. 

Poetry? Shall I compare thee to the federal tax code? Thou art more complex and more confusing.

Or perhaps if I were pining for you I should just say
01001001001000000100110001101111011101




always_alone said:


> And last, I don't see why *I* should be the one to pick up my ball and go home. I'm out having a great time with my friends, and have no intention of stopping. I just don't want to waste my time on BS or players. My right, as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> 
> *I am joking when using this term, btw. I'm only saying that I won't be picked-up.


And how do you know this guy is a player or BSing? You're married, I assume you dated? Surely you've been picked up at some point. Two people don't just wake up one day and simultaneously think "Yay! We're dating!"

"Hey wanna catch a movie?" <--- pickup
"I'm going for a coffee. Wanna come?" <--- pickup
"You know, we've been hanging out a lot, I really like you and was wondering if you'd like to have dinner with me tomorrow night?" <--- pickup

Nefarious!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> Read that article on why men are strange after 40 ....


In other words, men want to recapture their youth but women are mentally unbalanced if they do as well. Gotcha. Yeah well, I've had plastic surgery and I think I am plenty normal. If my husband however ditched me for a 20 something year old, he's the idiot.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> You called it shallow not I. If casual sex means one aspires to be shallow then so be it.


No one is "aspiring to be shallow". What is the point in pursuing a good time with someone if you aren't physically attracted to them? Moreover, I think it's even more shallow to bed someone when you're _not_ attracted to them, because then you're not even looking for mutual attraction. Just a sexual body part. At least with the former you're being honest. 



> I still think it's stupid.


You're free to think that.



> Then again, I can say with certainty that I won't have casual sex ever again so maybe the disconnect is that none of this part of the discussion applies or appeals to me. I also don't see it the least bit helpful in creating a more intelligent world or helping our species in any way.


I've never had casual sex, and don't intend to. It never appealed to me either. However, if people are going to do it, I believe they deserve to be with someone who genuinely wants to be with them. A woman should be able to pursue a ONS, casual sex _and_ relationships with the man/type of man she wants. We all have our standards, right? Why should standards only apply relationships? Even if the standard is based on little more than looks, it's _still_ a standard.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> And just what exactly would you find witty and cute, pray tell?
> 
> 
> 
> We are visualizing two entirely different things if you'd think this guy was a dweeb. And you'd make this judgement of his character based on a clever introduction?
> 
> 
> 
> Please describe the suitable way a man should show his interest in you. You don't like clever, you don't like bravado, and you don't like humor.
> 
> Poetry? Shall I compare thee to the federal tax code? Thou art more complex and more confusing.
> 
> Or perhaps if I were pining for you I should just say
> 01001001001000000100110001101111011101
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how do you know this guy is a player or BSing? You're married, I assume you dated? Surely you've been picked up at some point. Two people don't just wake up one day and simultaneously think "Yay! We're dating!"
> 
> "Hey wanna catch a movie?" <--- pickup
> "I'm going for a coffee. Wanna come?" <--- pickup
> "You know, we've been hanging out a lot, I really like you and was wondering if you'd like to have dinner with me tomorrow night?" <--- pickup
> 
> Nefarious!


CAFE BABE

She may be impressed to know or already knows that the first four bytes of a Java Class File spell out CAFE BABE in Hex.

The above is rather esoteric and may not impress a whole lot of women. But you only need to find the love of your life once. Some will hang with you for a while but explaining byte codes can take the edge off the sexual tension when they are confused that Java is compiled but only to an intermediate virtual machine byte code. Kinda like telling her the Easter Bunny is not real.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> That was just a misinterpretation of something I said in an earlier post. My point was not that it is offensive to "score" someone hot, it had instead to do with the insecurities of the PUA and his reliance on validation from an array of hot woman in order to have a sense of self-worth.


I get that. I was more referring to your comment about wanting "more and better". Sure, there are guys who date hot women for the sole purpose of increasing their self-validation. I don't personally know...well, any man who acts that way, but I'm sure they exist. But from what I can tell, no one here has been advocating that kind of behavior. Frankly, it sounds rather self-destructive. Which is ironic, because one of the books being questioned in this thread and others is the MMSL, which _can_ help a man improve his SR _without_ the use of bedding as many hot women as possible. When any of us can actually find strength and worth in ourselves, independent of anyone else or our association with them, is when we can actually move forward and engage with other people without the fear of rejection. 

But when it comes to the statement I was referring to, I think we _all_ want to be with the best we can get, whether sexually or relationally. And I'd like to add that there is a difference between having sex with hot women to make oneself feel better, and having sex with hot women because they're mutually attracted to each other.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> In other words, men want to recapture their youth but women are mentally unbalanced if they do as well. Gotcha. Yeah well, I've had plastic surgery and I think I am plenty normal. *If my husband however ditched me for a 20 something year old, he's the idiot*.


The article said that some plastic surgery is pretty normal but that some women can lose their judgement. I think that speaks for itself. Some very much do and act like teenagers.

The article said the bolded to me too.

---

So what plastic surgery have you had? I have had many try to remove my ego but it was too massive and they realized I would be nothing without it.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> The article said that some plastic surgery is pretty normal but that some women can lose their judgement. I think that speaks for itself. Some very much do and act like teenagers.
> 
> The article said the bolded to me too.
> 
> ---
> 
> So what plastic surgery have you had?


She's going to act more confident, possibly make more aggressive decisions and her boundaries will change. To the ones who are used to her, she's going to be acting funny.

This is going to happen anytime you want to change or improve yourself. And some groups definately are not going to allow that.


----------



## LifeIsAJourney

OK, I usually don't break into a thread but this made me laugh:



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Or perhaps if I were pining for you I should just say
> 01001001001000000100110001101111011101


If I were still single, this would have worked for me! Obviously geek humor appeals to female engineers.


----------



## Davelli0331

Entropy3000 said:


> Some will hang with you for a while but explaining byte codes can take the edge off the sexual tension when they are confused that Java is compiled but only to an intermediate virtual machine byte code.


Some will hopefully ditch you when they find out you're using Java. Unless she happens to like old, non-performant code that's full of security holes.

Whatevs, tho.

ETA: Neither Bond nor the Dark Knight would code in Java. Just sayin'.


----------



## LifeIsAJourney

Entropy3000 said:


> CAFE BABE
> 
> She may be impressed to know or already knows that the first four bytes of a Java Class File spell out CAFE BABE in Hex.
> 
> The above is rather esoteric and may not impress a whole lot of women. But you only need to find the love of your life once. Some will hang with you for a while but explaining byte codes can take the edge off the sexual tension when they are confused that Java is compiled but only to an intermediate virtual machine byte code. Kinda like telling her the Easter Bunny is not real.


Dang, I'm impressed!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> I was in an F14 Fighter Squadron. So yeah think Top Gun.


I loved that movie as a kid. Then, some time in the last few years, someone told me it was the gayest mainstream movie ever made (Frodo and Sam tried to put up a challenge though; but thankfully there were orcs and goblins too) and showed me a youtube video skit on the subject. Youtube top gun gay. Its hilarious... you'll love it.

But you'll never see top gun the same again.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> If someone wants to have a one night stand and you said a one night stand is shallow. Would the person aspiring to have a one night stand not be considered "aspiring to be shallow"?


Ugh. You're determined to see the worst in this, aren't you? I said casual sex _can_ be shallow. People have ONS and casual sex for many different reasons, some of which are shallow, some of which aren't. The only reason I used the word "shallow" to begin with is because ONS and casual sex usually don't mean much. It's not like the two people are connection romantically and sharing in emotional intimacy. It's physical pleasure. It's enjoying the mystery and the excitement. 

To answer the question, no. By pursuing a ONS or casual sex, one is not necessarily "aspiring" to be shallow. Nice manipulation of words, though. 



> Right except if you read through this thread you'll recognize that there's a whole lot going on and you'd really need 10 books and a decoder ring in order to figure out who appeals to you and whether or not who appeals to you is an illusion or a reality.


I _have[/quote] been reading through the thread, thank you. And no, I actually don't think that anyone needs books or a decoder to see who appeals to who. Frankly, DvlsAdvoc8's example of hitting on a lot of people at the same time, or a bunch of girls at the same table, seemed very simple and effective to me. Honestly, the idea of basing who you're interested in on who you're physically attracted to is just as simple. I really don't get why so many women are so offended and outraged against this. I would rather know that a man was hitting on me because he thought I was attractive, than find out he was hitting on me because he couldn't get anyone better. I think we should all "aspire" to be with people we're attracted to._


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> I Understand What You're Saying, I Just Think You're Wrong.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So, you don't care why a man hits on another woman? You don't care of there's mutual attraction? What exactly do you think I'm wrong about?


----------



## Entropy3000

Davelli0331 said:


> Some will hopefully ditch you when they find out you're using Java. Unless she happens to like old, non-performant code that's full of security holes.
> 
> Whatevs, tho.
> 
> ETA: Neither Bond nor the Dark Knight would code in Java. Just sayin'.


LOL.

You are funny. Java is not old at all. It is application language as opposed to a system language. It's all relative. Ultimately though you need a C complier to be able to have a JVM at all.

You can be sure that The Dark Knight would program in C. He does have Lucius but unlike the not so tech savvy Bond he is very capable technically.

Bond would have no clue about code at all but Q would.

Neither would use anything as flacid as windows. As I type this on my MAC and work on my RHEL VM altering Weblogic configurations.

Was this not an episode on Big Bang Theory?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> WRONG. Jack hits on me, then he is trying to cheat on the lady he walked in with.


Certainly, there'd have to be something additional there. "oh, they're just friends" seems to work for women.


----------



## Davelli0331

Entropy3000 said:


> LOL.
> 
> You are funny. Java is not old at all. It is application language as opposed to a system language.
> 
> You can be sure that The Dark Knight would program in C. He does have Luscius but unlike the not so tech savvy Bond he is very capable technically.
> 
> Bond would have no clue about code at all but Q would.


I was negging you. You're the target for my next online bromance. My man crush on Marky Mark is waning.

And, yes, Java is old, slow, and full of security flaws, at least as it applies to web development. Not sure about the desktop. However, Java's contribution to OOP and good code design cannot be understated.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> That's just because all of the women's dating advice tells you to laugh at his jokes no matter how unfunny he is.


Uh... no. Most women haven't read dating books, yet this is a very common behavior. Women laugh at the hot guy's jokes for the same reason men are nicer to hot women.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> And just what exactly would you find witty and cute, pray tell?


I find many, many things witty and cute. Too numerous to even begin listing them. The scenario put forth by coffee4me is not one of them. 



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Please describe the suitable way a man should show his interest in you. You don't like clever, you don't like bravado, and you don't like humor.


Oh, but I do like clever and humour (not so big on bravado). But it actually has to be clever. Or humorous. 

And yes, I've dated and am now hitched. When I said I didn't want to picked up, I meant I don't want to be played or gamed. I prefer a more direct and honest approach.

My SO and I met through friends. He asked one of them for my phone number, called me up, and asked me if I wanted to go on a date. I said yes. It was all very simple, and neither one of us had to game each other.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DaddyLongShanks said:


> She's going to act more confident, possibly make more aggressive decisions and her boundaries will change. To the ones who are used to her, she's going to be acting funny.
> 
> This is going to happen anytime you want to change or improve yourself. And some groups definately are not going to allow that.


Spare me. Boundaries don't change because someone gets elective surgery. They either had them before or were pretending.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Certainly, there'd have to be something additional there. "oh, they're just friends" seems to work for women.


Depends on the woman, for some the thought of sleeping with someone who has a partner is a massive turn off, some get a ego boost from thinking they took another woman's guy.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Spare me. Boundaries don't change because someone gets elective surgery. They either had them before or were pretending.


They have more base confidence, and beauty and are now being treated much "nicer", so they by default have more boundary space which to roam. They may have tightened up their personal boundaries, but are able to have more liberty with others boundaries.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Spare me. Boundaries don't change because someone gets elective surgery. They either had them before or were pretending.


confidence and belief systems will increase with result of a cosmetic surgery that has a positive result. It's docomented in many psychology and self-esteem books. 

I'm not saying you "shouldn't" have the confidence to begin with, but it seems whatever you had you will have even MORE after you realize that you are more attractive.

Also the world will fill you with more attractive rays, and men especially will give more and be nicer to you...


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Also as far as their personal boundary space. Someone can ALWAYS impelement personal boundaries even if they have never done so in their life, or they can tighten up existing ones. It's a decision.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

This is the best thread ever in the history of TAM. Trenton and Deejo surely remember the "This is why a penis is shaped the way it is thread" started by a troll which evolved in to why female Vikings will rule the world.......80 pages later. Yeah, this is better. Game, sex rank, non-game, blueberry pancakes, friendzone, James Bond, hot chicks, Bruce Wayne, firefighters, arguing and now what coding is still current. :rofl:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> CAFE BABE
> 
> She may be impressed to know or already knows that the first four bytes of a Java Class File spell out CAFE BABE in Hex.
> 
> The above is rather esoteric and may not impress a whole lot of women. But you only need to find the love of your life once. Some will hang with you for a while but explaining byte codes can take the edge off the sexual tension when they are confused that Java is compiled but only to an intermediate virtual machine byte code. Kinda like telling her the Easter Bunny is not real.


Entropy... we are a lot alike. A lot different, but a lot alike. That entire post might have just as easily come from my brain.

Kinda creepy.


----------



## Entropy3000

Davelli0331 said:


> I was negging you. You're the target for my next online bromance. My man crush on Marky Mark is waning.
> 
> And, yes, Java is old, slow, and full of security flaws, at least as it applies to web development. Not sure about the desktop. However, Java's contribution to OOP and good code design cannot be understated.


No the strength of Java is not on the desktop. But Java when combined as an integrated solution can have great advantages over other solutions.

Indeed we do have a better chance however at exploring the nuances of computer languages than the topic at hand.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Davelli0331 said:


> Some will hopefully ditch you when they find out you're using Java. Unless she happens to like old, non-performant code that's full of security holes.
> 
> Whatevs, tho.
> 
> ETA: Neither Bond nor the Dark Knight would code in Java. Just sayin'.


Stop negging my boy. He's just not attracted to you okay??

edit: Damn... you already admitted it!!


----------



## ravioli

always_alone said:


> My SO and I met through friends. He asked one of them for my phone number, called me up, and asked me if I wanted to go on a date. I said yes. It was all very simple, and neither one of us had to game each other.


 He obviously had game to get you because unlike other women you would never engage a man that had some type of charm or that was attractive.

Someone who's direct and honest and can get women does have game. Game is not always about tricking or manipulating someone. A direct and honest person that gets results has game.


----------



## Davelli0331

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Stop negging my boy. He's just not attracted to you okay??


But I thought I could build attraction through game?!?!

I wasn't in Top Gun, though, so you may be right, he may be out of my bro-league.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> This is the best thread ever in the history of TAM. Trenton and Deejo surely remember the "This is why a penis is shaped the way it is thread" started by a troll which evolved in to why female Vikings will rule the world.......80 pages later. Yeah, this is better. Game, sex rank, non-game, blueberry pancakes, friendzone, James Bond, hot chicks, Bruce Wayne, firefighters, arguing and now what coding is still current. :rofl:


:smthumbup:

You know I am ok with clowns but mimes creep me out. Is that normal? Miming clowns or ok though.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Entropy... we are a lot alike. A lot different, but a lot alike. That entire post might have just as easily come from my brain.
> 
> Kinda creepy.


Maybe it did. Maybe you have another account. Maybe unknown to you you have MPD. Maybe this is you typing what I am typing now. Trying to reach out to you. 

Maybe there is no TAM.

Think about it. A guy posting on a pink website referring to Top Gun as gay. Does that seem real to you? And you are teaching folks on a marriage site about PUA. Can that happen? 

Have you seen the movie Jacobs Ladder? You must have ... I have.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> But when it comes to the statement I was referring to, I think we _all_ want to be with the best we can get, whether sexually or relationally. And I'd like to add that there is a difference between having sex with hot women to make oneself feel better, and having sex with hot women because they're mutually attracted to each other.


What does that mean, though, to be with the "best we can get"? 

If you mean just that we will date around until we find someone that we are attracted to, that we think will be a great partner, that we love, and so on, then sure. We all want the best.

But for some people, there is no best. Just better. And so they always have an eye peeled for a chance to upgrade their current partner, no matter how great he/she is. That was the type I was talking about when I mentioned more and better. Those who just can't ever be satisfied with what they have because they are too hungry for more validation, approval, or whatever it is they are after. 

So, ultimately, yes, I agree with you: there's a huge difference between being attracted to someone because you find them hot and being on a continual quest for self-worth and validation through sexual conquest.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Davelli0331 said:


> ETA: Neither Bond nor the Dark Knight would code in Java. Just sayin'.


No, they would have some other guy do it for them.


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> This is the best thread ever in the history of TAM. Trenton and Deejo surely remember the "This is why a penis is shaped the way it is thread" started by a troll which evolved in to why female Vikings will rule the world.......80 pages later. Yeah, this is better. Game, sex rank, non-game, blueberry pancakes, friendzone, James Bond, hot chicks, Bruce Wayne, firefighters, arguing and now what coding is still current. :rofl:


Oh yes. I remember. I certainly have no issue if a thread I created meanders a little. Was that the one where I pictured you in a plate mail bustier?

And quite honestly, I truly appreciate the candor and consideration that has taken place here. It has been above board and respectful, if at not times snarky. Snark is fine.

Basically I'm saying thanks for not having to ban anybody.


----------



## Deejo

Created2Write said:


> Um, no. We're talking about casual sex here, as far as I understand. If I were single I can say with certainty that I would not have casual sex with an ugly guy. Shallow? Perhaps. But it's casual sex. That, in and of itself, can be shallow. It's not meant to mean much, although people can get emotionally pleasurable experiences out of it and have fun. But that is entirely contingent on whether or not there is a mutual attraction.


I have had casual sex since my divorce. I don't feel like any of it was stupid or shallow.

It was casual. What did I learn? 

I'm not very good at, and don't derive nearly as much fulfillment or pleasure from casual sex as I do, loving, pair bonded sex.

But ... if I was attracted and it was obvious we were both game, then sex was had.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Deejo said:


> if I was attracted and it was obvious we were both game


And if you had game...

Obviously.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Uh... no. Most women haven't read dating books, yet this is a very common behavior. Women laugh at the hot guy's jokes for the same reason men are nicer to hot women.


But that's bad game. Those men haven't been reading their books either. Don't they know they are supposed to be all cool and indifferent to hot women. Otherwise they'll just get friendzoned?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I find many, many things witty and cute. Too numerous to even begin listing them. The scenario put forth by coffee4me is not one of them.
> 
> Oh, but I do like clever and humour (not so big on bravado). But it actually has to be clever. Or humorous.
> 
> And yes, I've dated and am now hitched. When I said I didn't want to picked up, I meant I don't want to be played or gamed. I prefer a more direct and honest approach.
> 
> My SO and I met through friends. He asked one of them for my phone number, called me up, and asked me if I wanted to go on a date. I said yes. It was all very simple, and neither one of us had to game each other.


I have figured out why we fail to ever reach any sort of understanding. We use different dictionaries. See, in my dictionary, what that guy did was so clever there might as well be a picture of him next to the word.

clev·er
[ klévvər ] 

1.showing intelligence: demonstrating mental agility and creativity
2.intelligent: having sharp mental abilities
3.glibly facile: showing highly capable mental abilities in a showy or superficial way

Check. Check. Check.

You have no way to ascertain whether the guy was intending to play you. As much you wish you could, I'm sorry, but you cannot tell the difference between a player and a regular guy with a good approach. Just because a guy is clever and friendly, even silly, doesn't make him a player. All courtship is game... or when your husband-to-be first called you, did you just accept the date on looks alone?

Nah, you talked to him. He had enough social skill to be likeable. You can have game, whether you're a player or not, whether you've read PUA or not. Whatever he had, was enough for you.

I'd put money down there was a certain amount of game - social skill - involved in your dating too. I keep telling you its not about being false or tricking you into something. Its all the things that people do to show themselves as likeable people.

Any guy who gets a woman has some game. The better the game, the better the woman. You've previously attacked the idea of wanting "better", so was your husband not the best you could get overall? Did you settle?

You might not like that some guys ONLY want to get laid, and better game allows them to do so more easily... but game is courtship, period. Game is the art of appeal. It is not innately evil.

Faithful Wife has it down now, in renaming pickup: Up-Your-Appeal (UYA)

The guys who wrote the stuff don't care about anyone's sensitivities. They cared about results... appealing to women. Where you go from there is up to you.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

always_alone said:


> But that's bad game. Those men haven't been reading their books either. Don't they know they are supposed to be all cool and indifferent to hot women. Otherwise they'll just get friendzoned?


Ugh. I love a contrarian approach but you are just twisting everything anybody says because it doesn't fit your narrow view of the world and misguided understanding of game.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Depends on the woman, for some the thought of sleeping with someone who has a partner is a massive turn off, some get a ego boost from thinking they took another woman's guy.


I'm not being clear. I mean to say, he's not dating these women, or the woman he walked in with. He's single. He's just associated with being liked by hot women in your subconscious now. Its actually scientifically proven and is the basis for endorsements.

You know she's hot. She is effectively endorsing him. Voila, you like him. It just automagically happens.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not being clear. I mean to say, he's not dating these women, or the woman he walked in with. He's single. He's just associated with being liked by hot women in your subconscious now. Its actually scientifically proven and is the basis for endorsements.
> 
> You know she's hot. She is effectively endorsing him. Voila, you like him. It just automagically happens.


Seriously with all the talk about taking another woman's man, I thought I had a wrong understanding about the concept of preselection.


----------



## always_alone

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Ugh. I love a contrarian approach but you are just twisting everything anybody says because it doesn't fit your narrow view of the world and misguided understanding of game.


Yup. That's it. You got me. No possible way I could just be telling a joke. 

geez


----------



## Faithful Wife

All of my single female friends read multiple dating advice books. Not as many (if any) of my married friends do, though.

I've given or swapped so many dating and relationship books with women, I can't count them anymore.

The women who are reading them are usually wishing to figure out how to be loved by a really great man, and that's it. No other motivation. Usually they have one particular man in mind who isn't that into her. But in her mind, he's really great and she wants HIM.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

always_alone said:


> Yup. That's it. You got me. No possible way I could just be telling a joke.
> 
> geez


How many Pollocks does a...

Ah, screw it.

Maybe I overreacted lol


----------



## Faithful Wife

AA - I got it. Twas funny.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not being clear. I mean to say, he's not dating these women, or the woman he walked in with. He's single. He's just associated with being liked by hot women in your subconscious now. Its actually scientifically proven and is the basis for endorsements.
> 
> You know she's hot. She is effectively endorsing him. Voila, you like him. It just automagically happens.


What happens if you don't really notice hot women?
Personally if there is a hot guy in the room my eyes will go to him, women don't really register for me.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I have figured out why we fail to ever reach any sort of understanding. We use different dictionaries. See, in my dictionary, what that guy did was so clever there might as well be a picture of him next to the word.
> 
> clev·er
> [ klévvər ]
> 
> 1.showing intelligence: demonstrating mental agility and creativity
> 2.intelligent: having sharp mental abilities
> 3.glibly facile: showing highly capable mental abilities in a showy or superficial way


It's the same dictionary all right. I'm just not as easily impressed as you are, I guess. 

And I don't need to tell the difference between a regular guy who is trying to game me and a player because I'm not interested in either. 

But then I definitely do differentiate between gaming and what Faithful Wife has called UYA. The former is all manipulative and deceitful, IMHO. The latter, though, I totally get. And I think it is what the majority here are talking about when talking about game. But, going back to coffee4me's scenario -- that is not successful UYA. And if he thinks so, he seriously needs to find someone else who will better appreciate his skills. Like you, for example.

And really, please, I would think it quite obvious by now that I don't have game. Maybe my SO does, but I certainly don't.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Machiavelli said:


> Post a pic and I'll render judgement.


I meant Kezia Noble but miswrote it.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

always_alone said:


> And really, please, I would think it quite obvious by now that I don't have game. Maybe my SO does, but I certainly don't.


Well, not many women have a lot of conscious game in the modern world, probably because a lot of them don't need it as they expect men to subjugate to their every whim.


----------



## Entropy3000

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Well, not many women have a lot of conscious game in the modern world, probably because a lot of them don't need it as they expect men to subjugate to their every whim.


If an average woman wants only a ONS from a guy ... how hard is this really? I honestly do not know.

Maybe this is part of the disconnect.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Yup. That's it. You got me. No possible way I could just be telling a joke.
> 
> geez


Remember ... this is your thread by proxy


----------



## Entropy3000

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> I meant Kezia Noble but miswrote it.


hot


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Entropy3000 said:


> hot


Right?

And a female PUA. I would let her IOI all over me.

Wait what?


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> I think there are women who get a boob job and find the boundaries they had before hand are no longer adequate.
> 
> But it may indeed depend on why she got the augmentation period. Maybe she had poor boundaries before and getting the boob job gave he confidence and opportunity.


In some readings on psychology and self esteem, it was noted time and time again a cosmetic surgery which "improved" the patients appearance, whether it was a scare, a missing tooth, breasts, body fat, etc - if the patient felt they were "improved", their confidence raised. The raised confidence translates into opportunities, different treatment by others, different treatment of self.


----------



## Holland

Entropy3000 said:


> If an average woman wants only a ONS from a guy ... how hard is this really? I honestly do not know.
> 
> Maybe this is part of the disconnect.


Easy as pie, have already said so in this thread. And yes that may be some of the reason for the disconnect.

We put on a dress, do our hair and out we go. Even in my 40's I could get a ONS with little effort. Yes it is unfair but hey it is what it is. But like gaming, having an easy ONS is shallow and obviously short term.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

DaddyLongShanks said:


> In some readings on psychology and self esteem, it was noted time and time again a cosmetic surgery which "improved" the patients appearance, whether it was a scare, a missing tooth, breasts, body fat, etc - if the patient felt they were "improved", their confidence raised. The raised confidence translates into opportunities, different treatment by others, different treatment of self.


Not to mention boobjobs show that a chick is willing to do anything to up their SR.

Usually, they won't let that increased SR get wasted on their same old, boring, beta husbands either.


----------



## always_alone

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Well, not many women have a lot of conscious game in the modern world, probably because a lot of them don't need it as they expect men to subjugate to their every whim.


Ha. If I had magical powers, I would swap you (and other men who hold these similar attitudes) into a woman's body for a period of time, just so you could have a more realistic sense of (a) just how "easy" it is for women in the dating game and (b) just how "successfully" we subjugate men to our whims.

I think you would be surprised.


----------



## always_alone

Holland said:


> Easy as pie, have already said so in this thread. And yes that may be some of the reason for the disconnect.
> 
> We put on a dress, do our hair and out we go. Even in my 40's I could get a ONS with little effort.


Yes and no. I have little doubt I could find an ONS if I wanted one. The trouble would be in finding an ONS that I wanted.

And I'm willing to bet, it's not that different for men. Sure they can find an ONS if they really want one. But when they see who it is with, do they really want it?


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Not to mention boobjobs show that a chick is willing to do anything to up their SR.
> 
> Usually, they won't let that increased SR get wasted on their same old, boring, beta husbands either.


The same old boring beta, who makes sure the bills get paid, and takes good care of her ;-).


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

always_alone said:


> And I'm willing to bet, it's not that different for men.


Keep betting.

Seriously.


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> In some readings on psychology and self esteem, it was noted time and time again a cosmetic surgery which "improved" the patients appearance, whether it was a scare, a missing tooth, breasts, body fat, etc - if the patient felt they were "improved", their confidence raised. The raised confidence translates into opportunities, different treatment by others, different treatment of self.


Agreed.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Life has a funny way of forcing you on to the next thing just when you think you've mastered it.


:iagree: This is soooooo true.
Just when you think you've finally got the answers ,
They change the questions...


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> Yes and no. I have little doubt I could find an ONS if I wanted one. The trouble would be in finding an ONS that I wanted.
> 
> And I'm willing to bet, it's not that different for men. Sure they can find an ONS if they really want one. But when they see who it is with, do they really want it?


This comes down to the old SR again where men with a high sex rank will have sex with average and above looking women where women will have sex with equal or above SRs.

So are men on avergae less choosy about the SR for this than most women. Umm. Probably yeah.

I think in this type of scenario that 20% of the men have 80% of the sex.

Some will swear that that 20% of the men are quality men. Great guys. And that the 80% are just insecure and lesser men period. The problem with this is that it objectifies men to their SR. I have no doubt that in that 20% there are some great guys too.


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> The same old boring beta, who makes sure the bills get paid, and takes good care of her ;-).


Yes. For some women there is a duality about this.

If that poor guy wants to keep his wife he may resort to trying to be more attractive to his wife. This is seen as fake so he just loses. He chose the wrong woman to marry.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Before Christ Even.
> 
> Before the egyptians Even.
> 
> *Possibly back to the stone ages*...


lol!^^^This is sooo true!

That's why yesterday I posted that the system of monogamous marriages was invented to deal with both men's and women's natural sex urges...

For men, sex and the ability to sexually satiate a woman / women is a powerful aphrodisiac that strokes their sense of " manhood "or ego.
Domination and control too , is a part of it.


----------



## Deejo

michzz said:


> I have found that if one makes a genuine compliment but somewhre in the next couple of hours one makes an overt pass, then that negates the compliment as merely trolling for sex. In other words, the first part of the pass.
> 
> I'm not saying it doesn't work either.


This is where 'push/pull' plays a role. Pay a genuine compliment and then engage with someone else, or do something else that has nothing to do with the person you gave the compliment to.

You pull with the compliment. Then push away and voila ... you create interest that will lead to further interaction, or you create nothing at which point you have invested little and lost little.

Yes. This is the kind of stuff I was oblivious to. Learned it. Demonstrated it ... watched it work and was amazed. Watched it not work, and thus there was no huge personal investment.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Speak for yourself CM. *I do smashing in a herd.*
> 
> I C A N ' T B E L I E V E I J U S T T Y P E D T H A T !


:lol:
Anyway,
That first dress in those pics you posted that Friday night,
Was absolutely gorgeous!
Really, you look smoking in pencil skirts and dresses and heels.
Not many women could pull that off.

end T/J.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Ha. If I had magical powers, I would swap you (and other men who hold these similar attitudes) into a woman's body for a period of time, just so you could have a more realistic sense of (a) just how "easy" it is for women in the dating game and (b) just how "successfully" we subjugate men to our whims.
> 
> I think you would be surprised.


I have actually talked about 'game' with my significant other. She told me that she had a friend who used to compete with her peers in seeing who could pick up a man the fastest.

Her friend from the UK was the hands down winner as she was hot, dressed hot, and walked straight up to a guy at the bar, looked at him, smiled and said, "Fancy a f*ck?"

My lady friend watched the dude put down a 10 at the bar and walk off with her friend.

Yes dear friends ... some women ARE like that.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Deejo said:


> I have actually talked about 'game' with my significant other. She told me that she had a friend who used to compete with her peers in seeing who could pick up a man the fastest.
> 
> Her friend from the UK was the hands down winner as she was hot, dressed hot, and walked straight up to a guy at the bar, looked at him, smiled and said, "Fancy a f*ck?"
> 
> My lady friend watched the dude put down a 10 at the bar and walk off with her friend.
> 
> Yes dear friends ... some women ARE like that.


She had Game


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> . She told me that she had a friend who used to compete with her peers in seeing who could pick up a man the fastest.


I have seen ^^this when I was single.
I used to hang out with a group of women sometimes and they would bet each other.
It was fun looking at how they operated from a different perspective.
A " _way of seeing_ " if you please.

What I noticed is that women's methods are radically different to men's.
They were more likely to get a positive response.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Caribbean Man said:


> I have seen ^^this when I was single.
> I used to hang out with a group of women sometimes and they would bet each other.
> It was fun looking at how they operated from a different perspective.
> A " _way of seeing_ " if you please.
> 
> What I noticed is that women's methods are radically different to men's.
> They were more likely to get a positive response.


Seen this plenty as well, probably why I don't get offended or insulted at the thought of a man having 'game' seen it to much from females lol
Can't control what other's do only how you respond so why get bothered about it.


----------



## Wiserforit

Deejo said:


> I would never, ever, put into the hands of a teenager, ANY of the PUA books I read.


That's pretty telling. 

If it's all about self-improvement and understanding women of course, there wouldn't be any need to conceal this from them. I'm definitely showing it to mine as an example of covert aggression.




> This is where 'push/pull' plays a role. Pay a genuine compliment and then engage with someone else, or do something else that has nothing to do with the person you gave the compliment to.
> 
> You pull with the compliment. Then push away and voila ... you create interest that will lead to further interaction, or you create nothing at which point you have invested little and lost little.


Right, so after the compliment to one person, you use another person as an object, pretending to be interested in speaking with them about something when you are really interested in the person you complimented, deceiving two or more people for the purpose of primarily deceiving just one. 

It demonstrates to me the lack of confidence in yourself as _being_ interesting, and substituting in its place "I'm going to be interesting by giving mixed signals". 

Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to deceive.


----------



## Deejo

Wiserforit said:


> That's pretty telling.
> 
> If it's all about self-improvement and understanding women of course, there wouldn't be any need to conceal this from them. I'm definitely showing it to mine as an example of covert aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, so after the compliment to one person, you use another person as an object, pretending to be interested in speaking with them about something when you are really interested in the person you complimented, deceiving two or more people for the purpose of primarily deceiving just one.
> 
> It demonstrates to me the lack of confidence in yourself as _being_ interesting, and substituting in its place "I'm going to be interesting by giving mixed signals".
> 
> Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to deceive.


Yes.

I feel most fulfilled and happy when obfuscating and deceiving others ... and the beauty of it? They seem to really enjoy themselves when I'm deceiving them. It's the Goddamndest thing. And sometimes I manipulate and deceive to get a _negative_ response or reaction from someone I am interacting with. Hell, that's even easier. And the entire time I can declare that I'm being honest, open and genuine. And they never really know which it is ... imagine that?


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> I quietly stalked your Significant Other on Facebook when you linked her. She is hot, a 10 for sure...and loves the outdoors??? I was thinking...holy crap! Deejo scored the perfect girl for himself!


Oh pishaw ... thank you Trenton. I think she is wonderful. I love her very much.

I know there is a fundamental dichotomy to this stuff.

I recognize that it looks thoroughly evil to people. No ... I would never want an impressionable young man, or my son, to learn about women via "The LayGuide". I bought it and read it knowing full well what I was getting into, warts and all.

I tried to take what I learned and make it 'a better way'.

Can't please all of the people all of the time.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> I agree with this but if you created your boundary because of an inadequacy that you felt defined you (regardless of whether it did or didn't), that boundary may disappear.
> 
> I remember I chipped my tooth about 10 years ago from biting on a microphone (long story). I felt like I looked like a freaking hillbilly (and not a hot, daisy duke hillbilly). I didn't smile and I was more afraid than ever to talk with people (something I LOVE doing). I didn't have the $1,400 to get it fixed. My friend gave me the money to have it fixed as a birthday present.
> 
> After having it fixed, phew, I felt free to be myself again.
> 
> So I understand this idea that something you dislike about yourself can have you create boundaries that you might not acknowledge at the time.
> 
> You fix it and the boundaries are removed.


You seem to think that those who get cosmetic surgery have an inadequacy. I can assure you that my boundaries were in tact prior to surgery and still exist.


----------



## Entropy3000

Deejo said:


> Yes.
> 
> I feel most fulfilled and happy when obfuscating and deceiving others ... and the beauty of it? They seem to really enjoy themselves when I'm deceiving them. It's the Goddamndest thing. And sometimes I manipulate and deceive to get a _negative_ response or reaction from someone I am interacting with. Hell, that's even easier. And the entire time I can declare that I'm being honest, open and genuine. And they never really know which it is ... imagine that?


I never kept anything from my wife. I told her I was going to fall back in love with her and that I was going to lead our marriage back to what we have had in the past. So no deception needed by me at all.

Again this is in the context of a marriage. Not ONSs.


----------



## FalconKing

Deejo said:


> Yes.
> 
> I feel most fulfilled and happy when obfuscating and deceiving others ... and the beauty of it? They seem to really enjoy themselves when I'm deceiving them. It's the Goddamndest thing. And sometimes I manipulate and deceive to get a _negative_ response or reaction from someone I am interacting with. Hell, that's even easier. And the entire time I can declare that I'm being honest, open and genuine. And they never really know which it is ... imagine that?


I'm really getting frustrated reading some of the responses you are getting. You are apparently manipulative and quite devious because you can objectively explain and execute flirtation Because you know how to "hit it off" with women. 

And for the record there are a lot of things a young teenager shouldn't be given that adults may use.


----------



## Deejo

FalconKing said:


> I'm really getting frustrated reading some of the responses you are getting. You are apparently manipulative and quite devious because you can objectively explain and execute flirtation Because you know how to "hit it off" with women.
> 
> And for the record there are a lot of things a young teenager shouldn't be given that adults may use.


I knew I was opening an ugly, smelly, can of worms when I created the thread.

I'm certainly not trying to bait anyone.

I'm already wishing I hadn't responded to Wiserforit as I did. Don't want to remove it now that it has been quoted a few times. I was being a smart-ass and it doesn't help the conversation, just makes it more confusing.

I just think using strategies or tactics in human interactions designed to elicit certain reactions and calling them deceiftul or disingenuous is the equivalent of calling a quarter back sneak or screen pass deceitful or disingenuous for fooling the other team and putting points on the board. 

It isn't bad ... it's part of the game. But then again, some people hate football.


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> Actually, you're reading wrong if you're interpreting my remarks that way and since you were not specific I will address it just in case.
> 
> It's whether or not a manipulative and devious person with ill intentions could take the material and use it for bad that is the issue, not whether Deejo would ever do that.


hahaha I wasn't talking about you but thanks for your response. People use many things for bad though, so if you think like that you will take away a lot of things. Guns, cars, money, loved ones, the bible..etc.. I believe in holding people accountable. It's like a hero and a villain with the same abilities. If two men have a power and one uses it for good and one uses it for bad, why take the power away? Why not just say one man does right and one does wrong?


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> Why not improve it and make it more good than bad? I'm really confused as to why this is such a foreign concept.


It's not a foreign concept. It's just that nothing is safeguarded from human error and selfish and destructive people. And we have to hold people accountable for the decisions they make.


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> Righto but if we recognize flaws and do not attempt to fix them. Well then?


That's what some people do. that's why some people read these books and do what Deejo is doing. As for the other guys doing bad things? He doesn't want our help. He needs a therapist. And he has to want the help himself.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Remember ... this is your thread by proxy


And it's been quite a ride. Thanks, Deejo.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> You're comparing football to human interactions when dealing with love and that doesn't drop any red flags (or whatever stupid flag colors they throw in football when there's a foul)?
> 
> Seriously?!?!


LOL, that was a layup ... (basketball reference)

The point is, that ALL of the human interaction stuff laid out in the PUA books is nothing new. It is old stuff, simply repackaged and repurposed.

"Making People Glad To Do What You Want"

Does that sound like manipulation and deceit?
Dating strategy?
Business strategy?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> LOL, that was a layup ... (basketball reference)
> 
> The point is, that ALL of the human interaction stuff laid out in the PUA books is nothing new. It is old stuff, simply repackaged and repurposed.
> 
> "Making People Glad To Do What You Want"
> 
> Does that sound like manipulation and deceit?
> Dating strategy?
> Business strategy?


.......or maybe a book like this,
"... _How to win friends and influence people_...."

That could come off as manipulative too.
But I firmly believe that every person is responsible for their view.

That is why I love abstract and fractal art .
It is never " what you see is what you get." You have to THINK it through.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

waiting for it to get to 100 pages...


----------



## Caribbean Man

ScarletBegonias said:


> waiting for it to get to 100 pages...



This would be the best 100 pages on TAM.


----------



## Davelli0331

Caribbean Man said:


> This would be the best 100 pages on TAM.


Someone post something inflammatory and slightly derailing.

I have faith we can make it to 100.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Thank you. That's not why I do smashing in a herd though...it's my glowing personality to be sure!


Trenton,
Where is your sister Catherine?
I really miss her input on this thread.
I like her, and I honestly think she has good " game."
Think you can get her on the thread before it closes?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I have the urge to post two wildly different men I'm attracted to and have the lot analyze that.


----------



## Deejo

Caribbean Man said:


> .......or maybe a book like this,
> "... _How to win friends and influence people_...."
> 
> That could come off as manipulative too.
> But I firmly believe that every person is responsible for their view.
> 
> That is why I love abstract and fractal art .
> It is never " what you see is what you get." You have to THINK it through.


Which was pretty much my point.

"Making People Glad To Do What You Want" is the ENTIRE point of what I do, what any man does. Meet a woman I am interested in, and navigate the interaction to make her feel good about having met me ... and want to get to know me better.

And yes, CM, "Making People Glad To Do What You Want" is a chapter right out of "How To Win Friends and Influence People"


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> And yes, CM, "Making People Glad To Do What You Want" is a chapter right out of "How To Win Friends and Influence People"


I know.

I read that book when I was 12 years old!


----------



## Davelli0331

Deejo said:


> Which was pretty much my point.
> 
> "Making People Glad To Do What You Want" is the ENTIRE point of what I do, what any man does. Meet a woman I am interested in, and navigate the interaction to make her feel good about having met me ... and want to get to know me better.
> 
> And yes, CM, "Making People Glad To Do What You Want" is a chapter right out of "How To Win Friends and Influence People"


I draw the line like this:

If you're emphasizing good points about yourself, i.e. not completely misrepresenting yourself, then I don't think that's deceit anymore than acting professional at a job interview is deceit. If you're using good social skills and situational awareness to promote a good, healthy interaction with someone irrespective of gender, I don't see much wrong with that. If it ends in mutually desired sex, so much the better.

It's when guys use this stuff to completely misrepresent who they are, puffing themselves up to some level of charm and masculinity that they don't truly possess in order to gain the approval of a woman that would not be interested in them otherwise, that I start to lose respect.


----------



## Deejo

Davelli0331 said:


> I draw the line like this:
> 
> If you're emphasizing good points about yourself, i.e. not completely misrepresenting yourself, then I don't think that's deceit anymore than acting professional at a job interview is deceit. If you're using good social skills and situational awareness to promote a good, healthy interaction with someone irrespective of gender, I don't see much wrong with that. If it ends in mutually desired sex, so much the better.
> 
> It's when guys use this stuff to completely misrepresent who they are, puffing themselves up to some level of charm and masculinity that they don't truly possess in order to gain the approval of a woman that would not be interested in them otherwise, that I start to lose respect.


And that, I agree with. I've said as much about pickup on these very boards before. Posted this back in 2010. In finding it at least I felt some relief that I haven't changed my position since that time.



> I bought a PUA book - it's in the Man Up books thread. It's name is pretty straightforward and doesn't invite a whole lot of introspection. It's called "The Lay Guide". And yes, without a doubt it works. But 'Gaming' believes it's own marketing material. The thrust is meeting women, talking to women, winning over women, sexing women. I used to think this was fundamentally disrespectful. I do not hold that view any longer.
> 
> However, for all of the really good stuff PUA technology has to offer, as various authors or 'gamers' will discuss their numerous conquests ... is that 'gaming' is also like a pyramid scheme. It is geared towards the next score and not a 'one and done' mentality. This is because if you are a 'gamer' trying to conduct a LTR, at some point with your partner, the game face has to come off. You have to just ... be. And the reality is, when you do that, you're just another schmuck. Gaming isn't about finding the girl of your dreams and settling down. It's about finding the girl of your dreams, tagging her and then seeing if you can go one up on her.
> 
> This is where I have to say that I really value the input of contributors like MEM, AtholK and BigBadWolf. Because despite referencing 'gaming' behavior and mechanics, all of them do so with a focus on instead of making hundreds of women burn with hot desire for your man-package, their advice is centered on just making one woman - the woman that counts, always and without question burn with hot desire for your man-package.
> 
> I support this 100%.
> 
> Doesn't mean that I won't continue to question, poke, prod, and occasionally challenge it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> But that's bad game. Those men haven't been reading their books either. Don't they know they are supposed to be all cool and indifferent to hot women. Otherwise they'll just get friendzoned?


While I get your sarcasm, the irony is that you're exactly right. It is bad game.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

coffee4me said:


> Some players want to win each and every game (have lots of sex), Some players see a bigger picture and want to win the season (relationship). When the players are playing on the same team (couple) they have winning years and losing years. If they are on a losing streak for too long they are sold. (divorce)


Or they bring in a new offensive and a defensive coordinator (counseling).  Fastastic analogy Coffee.


----------



## Caribbean Man

We have already established that honesty is the best policy in this whole thread.
That's not up for discussion, although, IMO, people are generally dishonest.[ YVMV ] It is a person's responsibility to have their own set of ethics which dictates their behaviour.
How someone else feels about you or how they approach you does not matter.
What matters most is your perception of self and your interpersonal , social skills.
What works for you may not work for someone else., because EVERYBODY is different, and that is Dejoo's point in this entire thread.
It worked for him , after he tweaked to fix the problems in _his_ social life.

No one author could write a book that can be a " custom tailored " solution for each reader's problems.
So the idea that a book is bad because it generalizes women is not reason enough to discredit it, by its very nature, it also generalizes its target group, men.

Women too, have game.
Men and women are analogous in this, and many other aspects.
I know because I see it all the time. some women leave things up to fate , and end up loosing. Others take matters into their own hands an work on themselves and their situation and become winners.

I could post a list of quite a few women here on TAM who IMO have good game......


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> What happens if you don't really notice hot women?
> Personally if there is a hot guy in the room my eyes will go to him, women don't really register for me.


Well then you're just weird. 

j/k

From what I gather, women notice other women. Women are constantly comparing. I'm not a woman, so... ymmv.

Just my perceptual hunch and conversational feedback.

This is pre-selection theory in a nutshell as I understand it: The desire to have what known desireable people like. In efffect, those people chose for you. As much as everyone, and I mean everyone, will say "hey, I go against the grain", "I do my own thing", "I don't follow the crowd" etc etc... its well established human psychology and it doesn't operate on a conscious level. We all do it to a degree, and it can't really be helped. Its part of being a social animal.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Caribbean Man said:


> I could post a list of quite a few women here on TAM who IMO have good game......


that sounds juicy


----------



## always_alone

coffee4me said:


> The offense (the men) want the ball (sex). The defense (the women) try to keep the ball. In the beginning of the game the offense is all about getting the ball and the defense is keeping it. Both are using different tactics to achieve their goals. Its confusing to both sides when the strategy changes. (defense just hands over the ball)


I find this analogy very depressing. I do not want to "keep the ball" or be on the defensive. I don't want to dodge and tackle, or attempt to score points. I don't want to strategize to achieve my goals at the expense of the other team. I don't want to compete for victory based on opposite goals.

I just want to be myself and enjoy the people around me. I want to connect and share in a way that I can be true to myself and he can be true to himself, and we can both help each other be the best people we can be.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> I wouldn't know how to. Send her a PM and let her know maybe. Although we chat on the boards, I've never chatted with her through PM or off the boards.


I have PMd with her on a few occasions. Been a while though. Some of the best and positive discourse about men and women I have ever had on TAM.

But she was less than happy with me in our last public exchange. Understatement. I guess that is part of being passionate about stuff. It cuts both ways.

But not a bad idea. I can always duck.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

always_alone said:


> I find this analogy very depressing. I do not want to "keep the ball" or be on the defensive. I don't want to dodge and tackle, or attempt to score points. I don't want to strategize to achieve my goals at the expense of the other team. I don't want to compete for victory based on opposite goals.
> 
> I just want to be myself and enjoy the people around me. I want to connect and share in a way that I can be true to myself and he can be true to himself, and we can both help each other be the best people we can be.


You could look at it that way or you could look at it that every team has both offense and defense and both sides do what is necessary to help the team win.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ScarletBegonias said:


> that sounds juicy


Ok Scarley
Here's my list.....

Slowly Getting Wiser [ bonjour mon chère! ]
Catherine [ This chick has brains!!!]
Southern Wife [ Knows how to pair her wines! ]
Bright Eyes [ This woman is definitely a fighter!]
SimplyAmorous[One of the sweetest voice/accent I've ever heard ]
Trenton [ I've told her this many times over ]
Coffe4me
Cosmos
Dolly
Lovely Girl
Created2Write
Scarlet
Old Girl [Physically fit and loves automatic weapons...HOT!]
EnjoliWoman 

These are just a few women IMO on these boards who have good "game ", swagger, style, suave,whatever you want to call it, there is something about them that makes them stand out , and that any man would be attracted to, even though they are not in their 20's.
Of course they may disagree, but this is just my opinion...
Haha!


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> While I get your sarcasm, the irony is that you're exactly right. It is bad game.


An old friend of mine is a very beautiful woman. The type where you really can't help but agree that she is beautiful, no matter what your subjective tastes are. She's also one of the nicest, sweetest people you could ever meet. She used to complain all the time that it was very difficult to get a date. Sure tons of "creeps" would hit on her, but all of the "nice guys" would be intimidated, assume that she was out of their league and never ask her out.

These "creeps" were the type of guys playing the type of games that so many people here are advocating as the best thing since sliced bread. The "nice guys" were the shy, interesting guys that really liked her and wanted to be nice to her.

See, she interpreted the indifference as, well, indifference. She thought that if a guy was paying attention to all women in the room that he wasn't that interested in her, or was just a player. She was sad at how difficult it was to find just a genuine guy that just wanted to get to know her better, without all of the games.

She did eventually marry. Not an alpha, not a bad boy, not a player. A genuinely nice guy


----------



## Blue Firefly

coffee4me said:


> I thought about what I learned about dating and football last year not all that different.


American football is a great analogy for the way you should do a lot of things in life.

You start with a game plan. You don't just go into the game cold. You devise your overall strategy.

Each possession has its own goal (touchdown, field goal, or running time off the clock)--an intermediate goal that supports your overall goal (winning the game).

Each series consists of:

1) Running a play (act)
2) Evaluating the results of the play (evaluate)
3) Making adjustments (improve)
4) Huddling and calling another play (plan)
5) Back to step 1--Running a play (act)

It's a perfect real-world example of the quality cycle.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> I could post a list of quite a few women here on TAM who IMO have good game......


OMG. That could be epic. 

Their game varies though from engaging and downright seductive to just playing with us.

And there is just all sorts of different game period.

You are an insitgator sir.


----------



## FalconKing

always_alone said:


> An old friend of mine is a very beautiful woman. The type where you really can't help but agree that she is beautiful, no matter what your subjective tastes are. She's also one of the nicest, sweetest people you could ever meet. She used to complain all the time that it was very difficult to get a date. Sure tons of "creeps" would hit on her, but all of the "nice guys" would be intimidated, assume that she was out of their league and never ask her out.
> 
> These "creeps" were the type of guys playing the type of games that so many people here are advocating as the best thing since sliced bread. The "nice guys" were the shy, interesting guys that really liked her and wanted to be nice to her.
> 
> See, she interpreted the indifference as, well, indifference. She thought that if a guy was paying attention to all women in the room that he wasn't that interested in her, or was just a player. She was sad at how difficult it was to find just a genuine guy that just wanted to get to know her better, without all of the games.
> 
> She did eventually marry. Not an alpha, not a bad boy, not a player. A genuinely nice guy


How's their sex life?


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You could look at it that way or you could look at it that every team has both offense and defense and both sides do what is necessary to help the team win.


Then there could be slapping on the behind.


----------



## always_alone

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You could look at it that way or you could look at it that every team has both offense and defense and both sides do what is necessary to help the team win.


If I am one team and he is the other, then I don't want to play. If we are both on the same team, then maybe I could be persuaded.


----------



## always_alone

Trenton said:


> haha
> 
> I find you and I think a lot alike.
> 
> I see Frenchfry, yourself and me having really great, interesting discussions over a bottle of wine.


Agreed!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> But then I definitely do differentiate between gaming and what Faithful Wife has called UYA. The former is all manipulative and deceitful, IMHO. The latter, though, I totally get. And I think it is what the majority here are talking about when talking about game. But, going back to coffee4me's scenario -- that is not successful UYA. And if he thinks so, he seriously needs to find someone else who will better appreciate his skills. Like you, for example.


"UYA" and PUA are the same thing. She just gave it a more palatable name because she doesn't like the mysognist connotation that comes with the word "pickup"! How many times do I have to tell you there's nothing manipulative or deceitful about it? This is FACT. That PUA prescribes teasing (neging), is not deceit. No where does PUA say to lie or trick her. Where are you getting this?

The guy in coffee's example wasn't deceiving. No one was being tricked. He definitely upped his appearance. Before he made that move, he was non-existent. After that move, he's met some new people, proven he's quick on his feet, he doesn't take himself too seriously, and he's bold. If I were him and didn't get a number but happened to see that girl again in a month... I'd continue the play by telling her I think we need to break up... we haven't talked in a month. Its something to talk about, and its pretty clever. Game is always on.

Now you have a story. You have history. You've built a basic rapport. You have something to talk about and be playful with. You've broken the ice. You keep talking, you connect on other things... you ask her out; she accepts; you keep builing the connection; you date; you get married; and the rest of her life she's going to be telling this awesome story of a guy who jumped into her circle of friends with this cheesy, fun, memorable approach. I actively try to make my pickups an experience. Hey, if I end up with this girl the rest of my life... I want her to always remember how funny, charming, witty, and creative I was or how magical the moment was (its not always cheesy humor). I want to have a story to cherish. When she tells her friends how we met, I want them to laugh and say "that's awesome" or "awwww". I want to give her something unique and distinct... something that separates me from every other guy, and every other story. There is no script, there is technique and creativity. This one is OUR story... and I think its important that she loves it. THAT makes me feel good. Let me guess, you don't like romantic comedies do you? Pickup isn't just about ONS. You can use it to get a ONS, but it really is just the art of upping your appeal. What someone does with that appeal is up to them.

You might not like social people. You might be an extreme introvert. I get it. But don't pretend you're seeing through some master plan of deception because you're just too smart for it. This is what socialization looks like. This is what social people, who have never picked up a PUA book in their lives, do.

This is game, and there's nothing deceitful about it.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Sorry but considering sports is not my thing, any reference or analogy involving sports is going to 1. fly over my head and 2. not interest me.
> 
> I could counter your analogy in saying that the sports you are talking about are being played with willing participants who know the rules and have had the opportunity to study possible outcomes. It's also more practice than play and the games are only played for one season a year.
> 
> Human relationships are more complex.


Trenton, I use analogies of all sorts in my thinking process. It helps me deal with this complexity. My thoughts are often spacial in nature and analogies help me form a cohesive thought. Yes occasionally I have moments of clarity and I use analogies to get there. Not always sports but why would I start elminating that?

Dealing with complexity often involves such generalizations and abstractions to see the bigger picture. Details are wonderful but that can obfiscate. 

Indeed war is very often used in analogies in business and matters of the heart. Obviously while such analogies be accurate we could readily see that some would not only not see these but may also be offended.

But your sports anaology is very good here. Indeed few woman are gamed who are not a willing participant unless the guy slips her a roofy or physically grabs her. Many women are engaged for the game. They want the interaction from an interesting man. I am not talking about pure raw PUA here. I think we are way passed that and have been for some time.

So many women in a social setting are at the very least soaking up the attention. Attention can be crack for some. Indeed they revel in guys taking their shot. Shooting down some who use lines with them. Many will say, :give me a line I have not heard before and you can sit down ... or something similar". No many women love the game. Even some married women eat it up. They are bored and go out with the girls and they want that interaction. I am not saying all women ... but it would be disengenuous to say that many women eat up this game and even attached women will use it as a gauge that they still have it. They may call it harmful flirting. But a guy who is obviously trying to game them in an engaging non threatening way is very much a good time for them.

When I see a guy in obvious game mode with a woman or a group of women, it is not his actions that make one shake their head ... it is the reaction that often makes one shake their head. Like the earlier example used when the guy put his arm around the girl and the inteaction ended up in the group of girls hugging this guy. If that is what women think is a quality guy then please excuse my face palm. yes it is a guy with game and yes he will get laid often. It is display of confidence. But GMAFB. It is a pure PUA play. Nothing genuine about this. At the least, it is pragmatic. He may be a good guy underneath but he indeed is going to be rewarded for this PUA activity. Why should he not continue it? It is women who reward him.

Now go ahead and beat me up on this folks. But if you say that there are not a significant number of women like this I can only tell you that you need to get out more. Are they mostly young. Probably. But I do not think the game stops. I think it works on women at a certain point of their lives when they want to feel young. Just like the older guy trying to use PUA to pickup women. He wants to feel like he still has it. Same game.


----------



## always_alone

FalconKing said:


> How's their sex life?


Last I heard, just fine. But, honestly, we haven't been in touch for a long while and I am not privy to the details.

I get that some women get bored or turned off (or whatever it is that happens in their relationships) and may need to be wooed (or seek counselling or whatever) to check back in. But I do not buy this trope that women do not like nice guys or will automatically lose interest in them

My SO is an unbelievably nice guy who goes out of his way to look after me and everyone else around him -- and I find this quality immensely attractive. It really is the key that made me first want to be with him and keeps me wanting to stay. The example he sets helps me to be a nicer, better person.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> "UYA" and PUA are the same thing. She just gave it a more palatable name because she doesn't like the mysognist connotation that comes with the word "pickup"! How many times do I have to tell you there's nothing manipulative or deceitful about it? This is FACT. That PUA prescribes teasing (neging), is not deceit. No where does PUA say to lie or trick her. Where are you getting this?


I have posted several concrete examples straight from mmsl and PUA literature that are unquestionably about deceitful manipulation. And not just in my own crazy mind, but also agreed to by others on this thread -- even those defending game.

The OP himself has acknowledged that much of it is about trickery, and has posted examples of this -- and the techniques he uses that are based in deceit.

A lot of it, even the stuff geared towards building attraction in a monogamous relationship, is about trickery, lies, and manipulation.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Well then you're just weird.
> 
> j/k


Well no one has ever accused me of being normal lol so you may be right.
I do have ADHD though so that might play a part in it.



> From what I gather, women notice other women. Women are constantly comparing. I'm not a woman, so... ymmv.
> 
> Just my perceptual hunch and conversational feedback.


I agree many women notice other women, the ones I know who notice other women's clothing ect (or verbally point out) also follow all the latest fashion and beauty and pretty malleable, I can definitely see this 'game' working on them. 

I do wonder if where your raised has a influence on how this certain game works.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok Scarley
> Here's my list.....
> 
> Slowly Getting Wiser [ bonjour mon chère! ]
> Catherine [ This chick has brains!!!]
> Southern Wife [ Knows how to pair her wines! ]
> Bright Eyes [ This woman is definitely a fighter!]
> SimplyAmorous[One of the sweetest voice/accent I've ever heard ]
> Trenton [ I've told her this many times over ]
> Coffe4me
> Cosmos
> Dolly
> Lovely Girl
> Created2Write
> Scarlet
> Old Girl [Physically fit and loves automatic weapons...HOT!]
> EnjoliWoman
> 
> These are just a few women IMO on these boards who have good "game ", swagger, style, suave,whatever you want to call it, there is something about them that makes them stand out , and that any man would be attracted to, even though they are not in their 20's.
> Of course they may disagree, but this is just my opinion...
> Haha!


These ladies made my list as well. All of them. I am sure there are many more.

All these women are engaging in their own way.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

FalconKing said:


> How's their sex life?


That's a good question. Wondering if the "lack" of Alpha is not causing enough spark, but she just may not be able to get ENOUGH of her supportive and loving husband and dousing him with love and affection, because she's been through enough Alpha's to know what she has


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> Like the earlier example used when the guy put his arm around the girl and the inteaction ended up in the group of girls hugging this guy. If that is what women think is a quality guy then please excuse my face palm. yes it is a guy with game and yes he will get laid often. It is display of confidence. But GMAFB. It is a pure PUA play. Nothing genuine about this. At the least, it is pragmatic. He may be a good guy underneath but he indeed is going to be rewarded for this PUA activity. Why should he not continue it? It is women who reward him.


I agree 100% with the face palm on this one. But I had forgotten that the women ended up hugging him at the end of this story.

Double face palm.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> An old friend of mine is a very beautiful woman. The type where you really can't help but agree that she is beautiful, no matter what your subjective tastes are. She's also one of the nicest, sweetest people you could ever meet. She used to complain all the time that it was very difficult to get a date. Sure tons of "creeps" would hit on her, but all of the "nice guys" would be intimidated, assume that she was out of their league and never ask her out.
> 
> These "creeps" were the type of guys playing the type of games that so many people here are advocating as the best thing since sliced bread. The "nice guys" were the shy, interesting guys that really liked her and wanted to be nice to her.
> 
> See, she interpreted the indifference as, well, indifference. She thought that if a guy was paying attention to all women in the room that he wasn't that interested in her, or was just a player. She was sad at how difficult it was to find just a genuine guy that just wanted to get to know her better, without all of the games.
> 
> She did eventually marry. Not an alpha, not a bad boy, not a player. A genuinely nice guy


And I find major flaws with both these types. There is a middle ground. I am betting that she found one of these guys. 

A "good guy". A good guy has more skills than that first group. How these skills were attained does not matter. But he also has self esteem and does not live his life in fear. He probably has more true confidence than either group. He has a little bit of bad boy in him. But he knows when to use that. He is someone you can trust though.

I think a good guy has a balance is what I am saying. He has too much self respect and respect of others to be a complete douche. Besides his standards are higher than either of the two groups mentioned.


----------



## Davelli0331

Entropy3000 said:


> So many women in a social setting are at the very least soaking up the attention. Attention can be crack for some. Indeed they revel in guys taking their shot. Shooting down some who use lines with them. Many will say, :give me a line I have not heard before and you can sit down ... or something similar". No many women love the game. Even some married women eat it up. They are bored and go out with the girls and they want that interaction. I am not saying all women ... but it would be disengenuous to say that many women eat up this game and even attached women will use it as a gauge that they still have it. They may call it harmful flirting. But a guy who is obviously trying to game them in an engaging non threatening way is very much a good time for them.
> 
> When I see a guy in obvious game mode with a woman or a group of women, it is not his actions that make one shake their head ... it is the reaction that often makes one shake their head. Like the earlier example used when the guy put his arm around the girl and the inteaction ended up in the group of girls hugging this guy. If that is what women think is a quality guy then please excuse my face palm. yes it is a guy with game and yes he will get laid often. It is display of confidence. But GMAFB. It is a pure PUA play. Nothing genuine about this. At the least, it is pragmatic. He may be a good guy underneath but he indeed is going to be rewarded for this PUA activity. Why should he not continue it? It is women who reward him.
> 
> Now go ahead and beat me up on this folks. But if you say that there are not a significant number of women like this I can only tell you that you need to get out more. Are they mostly young. Probably. But I do not think the game stops. I think it works on women at a certain point of their lives when they want to feel young. Just like the older guy trying to use PUA to pickup women. He wants to feel like he still has it. Same game.


QFT. 

I think several of the women contributing to this thread have shown that a woman who can't see through some of the more extreme PUA stuff has a lack of class, situational awareness, maturity, or just plain common sense.

That, or as Entropy says, enjoys the attention and therefore willfully rewards it.

ETA: By "several of the women contributing to this thread", I mean, many of you ladies show that you do have the class, maturity, and situational awareness to not crave this kind of attention or fall for it. Good counterexample.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Davelli0331 said:


> QFT.
> 
> I think several of the women contributing to this thread have shown that a woman who can't see through some of the more extreme PUA stuff has a lack of class, situational awareness, maturity, or just plain common sense.
> 
> That, or as Entropy says, enjoys the attention and therefore willfully rewards it.


It looks attractive to them. It doesn't mean it's good for them, will be good for them or has good intentions. That's what the conversation is about.


----------



## Entropy3000

Blue Firefly said:


> American football is a great analogy for the way you should do a lot of things in life.
> 
> You start with a game plan. You don't just go into the game cold. You devise your overall strategy.
> 
> Each possession has its own goal (touchdown, field goal, or running time off the clock)--an intermediate goal that supports your overall goal (winning the game).
> 
> Each series consists of:
> 
> 1) Running a play (act)
> 2) Evaluating the results of the play (evaluate)
> 3) Making adjustments (improve)
> 4) Huddling and calling another play (plan)
> 5) Back to step 1--Running a play (act)
> 
> It's a perfect real-world example of the quality cycle.


There are always halftime adjustments. The team that can adapt is favored.

Take what the defense gives you. LOL.

You can outsmart yourself for sure.

But there is something to be said for playing on the edge. Time management. 

Turnovers are bad. You have to be able to play under all type of conditions. If you do not play full out you can get hurt. 

Instant replay? Personal fouls? Taunting? Moves? Sitting on the bench is no fun.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> haha
> 
> I find you and I think a lot alike.
> 
> I see Frenchfry, yourself and me having really great, interesting discussions over a bottle of wine.


Instigstion

Isolation

Escalation

----


More PUA. But real positive networking from another view. This is not unlike the chai tea example from Deejo. 

We gravitate towards certain people. We ally with them and so on.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Ha. If I had magical powers, I would swap you (and other men who hold these similar attitudes) into a woman's body for a period of time, just so you could have a more realistic sense of (a) just how "easy" it is for women in the dating game and (b) just how "successfully" we subjugate men to our whims.
> 
> I think you would be surprised.


I hope you expand on this subject. This seems to me an area we might be able to connect or relate to.

The general male perception, I think, is that your average woman can walk up to a guy and say "take me home with you" and get a ONS with an average guy. The reverse certainly isn't true.

Or in dating, I think the average woman could ask out the average guy and almost certainly get a date. I've never turned down a woman of equivalent looks who expressed overt interest in me. On the other hand, I've been turned down by women of equivalent looks plenty of times. Learning pickup and improving my social skills, for me, was ultimately about restoring what I feel is the proper balance. I believe I should be able to easily appeal to a girl I rate the same as myself - its actually a notion frowned on in the literature, which says to think "no one is better than you". My goal was more modest.

From my perspective, dating is only hard for women when they insist on having a guy of higher rank than themselves. But I'm a guy... I can't say for sure. From my perspective, I'm going to go for a girl who looks at least as good as I think I do... no less. There are tons of them, and some of them show interest in me on looks alone... most still don't (if they are attracted to me, they're not showing it). Take away charm, boldness, wit and humor - become plain... and dating is a total crap shoot. A girl of equivalent looks as myself is probably about 20% likely to end up going on a date with me. Dial up the game and that number gets up around 90%... again, with women I would rate equal with myself on looks alone. There's obviously something going on there. Any of those women could have said ANYTHING to express interest in me, and I'd probably have gone out with them... even though I know they're not the hottest woman I could go pick up. If I'm single at the time and she looks good... cool... let's go out. Why say no? Dates are fun.

Rank being equal, I think getting a date is much harder for men. With men, the default answer seems to be yes. With women, the default answer seems to be no. So whereas all a woman has to do is AVOID GIVING the guy a reason to say no... a man has to GIVE a reason for her to say yes. Or I really am over valuing my looks in relation to hers. hahah


----------



## FalconKing

always_alone said:


> Last I heard, just fine. But, honestly, we haven't been in touch for a long while and I am not privy to the details.
> 
> I get that some women get bored or turned off (or whatever it is that happens in their relationships) and may need to be wooed (or seek counselling or whatever) to check back in. But I do not buy this trope that women do not like nice guys or will automatically lose interest in them
> 
> My SO is an unbelievably nice guy who goes out of his way to look after me and everyone else around him -- and I find this quality immensely attractive. It really is the key that made me first want to be with him and keeps me wanting to stay. The example he sets helps me to be a nicer, better person.


I was joking but I appreciate your response. I think women want a nice guy. But I think what happens is that some men put the woman's needs and wants above their own and are not honest about what they themselves want or need in a relationship. This is the other end of the spectrum for men. Some men are just so happy to have someone that they make all of the sacrifices in the relationship and are desperate to keep it. Sacrificing their own happiness and self respect. And they rationalize by telling themselves what a big person they are for putting up with so much. They are deathly afraid of being alone and have no self confidence. A book about game could help with this. They could learn that women are mortals and it's ok to have disagreements with women. And if you are miserable it's ok to want to be happy and not be with that person. 

Of course a self help book would help this but most young guys would probably be more interested in something specifically tailored for how to deal with women. I think if you gave a young man the option of reading a book titled "How to become a Better You" or "How to Attract Women and Have the Relationship of Your Dreams" the would probably read the latter.

I have no idea of those are real books...


----------



## Entropy3000

FalconKing said:


> How's their sex life?


Valid question.

On the positive side it seems they may be compatible.

I would be very concerned here if a women who had been mostly engaged with players and then settled for the nice guy. I would be worried ultimately about their long term sexual chemistry. Sexual compatibility is critical.

I can absolutely see a person maturing.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> If I am one team and he is the other, then I don't want to play. If we are both on the same team, then maybe I could be persuaded.


I totally agree with this. But I know I do not speak for most guys. I am all about the win-win. But depending on personalities a women may want a man who can challenege her and vice versa.

But I get what you mean here. 

The bottomline is there needs to be a real sexual attraction. Not just good friends. Men are not looking for another sister. They want and need a woman who is taken with the man sexually.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> I listed many reasons why a sports analogy would not interest me (hence not help me in any way) and why they are inadequate.
> 
> Listen, if sports analogies work for you and that's the kind of thing your relationship mimics, so be it.
> 
> It just isn't for me.
> 
> Funny part is my husband hates organized sports so we have that in common. It's fabulous!


How about chess? LOL.

Do you use analogies yourself. If so what?

History?

The universe?

Children?

Physics / Science?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> The trouble would be in finding an ONS that I wanted.
> 
> And I'm willing to bet, it's not that different for men. Sure they can find an ONS if they really want one. But when they see who it is with, do they really want it?


What would be the trouble in finding a ONS that you wanted?

Easy sex will often lower a guy's standards (not always, but overt sexuality is one of those things that does up a woman's sex rank). Its why young girls often become more sexual to get the attention of the guys they desire... but aren't getting otherwise. I don't think most guys (not the really hot guys) find it easy to find a ONS regardless, unless they lower their standards significantly (a woman of significantly lesser looks). Most of the ONS I've had... there was no explicit declaration that this was going to be a ONS. They just happen. I'm still not exactly sure how you "find" one. I know what she wants tonight, but I have no idea what she's going to want tomorrow. If I want one, I don't change anything I do... but honestly I generally don't want one. If I think someone is attractive, I want multiple night stands.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

michzz said:


> I have found that if one makes a genuine compliment but somewhre in the next couple of hours one makes an overt pass, then that negates the compliment as merely trolling for sex. In other words, the first part of the pass.
> 
> I'm not saying it doesn't work either.


Don't compliment unless she's already into you... and sparingly even then.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Don't compliment unless she's already into you... and sparingly even then.


How would this be beneficial within marriage?


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I hope you expand on this subject. This seems to me an area we might be able to connect or relate to.
> 
> The general male perception, I think, is that your average woman can walk up to a guy and say "take me home with you" and get a ONS with an average guy. The reverse certainly isn't true.
> 
> Or in dating, I think the average woman could ask out the average guy and almost certainly get a date. I've never turned down a woman of equivalent looks who expressed overt interest in me. On the other hand, I've been turned down by women of equivalent looks plenty of times. Learning pickup and improving my social skills, for me, was ultimately about restoring what I feel is the proper balance. I believe I should be able to easily appeal to a girl I rate the same as myself - its actually a notion frowned on in the literature, which says to think "no one is better than you". My goal was more modest.
> 
> From my perspective, dating is only hard for women when they insist on having a guy of higher rank than themselves. But I'm a guy... I can't say for sure. From my perspective, I'm going to go for a girl who looks at least as good as I think I do... no less. There are tons of them, and some of them show interest in me on looks alone... most still don't (if they are attracted to me, they're not showing it). Take away charm, boldness, wit and humor - become plain... and dating is a total crap shoot. A girl of equivalent looks as myself is probably about 20% likely to end up going on a date with me. Dial up the game and that number gets up around 90%... again, with women I would rate equal with myself on looks alone. There's obviously something going on there. Any of those women could have said ANYTHING to express interest in me, and I'd probably have gone out with them... even though I know they're not the hottest woman I could go pick up. If I'm single at the time and she looks good... cool... let's go out. Why say no? Dates are fun.
> 
> Rank being equal, I think getting a date is much harder for men. With men, the default answer seems to be yes. With women, the default answer seems to be no. So whereas all a woman has to do is AVOID GIVING the guy a reason to say no... a man has to GIVE a reason for her to say yes. Or I really am over valuing my looks in relation to hers. hahah


Yes the walk a mile in my shoes cuts both ways.


----------



## FalconKing

Therealbrighteyes said:


> How would this be beneficial within marriage?


About as beneficial as, while being married, waiting to have sex with your husband so he wouldn't think you were easy.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

FalconKing said:


> About as beneficial as, while being married, waiting to have sex with your husband so he wouldn't think you were easy.


If I understand you correctly, you mean not beneficial at all?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Wiserforit said:


> Right, so after the compliment to one person, you use another person as an object, pretending to be interested in speaking with them about something when you are really interested in the person you complimented, deceiving two or more people for the purpose of primarily deceiving just one.
> 
> It demonstrates to me the lack of confidence in yourself as _being_ interesting, and substituting in its place "I'm going to be interesting by giving mixed signals".
> 
> Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we practice to deceive.


No, its human psychology. Why is the other person an object? Why is it pretending? This is just a pattern of social interaction. Recognizing and practicing it doesn't make it fake for having recognized it. If someone does this without having such recognition, is it fake then? No. Awareness of the role of an action in the grand social scheme, does not make the action disingenuous.

I've moved on to secondary conversations with girls other than the one I was after. I've quite often ended up WITH that girl and not the one I targeted because I liked her. It is not this rigid thing you mistake it to be.

You don't get it. Game is ALWAYS on and its used on everyone. Social people just call it being social. People who are not naturally social, just brain their way through it and recognize the patterns. In the same manner, a naturally social person might really need to study the hell out of math to become proficient. Math comes to me pretty naturally. Everyone else should stop trying so hard and faking it. 

We all get different gifts. I take what I started with and use it to add more tools. What do you do?


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> How would this be beneficial within marriage?


I think there can be a point where this can become onesided. Overdone perhaps. Where the compliments are so often they lose their luster. Or
if it is a manipulation with an expected reward.

That said, I think if you have something good to say it is foolish to hold it back. Let it fly.

It would only be a concern if the relationship was one where the guy is a Nice Guy. 

But you know what? Screw that. I think men should make an affirmation to compliment their wife everyday on something. Not just how great her @$$ looks either. But how thoughtful she is. Something about the woman herself. Do this just because ... you are not an @$$hole.


----------



## FalconKing

Therealbrighteyes said:


> If I understand you correctly, you mean not beneficial at all?


Nope. To be honest though, certain things I would do in marriage I wouldn't do when first meeting a woman. I am not buying a woman a drink so she can talk to me. But if she is my wife or an established girlfriend, that's different. Some may feel the same about sex. It's just about not giving too much of yourself too soon and feeling each other out. IMO


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> I find this analogy very depressing. I do not want to "keep the ball" or be on the defensive. I don't want to dodge and tackle, or attempt to score points. I don't want to strategize to achieve my goals at the expense of the other team. I don't want to compete for victory based on opposite goals.
> 
> I just want to be myself and enjoy the people around me. I want to connect and share in a way that I can be true to myself and he can be true to himself, and we can both help each other be the best people we can be.


Fantastic! You want the same thing I do!

Where we lose each other I suppose, is on the perspective front. You, Trenton and others see these exchanges as fundamentally contrived, and inauthentic ... if not outright deceitful.

To me? Games aren't bad. We grow up playing games. Games teach us things, lots of things. Not all games need to be competition. But competition, without question, is fundamental to the human condition. My perspective? We never stop playing games ... ever.

The goal of my game is two winners. 

I still think this entire discussion has been worthwhile, even if we haven't (forgive the sports analogy) moved the goal-posts very far.


----------



## FalconKing

Entropy3000 said:


> I think there can be a point where this can become onesided. Overdone perhaps. Where the compliments are so often they lose their luster. Or
> if it is a manipulation with an expected reward.
> 
> That said, I think if you have something good to say it is foolish to hold it back. Let it fly.
> 
> It would only be a conern if the relationship was one where the guy is a Nice Guy.
> 
> But you know what? Screw that. I think men should make an affirmation to compliment their wife everyday on something. Not just how great her @$$ looks either. But how thoughtful she is. Something about the woman herself. Do this just because ... you are not an @$$hole.


If all efforts are genuinely appreciated then I think most people would never get tired of doing nice things for someone.


----------



## Entropy3000

FalconKing said:


> Nope. To be honest though, certain things I would do in marriage I wouldn't do when first meeting a woman. I am not buying a woman a drink so she can talk to me. But if she is my wife or an established girlfriend, that's different. Some may feel the same about sex. It's just about not giving too much of yourself too soon and feeling each other out. IMO


Kinda like when Leonard told Penny I love you.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

FalconKing said:


> Nope. To be honest though, certain things I would do in marriage I wouldn't do when first meeting a woman. I am not buying a woman a drink so she can talk to me. But if she is my wife or an established girlfriend, that's different. Some may feel the same about sex. It's just about not giving too much of yourself too soon and feeling each other out. IMO


I agree. I certainly am not for constant praise because it will eventually come across as insincere and kiss ass-ish but I honestly can't understand holding one back within a relationship if you really want to give one.


----------



## Entropy3000

Deejo said:


> Fantastic! You want the same thing I do!
> 
> Where we lose each other I suppose, is on the perspective front. You, Trenton and others see these exchanges as fundamentally contrived, and inauthentic ... if not outright deceitful.
> 
> To me? Games aren't bad. We grow up playing games. Games teach us things, lots of things. Not all games need to be competition. But competition, without question, is fundamental to the human condition. My perspective? We never stop playing games ... ever.
> 
> The goal of my game is two winners.
> 
> I still think this entire discussion has been worthwhile, even if we haven't (forgive the sports analogy) moved the goal-posts very far.


How boring my marriage ... my life rather would be if I could not play with my wife in this manner. 

Men and women who are into each other love this kind of play. It effects them both mentally and physically. One should date their wife.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I hope you expand on this subject. This seems to me an area we might be able to connect or relate to.
> 
> The general male perception, I think, is that your average woman can walk up to a guy and say "take me home with you" and get a ONS with an average guy. The reverse certainly isn't true.
> 
> Or in dating, I think the average woman could ask out the average guy and almost certainly get a date. I've never turned down a woman of equivalent looks who expressed overt interest in me. On the other hand, I've been turned down by women of equivalent looks plenty of times. Learning pickup and improving my social skills, for me, was ultimately about restoring what I feel is the proper balance. I believe I should be able to easily appeal to a girl I rate the same as myself - its actually a notion frowned on in the literature, which says to think "no one is better than you". My goal was more modest.
> 
> From my perspective, dating is only hard for women when they insist on having a guy of higher rank than themselves. But I'm a guy... I can't say for sure. From my perspective, I'm going to go for a girl who looks at least as good as I think I do... no less. There are tons of them, and some of them show interest in me on looks alone... most still don't (if they are attracted to me, they're not showing it). Take away charm, boldness, wit and humor - become plain... and dating is a total crap shoot. A girl of equivalent looks as myself is probably about 20% likely to end up going on a date with me. Dial up the game and that number gets up around 90%... again, with women I would rate equal with myself on looks alone. There's obviously something going on there. Any of those women could have said ANYTHING to express interest in me, and I'd probably have gone out with them... even though I know they're not the hottest woman I could go pick up. If I'm single at the time and she looks good... cool... let's go out. Why say no? Dates are fun.
> 
> Rank being equal, I think getting a date is much harder for men. With men, the default answer seems to be yes. With women, the default answer seems to be no. So whereas all a woman has to do is AVOID GIVING the guy a reason to say no... a man has to GIVE a reason for her to say yes. Or I really am over valuing my looks in relation to hers. hahah


So you have managed your "game" for long enough, that you have a process for getting into and out of it? And you know what percentage difference in advantage it gives you?

Wow.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Deejo said:


> I have actually talked about 'game' with my significant other. She told me that she had a friend who used to compete with her peers in seeing who could pick up a man the fastest.
> 
> Her friend from the UK was the hands down winner as she was hot, dressed hot, and walked straight up to a guy at the bar, looked at him, smiled and said, "Fancy a f*ck?"
> 
> My lady friend watched the dude put down a 10 at the bar and walk off with her friend.
> 
> Yes dear friends ... some women ARE like that.


I experimented with something similar ONCE... but with a little more background.

Met a girl online, on a forum. Never much discussion, just sort of a "hey, we live in the same town" kind of thing. A "we should meet up!" that neither of us really pursued. I creeped her pics because, well, I'm pretty sure that's required internet behavior. 

She was decent looking... but I wasn't really into her. In terms of looks I was probably a bit higher. So one day, not having talked for months after our initial converstations, I get a message asking how I was doing. I was really just... well... I didn't care about anything that day. I jumped out with "Pretty sh*tty. Stress at work. I really need a blowjob." We'd never said anything sexual before. Lo and behold she replied with something like "I might be able to help you with that". I thought she was joking at first, but she sent me her address. I showed up at lunch, we had some weird small talk before she ushered me into the bedroom.

Got a bj. We laughed about how crazy and off the wall it was and I went back to work.

So I'm 1 for 1 with jumping out like that. Sometimes I wonder if the same thing would have happened if said in real life rather than on the internet. I doubt it... but who knows. I'll have to go do some research. j/k


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I experimented with something similar ONCE... but with a little more background.
> 
> Met a girl online, on a forum. Never much discussion, just sort of a "hey, we live in the same town" kind of thing. A "we should meet up!" that neither of us really pursued. I creeped her pics because, well, I'm pretty sure that's required internet behavior.
> 
> She was decent looking... but I wasn't really into her. In terms of looks I was probably a bit higher. So one day, not having talked for months after our initial converstations, I get a message asking how I was doing. I was really just... well... I didn't care about anything that day. I jumped out with "Pretty sh*tty. Stress at work. I really need a blowjob." We'd never said anything sexual before. Lo and behold she replied with something like "I might be able to help you with that". I thought she was joking at first, but she sent me her address. I showed up at lunch, we had some weird small talk before she ushered me into the bedroom.
> 
> Got a bj. We laughed about how crazy and off the wall it was and I went back to work.
> 
> So I'm 1 for 1 with jumping out like that. Sometimes I wonder if the same thing would have happened if said in real life rather than on the internet. I doubt it... but who knows. I'll have to go do some research. j/k


If I go back into the game I'm going to have to try that one. I was always one for just raising one's own appearance and then being direct with the ones you want to pull these things on. But now I question, if you are fully in the game can you be in a relationship or want one?


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> The OP himself has acknowledged that much of it is about trickery, and has posted examples of this -- and the techniques he uses that are based in deceit.
> 
> A lot of it, even the stuff geared towards building attraction in a monogamous relationship, is about trickery, lies, and manipulation.


If I said that, I mispoke. If you think it's what I said, let me be crystal clear about my position;

I steadfastly reject that how* I* choose to interact with a woman that I hope to establish and maintain a relationship with is based in trickery, lies, and manipulation.

You and the others here have been made privy to the source material I used to learn about dating and attraction. And you have strong opinions about that source material. That's fine too. I have made clear that I do not approve of the techniques used to harm or degrade anyone.

But don't pretend for a moment that you know what I 'did' or what it looked like. Because despite my attempt to make clear what it looks like ... seems apparent we aren't going to see it the same way.

I used to think just like you. I'm not kidding. And if you are happy thinking the way you do ... all the power to you. I don't knock success.


----------



## FalconKing

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I agree. I certainly am not for constant praise because it will eventually come across as insincere and kiss ass-ish but I honestly can't understand holding one back within a relationship if you really want to give one.


What if you are with a woman and you wake up next them and you are suddenly caught off guard by her beauty. She's not wearing any makeup and her hair is just slightly brushing her face. What if you tell her how beautiful she is and she thinks it's some kind of joke. She talks about how nasty she feels, how she needs a shower, how her skin is gross in the morning or something else. Completely killed that compliment. And if you try to convince her you mean it she blows you off. And it becomes some kind of stupid argument. The next morning, there she is again looking beautiful... Would you say something? Probably not. And just like that some BS starts in the relationship.


----------



## Entropy3000

FalconKing said:


> What if you are with a woman and you wake up next them and you are suddenly caught off guard by her beauty. She's not wearing any makeup and her hair is just slightly brushing her face. What if you tell her how beautiful she is and she thinks it's some kind of joke. She talks about how nasty she feels, how she needs a shower, how her skin is gross in the morning or something else. Completely killed that compliment. And if you try to convince her you mean it she blows you off. And it becomes some kind of stupid argument. The next morning, there she is again looking beautiful... Would you say something? Probably not. And just like that some BS starts in the relationship.


Grab her up. Take her to the shower. During the shower tell her how beautiful you find her as she is. Use the scrubber on her skin. And so on.
Use her excuses as opportunities.


----------



## FalconKing

Entropy3000 said:


> Grab her up. Take her to the shower. During the shower tell her how beautiful you find her as she is. Use the scrubber on her skin. And so on.
> Use her excuses as opportunities.


Yeah I hear you. And that's a good idea. But dancing around insecurities can be tiresome at times. Especially when you had the best of intentions.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> What does that mean, though, to be with the "best we can get"?


What _I_ mean by it, is that whether we're looking for a casual sex partner or a potential long term relationship, we all have standards. For some people a great sense of humor is one of the most important aspects of a person, so they will likely look for someone who can make them life. Others want to be with intelligent people. Others want to be with people who have similar interests. Others have physical standards. Regardless of what our standards are as individuals, we all are going to look for the person who will be, to us, the best. You know the phrase, "Never settle for second best"? That's what I mean.



> If you mean just that we will date around until we find someone that we are attracted to, that we think will be a great partner, that we love, and so on, then sure. We all want the best.
> 
> But for some people, there is no best. Just better. And so they always have an eye peeled for a chance to upgrade their current partner, no matter how great he/she is.


Well, I wasn't talking about just dating. With casual sex and ONS people aren't going to be looking for love, most likely. But the principle still applies. For the sake of being transparent here, if I were single and looking for a hook up, I wouldn't consider having sex with someone who was obese. He wouldn't have to be ripped and totally in shape, but I'm just not attracted to people who are overweight. I'd also be looking for a man who was intelligent and confident and masculine, but friendly and funny. So I would, naturally, look for men who meet that criteria. 

Also when it comes to casual sex and ONS, they're both going to inevitably move on to other people in most scenarios. When it comes to relationships, though, no one here has advocated moving on to the next person no matter how great they are, so I'm not sure where that's coming from... 



> That was the type I was talking about when I mentioned more and better. Those who just can't ever be satisfied with what they have because they are too hungry for more validation, approval, or whatever it is they are after.


Again, though, it depends on the context of what we're thinking about. If we're talking about casual sex, usually both people move on to being with other people. If we're talking about relationships this can happen as well, but for many different reasons. Yes, there are those who can't ever be satisfied, no matter how great their SO. Not sure how it applies to this discussion, though...



> So, ultimately, yes, I agree with you: there's a huge difference between being attracted to someone because you find them hot and being on a continual quest for self-worth and validation through sexual conquest.


Okay.


----------



## Created2Write

Deejo said:


> I have had casual sex since my divorce. I don't feel like any of it was stupid or shallow.
> 
> It was casual. What did I learn?
> 
> I'm not very good at, and don't derive nearly as much fulfillment or pleasure from casual sex as I do, loving, pair bonded sex.
> 
> But ... if I was attracted and it was obvious we were both game, then sex was had.


That's why I said it _can_ be shallow, not that it is always is.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> Grab her up. Take her to the shower. During the shower tell her how beautiful you find her as she is. Use the scrubber on her skin. And so on.
> Use her excuses as opportunities.


That's tough though. It's easy to come up with all kinds of cool things to say/do after the fact. When you are being genuine and sincere and the other person doesn't see it that way, typically we get gobsmacked and just yammer away a bunch of apologies......at least I do.


----------



## Entropy3000

FalconKing said:


> Yeah I hear you. And that's a good idea. But dancing around insecurities can be tiresome at times. Especially when you had the best of intentions.


I get what you are saying. But I suggest that taking these types of actions could go a long way in dealing with these things. It depends of course on the root cause.

Indeed though for various reasons, very beautiful women can have a poor or otherwise self image.
Logic tells me this is not something we can fix for them. But I want to believe we can help them through or at least not contribute to it.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> That's tough though. It's easy to come up with all kinds of cool things to say/do after the fact. When you are being genuine and sincere and the other person doesn't see it that way, typically we get gobsmacked and just yammer away a bunch of apologies......at least I do.


Oh yeah. Some bigger issues at work.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Entropy3000 said:


> I get what you are saying. But I suggest that taking these types of actions could go a long way in dealing with these things. It depends of course on the root cause.
> 
> Indeed though for various reasons, very beautiful women can have a poor or otherwise self image.
> Logic tells me this is not something we can fix for them. But I want to believe we can help them through or at least not contribute to it.


SO broke through my insecurities by basically bombarding me with compliments and getting "angry" at me when I'd cover up or say I needed to shower before sex or whatever. He'd get upset and say "you know just because YOU don't like your body or your scent doesn't mean I don't enjoy it and lust after it!! It isn't fair that your insecurities deprive me of the things I LOVE."
He was persistent and it paid off for him big time.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> An old friend of mine is a very beautiful woman. The type where you really can't help but agree that she is beautiful, no matter what your subjective tastes are. She's also one of the nicest, sweetest people you could ever meet. She used to complain all the time that it was very difficult to get a date. Sure tons of "creeps" would hit on her, but all of the "nice guys" would be intimidated, assume that she was out of their league and never ask her out.
> 
> These "creeps" were the type of guys playing the type of games that so many people here are advocating as the best thing since sliced bread. The "nice guys" were the shy, interesting guys that really liked her and wanted to be nice to her.
> 
> See, she interpreted the indifference as, well, indifference. She thought that if a guy was paying attention to all women in the room that he wasn't that interested in her, or was just a player. She was sad at how difficult it was to find just a genuine guy that just wanted to get to know her better, without all of the games.
> 
> She did eventually marry. Not an alpha, not a bad boy, not a player. A genuinely nice guy


Ah so, extroverted and bold = creep.
Shy and introverted = nice guy.

Exactly how is she going to get that shy nice guy if, being a shy nice guy, he never approaches? hmm? Having a been the shy nice guy most of my life, I will tell you what I KNOW. It doesn't work. Women want you as a friend. They don't want to date you. The shy nice guy waits for someone to show interest. He's passive. Assuming he musters the courage to talk at all, its clear he's shy. He's shy because he lacks confidence. He is afraid and socially ill equiped.

None of this is generally appealing to women. In my experience, confidence is KING with women. Shynes and social confidence, are utterly contradictory notions. I keep reading women say "vulnerability" and similar soft stuff... but you know what? Without his having initial confidence, you don't care about his vulnerability. His vulnerability is only valuable, if the ONLY one he's vulnerable with is YOU! If you chose on vulnerability, vulnerability would be in PUA books. See how this works ladies? YOU effectively wrote the books. The books are popular because they WORK. Please tell me you get the logic. Its a slam dunk.

Here's the rub though... the guy hitting on you with the cheezy game might be a perfectly nice guy. He just has bigger balls. Resistance for awareness of game, or being one of these chicks who says they don't want to be "picked up" is basically a sort of counter-culture response similar to "I don't wanna work for the man!" or "I only eat organic!" Its like intellectual's dating snobbery. I'm too smart for game to work on me. Uh huh. Human psychology is what it is... and you don't think it applies to you? haha ok.

I want something "real"... while real is somewhat undefined and ethereal. A pickup is real... I guy. Like you girl. Talk to me. If that shy guy came and talked you up, he's picking you up. He's not talking for his health. The only way you're going to learn anyone's true intentions is to spend more time.

Otherwise you're pining your dating hopes on random chance and circumstance. No wonder then you'd complain that dating is rough.


----------



## tacoma

Trenton said:


> I prefer global nuclear thermal war


You're so geeky!

I love that..


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Now that my day is done, I was trying to track back and even figure out what I was trying to say, but truth is, I don't have the energy so I'm going to try this again and explain myself and then you can pick it apart and maybe somehow we'll understand one another or find out we agree more than we disagree.
> 
> 1. My biggest problem with the PUA books are that they often assume that women as a whole are the same. We discussed in this thread some undertones within these books that will explain that women don't even know what they want, etc.


Firstly, and I know this opinion is widely unpopular these days, but I do believe that in some ways, generally, women are the same. I don't want to get into a debate about that, but I'll say that I believe our biological make up is, generally, the same, and I believe that there are psychological differences between men and women, generally. (There are always exceptions.) However, on an individual basis I also believe we're all different. We all have different ambitions, life experiences, etc.

Secondly, I both agree and disagree with the idea that women don't know what they want. I disagree that we, as a whole, don't know what we want, but I agree that we, and individuals, don't always know what we want. I've seen it in my experience with girls, especially when I was in high school. Girls who said they wanted one kind of guy, but never actually went out with that kind of guy. 

So, I both agree and disagree with the statement that women don't always know what they want. I don't think it's a universal rule, but I do think it happens.



> I don't agree with this. It doesn't work for me, it's never worked for me. So the question is whether I'm somewhere on the bell curve or completely off of it. My opinion is that I am on the bell curve but all I have to base on this is my experience. I do believe that women know what they want. *I think often it's not the sex a women is after but the affirmation that she is worth going after for sex.* I've noticed that even the humble enjoy being credited for their strengths.


I disagree and agree. I think there are many women who are after nothing but sex. I also think there are women who are after the affirmation that she's worth the pursuit. 



> 2. I have no interest in casual sex. I do find it stupid and for many reasons which if you want me to I will get into. Honestly, I'm not sure if it's shallow. It could be, it could be a lot of things...loneliness, desperation, confirmation that you're still attractive, a cry for love, a desire to orgasm, the thrill of the idea of getting what you desire. None of these things are either bad or good specifically. In my opinion, a person could achieve these things with less risk involved than there is with casual sex.


I've never had an interest in casual sex, either. The amount of STI's being created and spread in this country is astonishing to me. I definitely agree with your last sentence. However, I can see the appeal of it. 



> 3. I don't think we're a slave to our biology even if I do recognize biology is important and absolutely plays a role in our lives. I have seen people trump biology time and time again through use of their brains, their will, their passion. If we want to indulge in our biology then certainly that is easy to do. If we don't want to think that there is room for exception, change, and possibility that is also something we can choose to do in regards specifically to our biology. An important question to ask is at what point does our biology become an excuse to endorse behaviors we otherwise could not rectify with our view of ourselves or who we want to aspire to become?


True. While there are legitimate biological urges that both men and women have when it comes to sexuality, there is a line between satisfying that urge and personal responsibility. However, I don't see how that has to do with this discussion? I haven't seen anyone here use their biological urges to justify wrong behavior...perhaps this section wasn't meant to be relevant to the thread?



> Another question I have is at what point does a majority biology excuse become hurtful to a portion of society as it is so often practiced, upheld and justified?


I'm assuming your talking about STI's...I can't think of any other reason that two adults consenting to casual sex could hurt society. My only response to that is, for those who don't want to get an STI, they shouldn't have casual sex with anyone that hasn't proven that they're clean. But there are even adults who know that the person they're with has an STI and they _still_ choose to have sex with them. So, at that point, they're taking the risk themselves.



> 4. I'm all for choice. You have the choice to support or not support whatever, etc. You also have the choice to live your life as you want.


I agree. 



> 5. I'm also for taking responsibility for our choices. Which is why we need to ask important questions, share, gain solid research that is unbiased, check it again and again and again.


Wait, research about what? I'm a bit lost, I'm afraid...I agree that we need to take responsibility for our choices.



> 6. Men and women are in a very difficult dance with one another. It requires balance. Both genders deserve to be respected and understood, applauded for their strengths and held accountable for their weaknesses, etc.


I agree.



> 7. Just because something works most of the time doesn't mean there isn't a better way or that the method that is working is honorable or should be applauded.


Could you clarify what you're talking about here? I assume you're talking about "the game", and if so, I have to be honest and say, if something works most of the time and the people directly involved don't have any complaints, no one else has the right to say that it should be changed. If those people don't like it, they don't have to participate.



> 8. I think almost all of us agree on this thread that the end game is to find someone to love, to share a life with that is both compatible for us and that we can grow with.


Sure, yeah. How we go about finding that someone is up to us and, so long as it isn't illegal and the sex is consentual, no one else has the right to judge what we do.



> 9. As a person I truly value authenticity, vulnerability and humanity. This came with age and experience. If I were typing some 20 years ago you'd be reading entirely different text and I acknowledge this. Many of the things we're discussing do not in any way consider the things that I value most and this contributes to my ideology that they are stupid.
> 
> At the same time, I'm perfectly willing to understand that everyone is not going to be like me. I love this even! Many of the men who I disagree with regularly, I also hold in very high regard. Even women, like yourself, that I do not agree with (or haven't yet), I hold in high regard. I can tell from reading you that you are a great writer, a faithful wife, smart, seek understanding and wish to be understood. All great things that I value in an individual.


Thank you. You are definitely an intelligent, passionate woman, you take your friendships and relationships seriously, you're honest about your opinions, you're respectful even when people disagree with you(a trait I especially appreciate), and you sound like a really awesome woman. 



> But, that brings me to my last point, what we value speaks volumes about the world we create and this is why I always have something to say if I disagree. I want the world to be a better place for all. It's inclusive. It helps to get the opinions of others and muse it around in my head but I won't negate my values just to agree either.


Neither will I.


----------



## Deejo

Created2Write said:


> That's why I said it _can_ be shallow, not that it is always is.


Was agreeing with you C2W and holding up my temporary man-wh0rish ways as an example. Had to take it for a spin and see for myself how I felt about it.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Trenton said:


> Dunno...meaningful one night stand?
> 
> It's sort of an oxymoron...not to be difficult or anything!


Someone said the other day "I'm learning how to be single in a relationship". Doh, isn't that two opposite things?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I have posted several concrete examples straight from mmsl and PUA literature that are unquestionably about deceitful manipulation. And not just in my own crazy mind, but also agreed to by others on this thread -- even those defending game.
> 
> The OP himself has acknowledged that much of it is about trickery, and has posted examples of this -- and the techniques he uses that are based in deceit.
> 
> A lot of it, even the stuff geared towards building attraction in a monogamous relationship, is about trickery, lies, and manipulation.


Please repeat them then, because I haven't seen anything deceptive. Its so deceitful, it should be easy.

OP may characterize his game as deceptive, but what's he's described I don't find deceptive at all.

Where are the falsehoods? Quite to the contrary, most PUA explicitly states that lying is poor game. They say to be alpha. Say what you mean, be playful, tease, be blunt and don't worry about offending. "Give no f*cks" Someone who doesn't have a clue might think this is the same as being a total a$$hole... its not, but you're not tricking anyone.

Vulnerability is post-game, and that's what makes it valuable. The guy who bears his vulnerability to a woman right off the bat just comes off needy and weak. The guy who is really nice right off the bat is telling you how much better than him he thinks you are. You're not going to want to agree, but I'm serious; and most women pick up on it as exactly that. He put a low price on his affection... why should she value him?

You're only going to get the price you demand.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FalconKing said:


> I was joking but I appreciate your response. I think women want a nice guy. But I think what happens is that some men put the woman's needs and wants above their own and are not honest about what they themselves want or need in a relationship. This is the other end of the spectrum for men. Some men are just so happy to have someone that they make all of the sacrifices in the relationship and are desperate to keep it. Sacrificing their own happiness and self respect. And they rationalize by telling themselves what a big person they are for putting up with so much. They are deathly afraid of being alone and have no self confidence. A book about game could help with this. They could learn that women are mortals and it's ok to have disagreements with women.[/SIZE]


**sings**

"The more you suffer, the more it shows you really care?? Riight!? Yeeeaaa-ah!"


----------



## SimplyAmorous

This thread has taken a hard HIT on how I view MEN ........ Because of how I've always been treated by my White Knight .... I've had rose colored glasses on for some time - in regards to the opposite sex....this has been knocked down more than a few pegs just reading this thread... 

I can see THIS is the Modern World's new way, highly praised by the majority and amazingly it works it's results like a charm...women falling at the feet !! Can I really BLAME the men... NO , I can NOT... But I will still contend it is far from necessary for a woman like myself.. 

I am "Old fashioned" & I prefer Chivalrous men.

I had a very mushy exchange with my husband last night ..with my expressing to him how very Thankful I am - to how he has always been , lived , his patience, his consistency, his honesty, his heart on his sleeve all for me...giving, honorable...I'll shut up now...but a well of appreciation there. 

He told me he is still reading a book online about being "*a MAN*" (he keeps forgetting the title)..... even it was going on about "*GAME*"...that once you meet a woman >> pull back... leave her for a day - don't call, you don't want to look desperate , too needy - God forbid that is digging your grave young man! Plant a seed of jealousy ....she doesn't need to know SHE is "the prize"... keep her guessing........

He went on to say -he would never do that...it's just *NOT* WHO HE IS....he is into showing a girl how he feels, he is the Romantic / Protector / Provider..... giving his all, nothing held back.... This is all I have ever known you see. 

Had he engaged in these tenants of PUA behavior when we met, he would have only set himself back with me..... The boy I liked before him was MORE into my best GF...so when I met him, this was one of my fears....that once he met HER, he'd like her more than me.. his  was so bright every time he seen me -you'd think he was the biggest dork around.. But whatever, I loved him for it. 

Ok so we won't give these books to teens ... a famous person once said of religion...."Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true". ..(I liked that quote)

I guess my feelings is this >> if what is contained in these Gaming books would SHOCK Teen boys I guess I am having a hard time feeling the advice is "honorable"... but that's just ME. So once the immature Friend Zoned oneitis DIP hits College, he is ready for his PUA indoctrination - just in time to jump into "the Hook up Culture"... Lovely...here is your "gaming" Ticket... our new Modern Men. 

Everything I held dear to teach my daughter someday, these PUA's teachings spit upon.... feeling a man would treat her like her Father treated me...ha ha ha ... what a F'n Joke ....

Men will just "play" with her, feed her his new found charisma he practices daily on multitudes....if by the 3rd date, he doesn't have any assurance







is on the horizon in the very near future, he will jump ship... after all who has TIME for that ....plenty of







is readily available... only a fool has "  oneitis " for a special woman. 

The Picture that has been painted for some time, but I wasn't getting the heart of it... I was deluded enough to think that some of the best men still practice "Chivalry" - for it's own merit and value. What a fool I have been, TheRealBrightEyes did say I live in PollyannaVille once on here... Yeah...that's me! 



"The Game" has finally sliced the throat of Chivalry ....in the







's of Modern men ...







Just Google it ....* it's dead and it's #1 blame is on us women*....we brought men here...for many reasons ranging from Feminism to jumping to sleep with the top 10% of Alphas while shutting the door in the GOOD man's face... I guess this is what we deserve.... though I'm not a part of this. 








What is Chivalry in Love? 









If there is any Chivalry today - it is embodied by MEN whose actions are always trustworthy and admirable; who understand that strength and gentleness are not opposites; *and who know the importance of standing by one’s principles, no matter how tempting the compromise.*

The virtues / the code for chivalry are -hope, kindness, respect, integrity and courage. Chivalry has always been a part of courtly love/ the soul of Romantic Love. 

Urban Dictionarys view of Chivarly speaks of how far we have fallen......



> *1*. something that's dead and should stay dead.
> 
> *2*. Something that people always say is dead, but no one seams to know what the hell died..
> 
> *3.* Something women complain is dead even though it cannot logically exist in an equal society, which is something women wanted. It's one or the other.
> 
> _Jesse lamented about the death of chivalry while she lambasted the days when men oppressed women which was a time when chivalry was common. Makes perfect sense._
> 
> *4.* The act of a self-deluded sucker. Self-destructive self-sacrifice in favor of those seeking to exploit or destroy the practioner. Self-debasement to those seeking exploitive profit and lack of due recriprocation. Often stupidly misconstrued by those practicing as honorable or altuistic.
> 
> *5*. Doing whatever a woman wants and tells you to to try to get laid. Being *****whipped and being a chick's slave. See "gentleman" and "real man
> 
> *6*. women killed it... they don't like when we are nice to them anymore (so **** opening the doors, taking their jacket, or telling them they are beautiful)


My view of Chivalry is this >> Chivalry Is Not Sexist*


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> How would this be beneficial within marriage?


Its not. If married, compliment when something is compliment worthy. She's already accepted the price and bought the goods. There's nothing to be gained from withholding unless the guy is just a total gimp eager to compliment in hope she'll return some affection.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> Yes the walk a mile in my shoes cuts both ways.


I'm not following... what are you saying?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its not. If married, compliment when something is compliment worthy. She's already accepted the price and bought the goods. There's nothing to be gained from withholding unless the guy is just a total gimp eager to compliment in hope she'll return some affection.


Ah okay. I was kinda scratching my head thinking that doesn't sound very beneficial. Bought the goods? Hehe, can I get a refund or exchange? Some days I wish I could but I'm sure he could say that about me.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not following... what are you saying?


She wants you to walk in her shoes. I.e. spend some time as a woman.

But indeed she might be enlightened if she spent time as a man.

I can see both sides to this.

Again though. The woman knows if there will be sex.

I have known enough women, have daughters and so on to know that there are plenty of challenges there as well. Some the same. Some very different.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SA...even though this whole thread would suggest that the only advice available to men is PUA stuff, that is not all. There is a lot of great dating advice available to both men and women, and of course more women read relationship books than men do, but some men do read it (stuff other than PUA type books).

There are books that help young women learn how to expect chivalry and find men who are like that. Granted there are not enough books to help young men figure out how to be Great Men, but there are some, they just have to look for them.

Your young sons have a great role model, and don't forget how important that is.

I'm not dimming down your opinion, I'm just offering hope...there is a lot to read out there of differing types...and some of it is really great and not "icky".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

DaddyLongShanks said:


> So you have managed your "game" for long enough, that you have a process for getting into and out of it? And you know what percentage difference in advantage it gives you?
> 
> Wow.


No... I'm really just speaking hypothetically based on the entirety of my experience. Like I said, once upon a time, I was a shy nice guy. Problem: There's a girl I like... omg, I don't have anything to say. I don't even have a good reason to talk to her. What do I say???? Solution: Nothing.

Once you've gotten out there enough these things just stay with you. I'm more outgoing now. I can't turn it off, its part of my personality now. However, I can compare the results of how I acted then to the results of how I act now.

So the hypothetical is just based on how I used to be around women... nice, complimentary, shy, pleasing, inoffensive... intelligently bland.... versus actually having game. Back in the day, someone would really have to have pushed through my shell to find the interesting, clever and personable inner me. In essence, someone would have had to like me on looks alone enough to put up with and get past my shyness. 

Now, my favorite phrase to relate my mindset is simply that I "give no f*cks". I don't care if I get turned down, I just assume they'll think I'm good looking - come up with something to initiate conversation and lo and behold I rarely get turned down. The more you do it the better you get, but even the failures are enjoyable... and I love telling those stories. I've completely BOMBED before and said "wow, that was bad wasn't it?" I've gone up to say something and gotten tongue tied. I've gone to say something and forgotten what I was gonna say. I've botched jokes. I've teased something that turned out totally inappropriate. Other times, my mind just drew a blank on what to say next after she didn't really respond to me. In the awkward dead air I felt afterward, I've even said things like "Okay... well, I'm gonna go hang out over here while I come up with a better pick up line." (and that one bizzarely worked; she started talking to me after I said that)

Its all fun.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

DaddyLongShanks said:


> If I go back into the game I'm going to have to try that one. I was always one for just raising one's own appearance and then being direct with the ones you want to pull these things on. But now I question, if you are fully in the game can you be in a relationship or want one?


You're always in the game. The game is social interaction. The game is life.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> **sings**
> 
> "The more you suffer, the more it shows you really care?? Riight!? Yeeeaaa-ah!"


I bled for you and died for you on the cross. Just like Jesus ;-)


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Trenton said:


> I can say with certainty that this would be a HUGE mistake for my husband to practice. I really enjoy his constant compliments.
> 
> But maybe you are talking about ONS's again?
> 
> I leave to do something and then come back and am totally lost so please excuse me if I am covering something already covered.


So your husband gets more than reciprocated for, for being chivalrous and treating you like a lady?

The game is kind of the opposite, saying if I give this so easy it must not have a high value, so that it will not make you to look as good to be nice and generous, for someone who is looking at "the game".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> I can say with certainty that this would be a HUGE mistake for my husband to practice. I really enjoy his constant compliments.
> 
> But maybe you are talking about ONS's again?
> 
> I leave to do something and then come back and am totally lost so please excuse me if I am covering something already covered.


I wasn't talking ONS. I was talking about initial appeal.

You're married. You're past initial appeal. You bought at the price he demanded... whatever that was. In the long term, he should compliment you when something is truly compliment worthy - when he really feels it or senses you really need it (you can go overboard and devalue compliments as a result at best, and devalue yourself at worst). In the dating game though, a woman typically doesn't "buy" if he's over complimentary early on. What he's really saying is that she's better than him. Alternatively, she finds him disingenuous... trolling for sex. Its all a form of "trying too hard". He's trying hard because he places low value on himself and high value on her... women sense it and intuitively respond "why would I want someone so low in value?"

Its a nuanced thing like pretty much everything I've been talking about. Its difficult to find the language to properly capture it. Most of this stuff doesn't sink in the first time you read it.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Dunno...meaningful one night stand?
> 
> It's sort of an oxymoron...not to be difficult or anything!


You? Difficult?

Again, a matter of perspective and context. I said I had casual sex. I did not say I had one night stands.
These were not, long term committed relationships. In these cases, we met, we made sparks, so we made whoopee. These relationships lasted anywhere between 72 hours (I had a weekend stand) up to six weeks. And a few between those two timeframes. We dated and had fun, but it was never 'serious'. Never had multiple partners at the same time, by choice.


----------



## Entropy3000

SA,

IMO, a man of quality has many of these traits you speak of. As romantic as they may be. I embrace much of that with a big GAF attitude if anyone has issue with it. I do also embrace Bushido. Much of this has to do with my own spiritual history. I aspire to be a man of honor. Trust me this is liberating not restraining. 

Will being this way get a man laid a lot? Probably not. Will he GAF? Probably not. 

But I think he stands a chance of being that guy in the middle between bad boy and nice guy.

True chivalry comes from a man of power not weakness. A guy who could play the bad boy but chooses for his own reasons not to. To much is given much is expected. I have no shame in aspiring to be that guy in my life. I don't always succeed. But it is done on the man's own terms and he does these things genuinely out of compassion and zest for life.

When someone says that such thoughts are archaic, I think that no this is NOT archaic. It is ancient. It is part of who we are. The best part of us. But no matter, it is it's own reward. There is a peace and oh yes power to this. A man who needs not to hide who he is or deceive anyone.

Just to reiterate this is NOT a Nice Guy.

Ah Camelot. Indeed. 

And at the end of the day SA, we choose what we value. What is most meaningful to us. Not what is trendy. It is what we make of it.

"and in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make"

I live my life at the pleasure of my lady. And she her gentlemen ( me lol ).


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

To respond to the notion of chivarly and being old-fashioned, I need to clarify that just because I'm clearly showing that I don't hold her on some pedastal, it does not mean that I'm not chivalrous. You can maintain your value and still be chivalrous. And the modern concept of chivalry needs to respect that women are responsible for their own actions. Its not dishonorable of a man to have sex with a woman on the first night, if she was just as willing to, regardless of what happens afterwards. If she wants committment, she needs to be responsible for demanding it.

What you want is not as simple as some of you ladies are letting on imo. Sure, you want to be the best thing in his life. If the guy puts you on that pedastal right away with the compliments, I can tell you who isn't gonna have you as the best thing in their life.  You want it, but not yet. You want him to hold his value, and THEN think of you're awesome AFTER he has you. I'm not speaking to what you say you want, I'm speaking to what works in dating. What works speaks pretty loud.

This is also the reason virtually anyone offering dating advice to a guy will advise the guy to "play it cool" and not call her too quickly or too often. If you look over eager, you're lowering your value. She wants a man who holds his value; a man with options; He chooses you because you're special. Because he's maintained his own value, his choosing you is of greater value than that desperate schmuck who's trying too hard.

Or something like that.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

At this point, aren't we just arguing semantics? I think we can all agree that each sex needs to show value and we all do it in similar and different ways. Some men use PUA style techniques, some do not. Some women use "lady game", some do not. Many believe sex rank exists, many do not. Yes?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls....dating advice books, like other self-help books, are many times written toward a certain "type" of reader. So the dating advice books you are referring to on this thread, are geared toward the "type" of guy who needs to learn to step out of his shell, show confidence, etc.

There are books written toward many other "types" of guys, and they will not stress the same factors that the types of books you are reading will stress.

I would love it if you would read some new and different dating advice books, just to see that the ones you are reading are not the only ones out there. I don't mean that you need further education (ie: reading other books will not necessarily tell you anything new you need to know) but it does seem like you are so focused in your particular dating needs (based on where you came from) that you don't realize there are other things being advised to people.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Some men use PUA style techniques, some do not. Some women use "lady game", some do not. Many believe sex rank exists, many do not. Yes?


Nah. Everyone uses PUA techniques. Some techniques are more obvious than others, some people have them naturally and some people learn them. Its all just social skills with a narrow focus... but still just regular social skills.

Sex rank is not a concrete thing. Its just a rather arbitrary system for describing sexual desireability.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> To respond to the notion of chivarly and being old-fashioned, I need to clarify that just because I'm clearly showing that I don't hold her on some pedastal, it does not mean that I'm not chivalrous. You can maintain your value and still be chivalrous. And the modern concept of chivalry needs to respect that women are responsible for their own actions. Its not dishonorable of a man to have sex with a woman on the first night, if she was just as willing to, regardless of what happens afterwards. If she wants committment, she needs to be responsible for demanding it.
> 
> What you want is not as simple as some of you ladies are letting on imo. Sure, you want to be the best thing in his life. If the guy puts you on that pedastal right away with the compliments, I can tell you who isn't gonna have you as the best thing in their life.  You want it, but not yet. You want him to hold his value, and THEN think of you're awesome AFTER he has you. I'm not speaking to what you say you want, I'm speaking to what works in dating. What works speaks pretty loud.
> 
> This is also the reason virtually anyone offering dating advice to a guy will advise the guy to "play it cool" and not call her too quickly or too often. If you look over eager, you're lowering your value. She wants a man who holds his value; a man with options; He chooses you because you're special. Because he's maintained his own value, his choosing you is of greater value than that desperate schmuck who's trying too hard.
> 
> Or something like that.


Putting a woman on a pedastal is not good.

I also hold the door for men. If a woman does not like me holding the door for her ... tough t!tty. Her issue. Not mine. It is not a put down to her. When a woman holds the door for me ... I say thank you.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls....dating advice books, like other self-help books, are many times written toward a certain "type" of reader. So the dating advice books you are referring to on this thread, are geared toward the "type" of guy who needs to learn to step out of his shell, show confidence, etc.
> 
> There are books written toward many other "types" of guys, and they will not stress the same factors that the types of books you are reading will stress.
> 
> I would love it if you would read some new and different dating advice books, just to see that the ones you are reading are not the only ones out there. I don't mean that you need further education (ie: reading other books will not necessarily tell you anything new you need to know) but it does seem like you are so focused in your particular dating needs (based on where you came from) that you don't realize there are other things being advised to people.


I have. The underlying psychology is largely the same. I'm serious, there is SIGNIFICANT overlap if you really understand what is being said in PUA books. I mentioned this previously. To take that one further, the overlap extends through books aimed at improving social skills in general.

I believe someone already mentioned "How to make friends and influence people", and some others.

I think you suggested NMMNG to me once when I was relating the how things became in my marriage. I've since read it. Nothing really new there for me, I had definitely devolved into several Nice Guy traits, but again, the book had significant overlap... even with PUA. Particularly as it pertains to value.

It is very much necessary to distinguish between the actual PUA, and the technique described. The PUA may or may not be the unhealthy male that Always Alone and some others envision. The social technique, the skills, used by the PUA are universal and apply to healthy men just the same. In fact, I'd argue women are drawn to many of the traits and techniques described by PUA, because they are traits and behaviors typical of a healthy, secure and assertive male. A high value male.

This seems to be something difficult to convey, but its no wonder then that a self-improvement book aimed at men has a lot in common with PUA books.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls...I've read many that are not even close to what you mean...but I guess you already know differently, so...ok.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls...I've read many that are not even close to what you mean...but I guess you already know differently, so...ok.


What have you read?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'll PM you....


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Why is PUA techniques considered something to just be specifically used by PUAs? Look around you, everything in PUA literature (peac0cking, AMOGging, negging, framing, kino escalation etc etc) was and is already used by people everywhere very widely.

All the PUAs did was categorize and catalogue this stuff so people like Mystery who otherwise couldn't get a chick to save his life,(btw he had nearly no understanding of "Game" till like his twenties, he was a fanatic DnD player, lived with his parents etc etc) could understand and use those techniques in a powerful combination.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

The term "negging" is part and parcel with PUA tactics. Prior to them coming up with a new word, it was just called "insulting". Some people think negging sounds better but it's still the same thing. Why this tactic is used is beyond me. Wanna pick me up and then tell me I'd look better with blonde hair/bigger boobs/more makeup/higher heels/longer nails/take your pick........bye.


----------



## Entropy3000

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Why is PUA techniques considered something to just be specifically used by PUAs? Look around you, everything in PUA literature (peac0cking, AMOGging, negging, framing, kino escalation etc etc) was and is already used by people everywhere very widely.
> 
> All the PUAs did was categorize and catalogue this stuff so people like Mystery who otherwise couldn't get a chick to save his life,(btw he had nearly no understanding of "Game" till like his twenties, he was a fanatic DnD player, lived with his parents etc etc) could understand and use those techniques in a powerful combination.


Is this from a wedding?

The dude is very tall even without the hat and platforms. Does he really need this show to get women?


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The term "negging" is part and parcel with PUA tactics. Prior to them coming up with a new word, it was just called "insulting". Some people think negging sounds better but it's still the same thing. Why this tactic is used is beyond me. Wanna pick me up and then tell me I'd look better with blonde hair/bigger boobs/more makeup/higher heels/longer nails/take your pick........bye. If you're dumb enough to try and stick around, I'll "neg" you right back and tell you what you'd look better with.


Negging can be teasing. I agree it can be insulting and I think that is wrong.



> A neg is to be delivered immediately to the hottest of the hot, so to speak.
> A neg is a backhanded compliment which momentarily lowers her value whilst indicating to her that you are not an interested suitor.
> A neg is NOT flirting
> 
> To a blond woman :
> 
> You would look truly stunning as a brunette.


Now the above definition is NOT what I am calling negging but I am actually wrong in my use. So indeed it is meant as a put down. I do not see any place for this in a marriage.

Women have their own way of doing this as well.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Women have their own way of doing this."

'Splain?


----------



## TiggyBlue

Is negging the same as banter?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Why is PUA techniques considered something to just be specifically used by PUAs? Look around you, everything in PUA literature (peac0cking, AMOGging, negging, framing, kino escalation etc etc) was and is already used by people everywhere very widely.
> 
> All the PUAs did was categorize and catalogue this stuff so people like Mystery who otherwise couldn't get a chick to save his life,(btw he had nearly no understanding of "Game" till like his twenties, he was a fanatic DnD player, lived with his parents etc etc) could understand and use those techniques in a powerful combination.


If women respond to this guy, they need Lasik.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> If I said that, I mispoke. If you think it's what I said, let me be crystal clear about my position;
> 
> I steadfastly reject that how* I* choose to interact with a woman that I hope to establish and maintain a relationship with is based in trickery, lies, and manipulation.
> 
> You and the others here have been made privy to the source material I used to learn about dating and attraction. And you have strong opinions about that source material. That's fine too. I have made clear that I do not approve of the techniques used to harm or degrade anyone.


Sorry, not trying to put words in your mouth. You did say that you found many of the tactics in PUA literature to be outright manipulative and deceitful. But you also did clarify that you adopted only those chunks that you felt made sense.

I, on the other hand, read some of the techniques you described--particularly the one about complimenting then turning-- away as manipulative. But you are absolutely right, I wasn't there, don't know what it looked like, and am not actually judging you. I'm just stating my opinion of that type of behaviour generally speaking.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Negging (from the Urban Dictionary) 

1. Low-grade insults meant to undermine the self-confidence of a woman so she might be more vulnerable to your advances. This is something no decent guy would do. They say that the assh0les get the girls, but I can spot negging a mile away and I reject these f*ckers straight off.

Everywhere there is an insecure pretty girl, there is some guy negging. 

Negging can be so subtle, it's pratically undetectable. 
"I was wondering why that guy was complimenting me while putting me down. He was negging of course."

2. It's a way to pick up girls. How it works is you use remarks to tap into female insecurity; Shake their confidence.
Neg is a negative remark wrapped in a back-handed compliment. 
So your neg will confuse and intrigue them and maybe even shake their confidence a little bit, but only enough for them to fall from the clouds and be interested in talking to you. Its way to get threw their defenses at bars and such.

An example of Negging a girl would be: 
"You are nearly as tall as me. I like tall girls (LIFT). Are those heels 4 or 5 inches (DROP)?"
OR 
You say, "Ahhh, that's so funny ... you nose moves when you speak...... (pointing and being cute) look there it goes again ... its so... quaint ... haha look"
She'll say, "ahhh, stoppp!"*blush*. 
Now she is self conscious and having her in this state is where you want her. You have neghit her.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Negging (from the Urban Dictionary)
> 
> Low-grade insults meant to undermine the self-confidence of a woman so she might be more vulnerable to your advances. This is something no decent guy would do. They say that the *******s get the girls, but I can spot negging a mile away and I reject these ****ers straight off.
> 
> Everywhere there is an insecure pretty girl, there is some guy negging.
> 
> Negging can be so subtle, it's pratically undetectable.
> "I was wondering why that guy was complimenting me while putting me down. He was negging of course."


Yes. I concur. Teasing ... possibly good. 

Negging ... F*cked up.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I literally see nobody screwable in that photo. Not. A. Damn. One., least of all the transvestite in the top hat.


Well, he's the one that gets most poon. Go figure.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Well, he's the one that gets most poon. Go figure.


Some women have no standards.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Entropy3000 said:


> Yes. I concur. Teasing ... possibly good.
> 
> Negging ... F*cked up.


Why? Because Urban Dictionary says so? Because the lamest place you can look for a meaning of a word says so?


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> Yes. I concur. Teasing ... possibly good.
> 
> Negging ... F*cked up.


Women NEG too. They do it to feel over you. I guess it's the same reason men do it.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Some women have no standards.


I didn't think it was women he would want to neg


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Women NEG too. They do it to feel over you. I guess it's the same reason men do it."

Can you give examples? Maybe I am doing this and don't realize it. I just don't actually know what you mean.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Sure women insult. We call it as such though, at least I do. I don't do this however to people I am trying to get interested in me, I do this to those who have really upset me or said something horrible first.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Faithful Wife said:


> "Women NEG too. They do it to feel over you. I guess it's the same reason men do it."
> 
> Can you give examples? Maybe I am doing this and don't realize it. I just don't actually know what you mean.


You guys will try to knock a guy down a few pegs, even if you are going to be dealing with him over a longer time. It's not that he thinks he's over you, but he knows your not over him - that there is parity, but you will issue insults, you will nag,
you will be overly critical. 

I'm not sure if it's all intential, some of it is subconscious "leveling" of the situation.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> "Women have their own way of doing this."
> 
> 'Splain?


I don't even want to go there. Just not in the mood.

Tell you what if others can not give some examples here I will give it a shot. Too much negative energy for me to think about. I can just say that no matter who the target is I am history in the conversation. A complete turnoff for me. Women who do this have too many issues to be around.

Teasing ... no problem. I will even help that along with some self deprecating humor to help the dynamic along.


----------



## Entropy3000

TiggyBlue said:


> Is negging the same as banter?


No. Banter is good natured.

ban·ter 
/ˈbantər/
Noun
The playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks.
Verb
Talk or exchange remarks in a good-humored teasing way: "the men bantered with the waitresses"; "a bantering tone".


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This is also the reason virtually anyone offering dating advice to a guy will advise the guy to "play it cool" and not call her too quickly or too often. If you look over eager, you're lowering your value.


 Well then clearly his so called "Value" would have been dragging on the floor... He called me as much as I called him ....pretty = if I recall... when I wrote him letters, he answered every single one -even though he didn't like writing (so he told me a few yrs back - but did it for me anyway)... anything I wanted, he was there, even coming to see me in a snow storm... I shouldn't have allowed that back then. :slap: 



> She wants a man who holds his value; a man with options; He chooses you because you're special. Because he's maintained his own value, his choosing you is of greater value than that desperate schmuck who's trying too hard.


 I did feel very special DvlsAdvc8......OMG ...so very special, treasured.....even IF he was shy... he always TRIED if he was smitten by a girl... there was just very few of us... (he was only rejected once in his life.. but dumped twice)... Bless those girls !! 

I would have to say he didn't try TOO HARD..... he has told me, had I rejected him initially, he would have just walked away...hard as it would have hurt... but since I didn't.... he was who he was... it's that simple... he didn't hide, pull back, act less than he felt... never for a moment. 

The fact he didn't have women falling at his feet makes him no less special *TO ME* though... He was not one to grovel all over girls pandering to get into their pants or seeking approval - in MY PERSONAL view..this makes him of greater WORTH over other men -because I felt even MORE "chosen" - to move this shy guy.....I think we all look to different things we personally value...

Can you agree with that??

A high sexed ranked Alpha with a slew of sex partners with a







to drive me around just wouldn't compare to me over the sappy Romantic who was crazy in love with me & just wanted to spend his every moment with me. 



> If she wants *commitment*, she needs to be responsible for demanding it.


 I've always done that... but I have lost faith in men today, most will not hold out for a woman...not when so many are offering it for free/shacking up ...young girls who want commitment/ Marriage in today's world....God help them- and if they are homely, they have NOTHING TO OFFER AT ALL....they will out number those willing to take that risk, many men see no incentive to marry at all. 



> *Entropy3000 said*: Putting a woman on a pedastal is not good.


 Anyone want to tell my husband he's been a fool for the last 31 yrs? He's told me I've always had one...I guess that explains my "swelled" ego at times, it's all HIS FAULT....should I try to beat this out of him? He's told me I deserve it...yeah we've had this conversation. Can I say, he has his own - in my eyes. I feel it evens us out.

I know FaithfulWife is on board with this view anyway  

According to all of you ...we've done EVERYTHING WRONG ! Yet we refer to our marriage in the highest regard, always have. 



> SA,
> 
> IMO, a man of quality has many of these traits you speak of. As romantic as they may be. I embrace much of that with a big GAF attitude if anyone has issue with it. I do also embrace Bushido. Much of this has to do with my own spiritual history. I aspire to be a man of honor. Trust me this is liberating not restraining.
> 
> Will being this way get a man laid a lot? Probably not. Will he GAF? Probably not.
> 
> But I think he stands a chance of being that guy in the middle between bad boy and nice guy.


I have no idea what *GAF* stands for? I looked *Bushido* up = The traditional code of the Japanese samurai, stressing honor, self-discipline, bravery, and simple living.



> True chivalry comes from a man of power not weakness. *A guy who could play the bad boy but chooses for his own reasons not to.* To much is given much is expected. I have no shame in aspiring to be that guy in my life. I don't always succeed. But it is done on the man's own terms and he does these things genuinely out of compassion and zest for life.


This is our oldest son. Very principled and stubborn as to hold on to his personal ethics with integrity.


----------



## Entropy3000

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Why? Because Urban Dictionary says so? Because the lamest place you can look for a meaning of a word says so?


No. Because its intent is to lower esteem.

I get the tactic. For me it would be totally F*cked up.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> I don't even want to go there. Just not in the mood.
> 
> Tell you what if others can not give some examples here I will give it a shot. Too much negative energy for me to think about. I can just say that no matter who the target is I am history in the conversation. A complete turnoff for me. Women who do this have too many issues to be around.
> 
> Teasing ... no problem. I will even help that along with some self deprecating humor to help the dynamic along.


Some have to "knock you down a few pegs", it never ends. Like a machine on "automatic", that automatically does it. It is overly critical in it's analysis, does things to divert or reduce your energy or momentum, will point out all the things "you done wrong", attack common insecurities in males, some that you may not have, it does it to establish itself and it's dominance.

How about that? The dominance game? Both sexes play it too, women tend to have a bunch of levers at their disposal.


----------



## Entropy3000

TiggyBlue said:


> I didn't think it was women he would want to neg


Oh hell yeah.

Remember the dynamic in most instances is that the guy takes the risk. A guy approaching a woman is what we call a soft toss. Gee that sounds sexual. I mean like pitching a wiffle ball to some one. An easy target. Some women get off on cutting guys down period. Go figure. Damaged goods no doubt. A sad story there somewhere. But the intent is to raise themselves up by cutting down someone else.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Sure women insult. We call it as such though, at least I do. I don't do this however to people I am trying to get interested in me, I do this to those who have really upset me or said something horrible first.


No question. Some do it for sport.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The term "negging" is part and parcel with PUA tactics. Prior to them coming up with a new word, it was just called "insulting". Some people think negging sounds better but it's still the same thing. Why this tactic is used is beyond me. Wanna pick me up and then tell me I'd look better with blonde hair/bigger boobs/more makeup/higher heels/longer nails/take your pick........bye.


Its not insulting at all, its teasing. And honestly, even if the tease pisses her off at first... it still generally works. You'd be amazed. Its a fine line though and if a guy doesn't really get it then he's better off not using it.

Here's a classic neg with dual purpose:

Scenario: He's already built some level of rapport, but she's a little standoff-ish... she's talking and maybe sounding a little b*tchy or complaining.

Guy: "Wow, how does your boyfriend put up with you?"

Her: "Uh... I don't have a boyfriend." (he's now learned she's single, without looking like he's trying to pick her up... which would be conveyed if he asked "so, do you have a boyfriend?" which is poor game)

Guy: "Good. That's probably for the best."

Hidden meaning: I'm glad you're single. From here she's on the defensive and trying to show herself as more appealing.

Negs are short, non-offensive teases... that's all.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> Now the above definition is NOT what I am calling negging but I am actually wrong in my use. So indeed it is meant as a put down. I do not see any place for this in a marriage.
> 
> Women have their own way of doing this as well.


I don't see much use in negging in a marriage.


----------



## Entropy3000

SimplyAmorous said:


> Well then clearly his so called "Value" would have been dragging on the floor... He called me as much as I called him ....pretty = if I recall... when I wrote him letters, he answered every single one -even though he didn't like writing (so he told me a few yrs back - but did it for me anyway)... anything I wanted, he was there, even coming to see me in a snow storm... I shouldn't have allowed that back then. :slap:
> 
> I did feel very special DvlsAdvc8......OMG ...so very special, treasured.....even IF he was shy... he always TRIED if he was smitten by a girl... there was just very few of us... (he was only rejected once in his life.. but dumped twice)... Bless those girls !!
> 
> I would have to say he didn't try TOO HARD..... he has told me, had I rejected him initially, he would have just walked away...hard as it would have hurt... but since I didn't.... he was who he was... it's that simple... he didn't hide, pull back, act less than he felt... never for a moment.
> 
> The fact he didn't have women falling at his feet makes him no less special *TO ME* though... He was not one to grovel all over girls pandering to get into their pants or seeking approval - in MY PERSONAL view..this makes him of greater WORTH over other men -because I felt even MORE "chosen" - to move this shy guy.....I think we all look to different things we personally value...
> 
> Can you agree with that??
> 
> A high sexed ranked Alpha with a slew of sex partners with a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to drive me around just wouldn't compare to me over the sappy Romantic who was crazy in love with me & just wanted to spend his every moment with me.
> 
> I've always done that... but I have lost faith in men today, most will not hold out for a woman...not when so many are offering it for free/shacking up ...young girls who want commitment/ Marriage in today's world....God help them- and if they are homely, they have NOTHING TO OFFER AT ALL....they will out number those willing to take that risk, many men see no incentive to marry at all.
> 
> Anyone want to tell my husband he's been a fool for the last 31 yrs? He's told me I've always had one...I guess that explains my "swelled" ego at times, it's all HIS FAULT....should I try to beat this out of him? He's told me I deserve it...yeah we've had this conversation. Can I say, he has his own - in my eyes. I feel it evens us out.
> 
> I know FaithfulWife is on board with that view anyway
> 
> According to all of you ...we've done EVERYTHING WRONG ! Yet we refer to our marriage in the highest regard, always have.
> 
> I have no idea what *GAF* stands for? I looked *Bushido* up = The traditional code of the Japanese samurai, stressing honor, self-discipline, bravery, and simple living.
> 
> This is our oldest son. Very principled and stubborn as to hold on to his personal ethics with integrity.


SA. I could very well be accused of putting my wife on a pedastal. However we had this chat a long long time ago before the earth cooled. She felt that putting her on a pedastal was not valuing her for who she really was as a person. Think objectified here. She wanted to be my partner / equal.

Smart lady she is.

Now I am not putting down your hubby. I am merely suggesting that sometimes a man putting his woman on a pedastal does not allow him to get close to the person she is. Semantics perhaps. Women are people too kinda thing. This also comes down to not having blind trust.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> Oh hell yeah.
> 
> Remember the dynamic in most instances is that the guy takes the risk. A guy approaching a woman is what we call a soft toss. Gee that sounds sexual. I mean like pitching a wiffle ball to some one. An easy target. Some women get off on cutting guys down period. Go figure. Damaged goods no doubt. A sad story there somewhere. But the intent is to raise themselves up by cutting down someone else.


Men do it too. There are men who date women just to degrade them, to get their jollies, and the women love the "challenge" of trying to get these guys to act right! Since he will not be "conquered", due to his rule set!

One of my exes, had a full bull **** aunt, who was as masculine as someone who worked out doors for a living, who would slit your throat with a box cutter. My ex, got a bunch of the ******** behavior and viewpoints and rules from this aunt. And they are incompatible with a feminine female being with a masculine male provider type.

Well in any case, they would go out, just to see what idiots would try to talk to them, and they knew they were cutting guys down for the night. They did it to feel better about themself, and at least while they were in this pattern they "hated" the guys, the "men" were all grouped into this stupid grouping and classified the same.

We call them "cutters". They are like "vampires", as they do build up a bunch of esteem and emotion from "cutting" people who are vulnerable to them.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't see much use in negging in a marriage.


Teasing ... yes very much so. But in the strict PUA sense of negging. No.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Daddy: "It is overly critical in it's analysis, does things to divert or reduce your energy or momentum, will point out all the things "you done wrong", attack common insecurities in males, some that you may not have, it does it to establish itself and it's dominance."

So are you talking about wives doing this in the above sentence? Surely you don't mean women do this to just any many they know, right? Or maybe I'm wrong. I'm just trying to grasp it. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I just don't know if I understand or not.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Women NEG too. They do it to feel over you. I guess it's the same reason men do it.


Been there described it: "Wow [dvls], you're really bald!"


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't see much use in negging in a marriage.


Well if you guys are EXCELLENT Zen relationship partners, you could build each others ego's ON PURPOSE. But you could also NEG someone if they are too full of themself and might get into alot of trouble.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> No. Because its intent is to lower esteem.
> 
> I get the tactic. For me it would be totally F*cked up.


I prefer calling it - changing the balance of who has something to prove to whom. Like I said, it works.


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Some have to "knock you down a few pegs", it never ends. Like a machine on "automatic", that automatically does it. It is overly critical in it's analysis, does things to divert or reduce your energy or momentum, will point out all the things "you done wrong", attack common insecurities in males, some that you may not have, it does it to establish itself and it's dominance.
> 
> How about that? The dominance game? Both sexes play it too, women tend to have a bunch of levers at their disposal.


It comes down to intent and the ability to balance.

Dominance game. Perhaps. 

Lots of buttons she can push. The thing is once she pushes them she has actually admitted she is lost.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Been there described it: "Wow [dvls], you're really bald!"


Yes honey, I'm really bald, but I have an extra large ROOSTER


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls said: "I don't see much use in negging in a marriage."

So funny, because my H teases me and harasses me without mercy on a daily basis.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I prefer calling it - changing the balance of who has something to prove to whom. Like I said, it works.


Did I question that?

No. Lots of things that work are F*cked up. 

Giving a woman a roofy may work. But that is way F*cked up.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Faithful Wife said:


> Daddy: "It is overly critical in it's analysis, does things to divert or reduce your energy or momentum, will point out all the things "you done wrong", attack common insecurities in males, some that you may not have, it does it to establish itself and it's dominance."
> 
> So are you talking about wives doing this in the above sentence? Surely you don't mean women do this to just any many they know, right? Or maybe I'm wrong. I'm just trying to grasp it. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I just don't know if I understand or not.


There are good men and bad men. Lets say there is a scale from -10 to +10.

There are also good women and bad women. It can be wives, girlfriends, people you meet out. Wives that married you for your money, resources or to bait and switch you or to screw with your head when they screw all your friends and leave. Guys do it too.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls said: "I don't see much use in negging in a marriage."
> 
> So funny, because my H teases me and harasses me without mercy on a daily basis.


Tell him, you'll get alot more bees with honey than vinager. Actually alot more of your honey.

Hubby may neg you because he's an alpha and holding his position... I don't want to interrupt the balance in your household though.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Daddy said: "It can be wives, girlfriends, people you meet out."

So women you have just met, will insult you about things you've done wrong and attack your insecurities and try to establish dominance over you? I saw your example of your ball-busting ****, but other than her...do you really get this type of behavior from just random women?


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Please repeat them then, because I haven't seen anything deceptive. Its so deceitful, it should be easy.
> 
> OP may characterize his game as deceptive, but what's he's described I don't find deceptive at all.
> 
> Where are the falsehoods? Quite to the contrary, most PUA explicitly states that lying is poor game. They say to be alpha. Say what you mean, be playful, tease, be blunt and don't worry about offending. "Give no f*cks" Someone who doesn't have a clue might think this is the same as being a total a$$hole... its not, but you're not tricking anyone.


They say to
-evade, tease, obfuscate to keep her guessing 
-pretend to be indifferent to her, put her down, and keep her off balance as much as possible.
-make her jealous, then give advice on all the tricks you can use to do that.
-make sure that you never give her any more than 2/3 of what she gives you, be it compliments, gifts, whatever
-ridicule "competing" males

If this all isn't deceptive and trickery, I don't know what is.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls said: "I don't see much use in negging in a marriage."
> 
> So funny, because my H teases me and harasses me without mercy on a daily basis.


This is not negging. It is teasing. Teasing is essential in an engaged marriage as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Daddy....I love being harassed by my husband. It is just a fun game we play.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Faithful Wife said:


> Daddy said: "It can be wives, girlfriends, people you meet out."
> 
> So women you have just met, will insult you about things you've done wrong and attack your insecurities and try to establish dominance over you? I saw your example of your ball-busting ****, but other than her...do you really get this type of behavior from just random women?


It can be ANYONE. It can be one who sniffs that you don't have your Armor up ( G Shield, Anger, Game ) and will poke your vulnerable self.

I would say how common it is would be regional. In some regions, you may have to do a lot of fighting with your relationship partner just to have parity.

Like some of us guys said, some women went out who were straight who were just on a man bashing night, or phase. It's all part of the game.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls said: "I don't see much use in negging in a marriage."
> 
> So funny, because my H teases me and harasses me without mercy on a daily basis.


Okay, maybe I can see that.

The goal though is to flip the normal dynamic. Instead of the typical scenario of a guy trying to appeal to a girl, the girl is induced into trying to appeal to the guy. Its all still playful though, and imo, should not be down right mean... just like a tease. Even if she's not switched to appeal mode, you've almost certainly turned on "play mode".

We're in a world of grey here though.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Daddy, ok I will take your word for it, and I will observe it in the wild to see if I can pick that up. Maybe I'm just not paying attention.

Dvls...in our case, the teasing is always straight up sexual in nature, and is a very specific type of sex game we are playing. It involves degredation. But again, this is consentual, loving, and only sexual.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Faithful Wife said:


> Daddy....I love being harassed by my husband. It is just a fun game we play.


If the teasing isn't extremely derogatory or insulting, then I see how that could be fun.


----------



## TiggyBlue

So negging is pretty good for sniffing out people who are insecure?


----------



## FalconKing

Therealbrighteyes said:


> If women respond to this guy, they need Lasik.


Apparently that guy is a world class PUA. Seriously... Any woman that would sleep with this guy is someone I am not interested in.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Daddy said: "If the teasing isn't extremely derogatory or insulting, then I see how that could be fun."

Oh, it is all about degredation and pretend insults. But it is known to be a game between us.

Example: he loves my body and makes it clear, but he also loves variety like any man. So every winter I gain a few pounds, without exception. And every winter he goes into "chubby chaser" mode and says things like "ohh baby, look at that thing grow!" (referring to my azz). He'll be like "get over here and show me yer winter azz!", "skake that jelly, baby", "its getting so big you can see it from space!", "honey, the postal office called and asked if you got the notice that they issued your azz its own zip code"...this kind of thing. Meanwhile, he is grabbing and nuzzling it and loving every inch of it.

Then in the spring time when I lose the winter weight, he goes into "loves a small waist mode", with the appropriate teasing to go with that.

It all ends up being sexual.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

TiggyBlue said:


> So negging is pretty good for sniffing out people who are insecure?


One of my ex tried to attack common male insecurities. What it does is it didn't make me feel less, but it would anger me that it was challenged. Also the attitude that she's having is a non-stop ball busting one. For me to remain level I have to be in ******* mode.

These particular people would continually do things to anger you, and the only way to respond is you have to respond back with a similar put down or "neg", or learn to tune them out.

After having had it, and having someone feed me wine and honey, I'd personally rather not deal with it as my norm, but I see in a competitive environment how it could keep you on guard.


----------



## TiggyBlue

I can't believe iv'e never herd the term negging, seen it all the time but didn't know that bs had a name.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Don't compliment unless she's already into you... and sparingly even then.





Therealbrighteyes said:


> How would this be beneficial within marriage?





DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Its not. If married, compliment when something is compliment worthy. She's already accepted the price and bought the goods. There's nothing to be gained from withholding unless the guy is just a total gimp eager to compliment in hope she'll return some affection.



Yet MMSL advises that husbands follow the Roissy Golden Ratio, and ensure that they only offer 2/3 the amount of affection and compliments that are given by the wife.


----------



## Entropy3000

FalconKing said:


> Apparently that guy is a world class PUA. Seriously... Any woman that would sleep with this guy is someone I am not interested in.


BINGO.

Another reason why I would want to know sexual history.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> Yet MMSL advises that husbands follow the *Roissy Golden Ratio*, and ensure that they only offer 2/3 the amount of affection and compliments that are given by the wife.


Oh good. This thread will make 100 posts now.

On a serious note this makes sense for the guys that would read that stuff.

MMSL is primarily for guys who are in a sexless marriage. They will not Nice themselves into attraction. This is about trying to alter a dynamic that is already desperately skewed.

These guys wives may be out seeking attention from other men already.

Nice Guy syndrome at work here.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> Oh good. This thread will make 100 points now.


So this "Rossy Golden Ratio" is designed to keep more attention and stuff coming YOUR way? Doesn't sound like love at all.


----------



## Wiserforit

SimplyAmorous said:


> The virtues / the code for chivalry are -hope, kindness, respect, integrity and courage.


That sure sounds good to me!

I wouldn't let this thread get you down as some kind of representation about men. The ones who resort to PUA literature self-identify as the ones girls were not interested in.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

always_alone said:


> Yet MMSL advises that husbands follow the Roissy Golden Ratio, and ensure that they only offer 2/3 the amount of affection and compliments that are given by the wife.


No, MMSL advises to do this if they are running around like Virginity Pledge Care Bears.

Again, you talk about stuff you have zero understanding in and fail miserably.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> BINGO.
> 
> Another reason why I would want to know sexual history.


Do you have a method for getting a rough estimate of this, if you don't get the info from the person themself?


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> Oh good. This thread will make 100 posts now.
> 
> On a serious note this makes sense for the guys that would read that stuff.
> 
> MMSL is primarily for guys who are in a sexless marriage. They will not Nice themselves into attraction. This is about trying to alter a dynamic that is already desperately skewed.
> 
> These guys wives may be out seeking attention from other men already.
> 
> Nice Guy syndrome at work here.


Basicallly when you are in the pattern that MMSL attempts to correct, you are in a overly NICE GUY putting off a cheezy signal, and she's starting to pick up on the Alpha's, Gamma's, Sigmas, Omega's, lol... Who are able to roam at will and having success feeding their image... 

You are basically in competition with the other men, really yourself, but you have to do some things single guys may have to do to maintain or raise their "market value".


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> So this "Rossy Golden Ratio" is designed to keep more attention and stuff coming YOUR way? Doesn't sound like love at all.


It is for guys that have over done it. They are not getting love. Their wife is no longer interested in them sexually. They likely have received the ILYBIANILWY speech. The dating has stopped. The guy has let his self esteem plummet.

There is love and there is in love.

If the ship is taking on water you may have to flood some compartments to save the ship.


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Do you have a method for getting a rough estimate of this, if you don't get the info from the person themself?


Are you saying they are not being open and forth coming?

Are you saying they would lie by omission?

I would never marry a woman who felt she cound not tell me who her partners had been.

This should be easier for someone at 25 than 45. 

My wife knows my history and I have every reason to believe I know hers.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> It is for guys that have over done it. They are not getting love. Their wife is not longer interested in them sexually. The likely have received the ILYBIANILWY speech. The dating has stopped. The guy has let his self esteem plummet.
> 
> There is love and there is in love.
> 
> If the ship is taking on water you may have to flood some compartments to save the ship.


"In Love" to me is the strong emotional feelings... To me it's LUST, it's admiration, being mesmerized.

It can come and go. IE: when you get to know someone all their magical stuff isn't so magical anymore, so that "In Love" stuff will decline.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Whaaaaa?! You wouldn't want to marry a woman who slept with a guy who's middle name is Massengill?


LOL.

I could never get that out of my mind. Sorry. 

A real douche huh?

I temper this in only saying as I have said before, that showing a matruring process is a wonderful thing. We have all made choices that well ... we have made. 

It would be hard to reconsile why a woman of quality would allow this guy such intimate access. I have made some questionanle chocies myself.

But I think one could say that this type of woman would not be on the A-list.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> Are you saying they are not being open and forth coming?
> 
> Are you saying they would lie by omission?
> 
> I would never marry a woman who felt she cound not tell me who her partners had been.
> 
> This should be easier for someone at 25 than 45.
> 
> My wife knows my history and I have every reason to believ I know hers.


Yes. Omission because it's "her business". Perhaps you want to scoop the information from the social "fabrics" she's been part of to make sure...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Marriage Builders has a "personal history survey" that new couples can fill out to share their sexual histories with each other. Very useful.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Basicallly when you are in the pattern that MMSL attempts to correct, you are in a overly NICE GUY putting off a cheezy signal, and she's starting to pick up on the Alpha's, Gamma's, Sigmas, Omega's, lol... Who are able to roam at will and having success feeding their image...
> 
> You are basically in competition with the other men, really yourself, but you have to do some things single guys may have to do to maintain or raise their "market value".


Tbh, MMSL has a variety of advice... from baking banana bread and ten-second kisses to how to cure a sexless marriage and how to deal with infidelity.

It's not just for guys whose marriages are making a steep dive. It's for those who want to enhance the experience, regardless of the status of the marriage.


----------



## Faithful Wife

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forms/phq.pdf


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> It is for guys that have over done it. They are not getting love. Their wife is not longer interested in them sexually. The likely have received the ILYBIANILWY speech. The dating has stopped. The guy has let his self esteem plummet.
> 
> There is love and there is in love.
> 
> If the ship is taking on water you may have to flood some compartments to save the ship.


It's a great ruleset for "correction" if the ratio had been terrible, IE: 90/10, with you overly nice guying. The roissy ratio of complements, gifts and TIME would restore the balance, and at least get her to wonder what the hell is on your mind.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Tbh, MMSL has a variety of advice... from baking banana bread and ten-second kisses to how to cure a sexless marriage and how to deal with infidelity.
> 
> It's not just for guys whose marriages are making a steep dive. It's for those who want to enhance the experience, regardless of the status of the marriage.


It seems like the wives are also happier, not cheated at all. It's a great bargain for both, and the attraction is maintained in a long term relationship.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> SA, we live very different lives and have very different husbands -but- I can tell you point blank that my husband placing me on a pedestal is important to me.
> 
> I do think I deserve it. In fact, when he tries to take me off that pedestal, well...that's what macaroni is for.
> 
> I am humble to the world. I have to be. I don't know much about it and I learn every day but this does not for a moment translate into the idea that I don't want or deserve to be on a pedestal with my husband. I believe I absolutely do!
> 
> When the world is dragging me down and has me questioning my belief in it or in myself, damn right I want a man who will put me on a pedestal and say...baby, you're the greatest let's get through this and figure it out for you. Gives me the courage to keep on keeping it on.
> 
> I am an emotional freak. I care so very, very deeply about anything I'm involved in. I'm also a perfectionist, and possibly a little nuts. I need an anchor, a man who is not afraid to tell me how it is but in the same breath tell me he wishes it was different and that we can make it different if we try hard enough or still have one another if we fail.
> 
> The Knight in Shinning Armor. Ah well, not too popular an idea these days. For me? Love it. I don't want feminized men who doubt every decision they make or mouse themselves into believing they are stuck where they are. I want someone physically stronger than me, more reasonable where emotions are concerned, and more logical and diabolical where humanity is concerned. This is the only way I can be allowed to be the opposite and I am essentially the opposite.
> 
> Both equally important but startlingly different.
> 
> With this I want faithful and honest. Just as a man does not want a woman to fake it, wants a woman thrilled at the idea of pleasing him...I want the same but more so when it comes to the care and keeping of me and our family.
> 
> That's at the crux of my relationship and it's not always perfect or in sync as yours is because my husband and I are so different from you and yours. BUT, I know one thing and that is that he is the one for me and if he chooses to behave in a way that I can't live with then I will be alone. And oh how he tests me sometimes, especially with his ideas of work and a man's need to provide to the point of almost, several times, destroying our relationship and all sense of trust that needs to be there to keep it going. Perhaps it's because I feel excluded, lonely at those times?
> 
> Anyway, I think it's funny that two women who are so very different can agree on a fundamental level and I think this says something, something important.


GAF = Give A F*ck. 

GAFF = Give A Flying F*ck

Meaning I just would not care. I know what is in my heart and will be true to it.

Bushido and Chivalry have things in common. Bushido has a spiritual / philosophical connotation based on eastern philosophies. The way of the warrior. It resonates with me. It is at my center. When I find myself straying I center myself with this.

Bushido :

Rectitude ( Justice, Integrity )
Courage
Benevolence ( Mercy )
Politeness
Honesty and Sincerity
Honor
Loyalty
Character and Sef Control

One may die but is never defeated.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

DaddyLongShanks said:


> It seems like the wives are also happier, not cheated at all. It's a great bargain for both, and the attraction is maintained in a long term relationship.


Yes, tbh the concept is extremely groundbreaking.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> At this point, aren't we just arguing semantics? I think we can all agree that each sex needs to show value and we all do it in similar and different ways. Some men use PUA style techniques, some do not. Some women use "lady game", some do not. Many believe sex rank exists, many do not. Yes?


My answer to this is yes.

Some men have game naturally, some learn and some have no game.
But all this PUA stuff and game is just a re branding of old techniques IMO. Most of this stuff I hear, I know since my teenage years. 
Most women learn game, some have game , naturally.

When I was single , I met this Argentine girl who was at a university across here , on an exchange or research programme.
Really beautiful ,friendly , nice chick, but she could hardly speak English.
I met her through some female friends of mine, and we had fun chatting and me explaining some aspects of our culture to her and she soaked it in.
We met a couple of times as a group and then she asked me to meet her at a particular location [ in public ] and I realized that her friends were not there. I took her to a restaurant that specialized in indigenous foods, and we had lunch.
We had fun, and I could sense she liked me because she was always touching me, casually.
This girl could hardly speak English.

Initially, I didn't have any intentions of getting into her pants, I was just explaining stuff to her, and we were having fun.
No moves from me, just normal stuff.
But here's what she did.
A couple days before she left,
She sent me a " gift " through her friend, and when I opened it there were two chocolates, a brown and a white neatly wrapped together in aluminium foil, with a thank you card.
Well I got the message.
The next day I met her at her place, and she made sure her room mate was absent...

IMO, she did the PUA stuff.
Within two weeks of meeting me, in spite of the language barrier,and no clear signals from me, she managed to instigate , isolate and escalate !
Those were the days before mobile phones, instant messaging, online chats and texting...

This is why I say its nothing really new because ladies have done it to me.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Yes, tbh the concept is extremely groundbreaking.


It's designed to improve marriage in general. Some of his stuff I don't agree with, but being completely beta-ized and castrated with comparison to males outside of the marriage is definately not a way to have a good marriage.

Some of the women are cake eaters in their "program", so they WILL want a supportive and loving reliable husband ( not that there's anything wrong with that ). They will use a sought after "Alpha" to Cuckhold the man with.

So he could be "real manning" it as hard and dedicated as he wants, and she gets off from crapping right in his face at every step of the way. This is the real world we live in, of course not everyone is doing it, but it is something that can happen in the game...


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> "In Love" to me is the strong emotional feelings... To me it's LUST, it's admiration, being mesmerized.
> 
> It can come and go. IE: when you get to know someone all their magical stuff isn't so magical anymore, so that "In Love" stuff will decline.


It is dopamine. And can be regenerated. I have done this myself.


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Yes. Omission because it's "her business". Perhaps you want to scoop the information from the social "fabrics" she's been part of to make sure...


Idunno. 

Her business? :scratchhead:

Have no idea what you mean here.

This is actually incredibly simple. I could not commit my life to someone who could not be honeest and truthful to me. Simple as that. It is less about the specifics and more about the opening of the kimono. It is as much about the testing of the woman's spirit as anything else.

Marriage is sacred to me. I am not hiring someone to work at the mall. I am looking for a person I can trust and give my heart to. She must be ALL in or not at all. No secrets.

I guess I would need a woman who was Bushido.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> It is dopamine. And can be regenerated. I have done this myself.


Bravo. You've nailed it down to the barest and simplest fundamental!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DaddyLongShanks said:


> It's designed to improve marriage in general. Some of his stuff I don't agree with, but being completely beta-ized and castrated with comparison to males outside of the marriage is definately not a way to have a good marriage.
> 
> Some of the women are cake eaters in their "program", so they WILL want a supportive and loving reliable husband ( not that there's anything wrong with that ). They will use a sought after "Alpha" to Cuckhold the man with.
> 
> So he could be "real manning" it as hard and dedicated as he wants, and she gets off from crapping right in his face at every step of the way. This is the real world we live in, of course not everyone is doing it, but it is something that can happen in the game...


I think what most of us agree on (I hope) is that there has to be balance. Too much beta or too much alpha is not a good thing. At least that's the gist I got out of this whole thread.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> I'm sorry Daniel-San, I have no idea what you're actually saying.
> 
> Wax on. Wax off??????


What exit? Yeah. You nailed it. Are we still negging here?

I am talking philosophy of life. Spiritual. One does not train for sport but for finding inner peace and if need be physical conflict as a last resort.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Entropy3000 said:


> SA. I could very well be accused of putting my wife on a pedastal. However we had this chat a long long time ago before the earth cooled. She felt that putting her on a pedastal was not valuing her for who she really was as a person. Think objectified here. She wanted to be my partner an equal.
> 
> Smart lady she is.
> 
> Now I am not putting down your hubby. I am merely suggesting that *sometimes *a man putting his woman on a pedastal does not allow him to get close to the person she is. Semantics perhaps. Women are people too kinda thing. This also comes down to not having blind trust.


I'm going to focus on your "sometimes" .....I don't feel we could BE any closer ... unless we were sewn together. And this doesn't diminish our attraction as so often spoken - without some game of Mystery... We laugh, we share it all, we romance....... Trust is definitely there.. I wouldn't call it blind...our history comes with a well laid foundation.....I had my days of taking him for granted with a little apathy... it was never over another man or C0ckholding....which seems so often the case read on this forum....but for the Joy of our children. I was hard on myself for that. I know humility...

And really...speaking of humanness...I've shown more faults, bad moments, vulnerabilities over him.....he is not deluded enough to see me as flawless..some delicate flower who could never do wrong...or hurt in a moment. 




Trenton said:


> SA, we live very different lives and have very different husbands -but- I can tell you point blank that my husband placing me on a pedestal is important to me.
> 
> I do think I deserve it. In fact, when he tries to take me off that pedestal, well...that's what macaroni is for.
> 
> I am humble to the world. I have to be. I don't know much about it and I learn every day but this does not for a moment translate into the idea that I don't want or deserve to be on a pedestal with my husband. I believe I absolutely do!
> 
> When the world is dragging me down and has me questioning my belief in it or in myself, damn right I want a man who will put me on a pedestal and say...baby, you're the greatest let's get through this and figure it out for you. Gives me the courage to keep on keeping it on.


 :rofl: at the macaroni reference... loved reading this ... you choke me up Girl.. yeah, this captures how I feel also....

I've told him...explained in detail , the words/ warnings in others posts -when there was a

*Pedestal thread* >>







....why men should NOT pedestalize their women.... and he still comes back saying he feels that's the way to be and I deserve it... What should I do, brow beat him over this... It's how he feels... we sit in the bathtub every night & Yak about Things I read on TAM....so many subjects...in bubbles at times...

We've had some darn funny fights in our past...maybe I need to start one over the pedestal - demand I be taken down!! I'll pin his arms down ....I could see it now. What can you do... It's his way of being, he way of loving...

It certainly hasn't HURT us. It's more like this anyway >>












> Anyway, I think it's funny that two women who are so very different can agree on a fundamental level and I think this says something, something important.


:smthumbup:


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Marriage Builders has a "personal history survey" that new couples can fill out to share their sexual histories with each other. Very useful.


Yes. Thank you. I get beaten up on this all the time and I think it is at its essence a loving thing to bare oneself to the other and hold nothing back. I think people completely misunderstand my motivation.

As you know I am a believer on much of the MB concepts.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I think what most of us agree on (I hope) is that there has to be balance. Too much beta or too much alpha is not a good thing. At least that's the gist I got out of this whole thread.


I like that Athol Kay was able to point it out. There has to be some support and nurtering, but there also has to be strength and decisiveness. A balance, and sometimes the balance needs to be changed to get the juices flowing once again... I've been obsessing about a perfect relationship, where we manipulate each other to bring out the best and it's a clear advantage.


----------



## Entropy3000

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Tbh, MMSL has a variety of advice... from baking banana bread and ten-second kisses to how to cure a sexless marriage and how to deal with infidelity.
> 
> It's not just for guys whose marriages are making a steep dive. It's for those who want to enhance the experience, regardless of the status of the marriage.


I was not in a steep dive but used it to help bring more passion into my marriage. It has helped me but my marriage is a work in progress and I intend to keep it that way.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> http://www.marriagebuilders.com/forms/phq.pdf


Wondermous. To me it is cathartic to submit yourself as you are to your spouse. The successes and your failures and everything in between as this is who we truly are. It is not about judging the other person but know who they are. Indeed it may help to see if you are compatible. Honesty is very important to me.

But if we expect our spouse to become one with us in the context of a loving partnership they need to know what we know about ourselves. Nothing held back.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I hope you expand on this subject. This seems to me an area we might be able to connect or relate to.
> 
> The general male perception, I think, is that your average woman can walk up to a guy and say "take me home with you" and get a ONS with an average guy. The reverse certainly isn't true.
> 
> Or in dating, I think the average woman could ask out the average guy and almost certainly get a date. I've never turned down a woman of equivalent looks who expressed overt interest in me.


Okay. Here's a bit of expansion based on my experiences and observations over the years. Other women may have vastly different mileage:

For all the talk of men putting women on pedestals and goo goo ga ga'ing all over them, this only applies to about 20% of women. The rest of us are just the ones you talk to while you are trying to feign disinterest in someone else. And yes, we notice.

And, believe it or not, men do say no when approached. Again, maybe most will go for a quick f*ck, but it ends there. (Or if you're super "lucky", they'll take your number for the next time they want a quick f*ck.) But women who ask men for a date get turned down all the time, and not just because they might be reaching beyond their own sex rank. Believe it or not, not all men are open to all attractive women. Some actually do want a certain type of personality. Also, some can't stand it when the woman is the initiator/aggressor. There are no doubt other reasons as well. 

(I also suspect there must be at least some men out there who would be put off by a woman who just wanted sex straight up, no chaser. Or, at least worried about STDs? I dunno because I've never played this game, but it's hard to believe all men would respond favorably to this type of come-on.)

Most of the bold men who are approaching women regularly are looking only for ONS, or casual sex, but not actual dates. If the woman isn't interested in that, he will move on right away. His prerogative, of course, and no real loss for her, as they clearly want different things -- but nonetheless it does severely restrict the size of the dating pool. 

Many men will lie, lie, and lie some more about their intentions. If they're looking for ONS or casual sex, they'll pretend that you're the greatest thing since sliced bread and they can't live without you. If I had a nickel for every man who literally begged me to marry him the *very first time he even met me*, I'd have at least 60 cents. Now that's not a lot of money, but really, it's still pretty wild that anyone would even think to do this. Others have sworn I am not like anyone they have ever met before -- even though they've known me for exactly 3 seconds and have absolutely no idea who I am. And so on. 

Still speaking of lies: I've been promised gold, jewels, and vacations to exotic locales, seen men brag about their possessions, status, etc., drop names, pretend to be big cheeses, well-travelled and so on. It's possible that some of this was actually true -- but I doubt it.

And then, there's the actual date: Where if you win the game of chess, or basketball, or pool, or even beer pong, for gawd's sake, he will start to feel threatened and emasculated. Now I know some of us have already touched on this topic on this forum and the men here all swear that they love a challenging woman. But while this may be a select crowd, there are many out there who will get quite agitated just by losing a simple game, or who will feel utterly threatened if the woman has a higher education level, or earns more money, or what have you. So, then a part of women's "game" (if she's willing to play it) ends up being playing dumb, deliberately losing, or downplaying her talents and abilities. 

And, as Entropy said on one post, a lot of the good men are already taken. Don't get me wrong, there's still good ones out there, but they can be extremely difficult to find. 

It's a minefield. And a lot of women find dating very challenging, frustrating, and full of rejection.

And, yes, I solemnly swear that if I get the ability to swap men into women's bodies, I'll set myself up to walk a mile in a man's moccasins as well. Fair is fair, after all.


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> It seems like the wives are also happier, not cheated at all. It's a great bargain for both, and the attraction is maintained in a long term relationship.


THIS^^^^

My goal was to be a better husband to my wife.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> I was not in a steep dive but used it to help bring more passion into my marriage. It has helped me but my marriage is a work in progress and I intend to keep it that way.


I was wondering how you pulled this off and timelines. I can imagine it's very serious and hard work.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

SimplyAmorous said:


> I'm going to focus on your "sometimes" .....I don't feel we could BE any closer ... unless we were sewn together. And this doesn't diminish our attraction as so often spoken - without some game of Mystery... We laugh, we share it all, we romance....... Trust is definitely there.. I wouldn't call it blind...our history comes with a well laid foundation.....I had my days of taking him for granted with a little apathy... it was never over another man or C0ckholding....which seems so often the case read on this forum....but for the Joy of our children. I was hard on myself for that. I know humility...
> 
> And really...speaking of humanness...I've shown more faults, bad moments, vulnerabilities over him.....he is not deluded enough to see me as flawless..some delicate flower who could never do wrong...or hurt in a moment.
> 
> 
> :rofl: at the macaroni reference... loved reading this ... you choke me up Girl.. yeah, this captures how I feel also....
> 
> I've told him...explained in detail , the words/ warnings in others posts -when there was a
> 
> *Pedestal thread* >>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....why men should NOT pedestalize their women.... and he still comes back saying he feels that's the way to be and I deserve it... What should I do, brow beat him over this... It's how he feels... we sit in the bathtub every night & Yak about Things I read on TAM....so many subjects...in bubbles at times...
> 
> We've had some darn funny fights in our past...maybe I need to start one over the pedestal - demand I be taken down!! I'll pin his arms down ....I could see it now. What can you do... It's his way of being, he way of loving...
> 
> It certainly hasn't HURT us. It's more like this anyway >>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :smthumbup:


I get what both you and Trenton are saying. In both you and Trenton's marriage, it certainly sounds like you are not only put on a pedestal by your husband but you do the same for him. That's awesome in every way!! The problem starts when only one is on the pedestal and the other on the ground looking up, while the other is looking down. I think that's what many here were getting at......I think. :scratchhead:


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we agree.
> 
> Please don't cut down the limb, it's a great view!


I knew the spirit of your question because I perceive you as a woman who possesses these things they call Bushido. All of them. 

You are a fighter. So you live the way already.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I get what both you and Trenton are saying. In both you and Trenton's marriage, it certainly sounds like you are not only put on a pedestal by your husband but you do the same for him. That's awesome in every way!! The problem starts when only one is on the pedestal and the other on the ground looking up, while the other is looking down. I think that's what many here were getting at......I think. :scratchhead:


That is exactly it. There are selfish individuals who will be pedastalized, but will not do the same for their partner.


----------



## Entropy3000

SimplyAmorous said:


> I'm going to focus on your "sometimes" .....I don't feel we could BE any closer ... unless we were sewn together. And this doesn't diminish our attraction as so often spoken - without some game of Mystery... We laugh, we share it all, we romance....... Trust is definitely there.. I wouldn't call it blind...our history comes with a well laid foundation.....I had my days of taking him for granted with a little apathy... it was never over another man or C0ckholding....which seems so often the case read on this forum....but for the Joy of our children. I was hard on myself for that. I know humility...
> 
> And really...speaking of humanness...I've shown more faults, bad moments, vulnerabilities over him.....he is not deluded enough to see me as flawless..some delicate flower who could never do wrong...or hurt in a moment.
> 
> 
> :rofl: at the macaroni reference... loved reading this ... you choke me up Girl.. yeah, this captures how I feel also....
> 
> I've told him...explained in detail , the words/ warnings in others posts -when there was a
> 
> *Pedestal thread* >>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....why men should NOT pedestalize their women.... and he still comes back saying he feels that's the way to be and I deserve it... What should I do, brow beat him over this... It's how he feels... we sit in the bathtub every night & Yak about Things I read on TAM....so many subjects...in bubbles at times...
> 
> We've had some darn funny fights in our past...maybe I need to start one over the pedestal - demand I be taken down!! I'll pin his arms down ....I could see it now. What can you do... It's his way of being, he way of loving...
> 
> It certainly hasn't HURT us. It's more like this anyway >>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :smthumbup:


Oh dear sweet SA. You are so wonderful. You truly are. Peace my dear lady. 

I was only projecting from a personal discussion my wife and I had a long time ago. I absolutely do adore my wife. I think she wanted to be treated as a woman who was ok with being ravaged once in a while. LOL.


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> I was wondering how you pulled this off and timelines. I can imagine it's very serious and hard work.


I honestly have lost track of time. You know I think the real skill is something I learned in a new age thinking class. It was all about affirmations. Programming oneself. Be the ball kinda thing maybe.

I would say this took me a couple of months to realize the dopamine was coming back. I have no doubt that my wifes responsiveness made a huge difference. But it did lag. She was afraid. She told me as such. She was afraid I would rekindle things and then shut down again.

At its essence it is if I were such and such what would I do? How would I act? And I started behaving as if I was back in love. I used visualization of how we were as a couple from previous times. In some ways you ARE fooling yourself. Because you are doing things that normally you may only do in response to your wife. 
But slowly she responded. 

My situation was two fold. I had never forgiven myself for an EA I had long long ago. I realized that I had to forgive myself before I could be the husband my wife deserved.

Also my wife and I had shut down from one another due to our careers. This occurred over some number of years. During a couple of those years we were pretty much on opposite shifts. Bad juju. Both our careers took off to new levels. Well great. But we were not enjoying it together.

I think we have a tendency to fall back into this mode.

But I often give her massages. I wash her back in the tub. We take showers together. I let the sex happen for the most part. Meaning the massages for example are no strings attached. 

I date her. To be sure my wife humbles me with her displays of love. We were not at this stage five years ago.

Anyway I am writing this from the hip here. I allow myself to be in love with my wife. I am not being a doormat. I am just all about being a passionate man with her.

I think we are in a wave pattern these days. The good news is that I do not have to be the one to rekindle all the time.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Puh lease...oh the multitude of stories I have! What actually floors me is my husband's ability to see me at my worst and still be able to say that I'm beautiful and he loves me.
> 
> Sometimes he'll even ask me politely to get control over myself of which I quickly respond through tears of outrage, "Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Sob!!!!!"
> 
> At one point in history, they thought a women who was hysterical needed to be f&cked.
> 
> I don't know, I sort of agree.


I want to go on record that this is the husband responsibility. Certainly not for a doctor doing manual stimulation or the pool boy. LOL.

Gone with the Wind - You Need Kissing Badly - YouTube


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I get what both you and Trenton are saying. In both you and Trenton's marriage, it certainly sounds like you are not only put on a pedestal by your husband but you do the same for him. That's awesome in every way!! The problem starts when only one is on the pedestal and the other on the ground looking up, while the other is looking down. I think that's what many here were getting at......I think. :scratchhead:


Yes.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> I honestly have lost track of time. You know I think the real skill is something I learned in a new age thinking class. It was all about affirmations. Programming oneself. Be the ball kinda thing maybe.
> 
> I would say this took me a couple of months to realize the dopamine was coming back. I have no doubt that my wifes responsiveness made a huge difference. But it did lag. She was afraid. She told me as such. She was afraid I would rekindle things and then shut down again.
> 
> At its essence it is if I were such and such what would I do? How would I act? And I started behaving as if I was back in love. I used visualization of how we were as a couple from previous times. In some ways you ARE fooling yourself. Because you are doing things that normally you may only do in response to your wife.
> But slowly she responded.
> 
> My situation was two fold. I had never forgiven myself for an EA I had long long ago. I realized that I had to forgive myself before I could be the husband my wife deserved.
> 
> Also my wife and I had shut down from one another due to our careers. This occurred over some number of years. During a couple of those years we were pretty much on opposite shifts. Bad juju. Both our careers took off to new levels. Well great. But we were not enjoying it together.
> 
> I think we have a tendency to fall back into this mode.
> 
> But I often give her massages. I wash her back in the tub. We take showers together. I let the sex happen for the most part. Meaning the massages for example are no strings attached.
> 
> Anyway I am writing this from the hip here. I allow myself to be in love with my wife. I am not being a doormat. I am just all about being a passionate man with her.
> 
> I think we are in a wave pattern these days. The good news is that I do not have to be the one to rekindle all the time.


When you were talking about "dopamine", I thought you were saying that what you where doing was generating it in HER, and consistently keeping hers raised due to your vibe and action. Now, it's sounding like you did things that raised your own dopamine.

So it sounds like this transition did not take weeks or months, but it was a years thing.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> Yes.


So it is possible that both people are on a pedastal together, and together you maintain it?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I get what both you and Trenton are saying. In both you and Trenton's marriage, it certainly sounds like you are not only put on a pedestal by your husband but you do the same for him. That's awesome in every way!! The problem starts when only one is on the pedestal and the other on the ground looking up, while the other is looking down. I think that's what many here were getting at......I think. :scratchhead:


Yes,yes and YES!
Funny, I was on a thread recently and another female poster called me misogynist for saying the exact same thing..:scratchhead:
*_Whateverrrr_!*

Anyway,
This is a trap women are more prone to fall into IMO.
Women meet and marry the man of their dreams. The relationship sucks but she wants it to work , badly.
She tricks herself into thinking that if she puts the man on a pedestal, he would value her more and see her real worth.
Unfortunately, from a pedestal , he sees everyone around him as servants, because she bows at his feet.
That's the problem with putting some people on a pedestal.
Its risky business.
Not everyone can handle that amount of power.


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> When you were talking about "dopamine", I thought you were saying that what you where doing was generating it in HER, and consistently keeping hers raised due to your vibe and action. Now, it's sounding like you did things that raised your own dopamine.
> 
> So it sounds like this transition did not take weeks or months, but it was a years thing.


I raised my dopamine which raised her dopamine. It took two to three months to get in high gear. Things spiralled down so we needed to ratchet them up again.

We started dating again. We sat down and reserved time on her calendar for us. We come first.

I remember taking her to the Japanese gardens. We did some ten second kissing abd talking and enjoying each other. I love those surroundings. 

I still have a demanding job. Sometimes it takes all my time for extended periods. There was a six week spell from January 2nd to mid February that took my full energies. Pulling some all nighters and so on. This took a toll on our time together and a toll on my workout schedule as well. Just zapped me. But it puts food on the table.

I am taking a week off for vacation next week. The focus will be on quality time with my wife and I will do some phyiscal training as well.

This is what I mean by waves. The key is to continually restore things. To bend with life demands but not break. To not shut down. Contiunal cycle of rejuvinaton.

Now I have spent years now trying to understand any of this stuff.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DaddyLongShanks said:


> So it is possible that both people are on a pedastal together, and together you maintain it?


Yes.
But IMO that takes years of experience and a close understanding.
Certain things cannot be taken for granted.
Its a delicate balancing act.
Technically if both are on a pedestal, then the pedestal no longer exists because it becomes the new datum or normal.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Daddy said: "So it is possible that both people are on a pedastal together, and together you maintain it?"

Heck, yes! Its really great to worship and be worshipped. It feels truly spiritual and "right".


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> So it is possible that both people are on a pedastal together, and together you maintain it?


I can buy into that romantic concept. But one is still at the same level. It works for SA. But I get it. They elevate each other. if they are each others #1 priority then I guess that is being on dual pedastals

To me it is just husband and wife in love with each other meeting each others needs.

Perhaps escher can help.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Ah I can see how someone would call you a misogynist. It's not the message, it's the delivery.


So are you saying that she was justified , and that she spoke the truth?
And what's the difference between my " delivery " and brighteyes " delivery?"
IMO absolutely nothing is wrong with her " delivery " and I said basically the exact same thing she said....


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> I can buy into that romantic concept. But one is still at the same level. It works for SA. But I get it. They elevate each other. if they are each others #1 priority then I guess that is being on dual pedastals
> 
> To me it is just husband and wife in love with each other meeting each others needs.
> 
> Perhaps escher can help.


My goodness Entropy!
Sometimes we think alike!
Excellent [ 3D ]illustration!
Provides good _Cognitive Distortion_.........


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Some of the women are cake eaters in their "program", so they WILL want a supportive and loving reliable husband ( not that there's anything wrong with that ). They will use a sought after "Alpha" to Cuckhold the man with.
> 
> So he could be "real manning" it as hard and dedicated as he wants, and she gets off from crapping right in his face at every step of the way. This is the real world we live in, of course not everyone is doing it, but it is something that can happen in the game...


This utterly DISGUSTS me.....I can not stand people who *USE* someone innocent walking a straight line in love.... (I don't care if they have some nice Guy tendencies they need to get a handle on)....I see the willing user to be mercilessly conscience-less /vile & selfish as sin....it just raises a







under me....There are good people in this world, honest amidst their failings in a moment, humble to the truth none the less who will do the best for the other person even if it makes them look bad....

Then there are LIARS... deceivers , users and abusers with no conscience at all & still ...they'd take their spouse for every living dime in the aftermath like they were Entitled - seeing not their own hand. 



> I get what both you and Trenton are saying. In both you and Trenton's marriage, it certainly sounds like you are not only put on a pedestal by your husband but you do the same for him. That's awesome in every way!! The problem starts when only one is on the pedestal and the other on the ground looking up, while the other is looking down. I think that's what many here were getting at......I think.


 Of course, and I would agree with that 100%.... This is the danger...

It's just not always the case - when this form of expression is used... I surely Worship my man !! .... A few yrs back, I recall him going on how I treat him too good.... which was making him feel a little bad.... not that I agreed with that..but yeah..... I runneth his cup over - he once said to me ...."the grass is overloaded with fertilizer on this side of the fence".. Ha ha


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Ah I can see how someone would call you a misogynist. It's not the message, it's the delivery.
> 
> So the only way pedestal working, works is if both the husband and wife see one another as equally pedestal worthy.
> 
> I can understand this.
> 
> I will also say here the only way that happens is if there is great attraction which transforms into being able to be vulnerable which then leads to great trust, which transforms into admiration which transforms into pedestal.
> 
> OK
> 
> So games in the beginning makes sense on a base level in that no trust is offered or even expected and both people are feeling out the idea of relationships, people, etc.
> 
> If this game is played with the ill intent of only attaining sex or only attaining finances or power then the person playing the games isn't worthy of love.
> 
> Great. We should not support those types of people.
> 
> Now we move on....
> 
> It becomes about knowing oneself enough to be able to be vulnerable, a strong value system, a clear and experienced outlook on life and what the person wants from it.
> 
> Move on from here and you're in the deep end, the coveted end, the place most want to be but many only aspire to and can't understand why it's unattainable.
> 
> Voila.


Why yes. Very nice.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy said: "But one is still at the same level. It works for SA. But I get it. They elevate each other. if they are each others #1 priority then I guess that is being on dual pedastals."

To me, (maybe this is obvious and doesn't need to be said), but the pedstal thing we put each other on is not intended to "raise you up higher than ME", it is instead that I put you on this pedastal to "raise you up higher than all others". So not higher than me, just higher than all the other men on earth, in my case. Vice versa in his.

And we, up on our pedastals, are not "better" than all other suitors on earth, we aren't looking "down" on them...but instead, we can't even see them because we are up there on our equal height pedstals gazing into each other's eyes all day.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Entropy3000 said:


> Why yes. Very nice.


Some don't even know it exists. It's a fairytale.


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> Puh lease...oh the multitude of stories I have! What actually floors me is my husband's ability to see me at my worst and still be able to say that I'm beautiful and he loves me.
> 
> Sometimes he'll even ask me politely to get control over myself of which I quickly respond through tears of outrage, "Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Sob!!!!!"
> 
> At one point in history, they thought a women who was hysterical needed to be f&cked.
> 
> I don't know, I sort of agree.


Trenton sometimes your post really intrigue me. You talk about about how your husband keeps your emotionally grounded when you lose yourself. And this post here. I dunno. I get the feeling that if a man would have said that sometimes a man keeps a woman grounded because she gets a bit emotional or a woman needs a good fvck when she's hysterical, you would be deeply offended. Especially if he was that blunt.


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Some don't even know it exists. It's a fairytale.





> There's nothing you can do that can't be done.


The first thing that has to go is fear.

Now I tell you what. I do not know your situation. But I could see a guy going total Nickelback and being in a dark place with women under the right conditions. Sometimes we have to just roll around in it for a while so that we ultimately can set ourselves free. But one does have to set themself free eventually.

---

Update :

She was not the woman you were looking for. Get it pulled together however you can. Do not drown yourself in another woman to kill the pain. Let yourself heal. Then go looking for a quality woman. They do exist. Let yourself write the life you want. Do not be poisoned by a woman who would betray you. Purge yourself of her. I know easier said than done. But it can be done.


----------



## Entropy3000

FalconKing said:


> Trenton sometimes your post really intrigue me. You talk about about how your husband keeps your emotionally grounded when you lose yourself. And this post here. I dunno. I get the feeling that if a man would have said that sometimes a man keeps a woman grounded because she gets a bit emotional or a woman needs a good fvck when she's hysterical, you would be deeply offended. Especially if he was that blunt.


Women are a sweet enigma my friend.

Surrender


----------



## Entropy3000

I am hoping Brighteyes can sum up where this thread has been again. Perhaps she is waiting for the 100th page.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> Women are a sweet enigma my friend.
> 
> Surrender


Ahem, so are men. Take a look at this thread as an example. You have one group of men saying one thing and another saying another. If men were all "logic" then there would only be one answer, which there is not.


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> I understand why you would think that and would even agree with you. It would never work unless there was complete trust and understanding. Please don't think I'm promoting raping a woman because she is hysterical or that this would at any time be a cure for hysterics. Obviously, we can agree this wouldn't work and is a horrible thought. Truly, it is.
> 
> What I'm suggesting instead is that, in my case, my emotions can be so intense that I literally will not know what to do with them. Lust, and intense sexual relations during a really emotional time does work for me but here is where it gets tricky...only if my intense emotions are not revolving around anger towards my husband.
> 
> Can you understand this? I get that it may sound wrong. I'm only sharing what works for me and would never assume it works for other women or suggest men in general should subscribe to it.
> 
> I think this is why if I watch an intensely emotional drama or action flick that literally spirals me into tears or intense feelings, I'm keyed up for sex.


No I wasn't taking what you were saying as literal. But this actually is where i'm going. You are not the only person in the world who is very emotional. But I think if a man made a statement about his wife being very emotional and he keeps her grounded you would call him out and have need to remind how much he needs his wife. Also, you made a blunt and basic statement. You didn't literally mean anytime a woman is emotional or hysterical she needs a pounding. It's not as black at white as that. It's just sometimes physical intimacy is needed when a woman is feeling particularly vulnerable in a situation, granting her husband is not the source of her feeling that way. But I think if a man said the same thing you would be ready to challenge him. Because you would assume he didn't mean what you did and think of it as something negative. I really get the feeling that you just don't want man to make basic statements about women because you feel he is seeing woman as something basic and simple, even if you yourself would say the same.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> No. I would never say that without reading what you were referencing -but- I have read some of your posts and thought they were borderline.


Ok then,

Funny how I've never shown you one ounce of disrespect , nor thought any of your post were close to even borderline anything but good.
And I've always told you that.
I saw you through the eyes of your struggle.
I've always admired you and your family ,always told you so.
I've always complemented you on your work and your stand as a strong feminist.
So on what basis do you judge me?:scratchhead:


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Ahem, so are men. Take a look at this thread as an example. You have one group of men saying one thing and another saying another. If men were all "logic" then there would only be one answer, which there is not.



I see said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> Right. I think you got it exactly right.
> 
> I'm uncomfortable with having a man say those things because they can make leaps and assumptions, translate it into something it's not, something not personal or dependent upon the individual circumstance.


No disrespect. But it sounds like it's more of insecurity for you and not really fair to men. You talk about treating the sexes the same and their roles being interchangeable. But you've just said how you sometimes need a man to be a man and you don't want men to use the same language about women as you do.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Our textual interactions are the only thing I have to judge on. In some of them I do remember thinking...hmmm...he thinks women are less than and he relies on biology, but I didn't apply this label as an actual reality. My interpretations are rather fluid. I later thought, he admires strong women who go after what they want and will give them the respect they deserve if they earn it (like anyone else).
> 
> I've continued to text back and forth with you and gotten a clearer, better picture. I don't mean it to be insulting but rather my perspective and even now I wouldn't assume to know you. I'm still learning.
> 
> I do admire you and think you are intelligent, forward thinking and flexible. It helps that we agree on basic, fundamental beliefs; however, I've also admired some I completely disagree with so one is not a definer of the other necessarily.
> 
> Simply because you judged me positively and wrote that, I hope that does not in your mind equate to that I should always do the same. If it does, you'll possibly be disappointed.


"....*Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind*...” Dr. Seuss

True or False?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> I see said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.


That doesn't sound like it will end well. I was just pointing out that both sexes can be an enigma. It wasn't a "neg".


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> Don't worry about disrespecting me. No worries there. I do have my insecurities and many of them are deeply rooted within relationships, specifically between men and women. It is frustrating to want to understand so badly but always feel as if you're falling short on actual understanding.
> 
> As to the next par... When did I talk about the sexes being the same? I believe the sexes are very different but deserve equal rights and admiration for their differences.


It was on another thread. I think people were discussing how man feels loved and what he wants to bring to a relationship. I think you countered with women having the same wants and needs and could do anything a man can do. I guess I took that as meaning that you felt a man and woman were interchangeable in the relationship. 



> And what I actually wrote (and mean) is that men and women are different and for a woman to say how she feels and express what she wants is different than a man observing a woman and deciding what she wants and how she feels.


But what if he is right? How does that make you feel?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> True
> 
> Well, that was easy!


True.
You see,
It doesn't take anything to see another person's viewpoint, through _their_ eyes and not _your _eyes.

Only when we view it through someone else's eyes then can we get what they're really saying.

I could easily read your posts and conclude that you hate men.
But how can I honestly conclude that you hate men, when you only speak good of your husband?
How can you hate men and be proud of your entire family?
So I read your posts through your eyes, and I get the message.
_You hate inequality._

I would hope that you could apply the same rule to my posts.

I have never spoken one bad thing about my wife here.
I have always had high praises for her.
I have also publicly stated here that I married her because she is a strong independent woman.
Then how can I be a misogynist or my post be borderline misogyny?
Simply doesn't add up.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> Yup. Did not take it as a neg.
> 
> But who will have the first post on page 100?


Me!


----------



## Entropy3000

100 pages


----------



## FalconKing

ha! me!


----------



## FalconKing

damnit! ME!


----------



## FalconKing

damn...


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Nope, me.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Again, me.


----------



## FalconKing

this sh!t is so dumb...none of us have anything better to do!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Oh for God's sake.


----------



## Entropy3000

Ok. So someone planned to delete their post on page 99 to then claim the first post on page 100.

Cheating?

Well ... yes.

PUA!!!


----------



## FalconKing

Booyah!!


----------



## FalconKing

The great one! Shazam!


----------



## FalconKing

Falcon Kick!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> Ok. So someone planned to delete their post on page 99 to then claim the first post on page 100.
> 
> Cheating?
> 
> Well ... yes.


Hell I just deleted 4 of mine trying to turn back the clock. Exactly how do we know who hit the 100 page mark? And yeah, this is really ridiculous but then again, I'm in a ridiculously funny mood.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Hell I just deleted 4 of mine trying to turn back the clock. Exactly how do we know who hit the 100 page mark? And yeah, this is really ridiculous but then again, I'm in a ridiculously funny mood.


I absolutely counted on you doing that .... LOL.

I should have worked.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Hell I just deleted 4 of mine trying to turn back the clock. Exactly how do we know who hit the 100 page mark? And yeah, this is really ridiculous but then again, I'm in a ridiculously funny mood.


You did Brighteyes. I waited until someone hit 100. Then I deleted one and added one.


----------



## FalconKing

entropy3000 said:


> you did brighteyes. I waited until someone hit 100. Then i deleted one and added one.


hahahahahahaha!!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo's going to kill us all. Hopefully he will have a sense of humor about it. Yikes!
What again were we talking about? Oh yeah, pickup and game. So early this morning I was at Kroger and there was a guy in the produce section squeezing roma tomatoes a little too eagerly while looking around at women. That is a guy who does not have game.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Deejo's going to kill us all. Hopefully he will have a sense of humor about it. Yikes!
> What again were we talking about? Oh yeah, pickup and game. So early this morning *I was at Kroger and there was a guy in the produce section squeezing roma tomatoes a little too eagerly while looking around at women. That is a guy who does not have game.*


He will probably use his powers to rearrange the posts and then you will be first on page 100.

PUAs hang out at the Krogers ... and in the Walmart parking lot.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Deejo's going to kill us all. Hopefully he will have a sense of humor about it. Yikes!
> What again were we talking about? Oh yeah, pickup and game. So early this morning I was at Kroger and there was a guy in the produce section squeezing roma tomatoes a little too eagerly while looking around at women. That is a guy who does not have game.


He does have game.....
Just not the type of game that gets him women.


----------



## FalconKing

Entropy3000 said:


> He will probably use his powers to rearrange the posts and then you will be first on page 100.
> 
> PUAs hang out at the Krogers ... and in the Walmart parking lot.


thanks....but I really was going to rub it in you guys faces that I was first on 101....

Eh.. Anyway, this Kroger dude.. what did he look like because I was there today too. Was he sipping on a green tea frappe from starbucks with soymilk and whey protein? Was he engulfed in an aura of greatness? If so, you totally saw me!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> PUAs hang out at the Krogers ... and in the Walmart parking lot.


Hmmm. I guess I could see that a grocery store would be a good place to pick up women. You can tell a lot about a person by what items they buy. Plus more women tend to be there than men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I read one time in a dating advice book that the grocery stores, right after 5:00 pm, are a place where many singles end up going to grab some dinner on the way home. Therefore, a good place to possibly meet single people in your neighborhood.

Never tried it, was already with my H when I read it, but told some single friends about it.


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> Hmmm you'd have to show me where so I can read it.
> 
> If he is right, why is he right?


I don't know where it would be. I just remember thinking that. 

Maybe a behavior or response would prove him right. If a man assumed something and he was correct..... Are you just offended he made an assumption? Even though he was on the money?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy said: "But one is still at the same level. It works for SA. But I get it. They elevate each other. if they are each others #1 priority then I guess that is being on dual pedastals."
> 
> To me, (maybe this is obvious and doesn't need to be said), but the pedstal thing we put each other on is not intended to "raise you up higher than ME", it is instead that I put you on this pedastal to "raise you up higher than all others". So not higher than me, just higher than all the other men on earth, in my case. Vice versa in his.
> 
> And we, up on our pedastals, are not "better" than all other suitors on earth, we aren't looking "down" on them...but instead, we can't even see them because we are up there on our equal height pedstals gazing into each other's eyes all day.


This part is funny to me...We still notice the opposite sex and see other people...most definitely...But I can surely relate to everything else you say here FaithfulWife.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SA...well, lets just say that we notice other people, but we don't "see them that way". Of course other people are attrative, but they are not contenders for our hearts.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

All I know is Deejo has game. He roped us in with his rousing post and most of us have stuck around 100 pages later. :slap:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> Did I question that?
> 
> No. Lots of things that work are F*cked up.
> 
> Giving a woman a roofy may work. But that is way F*cked up.


Touche


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Daddy said: "It can be wives, girlfriends, people you meet out."
> 
> So women you have just met, will insult you about things you've done wrong and attack your insecurities and try to establish dominance over you? I saw your example of your ball-busting ****, but other than her...do you really get this type of behavior from just random women?


Yes! But the purpose is different from negging. Its more like a sh*t test. She's really seeing if you're going to stand up to her... and how you'll do it. Will you be a little bish, or will you dish as good as you get, or will you become downright mean. Its not a conscious plan, but that's the subconscious intent imo.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yes! But the purpose is different from negging. Its more like a sh*t test. She's really seeing if you're going to stand up to her... and how you'll do it. Will you be a little bish, or will you dish as good as you get, or will you become downright mean. Its not a conscious plan, but that's the subconscious intent imo.


I think it has to be an age thing then. At my age, I honestly don't know any woman who would act this way around a man she just met. Furthermore, why would any guy put up with that instead of just walking away? It seems totally counterproductive to me.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yes! But the purpose is different from negging. Its more like a sh*t test. She's really seeing if you're going to stand up to her... and how you'll do it. Will you be a little bish, or will you dish as good as you get, or will you become downright mean. Its not a conscious plan, but that's the subconscious intent imo.


This is an interesting perspective when you bring in the sh!t test aspect.

Not sure one has to neg to dismiss this but I get the concept. And again this is in the context of a pickup and not finding a ... relationship per se.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> They say to
> -evade, tease, obfuscate to keep her guessing
> -pretend to be indifferent to her, put her down, and keep her off balance as much as possible.
> -make her jealous, then give advice on all the tricks you can use to do that.
> -make sure that you never give her any more than 2/3 of what she gives you, be it compliments, gifts, whatever
> -ridicule "competing" males
> 
> If this all isn't deceptive and trickery, I don't know what is.


That's not deception and trickery. There's nothing false there.

The closest thing is "pretend to be indifferent"... and you've got it wrong. Its "be indifferent"... there are a lot of women in the world, you don't have to worry about whether this one likes you.

Am I deceiving someone in an argument when I say "I understand where you're coming from, and you have a great point... the way I was thinking of it was more like...." because I know a statement like that disarms people and makes them much more likely to rationally consider my position and end up actually agree with me? This isn't deception. This is pursuasion. Its just awareness of human psychology.

"How to make people GLAD to give you what you want"

The rest is regular courtship and being playful.

I tried to convey this notion before in another thread and was accused of being beta lol. I make the girls do more of the chasing. I make the approach, but then I induce them to chase. They end up trying to impress ME and happy when I respond.

If its a good night, I have more than one girl paying me extra attention... and the attention they're giving me seems to encourage even more attention (there's pre-selection again). Its a domino effect. All I do is knock over the first couple dominos.

How about we talk hypocrisy? Look how many of the traits above are also used by women in the dating scene: evasion, indifference, teasing/put downs, instigate jealousy (getting chummy with other guys, running up and hugging that random guy "friend" that shows up... right in the middle of another guy's sentence), giving back 2/3 or less (LESS!) of what a guy is putting into it, ridiculing competing females. It doesn't seem like it, you're not going to accept it, but this is all about establishing value.

A woman lures men with her looks, then sits back and plays the game... being the chooser. What I always try to do is flip the dating paradigm. I lure women with a combination of looks, humor, charm and nonchalance... then I sit back. Now I'm the chooser.

There is absolutely a push-pull to it, but its not deceptive. If women didn't want it, they wouldn't respond to it. So where is the deception? There is none. What's really going on here is non-verbal communication (hint hint, MOST communication is non-verbal - in every scenario, not just dating). Everyone is setting their value and negotiating a transaction.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I think it has to be an age thing then. At my age, I honestly don't know any woman who would act this way around a man she just met. Furthermore, why would any guy put up with that instead of just walking away? It seems totally counterproductive to me.


I agree. More generally a matter of maturity.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I think it has to be an age thing then. At my age, I honestly don't know any woman who would act this way around a man she just met. Furthermore, why would any guy put up with that instead of just walking away? It seems totally counterproductive to me.


I can't say. Negging isn't something I'm a big fan of... but there's a time, place and personality for it.

Sure, a guy could walk away... if he wants to show her that he's a p*ssy not worth her time. If he won't stand up to her, why should she think he's going to stand up FOR her. Protypical sh*t test.

If men retreated from every obstacle thrown at them by women, homosapiens would become extinct. You all do this to some degree... most of you don't even realize it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Yet MMSL advises that husbands follow the Roissy Golden Ratio, and ensure that they only offer 2/3 the amount of affection and compliments that are given by the wife.


There's not a magic number. The point is: don't over do the compliments or you'll be the the losing end of the relationship dynamic - always seeking her, causing her seeking of him to gradually decline. Rarely is there a perfect balance in any relationship dynamic - idealistic, yes. Realistic, not often. If he's gone overboard on compliments and in doing so basically devalued himself, he should dial the compliments way back. 2/3 is a good number.

Consider the audience the book was written for, and maybe you'll understand.

Remember that one can only control one's OWN actions. You can't control your partner. He can't make her compliment him MORE. She might just be a crappy wife. He'll know after he dials down his compliments, holds his value, and sees how she responds.

Its just human psychology. We tend not to idolize those who idolize us. In a healthy relationship, I think there's an ebb and flow. In a relationship where a guy has over committed, he needs to reign it in.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I can't say. Negging isn't something I'm a big fan of... but there's a time, place and personality for it.
> 
> Sure, a guy could walk away... if he wants to show her that he's a p*ssy not worth her time. If he won't stand up to her, why should she think he's going to stand up FOR her. Protypical sh*t test.
> 
> If men retreated from every obstacle thrown at them by women, homosapiens would become extinct. You all do this to some degree... most of you don't even realize it.


We're talking about somebody you just met, not a relationship situation, right? If I just met somebody and they start with lobbing words/negs/sh!t tests at me, I would just walk away. Why would I tolerate that behavior from a virtual stranger? I would ask the same of men. Why would that make him a [email protected]? If I was a guy I would think this chick is awful and not worth my time. Why would I waste it hurling things back at her? I just don't get it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Daddy, ok I will take your word for it, and I will observe it in the wild to see if I can pick that up. Maybe I'm just not paying attention.
> 
> Dvls...in our case, the teasing is always straight up sexual in nature, and is a very specific type of sex game we are playing. It involves degredation. But again, this is consentual, loving, and only sexual.


Ok, I don't know that I would consider that negging then. Just sounds like dom/sub play. Who knows though... words are weak. I prefer to think of all of this stuff as I do light... there is a spectrum without clear cut lines marking the beginning of yellow from red.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

DaddyLongShanks said:


> So this "Rossy Golden Ratio" is designed to keep more attention and stuff coming YOUR way? Doesn't sound like love at all.


Ironic... because its a legit way to hold on to love if you've over done the compliments for a long time.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Wiserforit said:


> That sure sounds good to me!
> 
> I wouldn't let this thread get you down as some kind of representation about men. The ones who resort to PUA literature self-identify as the ones girls were not interested in.


As Simply readily admits, most women don't go for her kind of man. He just never cared that they didn't. More power to them. 

A lot of those guys are alone for a good long time.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> SA, we live very different lives and have very different husbands -but- I can tell you point blank that my husband placing me on a pedestal is important to me.


Was it you who mentioned once that they had BPD?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> Are you saying they are not being open and forth coming?
> 
> Are you saying they would lie by omission?
> 
> I would never marry a woman who felt she cound not tell me who her partners had been.
> 
> This should be easier for someone at 25 than 45.
> 
> My wife knows my history and I have every reason to believe I know hers.


That's really interesting to me. I don't care who her partners have been. I only care about how she is with me.

I agree someone should be open, but I'm not concerned with itemizing her sexual history. I don't care. I'm more concerned with our current relationship than I am her past relationships... and I think the information gleened from those past relationships is hit and miss as far as its predictive capacity.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls said: "Consider the audience the book was written for, and maybe you'll understand."

Yes, I think this is why things get confusing. Because there are books written for "nice girls" who have had their hearts dragged around, too. And in THOSE books it talks about how guys do this and guys do that and to counter act those acts you "nice girls" need to do this and that.

So when you (Dvls) say things like "women give sh*t tests", all I can think about is how this is not an absolute that only women do. There are books written about how men do the same and some women reading them then might think that ALL men do this, the same way that you currently think all women do this.

Isn't it more logical to say and believe that "some men and some women" act that way?


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's really interesting to me. I don't care who her partners have been. I only care about how she is with me.
> 
> I agree someone should be open, but I'm not concerned with itemizing her sexual history. I don't care. I'm more concerned with our current relationship than I am her past relationships... and I think the information gleened from those past relationships is hit and miss as far as its predictive capacity.


Do not take this as a neg. BUT, I am a thinking kind of person. If something is very important to me I have enough self esteem to know that I can reason enough to improve my chances dramatically for success. It all very much matters in very practical ways.

If you value your current and future success you need to understand the past. Those that want to forget the past have reason to forget it. One needs to be fine with their past. Whatever it is. If you cannot come to grips with your own past then you have real problems and are not ready for a deep relationship. Baggage. If she is into banging guys off stage then so be it. But if she was into that and wants to hide it then that is a double whammy IMO. Honesty and a woman's self esteem matter. You do not want to marry a woman with low self esteem.

So you would not care if the woman you were intending to marry had spent years in a mental institution, years of drug abuse, was a serial cheater, was a pathological lier? Her six previous marriages ended in the husband mysteriously dying? That she has never had a monogamous period in her life. That ALL her sexual partners were ONSs? You may be ok with a working girl. Maybe someone who was a stripper and has done tricks on the side. Maybe you have some mutual friends. If so then why not just be forthcoming about it all.

Now cool if you are this casual about choosing a woman who you intend to spend the rest of your life with.

I am not talking about a chick you just want to have some fun with and enjoy banging her because shes kinda kinky. 

Now I will admit, wink wink, as far as a persona for man who wants to draw chicks for sex then stating that you do not care about a woman's past does not matter. You will draw more women in total and you will draw a greater variety of those that are looking to hook up. You by being less selective does improve your number of potential sexual partners.

But I would suggest a guy choose a woman he is compatible with to marry. Otherwise it is just a very brief sample and men are then influenced mostly by a small view of things. In other words this chick is banging his brains out. They get along well. This is freaking awesome. But if you have much experience you know that this is not enough.


----------



## Created2Write

DaddyLongShanks said:


> So this "Rossy Golden Ratio" is designed to keep more attention and stuff coming YOUR way? Doesn't sound like love at all.


I know this is slightly off topic, but I had to comment; there are many things we should do in marriage that won't "sound" loving, no matter which way you slice them. But that doesn't mean they aren't absolutely necessary. When my husband used to neglect my emotional needs, I _had_ to learn how to enforce boundaries in a respectful way. When that alone didn't work, I had to be more blunt and, even, harsh. When that didn't work, I finally had to ask him if he even wanted to be married to me at all, since his actions certainly made me feel more like a nuisance than anything. When _that_ didn't work, I finally told him that I would leave him if he didn't start making me a priority and actively working to meet my needs. 

That doesn't "sound" loving, does it? It sounds like I'm making threats just to get what I want, but inside of a committed marriage, there are things we have to do that can cause the other person to feel uncomfortable, but in the long run is better for us. For men who expect their needs to be met when they refuse to meet their wives needs, they need a rude awakening. For women who withhold sex while their husbands do everything they can to make them feel loved, he can start to question his worth as a man. MMSL can help a man in that situation to find his worth within himself, independent of anything his wife says or does. Which, in turn, will likely change how he acts, which _can_ increase his wife's attraction to him. 

How is that a bad thing, exactly?


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls said: "Consider the audience the book was written for, and maybe you'll understand."
> 
> Yes, I think this is why things get confusing. Because there are books written for "nice girls" who have had their hearts dragged around, too. And in THOSE books it talks about how guys do this and guys do that and to counter act those acts you "nice girls" need to do this and that.
> 
> So when you (Dvls) say things like "women give sh*t tests", all I can think about is how this is not an absolute that only women do. There are books written about how men do the same and some women reading them then might think that ALL men do this, the same way that you currently think all women do this.
> 
> Isn't it more logical to say and believe that "some men and some women" act that way?


I think most women give fitness tests and do not even realize it. It is a natural dynamic. YMMV.

You just do not see it as such. If you do not believe there is sucj a thing then sobeit.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy said: "You just do not see it as such."

Yes, in the exact same way that you (a man) don't see what men do to women "as such". Being that I don't get treated by other women as men do, I won't necessarily see the things you are talking about. But the same goes the other way, too.

I do believe it happens. I just don't believe it is women only who do this. If it is natural behavior, it is natural on both sides.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> SA, we live very different lives and have very different husbands -but- I can tell you point blank that my husband placing me on a pedestal is important to me.
> 
> I do think I deserve it. In fact, when he tries to take me off that pedestal, well...that's what macaroni is for.


I know this wasn't directed at me, but I have a few thoughts. 

Firstly, do you put your husband on a pedestal? Or does this only go one way?



> I am humble to the world. I have to be. I don't know much about it and I learn every day but this does not for a moment translate into the idea that I don't want or deserve to be on a pedestal with my husband. I believe I absolutely do!


Oh, you feel you deserve to be on a pedestal _with_ your husband? So, that's not really your husband _putting_ you on one, but rather him _keeping_ you on one beside him. Perhaps our ideas of a "pedestal" is different, but when I imagine a person on a pedestal, I imagine them above everyone around them. Frankly, if my husband put me on a pedestal, I'd be putting him in some IC for an unhealthy view of our relationship.

And, to clarify, I don't even see us on a pedestal _together_. I'm not better than anyone else in the world, nor is he. We have our weaknesses. Why should we put ourselves before everyone else?



> When the world is dragging me down and has me questioning my belief in it or in myself, damn right I want a man who will put me on a pedestal and say...baby, you're the greatest let's get through this and figure it out for you. Gives me the courage to keep on keeping it on.


My husband does this, but I don't see it the same way at all. I see a man who is willing to give me the support I need when I'm feeling overwhelmed by the situations around me. But that's not putting me on some kind of pedestal. My husband loves me more than any other woman in the world, and he acknowledges that I'm definitely the best woman _for him_, but he's not so naive as to think that I'm the best woman _in the world_. _I_ don't think I am, either. If he ever tried to tell me otherwise, I'd lose respect for him because it would mean that he's lying.



> I am an emotional freak. I care so very, very deeply about anything I'm involved in. I'm also a perfectionist, and possibly a little nuts. I need an anchor, a man who is not afraid to tell me how it is but in the same breath tell me he wishes it was different and that we can make it different if we try hard enough or still have one another if we fail.


My husband does this as well, which I love. And I am also very emotional.



> The Knight in Shinning Armor. Ah well, not too popular an idea these days. For me? Love it. I don't want feminized men who doubt every decision they make or mouse themselves into believing they are stuck where they are. I want someone physically stronger than me, more reasonable where emotions are concerned, and more logical and diabolical where humanity is concerned. This is the only way I can be allowed to be the opposite and I am essentially the opposite.


I agree with this. My husband is my Knight, but not the fairy tale version. I used to see myself as a weak woman, locked in a tower of my own making, needing a man to come and get me out of it. My husband has never been that guy. Instead, he's always supported me and seen the strength I have within myself. He helped me see just what I'm capable of, just how strong I can be, regardless of what I face. He's my support. He's stronger than me, he's not as emotional as I am, but he expects me to be just as smart as him. And while I may be physically weaker, he expects me to use the strength I have and not to depend on him to feel like a woman.



> Both equally important but startlingly different.
> 
> With this I want faithful and honest. Just as a man does not want a woman to fake it, wants a woman thrilled at the idea of pleasing him...I want the same but more so when it comes to the care and keeping of me and our family.
> 
> That's at the crux of my relationship and it's not always perfect or in sync as yours is because my husband and I are so different from you and yours. BUT, I know one thing and that is that he is the one for me and if he chooses to behave in a way that I can't live with then I will be alone. And oh how he tests me sometimes, especially with his ideas of work and a man's need to provide to the point of almost, several times, destroying our relationship and all sense of trust that needs to be there to keep it going. Perhaps it's because I feel excluded, lonely at those times?
> 
> Anyway, I think it's funny that two women who are so very different can agree on a fundamental level and I think this says something, something important.


Basically, I agree with a lot of what you've said, but I don't think it's healthy for anyone to put their spouse on a pedestal. We begin to lose trust for them when they make mistakes, or, those who are put on the pedestal lose respect for the other when they don't add up to them. Especially because no one is better than the other, imo, it's best to keep a realistic view of who we're with and not think of this as above or beneath us, but to see them as equals.


----------



## Entropy3000

A Night at the Roxbury (What is Love - Haddaway) - YouTube

Pickup Lines


----------



## soccermom2three

This thread has been a fascinating read. 

I've never heard of "negging", so I googled examples. I'm finding it hard to believe a woman would fall for this type of thing. I guess there are really naive women out there or maybe it is an age thing. I'm 48. If a guy said any of the examples to me, I would think he's rude or odd. Maybe I'm not getting the psychology behind it. I mean if a guy is telling me "too bad you're a brunette, I'm into blonds now". Ummm, okay? Why are you telling me this? And why are you talking to me then?

This one was my favorite:

You: You got something on your shirt. *points with finger* 
Her: *Looks down* 
You: *Moves finger up and hits her face* 

Really? That guy admitted to using this one. Isn't that like junior high stuff? Weirdo.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

soccermom2three said:


> I mean if a guy is telling me "too bad you're a brunette, I'm into blonds now". Ummm, okay? Why are you telling me this? And why are you talking to me then?


Same here! Why are you wasting my time then exactly? The whole thing just seems so weird.


----------



## Entropy3000

The Doors - People Are Strange - YouTube

Crazy Just because.

Yeah

Low May not find a 40 year old woman in this scene that you really want to know.

Mystery -- Kino Escalation

Mystery -- Comfort Building Kino

Sorry. I am bored. Yeah there is tons to do for the long haul but I start vacation today. Having trouble focusing. I know me if I engage something new I will be working late when I should be gone.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

So where are you off to? Don't tell me you signed up for Mystery's course in the Appalacian Mountains.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's not deception and trickery. There's nothing false there.
> 
> The closest thing is "pretend to be indifferent"... and you've got it wrong. Its "be indifferent"... there are a lot of women in the world, you don't have to worry about whether this one likes you.
> 
> Am I deceiving someone in an argument when I say "I understand where you're coming from, and you have a great point... the way I was thinking of it was more like...." because I know a statement like that disarms people and makes them much more likely to rationally consider my position and end up actually agree with me? This isn't deception. This is pursuasion. Its just awareness of human psychology.
> 
> "How to make people GLAD to give you what you want"
> 
> The rest is regular courtship and being playful.


LOL. Well if you are happy with your success inducing girls to chase you, and happy with the caliber that you are drawing, then you really don't stand to gain anything from my perspective.

But I'll give it to you anyway.

Seems to me you are deliberately pulling innocuous examples to deflect what I'm saying. And if you are being truthful about it all, and are able to maintain your charm without ever employing deceptive tactics, then all the power to you. Integrity is always an admirable quality, IMO.

But it is disingenuous to say that PUA is all just playful, harmless courtship. I would not waste a minute on a man who negged me. At most he would get one raised eyebrow and a "you gotta be kidding me" look. Nor would I bother chasing someone who is baiting me, then running off to chat up another woman. Why would I?

Similarly, I'm not at all interested in someone who is pretending to appreciate me for me, when all he really wants is a ONS. Or is lying about his relationship status. Or is ridiculing other guys to up his status. Or any of these other stupid games, all of which I find to be deceptive and manipulative.

And yes, I know that women also play stupid games. But I don't. And neither do the women I choose to befriend, as far as I can tell.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Okay. Here's a bit of expansion based on my experiences and observations over the years. Other women may have vastly different mileage:
> 
> For all the talk of men putting women on pedestals and goo goo ga ga'ing all over them, this only applies to about 20% of women.


So are you saying that pedastaling and goo goo ga ga'ing, would work on the other 80% of women, but its not attempted?

In my experience, men make passes at women they think they stand at least a small chance of getting. Of my circle of friends, I'm the only one who will talk up a girl that I realistically think I have little to no chance of getting (hey, it can't hurt). If a guy is a 7 and he goes over and compliments a girl who is a 7... she says thank you, but it generally doesn't go anywhere. If he starts talking about how awesome he thinks she is and goes full ret*rd (goo goo ga ga)... he's downright creepy. Even her thank you's are going to start looking awkward and she's NOT going to be into this guy. Honestly, he looks sad, needy, pathetic, clingy... boring. His compliments are many, but their quality is low. He issues them so readily they're worthless. Inflation has stolen all of his value... and he just keeps digging the hole until she's thinking "ugh... go away guy." I see it over and over again.



always_alone said:


> But women who ask men for a date get turned down all the time, and not just because they might be reaching beyond their own sex rank. Believe it or not, not all men are open to all attractive women. Some actually do want a certain type of personality. Also, some can't stand it when the woman is the initiator/aggressor. There are no doubt other reasons as well.


This is so far outside the realm of my experience I can't relate to it. I feel most men are open to all attractive women - even ones who don't fit our "type". Its not put to the test often however... women flirt a lot (many men are utterly oblivious), but women don't ask guys out very much. The closest I can get to being able to relate is to question whether the two are really on par in terms of looks. How do you know she's on par with him? Its so subjective I have trouble making this call too. My ex wife and I played the people watching game a few times and where she would usually say a couple is a good match, I'd think the girl outranked the guy. I almost always ranked the girl higher than she did, while the guy's rankings were all over the map. She'd think he's high and I'd think he's low or vice versa. Rarely did we agree. Not sure what's up with that.



always_alone said:


> (I also suspect there must be at least some men out there who would be put off by a woman who just wanted sex straight up, no chaser. Or, at least worried about STDs? I dunno because I've never played this game, but it's hard to believe all men would respond favorably to this type of come-on.)


There are. It wouldn't work on all men... but I'm a cynic. I think most take the bait. STDs are a thought re: easy sex... but boy does your brain really try to rationalize them into non-existence.

I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you that big head is often little head's bish. A LOT of men will do some amazingly stupid things.



always_alone said:


> Most of the bold men who are approaching women regularly are looking only for ONS, or casual sex, but not actual dates.


This seems mischaracterized to me. When I'm single and looking... I'm ALWAYS looking for sex, but its not "just sex". I'm looking because I'm horny. Otherwise I'd be doing my hobbies. Its not that I'm closed to a relationship - relationships are cool. Realistically though, its more likely I'm going to know right when I meet someone whether I'm sexually attracted to them or not. I'm not going to know if I want a relationship with them for quite some time. I can look at her and know I want sex. I can't look at her and know I want a relationship. Heck, I might hang out with her for a week and not feel that I want a relationship... then on day 8 it dawns on me. Sometimes it never does. I'm not being a jerk because of it, that's just how it is. And to be fair, I think most of us want the sex... even women. Many women just tend to hold out for additional conditions... like relationships and greater emotional connection. Men seem to hold out more on the relationship... or, oddly, go into a relationship with every woman that comes along.

Not sure... I'm just thinking out loud now.



always_alone said:


> Many men will lie, lie, and lie some more about their intentions.


I don't know anyone actually talks about their intentions. A lot of men lie to impress, sure. Intentions? Omission perhaps? But c'mon... I think most of you know that if we're flirting with you, we want to have sex with you. Hell, if we're talking to you we probably want to have sex with you. Okay okay... you got me, if you walk on two legs, and don't scare small children, we want to have sex with you.  haha j/k, we're not that bad... maybe.



always_alone said:


> And then, there's the actual date: Where if you win the game of chess, or basketball, or pool, or even beer pong, for gawd's sake, he will start to feel threatened and emasculated. Now I know some of us have already touched on this topic on this forum and the men here all swear that they love a challenging woman. But while this may be a select crowd, there are many out there who will get quite agitated just by losing a simple game, or who will feel utterly threatened if the woman has a higher education level, or earns more money, or what have you. So, then a part of women's "game" (if she's willing to play it) ends up being playing dumb, deliberately losing, or downplaying her talents and abilities.


You were dating losers. That's really all I can say about that. I don't get it at all. I don't care if she wins or is better than me at something - its to be expected that if she spends more of her time practicing X, she's likely to be better at it than I am. Woopty. Chess in particular isn't a fair game though. I've played A LOT of chess and was on two state champion teams. Still, I let her win. I'll come out swinging, dominate the game and then purposefully make a series of "mistakes". Her enthusiasm for it plumets and then skyrockets as she comes back and wins. Then I tell her I let her win... the classic play right? But I really did let her win. And I get the classic response "whatever, I kicked your butt!" Deceptive? Hey, I told her I let her win.

Another girl used to kick my butt in mario cart and some 007 game we played on an old N64. She actually did irritate me a bit because she was so gloaty about it. She'd kill me before I could even find a gun in 007. lol



always_alone said:


> a lot of the good men are already taken. Don't get me wrong, there's still good ones out there, but they can be extremely difficult to find.


Especially if you think everyone who hits on you is automatically a bad guy. That's kinda like thinking every pretty woman is a ditz isn't it?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls said: "This is so far outside the realm of my experience I can't relate to it. I feel most men are open to all attractive women - even ones who don't fit our "type". Its not put to the test often however... women flirt a lot (many men are utterly oblivious), but women don't ask guys out very much."

Just because this hasn't been your experience, you think that all other men are having the same experience that you are?

Women ask men out all the time. Even on OLD. And no, not every one of these men says "yes" just because he will have sex with anyone. Many of them are simply not interested for their own reasons.

There are extremely agressive and extroverted women just as there are the same qualities in some men. Those women have no problem asking out men, and yes they do get turned down sometimes.


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So where are you off to? Don't tell me you signed up for Mystery's course in the Appalacian Mountains.


End of the quarter, crazy around here so haven't had time to really read. I know this wasn't for me ... but

I am going to the mountains next weekend ... with that woman I manipulated into loving me :FIREdevil:

Adventure Suites - North Conway, New Hampshire Lodging :: HOME

Check out the suites ...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> you really don't stand to gain anything from my perspective.


I don't keep trying to relate this to you for my gain. I've been trying to convey all along that the patterns and skills that belong to PUAs are not false, abusive or malignant. Any given PERSON may be lying, but what is prescribed by PUA and makes a guy more appealing to women is not lying. As I've said before, lying is poor game.



always_alone said:


> Seems to me you are deliberately pulling innocuous examples to deflect what I'm saying. And if you are being truthful about it all, and are able to maintain your charm without ever employing deceptive tactics, then all the power to you. Integrity is always an admirable quality, IMO.


I'm not pulling innocuous examples. I'm giving you the real deal. This is exactly what it is. How can you think I'm never employing deceptive tactics if you think game is all about deception? The way I see it, is that you can't differentiate between the gun and the person using it. Hate the player, not the game. You've heard it before I'm sure, now maybe you get it?



always_alone said:


> I would not waste a minute on a man who negged me. At most he would get one raised eyebrow and a "you gotta be kidding me" look. Nor would I bother chasing someone who is baiting me, then running off to chat up another woman. Why would I?


Hey, I would totally believe you, but that's what they ALL say. I truly believe you believe it... just like they do. I think I told you I picked up a girl once over a conversation ABOUT how much she hates PUA. She even talked about how stupid someone must be to think negging works. I negged her literally 5 minutes later and she was none the wiser.

Conceptually, most of what's in PUA books is so non-intuitive that the first time you're exposed to it you think "this is retarded... no way that works. What crap!" I'm so interested in the subject because of how dramatically it shifted my thinking. It works. Seriously. Even as EVERY woman seems to say "that would never work"... it just... works. That's why I find these conversations so entertaining. I've been on your side of the fence. I understand your perspective.



always_alone said:


> Similarly, I'm not at all interested in someone who is pretending to appreciate me for me, when all he really wants is a ONS. Or is lying about his relationship status. Or is ridiculing other guys to up his status. Or any of these other stupid games, all of which I find to be deceptive and manipulative.


Game is agnostic to intentions. Whether you're after a ONS, or a relationship... good game will get you what you want. Hate the player, not the game. Not everyone with game is a player.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Created2Write said:


> I know this is slightly off topic, but I had to comment; there are many things we should do in marriage that won't "sound" loving, no matter which way you slice them. But that doesn't mean they aren't absolutely necessary. When my husband used to neglect my emotional needs, I _had_ to learn how to enforce boundaries in a respectful way. When that alone didn't work, I had to be more blunt and, even, harsh. When that didn't work, I finally had to ask him if he even wanted to be married to me at all, since his actions certainly made me feel more like a nuisance than anything. When _that_ didn't work, I finally told him that I would leave him if he didn't start making me a priority and actively working to meet my needs.
> 
> That doesn't "sound" loving, does it? It sounds like I'm making threats just to get what I want, but inside of a committed marriage, there are things we have to do that can cause the other person to feel uncomfortable, but in the long run is better for us. For men who expect their needs to be met when they refuse to meet their wives needs, they need a rude awakening. For women who withhold sex while their husbands do everything they can to make them feel loved, he can start to question his worth as a man. MMSL can help a man in that situation to find his worth within himself, independent of anything his wife says or does. Which, in turn, will likely change how he acts, which _can_ increase his wife's attraction to him.
> 
> How is that a bad thing, exactly?


Not bad at all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls said to AA: "That's why I find these conversations so entertaining. I've been on your side of the fence. I understand your perspective."

But you so *haven't* been on her, or anyone woman's, side of the fence. You can't completely understand her perspective, just as she can't completely understand yours. 

I sent you via PM a book title that talks about many MANY phenomenon in the dating world that I have to guess, you have not read about or encountered yourself. Yet the book was a best seller (and it actually used to have a website full of 1,000's of mostly women discussing it). 

The things you keep saying are "true for everyone" are being shown to you over and over are not "true for everyone". And we keep offering other things that happen in the male-female dynamics, but if any of them didn't happen in your experience, you totally doubt them.

I really think you have come to the conclusion that every man's experience is like yours...but I know for a fact it is not, and I would say, yours isn't even at the top of the bell curve. Your experience follows the pattern of a certain type of guy, and only that type of guy.

Edited to Add: not that this means your perspective isn't very true and relevant. It is.


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So where are you off to? Don't tell me you signed up for Mystery's course in the Appalacian Mountains.


Just hanging out in the Big D area. Enjoying the weather. Quality time.

The Poconos are nice this time of year ...


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> End of the quarter, crazy around here so haven't had time to really read. I know this wasn't for me ... but
> 
> I am going to the mountains next weekend ... with that woman I manipulated into loving me :FIREdevil:
> 
> Adventure Suites - North Conway, New Hampshire Lodging :: HOME
> 
> Check out the suites ...


My goodness those are cool. I can't figure out which one I like best. The Jungle one looks awesome but so does the Tree House, Love Shack and Sugar Shack! All of them really, well except for the Dragon's Lair. That would be his thing but I'd have to sleep with one eye open. So which one did you book?


----------



## Entropy3000

Deejo said:


> End of the quarter, crazy around here so haven't had time to really read. I know this wasn't for me ... but
> 
> I am going to the mountains next weekend ... with that woman I manipulated into loving me :FIREdevil:
> 
> Adventure Suites - North Conway, New Hampshire Lodging :: HOME
> 
> Check out the suites ...


Very nice!!!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FalconKing said:


> Trenton sometimes your post really intrigue me. You talk about about how your husband keeps your emotionally grounded when you lose yourself. And this post here. I dunno. I get the feeling that if a man would have said that sometimes a man keeps a woman grounded because she gets a bit emotional or a woman needs a good fvck when she's hysterical, you would be deeply offended. Especially if he was that blunt.


Yep. They hate him, and love him for it. That's the dichotomy. Voodoo I tell you. Voodoo.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Ahem, so are men. Take a look at this thread as an example. You have one group of men saying one thing and another saying another. If men were all "logic" then there would only be one answer, which there is not.


Call me crazy, but I think 9 out of 10 guys are in the same neighborhood as far as game goes.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> As Simply readily admits, most women don't go for her kind of man. He just never cared that they didn't. More power to them.
> 
> A lot of those guys are alone for a good long time.


I thought about this thing today whilst at the gym.
And I tried to remember how things were when I was single.
I think Soccermom & Brighteyes are correct.
This PUA stuff only worked on certain types of girls and if my memory served me correct , the environment also played an important part.
Please bear in mind my reference point is from a different country / culture.
But that aside, I had different ways I approached women , depending on the place , environment and the person, at the time. 
If the girl was among a group of other girls , it was tricky.
If she was by herself , then it was easy.

A lot of times women approached me too.
But PUA, negging and so forth, does not work on all women.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> Oh, you feel you deserve to be on a pedestal _with_ your husband? So, that's not really your husband _putting_ you on one, but rather him _keeping_ you on one beside him. Perhaps our ideas of a "pedestal" is different, but when I imagine a person on a pedestal, I imagine them above everyone around them. Frankly, if my husband put me on a pedestal, I'd be putting him in some IC for an unhealthy view of our relationship.


 I dare say Created2write ....I feel you are envisioning* the word* differently than myself & Trenton... Ya know I could just quiet my mouth and not put this stuff on this forum....bringing this little exchange of ours into the light.. 

If you knew us, you'd think we're pretty damn Humble people, so just cause a man uses this term in relation to his wife... or even Me saying this about my man - surely has nothing what so ever to do with us needing emotional council or we think we are superior over other people.....that would be a hell of a :rofl:..we basically have no successful status or acclaim whatsoever... 

You will surely understand this Created2write.. Your #1 Emotional Need (as I recall -or in the top 3) is ADMIRATION... 

When our loved ones use the term "Pedestal" - they are speaking their admiration... It's that simple, means nothing more what so ever, our husband's admire us...they love us, they are our #1 Fan... Maybe it can be argued that this is NOT the best term to use ...beings some may see it so differently / in a superior light... 



> And, to clarify, I don't even see us on a pedestal _together_. I'm not better than anyone else in the world, nor is he. We have our weaknesses. Why should we put ourselves before everyone else?


 I don't see Trenton's words like that at all -she is very humble with her flaws ....ALWAYS ....and her struggles...very open, gracious...one of the reasons I noticed her early on ...and pmed her... 



> My husband does this, but I don't see it the same way at all. *I see a man who is willing to give me the support I need when I'm feeling overwhelmed by the situations around me.* But that's not putting me on some kind of pedestal. *My husband loves me more than any other woman in the world, and he acknowledges that I'm definitely the best woman for him*, but he's not so naive as to think that I'm the best woman _in the world_. _I_ don't think I am, either. If he ever tried to tell me otherwise, I'd lose respect for him because it would mean that he's lying.


 Same thing with us....really.... Geez if this is what everyone thinks when this word is used.... Shoot us please







- cause that is a misrepresentation for sure...

Just like you say here about your marriage...... for who HE is, for who YOU are... For who Trenton is.... for who her husband is....(and me & mine) ...we are "a favorable Match"... and that's the beauty of it....This, too, is where *we* are coming from.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The way I see it, is that you can't differentiate between the gun and the person using it. your perspective.


Don't need to. Anyone who is pointing a gun at me is not someone I want to be near.

And again, if your behaviour is above approach, playful and harmless, then who can object? If you are just being friendly, are thoughtful about the feelings of the people you are playing with, and concerned to do no harm, then likely there is no harm done.

But I also know how easy it is to say one has integrity and how much harder it is to act that way


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> I get hit on more at the grocery store than any other place in this city.
> 
> What am I buying that screams "Totally looking for a dude?!"
> 
> Got stalked around a freaking Costco this week. I'm totally missing the game there.


KY?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> End of the quarter, crazy around here so haven't had time to really read. I know this wasn't for me ... but
> 
> I am going to the mountains next weekend ... with that woman I manipulated into loving me :FIREdevil:
> 
> Adventure Suites - North Conway, New Hampshire Lodging :: HOME
> 
> Check out the suites ...


Be sure to take her skydiving, she will always remember that...


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Entropy3000 said:


> Just hanging out in the Big D area. Enjoying the weather. Quality time.
> 
> The Poconos are nice this time of year ...


Love the Poconos... might go back this year ...We only get the Champagne Towers 

















.


----------



## Entropy3000

Another perspective on pedestals.

I think this is where my wife was coming from on this.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

FrenchFry said:


> So that's where the heart-shaped ****tubs are!
> 
> My husband (his words, btw) has been on me to find one for a weekend away...
> 
> I like the champagne tower way better. LOL.


The champaigne tower looks a pain to get into and out of.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Soooooo,
Are we doing holiday resorts now?
Can I post a pic of where my wife & I are heading later this year?
[ After the summer when the airfare and rates drops lol!]


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Okay, SA. How do you get in and out of that champagne hot tub? God that would be awesome if that was also real champagne. Kiss, kiss, glurg, glurg, smootchie, smootchie, glurg, glurg.


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> I dare say Created2write ....I feel you are envisioning* the word* differently than myself & Trenton... Ya know I could just quiet my mouth and not put this stuff on this forum....bringing this little exchange of ours into the light..
> 
> If you knew us, you'd think we're pretty damn Humble people, so just cause a man uses this term in relation to his wife... or even Me saying this about my man - surely has nothing what so ever to do with us needing emotional council or we think we are superior over other people.....that would be a hell of a :rofl:..we basically have no successful status or acclaim whatsoever...


I could totally be misunderstanding the concept. I'm taking the word "pedestal" literally, since those who are on pedestals tend to be above other people. (Concerts, etc.) I see this as a potentially dangerous thought process, because no one can live up to such standards 100% of the time. 



> You will surely understand this Created2write.. Your #1 Emotional Need (as I recall -or in the top 3) is ADMIRATION...
> 
> When our loved ones use the term "Pedestal" - they are speaking their admiration... It's that simple, means nothing more what so ever, our husband's admire us...they love us, they are our #1 Fan... Maybe it can be argued that this is NOT the best term to use ...beings some may see it so differently / in a superior light...


Yes, my top emotional need is admiration. However, I do *NOT* need to be put on a pedestal to feel that my husband admires me. In fact, I wouldn't feel admired if he did so. I would feel patronized. 



> I don't see Trenton's words like that at all -she is very humble with her flaws ....ALWAYS ....and her struggles...very open, gracious...one of the reasons I noticed her early on ...and pmed her...


I'm sure she is. I was only stating my opinions about the idea of our spouse putting us on a pedestal. I used to put my husband on a pedestal. Other than my first boyfriend when I was sixteen, my husband was the only decent guy I dated. He was more than decent, he was a great guy. Very patient and understanding. I put him on a pedestal through our dating relationship and through our first two years of marriage. 

The result? 

He made a substantial mistake at one point, and when I tried to talk to him about it, he refused to apologize. We argued, and he actually said, "So much for me being the greatest guy in the world." 

I don't put him on a pedestal anymore, nor do I let him put me on one. In my opinion it sets both people up for being utterly disappointed in themselves and their spouse. We all make mistakes and, imo, the longer we're kept on a pedestal, the easier it is to take our faults lightly. I'm not saying you or Trenton does that, just that I've seen it in my marriage and in others.



> Same thing with us....really.... Geez if this is what everyone thinks when this word is used.... Shoot us please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - cause that is a misrepresentation for sure...


Good for you.



> Just like you say here about your marriage...... for who HE is, for who YOU are... For who Trenton is.... for who her husband is....(and me & mine) ...we are "a favorable Match"... and that's the beauty of it....This, too, is where *we* are coming from.


But you can be a "favorable match" without putting each other on pedestals. You can be supportive and anchoring and loving and encouraging and admiring and affectionate without putting your spouse on a pedestal.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Ok,
Here goes...

Ohana Beach Resort on the island of Tobago.[ Where I was born]. I'm from the Republic of Trinidad & Tobago. A twin Island republic. Trinidad, where I live is more industrialized. Tobago is a resort island.
So, its right " next door."
We honeymooned on that Island at another resort, but I had promised to take her here last year.
However , business related work got in the way.
So later this year, it would either be here or Turks & Caicos.
Most likely here ,lol!

Click on the weblink and have a view.
The rates are expensive during the high time, but they fall after summer.

Tobago Villas | Ohana | Caribbean Villas | Villas Caribe


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> Originally Posted by *DvlsAdvc8 *
> As Simply readily admits, *most women don't go for her kind of man. He just never cared that they didn't.* More power to them.


 This is absolutely correct... my husband SUCKED at sports...he was "Scrawny" by his own admission... he was QUIET / Responsible / Kind to everyone...he didn't ooze confidence, his Mom bought him ugly JC penney jeans... Just a nice Guy in High school... there was nothing to "catch" your attention about him at all.... Now, If you took his glasses off, and put him in some Levis, some boots... then some girls may notice....(looks only)....that is pretty much what I did - when I decided he was "DO-ABLE" for me.  


> A lot of those guys are alone for a good long time.


He's told me a few times....had he not met up with me, who knows if he'd even have a woman, he's had girls go after him but not his type ...one was jealous of me when we got together, she really liked him... she did become my friend & was in our Wedding/ found another BF...

He wasn't going to "settle"....Even if he didn't come off as anything spectacular to women....he LIKED himself and felt he had something of value to offer a good woman who wanted the same things.....if the chick didn't dig him... he'd walk away. That was his attitude.



Caribbean Man said:


> A lot of times women approached me too.
> But PUA, negging and so forth, does not work on all women.


 I am the type, I don't trust a word a man says until they put their actions in line with the BS....if they didn't stick around, I knew it was BS... That was my attitude. If they are on to the next chick....automatically *not *my type.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> We're both on the same pedestal perhaps. Considering I know he's the only man for me and he will say the same in reverse. We've faced challenging times, we still do and I imagine in the future we will continue to. It's a constant learning curve but we recognize that we both make choices. Choices that divide or connect.
> 
> Given my personality, I think I am in need of this spot above the world where we are together. It excites and continually allows a renewal of excitement within our relationship. I want to be with a lover that I am immersed in, completely.
> 
> Yes, so getting off or jumping, being pushed off really stinks and it's happened when things were at their worst. It used to happen more, when I was resentful or become resentful, it happens more often. As full of doubt as I am, he has never doubted at all and I also love this about him.
> 
> Maybe this is co-dependence or considered unhealthy. The problem is that I don't care. It's what we want.


This is definitely what I would call co-dependence and yes, I happen to think it is very unhealthy, but if it's what the two of you want and it works for you(which it seems to) then...okay. I know I'm not a professional or anything, but my only piece of advice to you would be this: how much better could your relationship be if you didn't _require_ him to be your emotional anchor? How much more fulfilled could your relationship be? It's more rhetorical than anything, but it's something I've faced in my marriage. Beyond just gender relations I believe all relationships are best when we, as individuals, are empowered through our own inner strengths, independent of anyone else in our lives. 

But that is just my opinion.



> I'm a very strong woman in my head, not so much in physical strength and I don't have any problems with him doing ALL physical work as long as he is around.


My husband is much stronger than I am. But, instead of encouraging me to remain where I'm at, he constantly encourages me to work out and eat healthy and lift weights. Sure, he likes to be needed for the really difficult things, but he loves to see me do things for myself as well. Same as he encourages me to learn new things, and to face my weaknesses with courage and determination. 



> Ladies at work will roll their eyes at me if I ask my husband to come help when we have an event and I don't want to move lots of heavy stuff. It's not that I can't. It's that he enjoys being included and helping me and it's such an obvious way he can help.


We're very different. When we moved, my mother-in-law and I carried boxes and furniture same as the men. The only thing we couldn't carry was the television, cause it's humungous. My husband wouldn't respect me as a woman if I had the ability to carry things and just chose not to, and he definitely wouldn't feel "included", he would feel taken advantage of. But, that's just us.



> I also don't agree that one is not better than the other. My husband is better than me at many things and vice versa. It's appreciating and utilizing these difference within the relationship and not having an ego that gets in the way, for us anyway.


You misunderstood what I meant. Obviously we _all_ have specific things we're better at than others, but that doesn't make us better people as a whole than others. 



> To me all people are not equal, people deserve equal rights and equal opportunity but we are not equal.


Okay, I guess I can agree with that but in a relationship we _are_ to be treated as equals. If one spouse is being put on a pedestal, then they either both need to be on it, or neither of them be on it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> I am the type, I don't trust a word a man says until they put their actions in line with the BS....if they didn't stick around, I knew it was BS... That was my attitude. If they are on to the next chick....automatically *not *my type.


Well you learned from your mom and grandmother SA!
Many young women are not so fortunate. They have things easy and have never experienced any hardships in life.
So they don't understand reality.
But as a woman matures and she begins to understand relationships, experience disappointments and heartaches, she learn the hard way. She knows life.
That's why I said in my previous post that you guys are correct when you say it only works on certain types of women.
Those who are not emotionally mature enough.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Isn't it more logical to say and believe that "some men and some women" act that way?


Here's what you'll love and hate about me (among other things ). I rarely choose the easy route of "some". "Some" is so wishy washy. "Some" is so vanilla. Why would we be so interested in it if it were only "some". It it were "some", it wouldn't be much of subject. "Some" doesn't reflect what I see. Besides, "some" wouldn't get you ladies all riled up. :FIREdevil:

But to point... all women have put up sh*t tests of some sort imo. Many are on such a small scale as to be seemingly benign and even hard to identify. I've found the more aggressive the woman, or the hotter the woman, the bigger and more frequent the sh*t test.

The predominant reason women do this is to make a man prove his worth... but there's a couple others I think I have a handle on. Some do it because they feel insecure about something... or have self doubt. They will then get the man to show HE can handle it and have some sort of psychological relief to the equivalent of saying "well, I don't know if I can handle it, but it looks like he'll handle it". If he freaks out, well, he fails the test. If he just rolls over, he fails the test. Her insecurity is exacerbated... "he can't even handle me, how is he gonna handle IT? I don't know if I can handle it, so I KNOW he CANT handle IT". "IT" is not even anything specific necessarily... its just a feeling that she needs allayed. Other women will do it much in the way young girls pick on the boy they like on the playground... or a child might throw a fit. Negative attention is still attention, particularly if you weren't getting much attention otherwise. 

In the dating game, a good looking woman has many men vying for her and this is a quick way to get rid of the weak. Again, it originates in the subconscious. They're actually a good sign to a guy, because they say "I'm sexually attracted to you, maybe, but are you worth it?" In essence, its a way to weed out all the guys who are sucking up to her just to get into her pants. If a woman is being just regular nice and polite to you... its bad news. I know, crazy right? lol

Let's say I neg her and she responds by calling me a jerk. If I freak out, get really defensive or mean, OR APOLOGIZE!!! I fail the test. If I ignore it and pretend it never happened. Pass. If I deflect it with humor. Pass.

Excessive emotion or dramatization is also in the ballpark of a sh*t test. Don't apologize. Don't get defensive or mean. Just roll with it. You're cool, in control, and nothing is wrong... lo and behold, nothing will be wrong.

My take on it is that it is like some sort of emotional, subconscious trigger that needs to say "Hey you, show me you have what it takes."


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Okay, SA. How do you get in and out of that champagne hot tub? God that would be awesome if that was also real champagne. Kiss, kiss, glurg, glurg, smootchie, smootchie, glurg, glurg.


This beautiful room has 3 floors... it is the coolest thing.... when in the bedroom (2nd floor), you can look directly down into that pool through the glass -- the bed is round with mirror ceilings & constellations lit up... The atmosphere is just AMAZING ... 

Anyway... the 3rd floor is very small ...little bathroom/ mirrors... this is how you step into that Hot tub.... When we used it , got carried away with the Bubble bath...bubbles dripping on the floor... 

Tricky getting pics...I was running like a bat out of hell down to the 1st floor to set my SLR jacked up on a Table with the tri pod at the highest setting - a wonder I didn't dive into the tub & fall out the other side to get back for the flashes ...Great memories.


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> My goodness those are cool. I can't figure out which one I like best. The Jungle one looks awesome but so does the Tree House, Love Shack and Sugar Shack! All of them really, well except for the Dragon's Lair. That would be his thing but I'd have to sleep with one eye open. So which one did you book?


Victorian Spa

Spa, sauna, steam, multi head shower.

Awesome restaurant and brewery right next door in walking distance. http://www.moatmountain.com/


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Deejo said:


> Victorian Spa
> 
> Spa, sauna, steam, multi head shower.
> 
> Awesome restaurant and brewery right next door in walking distance. Welcome to Moat Mountain Smokehouse and Brewing co.


Deejo,

Your kinda a big deal, huh? You guys have absolutely zero game, lol.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> But I would suggest a guy choose a woman he is compatible with to marry. Otherwise it is just a very brief sample and men are then influenced mostly by a small view of things. In other words this chick is banging his brains out. They get along well. This is freaking awesome. But if you have much experience you know that this is not enough.


You mistake me. Knowing that someone is a crazy homocidal nymphomaniac is one thing. Knowing every little thing about someone's past relationships is another.

Say someone cheated in their last relationship... does that mean they will cheat in our relationship? I don't think so. Does the fact that someone had drunken orgies in college, really matter 15 years down the road? I don't think things should be concealed... but things shouldn't be pried either. I think knowing too much about someone's past relationships is a potentially volatile thing.

And seriously, if she really has one of these dramatic issues you're pointing out, she's not gonna be dumb enough to tell you anyway bro.

"Well, there was that time I framed my husband for poisoning our baby so I could go clubbing again... but pshhh... that was so 10 years ago. I've put it behind me."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> Do not take this as a neg. BUT, I am a thinking kind of person. If something is very important to me I have enough self esteem to know that I can reason enough to improve my chances dramatically for success. It all very much matters in very practical ways.


Not sure why I should take your description of yourself as a neg... except for the having asked me not to take it as a neg. 

Surely I haven't led you to believe I'm a non-thinking kind of person.


----------



## Created2Write

Entropy, that blog was pretty awesome. I agreed with what he said, and is definitely why I no longer put my husband on a pedestal, and is why I don't want him to put me on one.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You mistake me. Knowing that someone is a crazy homocidal nymphomaniac is one thing. Knowing every little thing about someone's past relationships is another.
> 
> Say someone cheated in their last relationship... does that mean they will cheat in our relationship? I don't think so. Does the fact that someone had drunken orgies in college, really matter 15 years down the road? I don't think things should be concealed... but things shouldn't be pried either. I think knowing too much about someone's past relationships is a potentially volatile thing.
> 
> And seriously, if she really has one of these dramatic issues you're pointing out, she's not gonna be dumb enough to tell you anyway bro.
> 
> "Well, there was that time I framed my husband for poisoning our baby so I could go clubbing again... but pshhh... that was so 10 years ago. I've put it behind me."


Barring the murderer or psychotic "framer", sometimes they want to do a different life. Different person different life, should you not give them the chance to do this with you?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok,
> Here goes...
> 
> Ohana Beach Resort on the island of Tobago.[ Where I was born]. I'm from the Republic of Trinidad & Tobago. A twin Island republic. Trinidad, where I live is more industrialized. Tobago is a resort island.
> So, its right " next door."
> We honeymooned on that Island at another resort, but I had promised to take her here last year.
> However , business related work got in the way.
> So later this year, it would either be here or Turks & Caicos.
> Most likely here ,lol!
> 
> Click on the weblink and have a view.
> The rates are expensive during the high time, but they fall after summer.
> 
> Tobago Villas | Ohana | Caribbean Villas | Villas Caribe


A grand piano pool!!!!!!!!!! Gosh that is so pretty.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Therealbrighteyes said:


> A grand piano pool!!!!!!!!!! Gosh that is so pretty.


Man you guys are lavishing each other you have absolutely zero game. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> I could totally be misunderstanding the concept. I'm taking the word "pedestal" literally, since those who are on pedestals tend to be above other people. (Concerts, etc.) *I see this as a potentially dangerous thought process, because no one can live up to such standards 100% of the time. *


 .... my answer to Entropy pages back was ....speaking of humanness...I've shown more faults, bad moments, vulnerabilities over him.....he is not deluded enough to see me as flawless..some delicate flower who could never do wrong...or hurt in a moment"... 



> Yes, my top emotional need is admiration. However, I do *NOT* need to be put on a pedestal to feel that my husband admires me. In fact, I wouldn't feel admired if he did so. I would feel patronized.


 I don't expect this at all... It's just something he has told me when I brought the subject up over a thread some time ago....he expressed his thoughts....I didn't browbeat him over it... I didn't start an argument, I didn't take offense.... 

I did however talk to him - about the concept ...we sat In the bathtub -while I gave him the LOW DOWN on why this is considered a BAD thing, that he shouldn't do that... after all that ... he still said I deserve it with a ...

What should I do Created2Write... start a fight over this -- Pin him down, tell me he is insulting me... I do get  over some things... this is just not a battle I thought needed to be warred....it's his way of loving... I can't say it's hurting us- because I do NOT take him for granted ...If I felt it was... I'd surely break it open. 



> I used to put my husband on a pedestal. Other than my first boyfriend when I was sixteen, my husband was the only decent guy I dated. He was more than decent, he was a great guy. Very patient and understanding. I put him on a pedestal through our dating relationship and through our first two years of marriage.
> 
> The result?
> 
> *He made a substantial mistake at one point, and when I tried to talk to him about it, he refused to apologize. We argued, and he actually said, "So much for me being the greatest guy in the world." *


 For us....He saw me at my worst, I could be argumentative at times...we were feeling each other out for 7 long yrs before we walked down the aisle... I even broke up with him for a short time... never had this sort of feeling or expectation..from either one of us.. If you have read my Transparency thread, it expresses just how open we are to the human condition -I don't even find people REAL unless I get to see a little "dirt" blown in my face. 



Entropy3000 said:


> Another perspective on pedestals.
> 
> I think this is where my wife was coming from on this.


Ok I want to attempt to pick this apart....my thoughts in *RED*....



> 1. *This Just In: Women Are Human!*
> 
> Imagine you’re on a date with a girl who ignores everything you say and just keeps complimenting your looks. No matter how amazing or into you she is, you’ll be creeped out since she likes you superficially and doesn’t care about the real you.
> 
> This is how girls feel about guys who place them on pedestals.
> 
> Yes, women are amazing. They look beautiful and being around them feels beautiful. But when you admire them instead of communicating person-to-person, they can tell you’re being shallow and fake from a mile away.
> 
> Admiring the opposite sex is one of my favorite pastimes, but remember that women are people – not objects to be admired!
> 
> Our talking face to face is intense, real, vulnerable and honest... he has always said he will take the good with the bad...this just goes to show I am no angel......My husband knows my flaws more than anyone who has walked this earth....he doesn't see me as perfection, heck I even tell him what I feel I could be capable of in situations that I might hate myself for...I KNOW my own demons and so does he!
> 
> 2. *The Madonna-***** Complex Will Screw You Up*
> 
> The Madonna-***** complex is when you view all women as “either saintly Madonnas or debased prostitute-like personalities.” (My buddy Rami of Gutsy Geek has a great post about this right here.)
> 
> Now back to the topic at hand.
> 
> When a man puts a woman on a pedestal, he’s also elevating her to Madonna status. He’s attracted to an imagined “purity,” and ignores her sexuality. This is why guys find it hard to make a move on “that one special girl”; their mind tells them she’s not a sexual being.
> 
> This is the kiss of death for any relationship. If you put a girl on a pedestal to the point where you can’t be sexual with her, you’ll never have her. And even if you do get her, the relationship will leave both of you unsatisfied sexually.
> 
> Never an issue - Pregnancy belly out like Beach ball -he still saw me as sexual & desired me... I ain't no Madonna - more like the woman with the horns ~ in his face...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 3. *They Don’t Want To Be Above You*
> 
> Men who put women on pedestals are always trying to win them over. They turn pleasing the girl into their #1 priority; friends, hobbies and work come second.
> 
> The ironic thing is, no woman wants to be the biggest part of her guy’s life. If you don’t believe me, look at Twilight – the franchise every girl seems to be crazy about.
> 
> Does Bella fall for Jacob, the guy who’s ready to do anything for her? Hell no! She goes for the dude who always has something else to do and is outwardly unsure whether he wants her or not.
> 
> Learn from this and remember that there’s more to life than girls. Don’t turn them into a #1 priority; nobody wants that.
> 
> Well, on this one... hmmm I don't think we are the norm.... Me & he are BOTH sappy Hopeless Romantics.. we both put each other & our love affair as what we live for... it's not because we are seeking approval or some insecurity, it is just what we enjoy... the simple things in life... His greatest hobby is me & our family.. Yes, he would say this...Look at his profile, those are his words... and I too live for my family.....
> 
> Since we feel the same in this, I don't see a problem with it. If we were married to others who didn't feel as we...well that COULD be an issue. And of course...we BOTh have other hobbies - and have our alone time, but we look forward to every moment together. He is a pleaser by his very nature... His temperament is geared that way.... the ISFJ  .
> 
> 4. *They’re Far From Perfect*
> 
> Both sexes have their own screw ups; overall, we balance each other out. But as a man, you might get distracted by a girl’s beauty and feminine energy and forget this.
> 
> My big wake-up call was seeing two girls, best friends for over a decade, fight over me. It was a random event that could happen to anyone, but it was way outside my reality at the time.
> 
> Afterwards, I knew girls weren’t the pony-loving, rainbow-riding, lavender-water-peeing angels I thought they were. They were human and capable of mistakes. Remember the same thing and you’ll do well.
> 
> Explained this one already.. I have faults, he knows them better than anyone, no delusions here, I am far from an angel, heck not long ago, he told me I was like a "bull in a china store" talking to some man on the phone about our land.
> 
> 5. *Because You’re #1!*
> 
> To quote Henry Ford, “Whether you think you can or you think you can’t, you’re right.”
> 
> If you think you’re a great person who deserves the best from life, you’re right.
> 
> If you think you’re a horrible person who deserves nothing, you’re right.
> 
> If you put women on pedestals and think they’re better than you, you’re right.
> 
> Life will simply give you whatever you believe you deserve! So if you put women on pedestals, you’re giving away your own power. Why would you do that?
> 
> This is your life: it’s your movie and you’re the star. The only person you should be putting on a pedestal is yourself.
> 
> Now.... this right here is where I am damn good for my husband... because he is a man who is very very humble by his very nature.... he doesn't brag on himself for anything.... he has always been this way... and I BUILD him up... I express to him how wonderful he is... how thankful I am to have him in our lives, how I need him, want him, desire him, what a wonderful father & man he is.
> 
> Had he married another woman who wasn't full of the piss & vinegar enthusiasm I have ...would he be as happy ?? I think not....he'd probably say ..."Fvck the Pedestal" in that situation..... so what I just described right here is likely why He feels as strongly as he does.


 Does any of this sound unhealthy ? Bring it to me...We'll talk about it tonight.


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> .... my answer to Entropy pages back was ....speaking of humanness...I've shown more faults, bad moments, vulnerabilities over him.....he is not deluded enough to see me as flawless..some delicate flower who could never do wrong...or hurt in a moment"...


I get that. But our flaws, whether small or great, are precisely why we should never be on a pedestal. When I put my husband on a pedestal I had this habit of ignoring the minor signs of a growing issue. Then, when it became serious, it made things worse because my husband felt attacked all of a sudden. He was amazing yesterday, why are his flaws being picked apart today? 

That is the danger in putting our spouse on a pedestal, even when we admit they have flaws. Those flaws are exactly why we shouldn't put others or ourselves above others.



> I don't expect this at all... It's just something he has told me when I brought the subject up over a thread some time ago....he expressed his thoughts....I didn't browbeat him over it... I didn't start an argument, I didn't take offense....
> 
> I did however talk to him - about the concept ...we sat In the bathtub -while I gave him the LOW DOWN on why this is considered a BAD thing, that he shouldn't do that... after all that ... he still said I deserve it with a ...
> 
> What should I do Created2Write... start a fight over this -- Pin him down, tell me he is insulting me...


*sigh* I thought this would happen. You're taking what I'm saying too personally, SA. No, you shouldn't start a fight over it or tell him he's insulting you, unless he is. I said that _I_ would be insulted. And frankly, I would. Do I think I'm a cool person? Yeah, I do. I think I'm an awesome person. But I don't see that I am any better than anyone else, so why should my husband think I am?

Maybe I'm weird, but being in love with person no longer makes me see them as the most amazing person in the world. My husband is the most amazing person I know, and I tell him so often. But I don't put him on a pedestal. He has flaws, and a few big ones. I have flaws, and more than a handful of big ones. But one of my flaws is in seeing our relationship as either one extreme or the other. When I put him on a pedestal I saw him as either amazing and perfect, or flawed and disappointing. _Now_, after seeing him in a realistic way, I can say that he is flawed, but still amazing. 

If your husband chooses to put you on a pedestal, that is his choice. It's obviously working in your marriage, so I'm really not sure why you're so defensive about this. Frankly, (if I can be so bold as to be honest right now) it sounds as if you don't like the idea that someone might not think you deserve to be on a pedestal. Frankly, I don't think _anyone_ deserves to be on a pedestal. We all have our successes, and I think we deserve to have those acknowledged, but I don't think anyone deserves to be put on a pedestal, whether by their spouse or anyone else. While there may never be repercussions in some situations, I still think the frame of mind is unhealthy.



> I do get  over some things... this is just not a battle I thought needed to be warred....it's his way of loving... I can't say it's hurting us- because I do NOT take him for granted ...If I felt it was... I'd surely break it open.
> 
> For us....He saw me at my worst, I could be argumentative at times...we were feeling each other out for 7 long yrs before we walked down the aisle... I even broke up with him for a short time... never had this sort of feeling or expectation..from either one of us.. If you have read my Transparency thread, it expresses just how open we are to the human condition -I don't even find people REAL unless I get to see a little "dirt" blown in my face.


I'm not saying that you or he think the other is perfect. It's clear that you both understand each other's strengths and weaknesses. 



> Ok I want to attempt to pick this apart....my thoughts in *RED*....
> 
> Does any of this sound unhealthy ? Bring it to me...We'll talk about it tonight.


You said:



> Our talking face to face is intense, real, vulnerable and honest... he has always said he will take the good with the bad...this just goes to show I am no angel......My husband knows my flaws more than anyone who has walked this earth....he doesn't see me as perfection, heck I even tell him what I feel I could be capable of in situations that I might hate myself for...I KNOW my own demons and so does he!


Which is precisely why I don't like the idea of putting one spouse on a pedestal. It implies that the person being lifted up _is_ perfect, or at the very least, morally, emotionally, physically and mentally better than the person who is putting them there. _That_ is what I find unhealthy. Because even when the later recognizes the faults of the former and yet they _still_ put them on that pedestal, for me it's saying that they don't see themselves as an equal, and that always created red flags for me.



> Well, on this one... hmmm I don't think we are the norm.... Me & he are BOTH sappy Hopeless Romantics.. we both put each other & our love affair as what we live for... it's not because we are seeking approval or some insecurity, it is just what we enjoy... the simple things in life... His greatest hobby is me & our family.. Yes, he would say this...Look at his profile, those are his words... and I too live for my family.....
> 
> Since we feel the same in this, I don't see a problem with it. If we were married to others who didn't feel as we...well that COULD be an issue. And of course...we BOTh have other hobbies - and have our alone time, but we look forward to every moment together. He is a pleaser by his very nature... His temperament is geared that way.... the ISFJ .


When it comes to marriage I think there is a difference between making your wife and kids your priority, and placing your wife on a pedestal. I have nothing against making your spouse a high priority, or even your number one priority. 



> Now.... this right here is where I am damn good for my husband... because he is a man who is very very humble by his very nature.... he doesn't brag on himself for anything.... he has always been this way... and I BUILD him up... I express to him how wonderful he is... how thankful I am to have him in our lives, how I need him, want him, desire him, what a wonderful father & man he is.
> 
> Had he married another woman who wasn't full of the piss & vinegar enthusiasm I have ...would he be as happy ?? I think not....he'd probably say ..."Fvck the Pedestal" in that situation..... so what I just described right here is likely why He feels as strongly as he does.


My argument was never that you and he were wrong for each other. Quite the contrary, I think you two sound perfect for each other. But your husband seems to think much, much more of you than he does of himself. That I do think is unhealthy, and could contribute to why he puts you on a pedestal. 

I know when I put my husband on a pedestal I _never_ felt good enough to be with him. Now that I don't put him on a pedestal, those feelings are gone. As he encourages me to be better and to be stronger, I begin to grow within and see just how capable I am; how capable I've always been.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You mistake me. Knowing that someone is a crazy homocidal nymphomaniac is one thing. Knowing every little thing about someone's past relationships is another.
> 
> Say someone cheated in their last relationship... does that mean they will cheat in our relationship? I don't think so. Does the fact that someone had drunken orgies in college, really matter 15 years down the road? I don't think things should be concealed... but things shouldn't be pried either. I think knowing too much about someone's past relationships is a potentially volatile thing.
> 
> And seriously, if she really has one of these dramatic issues you're pointing out, she's not gonna be dumb enough to tell you anyway bro.
> 
> "Well, there was that time I framed my husband for poisoning our baby so I could go clubbing again... but pshhh... that was so 10 years ago. I've put it behind me."


Everything matters. The trend matters. The honesty matters big time. Some guys can be more selective than others.


----------



## Entropy3000

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Barring the murderer or psychotic "framer", sometimes they want to do a different life. Different person different life, should you not give them the chance to do this with you?


No. I am choosing one person. I am not trying to fix anyone or give someone a second chance. I am not a charity.

Again though folks want to overlook the most important points. Honesty and the self esteem to be comfotable with the choices they have made.

I will let the next guy settle for someone. He can take the risk. The idea is to reduce the risks.

As Dr. Phil would say " how is that owrking out for you?". 

When guys come here and complain that their wife cheated on them or was not who they thought she was ... well ok ... you made a poor choice with that woman. It does happen. While there are no guarantees you can make an informed choice. It is lazy to just go, ah screw it. Too much effort. I'll roll the dice. Well roll the dice ... fine. But get better odds.

I tell guys who get screwed over to make themselves better and find a quality woman. You find a quality woman by making informed choices. Again this is not someone applying for a summer job. This is someone who you are going to dedicate your life to.

If you always do what you do you will always get what you get. You do not reuse parts from a wrecked 747. You do not use mountain climbing gear that has failed. I am not saying one should not have compassion for people. One should look for someone who is compatible. One whose chocies have gotten better over time.

You see this all the time with some women. They go from one abusive man to the next. Trying to fix them.

To be clear it is the honesty that matters here the most. If someone cannot or will not share with you their past they are not ready to share their future with you either. It is not about judging. It is about committing to someone else. Secrets in this context is lying by omission. These secrets could be used against your marriage in the future. If she cannot trust me with the information then we should not marry.

Here is a work example. When I am depending on someone and they mess up and they tell me they messed up I have a greater faith in them. Because I know that if they mess up they will tell me. I can trust them. If someone messes up and hides it from me. They will never be trusted.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> I get that. But our flaws, whether small or great, are precisely why we should never be on a pedestal.* When I put my husband on a pedestal I had this habit of ignoring the minor signs of a growing issue. Then, when it became serious, it made things worse because my husband felt attacked all of a sudden. He was amazing yesterday, why are his flaws being picked apart today? *


^^^^THIS right there is what happened to me during the first year of our marriage.
My wife put me high up on this pedestal and it was as if I could do no wrong!
It was frightening and confusing to me.
She was extremely happy that we were married, so was I but I'm a realist and she's a hopeless romantic.
We had always treated each other well, but when I got upset about something I would tell her.
She hardly got upset, she would just let it slide, resentment builds and when I ask, she would say its ok, the problem is hers, and she would torture herself.

I figured out the problem and climbed down from that pedestal.
Today, she just tells me like it is ,whenever I do sh!t, and I prefer it that way.
I could write pages and pages about that experience, and why it didn't work for me.
But may I say that every couple is different.
Different people handle these things differently.
Luckily for my wife, I loved her dearly so that I didn't take advantage of her naivete.
It all depends on the couple.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> You see this all the time with some women. They go from one abusive man to the next. Trying to fix them.


:iagree:, or sometimes they just stay hoping they could please him or that he would suddenly wake up and appreciate them.

The only solution to the problem is to fix your side of the equation, because the other side is constant.
People are afraid of the unknown, but mathematically speaking, if one side of an equation is constant then the unknown and other variables can be found.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> A grand piano pool!!!!!!!!!! Gosh that is so pretty.


.....and it sits atop a rock, jutting outwards to the sea overlooking a private , secluded beach.
Really nice!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I'm not taking anything personal Created2write....I just enjoy opening up the feedback presented to me ... because in my writing these things out, it helps me learn and gauge my own motivations and in doing so... I may learn something... 

I enjoy a good debate! The part about you feeling I want others to see me as deserving of a Pedestal... I guess continuing the conversation may appear this way....but I wouldn't say this is true... I just wanted to answer as honestly as I could given what was presented in how we are with each other...offering the why's behind it.

In hindsite, it was foolish of me to continue .... as this is how I now appear...  ....it is what it is. I read him those 5 points a little earlier as he was standing here along with my answers.... he agreed with what I said. 



> But your husband seems to think much, much more of you than he does of himself.


 This is probably true...but if you think I want him to feel this way...or he should feel this way...you would be terribly terribly WRONG..... I see HIM as a better person than I am... he is kinder, he is more loving, he is many things I struggle to be...... much more worthy in fact... It is the whole introverted thing, he knows he is not the most funny guy at work, or the strongest, or this or that... '

Just never been one to boast.....His confidence is more silent. He is the type that would give the shirt off his back, save the last cookie...but this gives HIM JOY... I am not sure how to explain this -that is WHO HE IS... I would even go as far as to say he struggles doing for himself... We've had arguments where I was telling him to BE more SELFISH..and I make him be more selfish... now if that is not the silliest thing you ever heard... please tell me !

I Do so look after him and make sure he is Happy. ANd I know how much it means to him....our dynamics are very odd I suppose.


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> If I gave you that impression, I'm glad I got a chance to correct it and if I ever imply or type something along those lines, please do call me out.
> 
> Depends, Falcon, I wouldn't say I'm offended but instead sort of eye rolling. I don't like this idea that if something works then it must be right, especially if I think it lacks full understanding or is biased.
> 
> At the same time, I can't claim to be unbiased. I have my own bias based upon my experience and how I think and feel. Since I try very hard to check myself in order to fully understand, I find it frustrating if I think others are not. In this case, specifically if men are not simply because they get results that they want.


I just think that given the same statement made by a man and a woman, you would be understanding for the woman and defensive towards the man. That honestly really bothers me how unfair that is. Because I feel like if I'm not praising women or pointing out something negative I've observed about women you may take that as a call to arms. Sort of like when people make sweeping judgements on their race but flip out when people not of their race do the same. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> I Do so look after him and make sure he is Happy. ANd I know how much it means to him....our dynamics are very odd I suppose.


 I think what you and your husband have is very different , unique and special in many ways, not to mention good and quite enviable!

In many ways , that's how marriages should be, ironically , they are not.
Hence the divergence of views on this topic.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Part of the problem, IMO, is that it is one thing for a woman to say how she feels and another thing altogether for her to be diagnosed by an outsider. Woman or man.
> 
> If, for example, I honestly thought that Trenton was saying the *I* just needed to be f*cked whenever I feel upset, then I would've probably jumped on her too. But I knew that was not what she was saying. I *got* what she was feeling when she said that and could relate.
> 
> Then add to that the fact that men have been telling women for centuries what they think, feel, and need without ever asking women themselves, and, well, you are bound to get some defensiveness.
> 
> It really is similar when it comes to generalizations about race. One gets tired of an outsider presuming to know what the problems are and how to solve them, especially if they were a large part of the cause of said problems. The fact that they occasionally get it right doesn't compensate for the years of wrong.
> 
> Although I can see that unnecessary defensiveness doesn't exactly help ...


I think you are using a bad juxtaposition.
In the first paragraph , you describe an outsider as woman _or_ man. Which is fine.

In the penultimate paragraph, you use the analogy of an outsider being of a different _race_ to support the same point.
Being an outsider of a different race and being an outsider, a different person , but of the same race are two different conflicting positions, based on your logic.

However,
I think what Falcon King is saying is that is she said she felt a certain way , and she genuinely felt that way, then it cannot be wrong for a man says the same thing about another woman, just because he is a man.


----------



## FalconKing

always_alone said:


> Part of the problem, IMO, is that it is one thing for a woman to say how she feels and another thing altogether for her to be diagnosed by an outsider. Woman or man.
> 
> If, for example, I honestly thought that Trenton was saying the *I* just needed to be f*cked whenever I feel upset, then I would've probably jumped on her too. But I knew that was not what she was saying. I *got* what she was feeling when she said that and could relate.
> 
> Then add to that the fact that men have been telling women for centuries what they think, feel, and need without ever asking women themselves, and, well, you are bound to get some defensiveness.
> 
> It really is similar when it comes to generalizations about race. One gets tired of an outsider presuming to know what the problems are and how to solve them, especially if they were a large part of the cause of said problems. The fact that they occasionally get it right doesn't compensate for the years of wrong.
> 
> Although I can see that unnecessary defensiveness doesn't exactly help ...


You made a whole thread making sweeping generalizations about men.


----------



## FalconKing

Caribbean Man said:


> However,
> I think what Falcon King is saying is that is she said she felt a certain way , and she genuinely felt that way, then it cannot be wrong for a man says the same thing about another woman, just because he is a man.


Yeah that's what I meant.


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> Certainly not if he were to say, Trenton feels this way and she is a woman. But if he were to write a book making sweeping generalizations that since Trenton feels this way, all women must feel this way...that wouldn't work.
> 
> If someone says I said something about how I feel, man or woman, I'm not insulted or defensive. Unless I feel they are taking what I say out of context.
> 
> When sharing here, I only do so in hopes to try to understand both men and women as well as share my own experiences as they might help someone.
> 
> For the record, I have gotten on women in these forums if we disagree or I feel differently from them, etc.
> 
> If I speak for a group then I do so from experience, such as survivors of abuse. I get that we all make generalizations and we do so to try to understand and I'm not exempt from this.


But I think anytime a man says something about a woman you are assuming he is making a sweeping generalization. We might be speaking from experiences with women as well. Can I not say, "Some women are like so and so..." or "A woman may like etc etc.."? And I still stand by that if a man says sometimes a hysterical woman needs a good fvck, you would be offended. Because you would attach negative connotations to it. Even if he is speaking from experiences with a woman and even though you said the same about yourself. And he could mean exactly what you meant.


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> Yes, you are right. I think I would be offended.
> 
> Dunno. I guess I'm an a$$hole in that way. Will have to work on it and be more open minded. I get your point and can't deny it, you rat bastard, you.


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Deejo

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Deejo,
> 
> Your kinda a big deal, huh? You guys have absolutely zero game, lol.


I said I read about game ...

Never actually said I had it ...

But yes. I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books, and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.


----------



## FalconKing

My little sister has more game than all of you. She has a X-box, Nintendo Wii, and Playstation. And don't EVEN let me get started on those IPhone apps...


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> I said I read about game ...
> 
> Never actually said I had it ...
> 
> But yes. I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books, and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.


Your poison of choice would be?


----------



## FalconKing

coffee4me said:


> FalconKing, women do that to other women too. I said to a poster, " why don't you just tell your wife she talks too much and kiss her" Man! Did I get it for saying that! I had to defend myself by telling story from my own experience much like the story Trenton told.
> 
> I think many women feel comments like that belittle women or something. Like just because he tells her she talks too much, he is saying that everything she says isn't important. I look it as, that's just one conversation out of many and maybe that day she was ranting. I think most people have had a day where they ranted about something.


It wasn't really about that. It's just more about saying something and being offended when other people say it. Which is something people do all the time.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Trenton said:


> You know, while I was posting it I was thinking that I should be struck down by lightening because I knew how sexist it was. Figures Falcon King is lightening.
> 
> I remember seeing it in a movie or something...the hysterical woman being prescribed sex and at the time it seemed like the right thing to type even though I knew it was sexist.
> 
> I really, really need an editor.


Sometimes a woman being a jerk, would be better off having some sex and releasing that anger.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Trenton said:


> I think you should come to the conclusion that you should start looking right now.


I agree with this.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> I wonder if I can somehow figure out how not to do this and still retain authenticity. Sadly, I think not.


:iagree: ^^^ This is what I meant when I quoted your signature from Dr. Zeuss in response to your post on Thursday evening.
It is difficult for Political correctness and freedom of speech to coexist.
On a forum like this, people speak from a backdrop of an infinite spectrum of circumstances and experiences.
If a person has to be PC , then he / she cannot be true to themselves , which negates resultant deliberations .
IMO, it is much more rewarding to engage each other on an intellectual , emotional or any level, without the 
strictures of PC .


----------



## SimplyAmorous

FalconKing said:


> But I think anytime a man says something about a woman you are assuming he is making a sweeping generalization. We might be speaking from experiences with women as well. Can I not say, "Some women are like so and so..." or "A woman may like etc etc.."? And I still stand by that if a man says sometimes a hysterical woman needs a good fvck, you would be offended. Because you would attach negative connotations to it. Even if he is speaking from experiences with a woman and even though you said the same about yourself. And he could mean exactly what you meant.


As a woman, me & my husband both conjur up the idea if a woman is bi*chy, she needs some good lovin/ pounding... 

We were riding bikes on a trail a couple yrs ago ...we stopped to pick berries, threw our bikes down...one had a small part of the wheel on the trail... and this lady comes past bi*ching / telling us off -how we are going to cause a wreck...

Husband looks at me and says....."She need Laid" ...and I just thought to myself... Yeah, you are right !! And thought back to our earlier years....when I was grouchier...that is exactly what he needed to do to me - wrestle me to the ground and take me... like if he came home and I was just "out of sorts" over something stupid... yeah.. 

I can't say it offends me personally when I hear men say this... Unless they are the type of men I don't respect... I guess that is the dividing line -for me.


----------



## FalconKing

always_alone said:


> This made me think. I do very much understand that this is my reputation here, and that most men here don't seem to like me or what I have to say very much.
> 
> But I went back to the threads that I started, and I'm not even sure that this is a fair characterization. It certainly wasn't what I was trying to do. The first 2 threads were very much about porn. Not men. Is anti-porn the same as anti-men?
> 
> The thread on objectification was a real question. It was actually a man who first said that all men objectify women, and I was picking up on that.
> 
> I realize that I am sarcastic, and have maybe said a few things that were a bit harsh. But I have always apologized when I thought I went over the line, and I have always tried to be respectful of people and their differences.
> 
> And the fact is, this site is chock full of stereotypes about both women and men by both women and men. And I don't start them all.


Even if another poster started it, you still jumped on the bandwagon. Taking it as face value that all men think the same about porn and women. And anti-porn is not the same as anti-men. You know that. But that is what you do. You frame your statements in a way that attaches something negative to men and they have to prove otherwise to you by getting that off their back. You apologize when you cross the line but since most of your posts are about complaints on men apologizing like twice since posting here is not going to make anyone proud. You will just have to be content with patting yourself on the back.

You tried to explain why a woman a feels negatively about people making generalizations about women but you were defending how I pointed you did the same about men. Your defense was somebody else did it first, everybody does it, and you don't start everything. Oh and maybe you were being sarcastic. I think it's best for my sanity if I put you on ignore.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> For me it is one big Byzantine Generals problem.


* Stroking beard...,* 

Byzantine you say....?
Not Machiavellian, Visigoth or Ottoman?
Huh, Machiavelli was a ruler ,the Visigoths were a tribe and Ottomans an empire.
That would mean Byzantine in your logic ,is an era.

* In hushed tones *
_
"..Be cautious of Flavius, that pretentious Noble in the cloak , for he bears a dagger neath , wields undue influence and is loyal to Palaiologan..."
_

Sorry, 
Just trying to dissect your logic and not appear sexist...
Trying to be PC!
Ha,ha!


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> * Stroking beard...,*
> 
> Byzantine you say....?
> Not Machiavellian, Visigoth or Ottoman?
> Huh, Machiavelli was a ruler ,the Visigoths were a tribe and Ottomans an empire.
> That would mean Byzantine in your logic ,is an era.
> _
> "..Be cautious of Flavius, the pretentious Noble in the cloak , for he bears a dagger neath , wields undue influence and is loyal to Palaiologan..."
> _
> 
> Sorry,
> Just trying to dissect your logic and not appear sexist...
> Trying to be PC!
> Ha,ha!


Byzantine Generals problem is a technical reference. It has to do with dealing with truths and untruths. Often used in fault tolerant systems. Figuring out logically what information is most likely correct from the aggregate information. Looking at the big picture can often tell you who is lying. Inconsistencies are telling.


----------



## WyshIknew

I don't know if this has been covered already and can't be bothered to check as the thread is too long.

What is the eventual outcome of 'game'?

I assume it works as the men who use it wouldn't bother otherwise, although I suspect that merely engaging women with confidence, charm and humour would have similar results (bit out of the dating game I'm afraid, think I'd fail miserably at game so wouldn't know.)

What I mean by eventual outcome is surely after a number of times getting 'gamed' even a woman with little brains would realise something is going on?

Surely there must come a time when she wakes up in the morning and realised she has been taken in by a total dweeb yet again.

Although he dressed smart, and had a good line in patter he actually has a crap job, a crap car, isn't all that in the cold light of day, actually lives in a dingy apartment with three other dweebs and to be honest was pretty crap in bed anyway.

I dunno, am I overthinking this or is it just a bit of fun between two people?


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> As a woman, me & my husband both conjur up the idea if a woman is bi*chy, she needs some good lovin/ pounding...
> 
> We were riding bikes on a trail a couple yrs ago ...we stopped to pick berries, threw our bikes down...one had a small part of the wheel on the trail... and this lady comes past bi*ching / telling us off -how we are going to cause a wreck...
> 
> Husband looks at me and says....."She need Laid" ...and I just thought to myself... Yeah, you are right !! And thought back to our earlier years....when I was grouchier...that is exactly what he needed to do to me - wrestle me to the ground and take me... like if he came home and I was just "out of sorts" over something stupid... yeah..
> 
> I can't say it offends me personally when I hear men say this... Unless they are the type of men I don't respect... I guess that is the dividing line -for me.


My wife an I have this joke, PMS in a woman could either mean
"...Please, More Sex..," or "...Potential Murder Suspect.."
It all depends on the sensitivity of her her husband .

Any man who's been married for sometime would agree that there are times women act out like that way and what they really want is just some good loving / sex / pounding.

That is not to say ,it is the antidote for a woman with genuine grouses about her husband's callous attitude.
But even the most sensitive man knows this type of behavior, what she's saying ,what she really means , and what he should do about it.


----------



## Entropy3000

WyshIknew said:


> I don't know if this has been covered already and can't be bothered to check as the thread is too long.
> 
> What is the eventual outcome of 'game'?
> 
> I assume it works as the men who use it wouldn't bother otherwise, although I suspect that merely engaging women with confidence, charm and humour would have similar results (bit out of the dating game I'm afraid, think I'd fail miserably at game so wouldn't know.)
> 
> What I mean by eventual outcome is surely after a number of times getting 'gamed' even a woman with little brains would realise something is going on?
> 
> Surely there must come a time when she wakes up in the morning and realised she has been taken in by a total dweeb yet again.
> 
> Although he dressed smart, and had a good line in patter he actually has a crap job, a crap car, isn't all that in the cold light of day, actually lives in a dingy apartment with three other dweebs and to be honest was pretty crap in bed anyway.
> 
> I dunno, am I overthinking this or is it *just a bit of fun between two people?*


Anything is easy from the sidelines.

That said, I am the way you describe. However knowledge is always helpful.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> Byzantine Generals problem is a technical reference. It has to do with dealing with truths and untruths. Often used in fault tolerant systems. Figuring out logically what information is most likely correct from the aggregate information. Looking at the big picture can often tell you who is lying. Inconsistencies are telling.


I know it's a technical reference!
Lol!
But what I meant to imply iwas the root origin of the term.

The Byzantine era was a period in Roman history that was full of political intrigue and machinations .
It was filled with tremendous infighting amongst the Patrician class, as they jostled each other in an effort to wield influence on the emperor.
Lies , sex and murder was the order of the day, as in the story of Julius Caesar.
A Byzantine General's job was a risky one. He had to fend off pretenders , fight for the glory of the empire, win his battles, and try not to offend the Emperor. His job required a great degree of Political Correctness, or he could loose his life and that of his family.
Remember that Russell Crowe movie "..The Gladiator?"
That was Byzantine era Rome.
It resulted in the ultimate demise of the Roman Empire.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> I know it's a technical reference!
> But what I meant to imply iwas the root origin of the term.
> 
> The Byzantine era was a period in Roman history that was full of political intrigue and machinations .
> It was filled with tremendous infighting amongst the Patrician class, as they jostled each other in an effort to wield influence on the emperor.
> Lies , sex and murder was the order of the day, as in the story of Julius Caesar.
> It resulted in the ultimate demise of the Roman Empire.


Yes. Indeed. Just like internet conversations about marriage.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> Yes. Indeed. Just like internet conversations about marriage.


:lol::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Falcon King, are you married?


----------



## FalconKing

Caribbean Man said:


> :lol::rofl::rofl::rofl:
> 
> Falcon King, are you married?


Nope. One day hopefully though!


----------



## Catherine602

Caribbean Man said:


> * Stroking beard...,*
> 
> Byzantine you say....?
> Not Machiavellian, Visigoth or Ottoman?
> Huh, Machiavelli was a ruler ,the Visigoths were a tribe and Ottomans an empire.
> That would mean Byzantine in your logic ,is an era.
> 
> * In hushed tones *
> _
> "..Be cautious of Flavius, that pretentious Noble in the cloak , for he bears a dagger neath , wields undue influence and is loyal to Palaiologan..."
> _
> 
> Sorry,
> Just trying to dissect your logic and not appear sexist...
> Trying to be PC!
> Ha,ha!


Machiavelli was not a ruler really, he was a politician. Although he wrote The Prince, he was not referring to himself. It was a letter of sorts to the powerful Medici ruling family of the city-state of Florence. 

He was ingratiating himself to them after he was banished from Florence. 

If you called him a leader in those times, you would have imperiled your life and his!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Caribbean Man said:


> My wife an I have this joke, PMS in a woman could either mean
> "...*Please, More Sex*..," or "...*Potential Murder Suspect*.."
> It all depends on the sensitivity of her husband .


 That's a good one, never heard that before.. I'm gonna use that ! It ALWAYS means "*Please more sex* " for me ~~ If he takes his attention away, I get grouchier.... I've been on a # of those PMS threads ....this is not the norm. 



> Any man who's been married for sometime would agree that there are times women act out like that way and what they really want is just some good loving / sex / pounding.


 My husband DIDN'T act on this for sooo many yrs (too much of a Gentleman)... and I was too clueless to know what I *needed* -the brain was just occupied elsewhere ...looking back, this is very obvious to me. Not that I was a total ogre - he always made me happy/ life was beautiful -but "external" things upset my apple cart on occasion. And  would have gotten my mind off of it! 



> That is not to say ,it is the antidote for a woman with genuine grouses about her husband's callous attitude.
> But even the most sensitive man knows this type of behavior, what she's saying ,what she really means , and what he should do about it.


I do not know what it is like to be married to a callous man... at all.... so when I get that way >>>  He knows it, I KNOW it... He jokes about it with an upbeat attitude & a  and frankly ... I LOVE IT !


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> Machiavelli was not a ruler really, he was a politician. Although he wrote The Prince, he was not referring to himself. It was a letter of sorts to the powerful Medici ruling family of the city-state of Florence.
> 
> He was ingratiating himself to them after he was banished from Florence.
> 
> *If you called him a leader in those times, you would have imperiled your life and his!*


:iagree: I concede, that was a small error on my part...
Hah!

ALAS!

*Good morning Catherine!!!!!*

See why I like you?
You are very sharp and analytical. I miss your input on this thread.

So what is your take on the subject matter of this thread?


----------



## Catherine602

Caribbean Man said:


> I know it's a technical reference!
> Lol!
> But what I meant to imply iwas the root origin of the term.
> 
> The Byzantine era was a period in Roman history that was full of political intrigue and machinations .
> It was filled with tremendous infighting amongst the Patrician class, as they jostled each other in an effort to wield influence on the emperor.
> Lies , sex and murder was the order of the day, as in the story of Julius Caesar.
> A Byzantine General's job was a risky one. He had to fend off pretenders , fight for the glory of the empire, win his battles, and try not to offend the Emperor. His job required a great degree of Political Correctness, or he could loose his life and that of his family.
> Remember that Russell Crowe movie "..The Gladiator?"
> That was Byzantine era Rome.
> It resulted in the ultimate demise of the Roman Empire.


Actually, Rome did not fall as much as run out. The rulers were sleeping on the job but even if they were good adminitrators, most historians say that Rome would not have survived. 

The splint that occured in the Byzantine era was a contributor. Administarial incompetence, a weaked military, the rise of Chritianity and Islam and invasion by northren tribes are some of the reasons identified by historians. 

The great majority of the citizens of Rome at the time, would be surprised to hear that it fell. Their lives did not change greatly at that point in time.

It did gradually especially for those citizens in the Ottoman Empire. The life of the occupants in the vast OE were worlds apart from the RE.


----------



## Catherine602

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree: I concede, that was a small error on my part...
> Hah!
> 
> ALAS!
> 
> *Good morning Catherine!!!!!*
> 
> See why I like you?
> You are very sharp and analytical. I miss your input on this thread.
> 
> So what is your take on the subject matter of this thread?


Hi C 

I have been following but I came in too late. I don't like to jump in the middle when the discussion has gone on for so many pages. I wish I was in from the begining. I like these discussions. 

I can only contribute minor thechnical comments.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

WyshIknew said:


> I don't know if this has been covered already and can't be bothered to check as the thread is too long.
> 
> What is the eventual outcome of 'game'?
> 
> I assume it works as the men who use it wouldn't bother otherwise, although I suspect that merely engaging women with confidence, charm and humour would have similar results (bit out of the dating game I'm afraid, think I'd fail miserably at game so wouldn't know.)
> 
> What I mean by eventual outcome is surely after a number of times getting 'gamed' even a woman with little brains would realise something is going on?
> 
> Surely there must come a time when she wakes up in the morning and realised she has been taken in by a total dweeb yet again.
> 
> Although he dressed smart, and had a good line in patter he actually has a crap job, a crap car, isn't all that in the cold light of day, actually lives in a dingy apartment with three other dweebs and to be honest was pretty crap in bed anyway.
> 
> I dunno, am I overthinking this or is it just a bit of fun between two people?


Good men with Sexual integrity (not F'ing with her mind to get into her pants & never call again if she might want more)...use some of this to overhaul their Mating personalities...the idea - to gain ALPHA conversationalist skills ..yet their boundary to NOT LIE is still there with them....intentionally suppressing any insecurity from her of course (that would be dating suicide)....

But it's still a dance of cat & mouse....as if he acts TOO INTERESTED - he's not following the rules....she can not know she is the Prize...he has to allow her to THINK other chicks WANT HIM and he is Mr High value ...of course.. so competition is in the air...if you deviate from this, you have F'ed it up good. 

For me personally, this is highly UNromantic , so I don't care for it at all - I'd rather take the dweeb who showed great interest in me & me alone. 

The sheer #'s they get "to fall" for them -leading them to the bedroom with ease.....I would think gets "addicting" after a while...

In the end, if they can't open themselves up - show some "vulnerability" with one special woman....they'll be screwed though. No woman wants a walking Game man. She wants something REAL... or she is messed up herself.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wysh said: "Surely there must come a time when she wakes up in the morning and realised she has been taken in by a total dweeb yet again."

Sure, that's the moment before the walk of shame.


----------



## WyshIknew

Faithful Wife said:


> Wysh said: "Surely there must come a time when she wakes up in the morning and realised she has been taken in by a total dweeb yet again."
> 
> Sure, that's the moment before the walk of shame.


Yes but if she had some fun as well it's not necessarily a walk of shame.

What I mean is surely there must come a realisation that this is not a real man but an insecure boy proving his self worth by cutting notches on his bed post and prob bragging about it.

I don't know about walk of shame but I'd feel pretty fed up that this guy who gamed up like a super stud was a damp squid IRL.


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> I'm not taking anything personal Created2write....I just enjoy opening up the feedback presented to me ... because in my writing these things out, it helps me learn and gauge my own motivations and in doing so... I may learn something...


Fairy enough.  



> I enjoy a good debate! The part about you feeling I want others to see me as deserving of a Pedestal... I guess continuing the conversation may appear this way....but I wouldn't say this is true... I just wanted to answer as honestly as I could given what was presented in how we are with each other...offering the why's behind it.


Thank you for the clarification.



> In hindsite, it was foolish of me to continue .... as this is how I now appear...  ....it is what it is. I read him those 5 points a little earlier as he was standing here along with my answers.... he agreed with what I said.
> 
> This is probably true...but if you think I want him to feel this way...or he should feel this way...you would be terribly terribly WRONG..... I see HIM as a better person than I am... he is kinder, he is more loving, he is many things I struggle to be...... much more worthy in fact... It is the whole introverted thing, he knows he is not the most funny guy at work, or the strongest, or this or that... '
> 
> Just never been one to boast.....His confidence is more silent. He is the type that would give the shirt off his back, save the last cookie...but this gives HIM JOY... I am not sure how to explain this -that is WHO HE IS... I would even go as far as to say he struggles doing for himself... We've had arguments where I was telling him to BE more SELFISH..and I make him be more selfish... now if that is not the silliest thing you ever heard... please tell me !


It's not silly, per se. I can see why he's the kind of person to put you on a pedestal.



> I Do so look after him and make sure he is Happy. ANd I know how much it means to him....our dynamics are very odd I suppose.


There are things that we can do as people that tend to open a door into unhealthy behaviors. Like CaribbeanMan said, not every couple is the same so just because a pedestal caused issues in my marriage, doesn't mean it will cause issues in another. 

I guess, more than anything, I found it ironic that throughout this thread there has been this idea that "the game" isn't the healthiest way to hook up with girls; some people have been defending the game while others have been posting against it. Yet one person in particular said she didn't care if her marriage dynamic was co-dependent and unhealthy, it's the dynamic she and her husband wanted. 

Why can not the same be said of "the game"? And PUA? Some of the men here(actually many of them) have testified to these things _working_ in their lives, yet some of the female posters continue to try and villainize the idea, talking about how unhealthy it can be, how derogatory, how ridiculous. Well, if it works who are we to judge? Sure, there are men who take it too far, as the men here have agreed. 

I guess I just see a lack of consistency.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"I don't know about walk of shame but I'd feel pretty fed up that this guy who gamed up like a super stud was a damp squid IRL. "

In the movie Wedding Chasers (not a great movie, but had some moments) there is a scene where the two Gamer men go through dozens of women they just picked up at weddings and bedded...and it is all fun and good. Until the end of the scene, after sex, one of the girls who has been Gamed asks the Gamer "so are you totally full of sh*t or only 50%"....she clearly realizes her mistake immediately.

I know it is just a movie, but I have heard friends report similar things happening.

By the time women are my age they (my friends) aren't falling for this any more.

However....I would also say that many of my friends who found themselves in that position, actually just WANTED SOME SEX but didn't have partners. They were not openly and awarely into casual sex, so they didn't think they were going in search of it. But that's exactly what they were doing by allowing themselves to be seduced. In the end, they still got the sex they had wanted...and in several cases, some of them realized later that if they needed sex but didn't have a partner, it is much better and easier for them to just hand pick a FWB than go out and be seduced by whomever. 

There are times in a woman's life (some, not all) when she just needs some sex but the relationship isn't there. Yet many women feel weird about just going for casual sex deliberately.

At my age, most of them (I'm still talking about my friends here, not women in general) have no problem with it. If that's what they want and need, they go get it without feeling bad about themselves. I think this is more honest, both to themselves and to the men they end up with.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created said: "I found it ironic that throughout this thread there has been this idea that "the game" isn't the healthiest way to hook up with girls; some people have been defending the game while others have been posting against it. Yet one person in particular said she didn't care if her marriage dynamic was co-dependent and unhealthy, it's the dynamic she and her husband wanted. 

Why can not the same be said of "the game"? And PUA? Some of the men here(actually many of them) have testified to these things working in their lives, yet some of the female posters continue to try and villainize the idea, talking about how unhealthy it can be, how derogatory, how ridiculous. Well, if it works who are we to judge? Sure, there are men who take it too far, as the men here have agreed." (end quote)

This is a good point, and even though I have maybe made it sound like these Games are bad form...in reality, it just is what it is, and its all good. People will find ways to be together, romantically, sexually, casually or seriously...I think all paths to find each other are essentially innocent expressions of the desire to mate and love.

I think even the most Gamey Game is fine actually, I just think a person's real intentions should be revealed if they are literally on the prowl for just a casual hook up when they meet you...male or female. Their real intention is what can be a problem, because if they are not willing to reveal it, then you have deception possibilities.

But even those times of being deceived (or ignoring red flags) can end up being good sexual or date experiences.

I just hate the broken heart parts of the stories. 

Happy endings are so much better.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Created said: "I found it ironic that throughout this thread there has been this idea that "the game" isn't the healthiest way to hook up with girls; some people have been defending the game while others have been posting against it. Yet one person in particular said she didn't care if her marriage dynamic was co-dependent and unhealthy, it's the dynamic she and her husband wanted.
> 
> Why can not the same be said of "the game"? And PUA? Some of the men here(actually many of them) have testified to these things working in their lives, yet some of the female posters continue to try and villainize the idea, talking about how unhealthy it can be, how derogatory, how ridiculous. Well, if it works who are we to judge? Sure, there are men who take it too far, as the men here have agreed." (end quote)
> 
> This is a good point, and even though I have maybe made it sound like these Games are bad form...in reality, it just is what it is, and its all good. People will find ways to be together, romantically, sexually, casually or seriously...I think all paths to find each other are essentially innocent expressions of the desire to mate and love.
> 
> I think even the most Gamey Game is fine actually, I just think a person's real intentions should be revealed if they are literally on the prowl for just a casual hook up when they meet you...male or female. Their real intention is what can be a problem, because if they are not willing to reveal it, then you have deception possibilities.
> 
> But even those times of being deceived (or ignoring red flags) can end up being good sexual or date experiences.
> 
> I just hate the broken heart parts of the stories.
> 
> Happy endings are so much better.


I definitely agree with this. And I agree with the honesty part as well, I just don't think it needs to be blatantly obvious. For instance, if a guy were to tell me that he thought I was hot and wanted to have sex with me, I wouldn't be impressed or flattered. But if a guy were to hit on me, flirt with me, talk with me, banter with me, and then ask me to go back to his place...I might feel very inclined to go with him. 

But yes, on the whole I agree, FW.


----------



## Wiserforit

Faithful Wife said:


> if it works who are we to judge?


1) What does "work" mean? Rape works for getting sex. What ridiculous reasoning. 

Does "work" mean providing a fulfilling, endearing relationship with a woman? No. PUA is an extremely selfish, beginning with the name: "Pick-up". Women are not objects that you pick up. They are _people_. People that you _meet_. 

PUA is all about deception. Manipulation. Part of which is to deny that is what you are doing, or to claim everyone else is doing it. To divert attention away from what they are doing and say it is really all about self-improvement and understanding women. All three manipulative tactics: denial, projection, and diversion. But just look here at this alleged #1 PUA site:

#1 PUA Forum - Become The Ultimate Pick Up Artist

God how pathetic. Forget what the manipulative PUA groupies say in this thread and just look through that site or any other dedicated to PUA to see what it is all about. 

2) There is no evidence that PUA tactics "work", other than taking the word of men who self-identify as losers with women. 

Who are the most popular men? The evidence is _overwhelming_: men of accomplishment. Successful actors, businessmen, sports persona, politicians, writers, etc. 

That takes hard work and determination over years. PUA is the opposite philosophy: the easy trick to get what you want this moment. 

3) There are values in civil society that have proven over the millenia to be worthy of respect. Integrity. Honesty. Kindness. Charity. Courage. Look through that site above so full of deception, pretense, buffonery - and tell me these are values we should respect and inculcate into people.


----------



## Machiavelli

Wiserforit said:


> Women are not objects that you pick up. They are _people_. People that you _meet_.


And have sex with.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

I think this guy is a PUA who wants no competition and all the poon for himself. 

On another topic:


----------



## Created2Write

Wiserforit said:


> 1) What does "work" mean? Rape works for getting sex. What ridiculous reasoning.


Oh please. Give me a break. No one here would _ever_ agree that rape is anywhere near what is being discussed. Let's use common sense and logic instead of posting based on nothing but our feelings. It makes things less melodramatic.



> Does "work" mean providing a fulfilling, endearing relationship with a woman? No. PUA is an extremely selfish, beginning with the name: "Pick-up". Women are not objects that you pick up. They are _people_. People that you _meet_.


You know, for all of this talk about how horrible PUA is, and how men shouldn't do it, there is one tiny fact that many seem to ignore: if it didn't _work_, and women didn't _respond_ to it, would men continue to use it? 



> PUA is all about deception. Manipulation. Part of which is to deny that is what you are doing, or to claim everyone else is doing it. To divert attention away from what they are doing and say it is really all about self-improvement and understanding women. All three manipulative tactics: denial, projection, and diversion. But just look here at this alleged #1 PUA site:
> 
> #1 PUA Forum - Become The Ultimate Pick Up Artist


It's a forum and I don't really care to go read its posts at the moment. I did notice that the men who were listed as the primary posters were highly attractive, masculine looking men. Perhaps there's some jealousy here? 

I kid, I kid. But seriously; the men here haven't been objectifying women or degrading them. So why can't we see the good in this as well? I get that there are probably aspects of PUA that aren't healthy for the man or the woman, but there will _always_ be aspects like that in anything that has to do with men and women hooking up. 



> God how pathetic. Forget what the manipulative PUA groupies say in this thread and just look through that site or any other dedicated to PUA to see what it is all about.
> 
> 2) There is no evidence that PUA tactics "work", other than taking the word of men who self-identify as losers with women.


If they didn't "work" men wouldn't continue to use them. 



> Who are the most popular men? The evidence is _overwhelming_: men of accomplishment. Successful actors, businessmen, sports persona, politicians, writers, etc.
> 
> That takes hard work and determination over years. PUA is the opposite philosophy: the easy trick to get what you want this moment.


That's _not_ what I've seen. While some men may use it for that reason, I daresay not all of them do.



> 3) There are values in civil society that have proven over the millenia to be worthy of respect. Integrity. Honesty. Kindness. Charity. Courage. Look through that site above so full of deception, pretense, buffonery - and tell me these are values we should respect and inculcate into people.


When a woman looks for a relationship, yeah, she likely is looking for those things. When she's looking to be f---ed? You can't tell me she's going to want all of those things.


----------



## Created2Write

Wiserforit: just fyi, I'm skimming that forum right now and so far I've seen that 1) they promote PUA as a way to meet women and 2) when it comes to men looking for LTR they _don't_ recommend deception. In fact, when looking for LTR they tell guys to use "natural" game, which involves being who they are. 

I'm only a few paragraphs in though. Maybe it'll all change halfway through.


----------



## Created2Write

Update: there isn't anything on that forum that I've seen yet that I haven't at least partially agreed with, and I'm a woman! The only thing that bothers me a little is the negging, but it could be that I don't understand it and have never had it done on me. But everything else I've read? If I were single and looking for a ONS, I'd likely respond really well to the things they list. 

Wow! Shocker! A woman who isn't offended by PUA! *gasp*


----------



## Catherine602

Do you really think that these gaming men don't get gamed and know it? A man whose ability to get sex is at the center of his manhood cannot admit that he is gamed or humiliated or degraded. The male ego below the belt is exquisitly fragile. With so many pick ups, chances are good that he thinks he has the right of refusal but he gets refused by that hot girl he really sans to impress. 

I don't believe that the men who brag have even half the adventures and success they claim. If they did, they would be boning instead of jaw boning. 

For all the male bravado, they are the ones who crave emotional closeness acceptance and love. There are few pleople who can provide that for them. Mom dad SO. Single men die younger, have more chronic diseases, are more depressed. Married men, the opposite. So why do they protest so much? Men are always looking for relationships. Always hopping the next hook up will rescue them. 

Not all men, some die alone. Most men have a significant partner in their lives, punctuated by periods of looking, from the time they are teens till the day they die. They approach like a player but they are looking for someone who thinks they are special enough to want to stay. 

I don't know why men think that there are men out there doing what they can't do. No one has that much game. 

Now women. Women don't, as you can see, brag about our game. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wiserforit...I did not say "if it works, who are we to judge". I was quoting Created2Write in the part of my message that you quoted. Just clearing that up, since I did not say that.


----------



## Created2Write

Catherine602 said:


> Do you really think that these gaming men don't get gamed and know it? A man whose ability to get sex is at the center of his manhood cannot admit that he is gamed or humiliated or degraded. The male ego below the belt is exquisitly fragile. With so many pick ups, chances are good that he thinks he has the right of refusal but he gets refused by that hot girl he really sans to impress.
> 
> I don't believe that the men who brag have even half the adventures and success they claim. If they did, they would be boning instead of jaw boning.


I disagree. I think some men who brag are exaggerating, but not all. Some guys like the attention.



> For all the male bravado, they are the ones who crave emotional closeness acceptance and love. There are few pleople who can provide that for them. Mom dad SO. Single men die younger, have more chronic diseases, are more depressed. Married men, the opposite. So why do they protest so much? Men are always looking for relationships. Always hopping the next hook up will rescue them.


This is naive, imo. If this were true, my second, third and fourth relationships would actually have worked out. But they didn't. Why? Cause they wanted a girl who was loose with her body. 



> Not all men, some die alone. Most men have a significant partner in their lives, punctuated by periods of looking, from the time they are teens till the day they die. They approach like a player but they are looking for someone who thinks they are special enough to want to stay.


You seem to think that men fall into one of two categories: men who don't want a relationship at all, and men who do but pretend to be a player because they can't admit to their desire for a relationship. I find this insulting to men in general. There are many other kinds of men between those two extremes, including those who want a relationship _eventually_, but aren't currently looking for one.



> I don't know why men think that there are men out there doing what they can't do. No one has that much game.
> 
> Now women. Women don't, as you can see, brag about our game but we have it. We don't need to talk about it, we are too busy working it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Psssh. Sure. Women don't brag about their game; they just post pictures of their smoking hot bodies all over the internet for their own amusement.  Riiiiiiiight.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Created2Write said:


> Update: there isn't anything on that forum that I've seen yet that I haven't at least partially agreed with, and I'm a woman! The only thing that bothers me a little is the negging, but it could be that I don't understand it and have never had it done on me. But everything else I've read? If I were single and looking for a ONS, I'd likely respond really well to the things they list.
> 
> Wow! Shocker! A woman who isn't offended by PUA! *gasp*


Not every woman on this thread has said their offended by PUA


----------



## TiggyBlue

Catherine602 said:


> Now women. Women don't, as you can see, brag about our game.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Unfortunately I have known a few women brag (not to men of coarse  ).


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, only amongst ourselves. It is code.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> I don't believe that the men who brag have even half the adventures and success they claim. If they did, they would be boning instead of jaw boning.


You might be surprised Catherine!
Human beings are complex creatures ,
If I hadn't experienced it myself I would have doubted. 
Sometimes I look back at myself in my late teens and early 20's and wonder if I was just lucky.
Well maybe I was lucky,
Because I never got a STD, even though I had been tested so many times.
That's one of the downsides of casual sex and PUA lifestyle.
Sometimes you get " lucky " , when safe sex is not an option....


----------



## Wiserforit

Created2Write said:


> Oh please. Give me a break. No one here would _ever_ agree that rape is anywhere near what is being discussed. Let's use common sense and logic instead of posting based on nothing but our feelings. It makes things less melodramatic.


I just did. Paying an escort also works with 100% certainty, and if sex is the only objective then escorts work better than PUA which according to the master himself in The Game is in low single digit success rate. Four nights a week in bars too - gad what an expense! 

They've been evasive in this thread about defining what "works" means. On the PUA sites it is very simple: one night stand sex. But there are no studies whatsoever that they can cite demonstrating the effectiveness of these tactics.

If they did, they would cite them. More than a hundred pages and nothing but the assertions of self-identified losers. 




> You know, for all of this talk about how horrible PUA is, and how men shouldn't do it, there is one tiny fact that many seem to ignore: if it didn't _work_, and women didn't _respond_ to it, would men continue to use it?


What data do you have other than anecdotes by self-identified losers? That isn't an idle accusation - these guys specifically tell us that they had problems with women so they resorted to this stuff. 

What proportion of men even bother to read PUA bunk? Certainly not the majority. Not even a small minority. Most men are not such desperate losers that they resort to reading this stuff. 

Sales data for the most famous pick-up book (The Game by Strauss) is currently number 1,250 on Amazon dot com. When there are over a thousand books that are better reading, and everything from gardening to sports or politics etc. that is definitive proof how tiny this market is. 

Sadly, 80% of households did not buy a book at all in the last year. But I cite this to demonstrate that someone actually motivated to buy a book at all, but who buys one that is ranked behind more than a thousand other books is in a tiny, tiny percentage of the population. 

What is so remarkable about these dismal sales figures is that when The Game was first published it burst forth as #1 on the best-seller list, from the novelty of being the first book on the so-called seduction community. But that novelty wore off and as people saw it had no demonstration of effectiveness and plenty to disagree with - it lapsed into relative obscurity amongst books in general. 




> I kid, I kid. But seriously; the men here haven't been objectifying women or degrading them. So why can't we see the good in this as well? I get that there are probably aspects of PUA that aren't healthy for the man or the woman, but there will _always_ be aspects like that in anything that has to do with men and women hooking up.


Manipulative people are all about denial, evasion, and diversion - which is why it is so important to visit the PUA sites themselves and read the material/books instead of apologetics by people who know they can't be forthright about PUA.

You did not visit the site, obviously. 



> When she's looking to be f---ed? You can't tell me she's going to want all of those things.


What proportion of women are out for one night stand sex? This is also some _very_ small proportion of women. 

The really strange thing about PUA is that you go to a venue where both sides are allegedly seeking one-night-stand sex. You fail at over 90% of your attempts. 

That's a bizarre idea of "success".


----------



## Caribbean Man

Wiserforit said:


> 3) There are values in civil society that have proven over the millenia to be worthy of respect. Integrity. Honesty. Kindness. Charity. Courage. Look through that site above so full of deception, pretense, buffonery - and tell me these are values we should respect and inculcate into people.


And these are all good values, in fact , many people aspire every living day to reach them.
However, human sexuality is very complex.
What we are doing on this thread is just examining one aspect of human sexuality , namely , game.

Some people believe that people should only have sex within marriage, some people do not.
Some people believe in same sex sexual laisons, some people do not.
All of these are different aspects of human sexuality.
Not everyone thinks of honesty , respect and integrity when the natural urge for sex comes.
In fact,people who value these things in their relationships and don't believe in casual sex are not into_ that _type of PUA game.
Like some of us who are married.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> Update: there isn't anything on that forum that I've seen yet that I haven't at least partially agreed with, and I'm a woman! The only thing that bothers me a little is the negging, but it could be that I don't understand it and have never had it done on me. But everything else I've read? If I were single and looking for a ONS, I'd likely respond really well to the things they list.
> 
> Wow! Shocker! A woman who isn't offended by PUA! *gasp*


Here's a few examples that I pulled, ranging from ridiculously juvenile to outright gross and deceptive. I can't imagine any of them working, but apparently I don't think like most women:



> KINO OPENERS
> Pushing girls, grabbing drinks out of their hands, lightly hip checking them, snapping bra straps, grabbing hats off heads, poke her, tap the opposite shoulder, etc.(these require no memorization are easy for newbies)
> 
> PRIMP OPENER
> You walk up, of course making sure to keep your BL under control. (Shoulders away, etc.) You check her out then make a face like you aren't happy with what you see. Then you hold your hands out like you're judging her style. You move in SLOWLY, pick some article of clothing (hat, shirt, etc. Best if it's upper body or head) and PRIMP it. Take her hat and TWIST it ever so slightly. Now, back away, lean back, look her over, and give her a thumbs up.
> 
> "NOW you're a SUPERSTAR!"
> 
> BOYFRIEND DESTROYERS
> Basically you’re building her boyfriend up to an impossibly high level….and he’s not going to be able to measure up to it. This will cause her to think of all his shortcomings and all her unfulfilled needs and desires [she attacks your straw man and destroys him]. Guess who she is gonna be thinking about filling those voids with? The guy that is so ****ing alpha that he can talk to her like this.Also, no woman of quality would actually respect a guy like this. So even if she did think of him as being a quality guy, she will now start seeing how all those nice things he does for her, really demonstrates his low value….and you will implicitly gain value for covertly bringing this up.
> 
> See how this works guys?? Damned sneaky, Damned effective!! Guys, start practicing your Straw Man Techniques!


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Wiserforit said:


> Sales data for the most famous pick-up book (The Game by Strauss) is currently number 1,250 on Amazon dot com. When there are over a thousand books that are better reading, and everything from gardening to sports or politics etc. that is definitive proof how tiny this market is.
> 
> Sadly, 80% of households did not buy a book at all in the last year. But I cite this to demonstrate that someone actually motivated to buy a book at all, but who buys one that is ranked behind more than a thousand other books is in a tiny, tiny percentage of the population.


And thank god for that. The less people know about these stuff, the more effective they will be.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

always_alone said:


> Here's a few examples that I pulled, ranging from ridiculously juvenile to outright gross and deceptive. I can't imagine any of them working, but apparently I don't think like most women:


The point that is being made here is that some of these offensive things do work for certain people. Some women have low standards, so a guy grabbing a drink out of her hand and rearranging her clothing would work on somebody who doesn't think much of themselves. I guess I don't see the problem here. He's a jerk and she thinks this kind of behavior is acceptable. Those two deserve each other.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> Here's a few examples that I pulled, ranging from ridiculously juvenile to outright gross and deceptive. I can't imagine any of them working, but apparently I don't think like most women:


I am not saying it is good. However I see these type things at corporate happy hours. From people 35+. No one is fooling anyone though. If the guys do not play this way the women will play with each other just to get attention. Sad? Yeah probably. Issues? No doubt.

Seriously.

I have not read the boyfriend destroyer but it sounds ike anyway what a predator does to a married woman he has targeted.

Again most of this is focused on single people because pure PUA is about picking up a woman in a bar / club.

But indeed these tactics are modified in picking up married women as well. It is just more subtle and over a period of time.


----------



## always_alone

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The point that is being made here is that some of these offensive things do work for certain people. Some women have low standards, so a guy grabbing a drink out of her hand and rearranging her clothing would work on somebody who doesn't think much of themselves. I guess I don't see the problem here. He's a jerk and she thinks this kind of behavior is acceptable. Those two deserve each other.


That's the point? Okay. Good then. That's something I can get behind.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The point that is being made here is that some of these offensive things do work for certain people. Some women have low standards, so a guy grabbing a drink out of her hand and rearranging her clothing would work on somebody who doesn't think much of themselves. I guess I don't see the problem here. He's a jerk and she thinks this kind of behavior is acceptable. Those two deserve each other.


:iagree:
Pretty much sums it up for me.


----------



## Catherine602

Caribbean Man said:


> You might be surprised Catherine!
> Human beings are complex creatures ,
> If I hadn't experienced it myself I would have doubted.
> Sometimes I look back at myself in my late teens and early 20's and wonder if I was just lucky.
> Well maybe I was lucky,
> Because I never got a STD, even though I had been tested so many times.
> That's one of the downsides of casual sex and PUA lifestyle.
> Sometimes you get " lucky " , when safe sex is not an option....


I believe about half of what you say.  You have not told the full story though, have you? What about the times when you were played? You thought you were tge player. Nothing in life favors one person or gender. 

There is always a price to pay. Maybe the price is the lack of sympathy so many women show men when it comes to sex in marriage. Could the bait and switch be the female version of game? I don't know. 

But the women who have been hurt become someone's wife and she does not forget that men game, maybe even her husband. 

Besides, you hardly fit the category of man who brags. You mentioned your busy times before marriage in context. You talk about many other things. Not the same thing over and over like you are reading from the players catechism. 

Blowhards are like some annoying three year- old you what to shout shut up but your are afraid of injuring them phychologically. 

You appear to me to give at lest some credit to your relationship with your wife for your thoughtful, and insightful options about women. Besides that, you seem to like and respect women.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> There are things that we can do as people that tend to open a door into unhealthy behaviors. Like CaribbeanMan said, not every couple is the same so just because a pedestal caused issues in my marriage, doesn't mean it will cause issues in another.










Created2Write...it's just a word, up until that thread -we never graced the conversation, neither did I look up the why's & issues behind the intended meaning...it's probably not being used correctly -after reading those 5 points given in Entropy's link...most did not apply.. 

My husband was bullied in early high school- before I knew him... this plus being naturally Introverted didn't do him any favors in beaming confidence ...He's told me he always liked himself though, so he still had confidence -he wasn't into changing who he was for acceptance.... I've always had a thing for the UNDERDOG anyway...I guess that's part of who I am.... 

I don't need the ALPHA to hold my attraction...as the vast majority of women ... Excitement to me -is when 2 get caught up in learning of each other, the awkwardness of that, with it's vulnerability early on - it's something that just "clicked for us"... ....it was honest, it was real...and it wasn't laden with games.... Mr Confidence with all the right moves & flirtatious language...knowing other women want him...for me..those come & go (big deal) and he is onto the next girl. 



> I guess, more than anything, I found it ironic that throughout this thread there has been this idea that "the game" isn't the healthiest way to hook up with girls; some people have been defending the game while others have been posting against it. Yet one person in particular said she didn't care if her marriage dynamic was co-dependent and unhealthy, it's the dynamic she and her husband wanted.


 I don't understand the Co-dependent thing so much...sometimes we may use words not really understanding the full meaning behind them (like Pedestal)...... I remember looking Co-dependency up not long ago - I didn't want to use it in the wrong context...



> *Co-dependent* = more or less a one-sided relationship... trying to make the relationship work with someone else who's not.... getting locked into trying to save a partner or the relationship over & over (many times they have an illness or addiction).


Probably because of how my relationship started in it's innocence...we were friends before we even kissed... I tend to not care for "the Game" so much...I don't believe in Casual Sex (for myself)... there is just too many things in those books that goes against my values or what I would teach my kids in handling a relationship, as we didn't have any GAME at all... and I think we did just fine.

But yeah... we're weird [email protected]#$%^& We don't go to bars either, I've never had a beer in my life. 



> Why can not the same be said of "the game"? And PUA? Some of the men here(actually many of them) have testified to these things _working_ in their lives, yet some of the female posters continue to try and villainize the idea, talking about how unhealthy it can be, how derogatory, how ridiculous. Well, if it works who are we to judge? Sure, there are men who take it too far, as the men here have agreed.
> 
> I guess I just see a lack of consistency.


 Oh it works... NO DENIAL FROM ME....I feel most women LOVE GAME...they eat it up...it's the Alpha Dance... I explained the things I didn't care for...they are things that would personally annoy me. 

Why did I fall in love with my husband... because I realized no man on this earth could love me like that.. .had he played a game with me... I might not have felt that... and who knows... moved on... I'm happy he was "just who he was". That's my experience.... I guess we all speak from our experiences.... 

I think it would royally suck to be single today...and deal with all of this.


----------



## Fledgling

I am going to share an intensely personal story here that is highly relevent to the topic at hand. I had no less than 3 guys ask me to junior prom in high school. I wound up going to prom stag. Yes, I went with friends (who all had dates, btw) but I went dateless. How and why is this relevant? Because I went dateless thinking that I was going to figure out a way to capture the eye of my secret crush. I blinded myself to the guys who were all around me (and who screwed up the courage to actually ask me, and whose feelings I trod on btw), and when my secret crush failed to ask me to prom after all of my methods to try to get him to notice me I wound up attending one of the most important functions of my youth alone. This is what is called a life lesson folks. A hard, painful life lesson.

My story I think illustrates the problem with PUAs and Gamers. These methods do NOT build confidence. They blind you to the people around you. They disregard your emotional _needs _in favor of your emotional _wants_. They are disrepectful to the one being "picked up" and they break the hearts of the girl (or guy) left behind, who then becomes a "playa" himself etc etc etc. In other words it creates a vicious cycle. It sets up the PUA for learning bad habits, so that when he is ready for a real relationship he'll have to undo all those negative influences


----------



## Faithful Wife

For my senior prom, I had a boyfriend but my best friend did not. So my boyfriend took us both, and we had our pics taken as a prom threesome. It was so cute and fun. He was a cutie, way lanky, played trumpet...but he looked like a pimp in his braces, two ladies on his arms in fancy Madonna dresses, and a big ol smile on his face.


----------



## Catherine602

Maybe I am naive. Before marriage, i never had a wild free period. Women fooling around with each other to amuse men, saw it on TV but never in real life.

I get out, go to parties, social events, clubs, professional meetings, bars with my husband and with friends. I don't know why I never experienced these things. 

They are pervasive? Well, I will have to be observent.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> I believe about half of what you say.  You have not told the full story though, have you? What about the times when you were played? You thought you were tge player. Nothing in life favors one person or gender.
> 
> There is always a price to pay. Maybe the price is the lack of sympathy so many women show men when it comes to sex in marriage. Could the bait and switch be the female version of game? I don't know.


But I did mention on this thread that there were times that women played me!
The first woman I ever had sex with play me badly.
I was taught certain things by my mom about how men are supposed to treat women good etc.
I have always gotten attention from females, but I never had the " killer instinct", until after my first encounter.

My first full sexual encounter happened at age 16. I was back home for Christmas on the beach hanging out with two Dutch [ white ] guys and a girl. They owned a diving shop, and we had just come in from a dive.
Saw this girl further down the beach on a lounge chair, tanning and reading a book, and I approached her, not really for sex , but I was never afraid to approach women , and she looked sexy as hell, so yeah, I was trying my luck.
Found out she too was visiting for the holidays, and we both lived on the main Island.
So the ice was easily broken, and we chatted easily.She was 8 or 10 yrs older than me, owned a business and was staying at a nearby villa , ALONE!
I started escalating the conversation, pretending I was a gigolo making fun of her and she responded making fun of me.
Then she dared me to come back to her villa, and I brushed it aside telling her that she couldn't afford me.
We laughed , but in my mind I knew I wanted to make a move on her, but I kept doubting myself.
I jokingly asked her to put some of her lotion on me, and she refused and upped the ante again.
She said no, YOU put some on my back, handed it to me .
I saw the opportunity,and did it.
I jokingly pulled at her bikini string at the back, and she told me don't stop.I stopped. She got up took her stuff and we headed to her villa.
However I was scared like sh!t..,outside her door , I chickened out and told her I had something important to do and would pass back later, that night.
But even though I was scared, I acted extremely confident.
I didn't pass back, because I was scared. But I knew I wanted sex with her, and that I could if overcame my fears.
However, the next day I saw her again , on the beach , and this time I had the " killer instinct."
I lied and told her that I went to hunt with my uncles, and was exhausted.
[ I used to hunt with them, but I didn't that night, I was too scared!]
Ha! She was impressed.
She invited me to her villa " for a drink" & lunch.
That was midday Saturday.
We literally had sex until Monday, and a few hours of sleep between.
We both left the island on Wednesday , by ferry, rented a cabin and we had sex all the time.
We exchanged ph# , and she gave me her high school ring.
I began to like her.
Every Saturday after she would visit me, home, she owned a car, and we would have wild sex.
I thought I was in love.
Cutting the story short, I found out by " accident" that she was engaged.
A friend of mine saw her car pull up by my place one Saturday evening, and she came out. After he asked me and I told him about her.
He asked me if I was crazy, and told me she was engaged to a man. I laughed at him.
Word began to spread, and he fiancee met me in a club one Friday and accousted me, accusing me of spreading " rumours" about his woman. Stupid guy didn't notice that I was wearing _her ring_....
I was tempted to tell him about the red birthmark on her left breast , but I held my tongue. My partners diffused the situation . I was very hurt. I was furious.
Wounded pride, ego everything.
The next time she came by me " to explain everything" I gave her back her ring, " trophy underwear " nude photos and everything she gave me.
Told her never to speak to me again.

So she played me.
The sex was good , but I realized I was just her " boy toy " and yes I was too young to understand.
But I am a quick learner. I analyzed everything and put the pieces of the puzzle together.
It was not the only time I was ever played by a woman , but it was one of two times I had ever let my feelings involved.
Met lots of other women after that, single women, divorced women just looking for sex etc.

But after a while, i got tired of those type of games.
At one time I used to be a model for a local agency and that was my _game_. Just being a male model in those days equalled lots of women and sometimes men approaching me for sex.
Lol, that was crazy!
Before I started dating my wife,we were good friends.
I was fooling around with this hottie,and she told me she loved me. it felt nice so I gave myself against my better judgement, maybe because I was looking for more, or maybe she was very beautiful. I have a weakness for beautiful women... She had an ex boyfriend who lived close to her.
She cheated on me and I got rid of her.She cried and begged for another chance but told her to stay out of my life. She eventually got married to her ex, and today she still cheating on him. [ Thank goodness, not me!]. 
That's why I agreed earlier that those type of games work on women who are not emotionally mature.
Anyway, that was a very low period in my personal life, but my good friend was there as usual to help me out of it.
Today she's my wife, and we both play each other , but a different kind of " game."


----------



## Created2Write

Wiserforit said:


> I just did. Paying an escort also works with 100% certainty, and if sex is the only objective then escorts work better than PUA which according to the master himself in The Game is in low single digit success rate. Four nights a week in bars too - gad what an expense!
> 
> They've been evasive in this thread about defining what "works" means. On the PUA sites it is very simple: one night stand sex. But there are no studies whatsoever that they can cite demonstrating the effectiveness of these tactics.
> 
> If they did, they would cite them. More than a hundred pages and nothing but the assertions of self-identified losers.


Oh, so as long as the tactic has been proven to work and there are studies to prove it, you'll accept them? You must not agree with _His Needs, Her Needs_ or _The Five Love Languages_ then, because those aren't proven to work either. Yet, many people testify to their success. 

I'm not saying PUA is the end all, be all to relationship success. I'm not even saying that in it's entirety it's a good thing to try. However, as I've read more of that forum, there _are_ little nuggets that can be beneficial. Why not take the things you agree with and apply them, and discard what you don't agree with? 




> What data do you have other than anecdotes by self-identified losers?


Hostile, much? 



> That isn't an idle accusation - these guys specifically tell us that they had problems with women so they resorted to this stuff.


There are some great tips for guys who have a difficult time talking to women! Women can be really vicious, to their own sex and to the opposite sex. I have a guy friend right now who has been single for _years_, has no confidence in himself because the girls he likes toy with his emotions. He's a really nice guy, and many have taken advantage of him, to the point that now he doesn't even think a girl could ever like him. 

While I don't think he would ever adopt all of the PUA teachings, I think that a lot of the things they say to help shy guys open up _can_ help guys like my friend. Is it all gold? No, it definitely isn't. Is some of it insulting? Yes, to both men and women. But that doesn't mean we should discount all of it.



> What proportion of men even bother to read PUA bunk? Certainly not the majority. Not even a small minority. Most men are not such desperate losers that they resort to reading this stuff.


For someone who insists on having thing studied and proven, I expect you to offer some kind of study that proves this. Otherwise, you're just stating things that sound good to you without any proof.



> Sales data for the most famous pick-up book (The Game by Strauss) is currently number 1,250 on Amazon dot com. When there are over a thousand books that are better reading, and everything from gardening to sports or politics etc. that is definitive proof how tiny this market is.


_One_ website? What about Barnes and Noble? What about Borders? What about other smaller book store chains? What about those who don't buy books online? Can you show a study that proves that most people buy books online? If not, then this "definitive proof" is nothing more than one aspect of a much larger picture, and doesn't prove anything at all.



> Sadly, 80% of households did not buy a book at all in the last year. But I cite this to demonstrate that someone actually motivated to buy a book at all, but who buys one that is ranked behind more than a thousand other books is in a tiny, tiny percentage of the population.


How many people do you know who look through a list of thousands of random books without having something specific their searching for? If everyone shopping online did that then, yeah, it wouldn't be likely that they would buy that book. But, with the art of internet shopping, you can type in the kind of book your looking for and surpass the thousands of other books that would have come before it.



> What is so remarkable about these dismal sales figures is that when The Game was first published it burst forth as #1 on the best-seller list, from the novelty of being the first book on the so-called seduction community. But that novelty wore off and as people saw it had no demonstration of effectiveness and plenty to disagree with - it lapsed into relative obscurity amongst books in general.


Really? Care to prove this? Cause there are a lot of #1 best sellers that go from being really popular, to not-so-popular and the reasons for this vary.



> Manipulative people are all about denial, evasion, and diversion - which is why it is so important to visit the PUA sites themselves and read the material/books instead of apologetics by people who know they can't be forthright about PUA.
> 
> You did not visit the site, obviously.


Actually, I did. Just because I have a different view than you doesn't mean I evaded your so called "proof" of how lame PUA is.



> What proportion of women are out for one night stand sex? This is also some _very_ small proportion of women.


Can you prove this too? I personally know a couple who, for years, had one night stands. I came here and saw just how common it is for women to pursue them. Perhaps you should stop making assumptions about women?



> The really strange thing about PUA is that you go to a venue where both sides are allegedly seeking one-night-stand sex. You fail at over 90% of your attempts.
> 
> That's a bizarre idea of "success".


I haven't seen that encouraged at all. I haven't read a ton of it, granted, so maybe it'll show up later.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Here's a few examples that I pulled, ranging from ridiculously juvenile to outright gross and deceptive. I can't imagine any of them working, but apparently I don't think like most women:
> 
> Quote:
> KINO OPENERS
> Pushing girls, grabbing drinks out of their hands, lightly hip checking them, snapping bra straps, grabbing hats off heads, poke her, tap the opposite shoulder, etc.(these require no memorization are easy for newbies)


I don't see anything wrong with tapping the opposite shoulder or poking or grabbing a hat. Pushing, over the line. Grabbing their drink? Confusing to me. I mean, why? Snapping bra straps? Bleh. 

I should add that these would also depend on _when_ they're used. It says "Opener", so I would assume that that would be the way you introduce yourself. It wouldn't work on me at all. If, after talking with a girl report has been built and she has a great sense of humor, then perhaps those that sound horrible could work as flirtation. They wouldn't work on me, but they might on someone else. I wouldn't use them openers though, although the tapping the opposite shoulder, grabbing a hat and a poke could be flirty as an opener.



> PRIMP OPENER
> You walk up, of course making sure to keep your BL under control. (Shoulders away, etc.) You check her out then make a face like you aren't happy with what you see. Then you hold your hands out like you're judging her style. You move in SLOWLY, pick some article of clothing (hat, shirt, etc. Best if it's upper body or head) and PRIMP it. Take her hat and TWIST it ever so slightly. Now, back away, lean back, look her over, and give her a thumbs up.
> 
> "NOW you're a SUPERSTAR!"


It's cheesy, but it's not horrible. It certainly won't work on the girls who really pride themselves on their wardrobe.



> BOYFRIEND DESTROYERS
> Basically you’re building her boyfriend up to an impossibly high level….and he’s not going to be able to measure up to it. This will cause her to think of all his shortcomings and all her unfulfilled needs and desires [she attacks your straw man and destroys him]. Guess who she is gonna be thinking about filling those voids with? The guy that is so ****ing alpha that he can talk to her like this.Also, no woman of quality would actually respect a guy like this. So even if she did think of him as being a quality guy, she will now start seeing how all those nice things he does for her, really demonstrates his low value….and you will implicitly gain value for covertly bringing this up.


This one definitely is shallow and disgusting. Nothing that I can agree with here.



> See how this works guys?? Damned sneaky, Damned effective!! Guys, start practicing your Straw Man Techniques!


Yeah, that one was dumb. Not every guy is going to pursue a girl who has a boyfriend, though. Even if they do practice PUA.


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> Created2Write...it's just a word, up until that thread -we never graced the conversation, neither did I look up the why's & issues behind the intended meaning...it's probably not being used correctly -after reading those 5 points given in Entropy's link...most did not apply..


I think that the word being used doesn't accurately describe your marriage, because when you talk about it, I don't sense anything dangerous or unhealthy. But the word "pedestal" used in a relationship sends warning bells off in my head.



> My husband was bullied in early high school- before I knew him... this plus being naturally Introverted didn't do him any favors in beaming confidence ...He's told me he always liked himself though, so he still had confidence -he wasn't into changing who he was for acceptance.... I've always had a thing for the UNDERDOG anyway...I guess that's part of who I am....
> 
> I don't need the ALPHA to hold my attraction...as the vast majority of women ... Excitement to me -is when 2 get caught up in learning of each other, the awkwardness of that, with it's vulnerability early on - it's something that just "clicked for us"... ....it was honest, it was real...and it wasn't laden with games.... Mr Confidence with all the right moves & flirtatious language...knowing other women want him...for me..those come & go (big deal) and he is onto the next girl.
> 
> I don't understand the Co-dependent thing so much...sometimes we may use words not really understanding the full meaning behind them (like Pedestal)...... I remember looking Co-dependency up not long ago - I didn't want to use it in the wrong context...


I don't think that definition is accurate to the idea of co-dependence. When I looked up the definition it meant that one person put too much of their existence and identity in another person, to the point that they would be emotionally unstable without them. 



> Probably because of how my relationship started in it's innocence...we were friends before we even kissed... I tend to not care for "the Game" so much...I don't believe in Casual Sex (for myself)... there is just too many things in those books that goes against my values or what I would teach my kids in handling a relationship, as we didn't have any GAME at all... and I think we did just fine.


I wouldn't encourage my children to do it either. I just don't like to see people tear apart people who choose to follow an idea that they disagree with.



> But yeah... we're weird [email protected]#$%^& We don't go to bars either, I've never had a beer in my life.


Beer......mmmmmmmmmm! I love beer.  And I like bars, which is an odd quality for a Christian girl. 



> Oh it works... NO DENIAL FROM ME....I feel most women LOVE GAME...they eat it up...it's the Alpha Dance... I explained the things I didn't care for...they are things that would personally annoy me.
> 
> Why did I fall in love with my husband... because I realized no man on this earth could love me like that.. .had he played a game with me... I might not have felt that... and who knows... moved on... I'm happy he was "just who he was". That's my experience.... I guess we all speak from our experiences....
> 
> I think it would royally suck to be single today...and deal with all of this.


----------



## Machiavelli

TiggyBlue said:


> Not every woman on this thread has said their offended by PUA


mostly just wiserforit.


----------



## Catherine602

CM I didn't see your earlier post. 

Can i ask questions? I will understand if you don't care to answer. Was your wife hesitant about getting involved with you given your history? She was a friend so she knew your history. In addition, you had a recent traumatic break up with an ex. 

You seemed a poor risk for a committed relationship. Your wife was very brave to get involved with you. That or perhaps she knows you better than you know yourself? 

If you can speak for your wife, what does she think of the player life style?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Nsweet

Is this thread still going? 

Crap, people! You'd think by now the majority who have something negative to say about PUA, if such a thing existed, would look at it with a sort of religious freedom for those who wish to learn. You can go through life thinking your way is right and you know all of life's answers and turn your nose up at others who don't see things your ways. Or you could look at those people who worship their own way and read books on dating..... as different. Different, but no less than yourself, nor any better. Am I saying it's right to study up and put yourself at an advantage, no. But is it right to claim you know any better because you figured out all life has to offer on your own(at least you'd like to think so). Certainly not!

Let the men and women who don't know any better learn for themselves and encourage any who ask to seek out answers for themselves to read these books if they wish. And just because you're happy and content in your relationship status right now doesn't mean you can't stand to learn a thing or two from those in the dating game, or from books like these, because no matter what you don't know everything there is about keeping up the intimacy, affection, or attraction in your so-called-perfect-relationship.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> CM I didn't see your earlier post.
> 
> Can i ask questions? I will understand if you don't care to answer. Was your wife hesitant about getting involved with you given your history? She was a friend so she knew your history. In addition, you had a recent traumatic break up with an ex.
> 
> You seemed a poor risk for a committed relationship. Your wife was very brave to get involved with you. That or perhaps she knows you better than you know yourself?
> 
> If you can speak for your wife, what does she think of the player life style?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Of course my wife was hesitant.
For almost five years she toyed with me , pretending we were " just friends" and I knew she was very attracted to me.

In reality she was safeguarding herself.
She liked me, she treated me well almost like a lover, but everytime I tried to define our friendship, she would say tha we were " just friends " and we could NEVER be anything more.
But I realized that she never allowed another man near her, even though she had a few guys asking her out.
I knew she was mine, but she kept holding back.
I saw it in the way she treated me.
She knew lots about me. I confided in her, and , I made myself vulnerable to her in a way that none other knew me.
She _knew_ me, she liked me, but she also knew what I was capable of if given the upper hand.
When we finally decided to get together as a couple, she laid down the rules, and on top of those rules was her " no sex " rule.
And you are correct, she did that because even though she was in love, she knew I was a poor choice for long term commitment, which is what she wanted.
It is something that lots of women suffer from.
They always fall in love with men who are no good for them.
I was trouble. Everybody warned her about me.
She was in love, but she wanted to play it safe.

I was just fed up, and wanted to take my life in a different direction. I felt that she could help me do that.
And that we both did together.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> I don't think that definition is accurate to the idea of co-dependence. When I looked up the definition it meant that one person put too much of their existence and identity in another person, to the point that they would be emotionally unstable without them.


How about this definition...would you agree with this ??







Do You Have a Codependent Personality? - Emotional Health Center 











> The word "codependency" gets thrown around a lot — there are codependent couples, codependent companions, codependent caretakers.
> 
> *But what does codependent actually mean ? *
> 
> “Originally, the term codependent was developed as a way to describe the responses or behaviors that develop from a person living with an alcoholic,” explains Mary Catherine Segota, PsyD, a licensed clinical psychologist at Executive Health in Orlando, Fla.
> Now, it’s often used to describe someone who treats a relationship like it’s more important them themselves — a hopeless romantic who becomes “addicted” to his partner, or a caregiver who constantly puts the needs of her loved one first."
> 
> The number of codependent personalities out there is hard to estimate — that’s because codependency is typically researched in the context of drug and alcohol addiction. But the two are not all that different. In fact, one of the key aspects of today’s “codependent personality” also pertains to people who have relationships with addicts: Enabling.
> 
> Segota describes “enabling” as a behavior that is used to ease relationship tension that’s caused by one partner’s problematic habits. Enabling is rarely seen in healthy relationships — these behaviors include bailing the partner out, giving him another chance, ignoring the problem, accepting excuses, trying to fix the problem, or constantly coming to the rescue.
> 
> “Individuals who are codependent tend to get involved in relationships with individuals who are unreliable, emotionally unavailable, or needy," says Segota. “The codependent individual tries to provide and control everything in the relationship without addressing their own needs or desires, which perpetuates the lack of fulfillment in the relationship.”
> 
> *Signs You’re in a Codependent Relationship*
> 
> Codependent personalities usually follow a pattern of behaviors that are consistent, problematic, and directly interfere with the individual’s emotional health and ability to find fulfillment in a relationship. According to Sharon Wegscheider-Cruse, a consultant, educator, and author of numerous books including Understanding Co-Dependency, “Signs of codependency include excessive caretaking, controlling, and preoccupation with people and things ‘outside of ourselves.’”
> 
> A codependent individual is hyper-vigilant, like a bear protecting its cub. She may also exhibit compulsive behaviors — which can be sexual or come in the form of excessive work, exercise, eating, spending money, anorexia, or nicotine addiction.
> 
> *Here are 8 signs of codependency:*
> 
> *** Having difficulty making decisions in a relationship
> *** Having difficulty identifying your own feelings
> *** Having difficulty communicating in a relationship
> *** Valuing the approval of others more that valuing yourself
> ** *Lacking trust in yourself and having poor self-esteem
> ** *Having fears of abandonment or an obsessive need for approval
> *** Having an unhealthy dependence on relationships, even at your own cost
> ** *Having an exaggerated sense of responsibility for the actions of others
> 
> 
> *Are Codependent Personalities Really That Bad?*
> 
> While being completely codependent will have negative effects on an individual’s emotional health and relationship, exhibiting some signs of codependency isn’t always awful.
> 
> “A touch of codependency occurs in all of us from time to time,” says Wegscheider-Cruse. “It is when the behaviors become exaggerated, when we lose choice and deny these behaviors, and hide our true feelings that our behavior interferes with our daily living and the quality of our relationships.”
> 
> *If you seek out or maintain — even feed off of — relationships that are not fulfilling or healthy, you could be codependent.* But according to Wegscheider-Cruse, once codependency is identified, it can be successfully nipped in the bud — and the individual can recove


For me, this article is very Balanced.... It does mention Hopeless Romantics up there (I specifically looked for an article that had that mentioned)..... which we are... but I surely would hope ....when the term is used on others....it would not automatically encapsulate those who simply enjoy loving on each other, spending the majority of their time together -cause it's what they both enjoy in life.... 

This article gives a clearer picture to what is really going on ...with these personalities.... the Co-dependent is suffering inside due to not having his/her needs met ...because they are so dependent on that said relationship- they have allowed some form of *Enabling* to make excuses for the problematic behaviors of the other. This clearly is not healthy.


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Your poison of choice would be?


Following my code.

Do No Harm.

Dating is about what I want.

Love is about what we want.

Never make someone else responsible for my happiness. She's free to contribute ... but I own it. And if it's obvious she _isn't_ contributing? She's out.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> *Never make someone else responsible for my happiness. She's free to contribute ... but I own it. And if it's obvious she isn't contributing? She's out.*


My personal code.
Lol,
I've been trying to explain that to some others on another thread..


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Deejo said:


> *Dating is about what I want*.
> 
> Love is about what we want.
> 
> Never make someone else responsible for my happiness. She's free to contribute ... but I own it. And if it's obvious she _isn't_ contributing? She's out.










... I think *dating *should be primarily to see if that person is *compatible*, wants/ envisions similar dreams .... so if united hand in hand...our journey will be a Joy ~ not a battlefield... We all have an internal list of "deal breakers", and if not.. WE SHOULD. 

If we are irritated with their morals/religious beliefs (or non), how they spend $$, how they handle their sexuality, Homebody vs "fly by the seat of your pants" Partier, Love Languages at opposite extremes causing issues... one wants kids/ one hates kids....MOVE ON....and do it with a flame under your butt to boot. 

Attempting to change someone's stripes in any way...is purely a fruitless endeavor....will only lead to great frustration down the road......better to keep trucking along till we meet another who "fits" with who we are -"gets us" and loves us in spite of our little quirks....

It's pretty easy to overlook the little things ....never wise to compromise on the big stuff though.....*in this respect, it IS about US...and what we want.*

Once you find your other half...that "fits" like that missing puzzle piece ....







falls into place...and generally very smoothly....seems you have found "the one" for you Deejo !


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Following my code.
> 
> Do No Harm.
> 
> Dating is about what I want.
> 
> Love is about what we want.
> 
> Never make someone else responsible for my happiness. She's free to contribute ... but I own it. And if it's obvious she _isn't_ contributing? She's out.


I was talking about liquor. You mentioned swank furniture and such so I had to build a vision in my mind. What is in your hand as you sit in your tufted Napa leather wing back chair?


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I was talking about liquor. You mentioned swank furniture and such so I had to build a vision in my mind. What is in your hand as you sit in your tufted Napa leather wing back chair?


Bourbon.

Also am a novice Absintheur.

Oh, and another part of my code that I have posted numerous times here; Own your sh!t.

Relationships are a very compelling, and interesting dynamic.
So here is the part that makes me look a lot less 'cool' ... but it's no less real.

I got dumped twenty minutes ago. 

She was struggling to come to terms with my interactions with my ex (so she says) ... who was struggling to come to terms with the fact that I was in love. Whacky ... I know. I was trying to be very honest about the situation with both.

Probably should have gamed them ...

Loved her very much. This one stings.

That's the risk we take. No doubt I will take it again. Not for a good long while though ...

And when I do find it, I think I'll keep my mouth shut about it. 

Please no, "I'm so sorry's" and what not. That is not my reasoning for putting this out there.

My point is that there are guys out there that no doubt deal with women unfairly.

I'm not one of them. The guys that could give a crap about using, and hurting women? They don't post here.


----------



## that_girl

lol.

I usually ignore men. I haven't flirted in years.

But...who knows what I'd fall for. I just know I still have the power 

Power of the vag. It's real.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Bourbon.
> 
> Also am a novice Absintheur.
> 
> Oh, and another part of my code that I have posted numerous times here; Own your sh!t.
> 
> Relationships are a very compelling, and interesting dynamic.
> So here is the part that makes me look a lot less 'cool' ... but it's no less real.
> 
> I got dumped twenty minutes ago.
> 
> She was struggling to come to terms with my interactions with my ex (so she says) ... who was struggling to come to terms with the fact that I was in love. Whacky ... I know. I was trying to be very honest about the situation with both.
> 
> Probably should have gamed them ...
> 
> Loved her very much. This one stings.
> 
> That's the risk we take. No doubt I will take it again. Not for a good long while though ...
> 
> And when I do find it, I think I'll keep my mouth shut about it.
> 
> Please no, "I'm so sorry's" and what not. That is not my reasoning for putting this out there.
> 
> My point is that there are guys out there that no doubt deal with women unfairly.
> 
> I'm not one of them. The guys that could give a crap about using, and hurting women? They don't post here.


Years ago I came to this site asking a question. I thought that my marriage would be "cured" if this question could be answered. It wasn't but something else did.

I stuck around however and read plenty. I posted many times about how much of a jackass my husband was. I wanted sympathy and pats on the back. There was only one person here who told me to own my sh!t. He told me that as much of a jackass I might think my husband is, I have done many hurtful things to him as well. He told me that we are all responsible for our outcome. He told me that to blame somebody else for our anger is a fools game, as we control our own reactions. He told me that pointing fingers at our spouse and saying you are the one who makes me unhappy, should really be turned around and pointed at ourselves. Who was this man? You. I doubt you will ever know how much you changed my life. Own your sh!t is the best advice I ever got.


----------



## Deejo

You're awesome ...

You and hubs want a weekend in the White Mountains? 



Therealbrighteyes said:


> Years ago I came to this site asking a question. I thought that my marriage would be "cured" if this question could be answered. It wasn't but something else did.
> 
> I stuck around however and read plenty. I posted many times about how much of a jackass my husband was. I wanted sympathy and pats on the back. There was only one person here who told me to own my sh!t. He told me that as much of a jackass I might think my husband is, I have done many hurtful things to him as well. He told me that we are all responsible for our outcome. He told me that to blame somebody else for our anger is a fools game, as we control our own reactions. He told me that pointing fingers at our spouse and saying you are the one who makes me unhappy, should really be turned around and pointed at ourselves. Who was this man? You. I doubt you will ever know how much you changed my life. Own your sh!t is the best advice I ever got.


----------



## Entropy3000

Catherine602 said:


> But the women who have been hurt become someone's wife and she does not forget that men game, maybe even her husband.


This is very true. It works both ways. This is a big reason I think a couple needs to be transparent early on. So that they are able to bond more closely and be intimate with each other and not blame each other for the hurt that others may have bestowed upon them. But I also know pragmatically this takes time.

There is no doubt that I had to overcome the hurdles of my wifes deep hurt over her first husband. I really think this was minimized though because I was so very different than him.

And I was played more often in my single life than not. I was pretty much what you see if what you get. I was not a pursuer. But that said, I am responsible for my self. The person who you marry is not responsible for your actions and choices. They indeed need the transparency as I do not believe in keeping secrets from them. What you do not know will hurt you.

The first step in getting over these hurts is to choose a quality partner. But one should never make thier partner suffer for the sins of others or our own choices. I mean who is gaming whom?


----------



## Entropy3000

Catherine602 said:


> *Maybe I am naive. Before marriage, i never had a wild free period. Women fooling around with each other to amuse men, saw it on TV but never in real life.*
> 
> I get out, go to parties, social events, clubs, professional meetings, bars with my husband and with friends. I don't know why I never experienced these things.
> 
> They are pervasive? Well, I will have to be observent.


I saw this no less than a month ago while on a company trip but it is a recurring theme. The worst was a married woman whose husband was in India. 

Also when I was single I was in the Navy. But indeed my experience was not all that different to those who were in college.

When I attended the JavaONE conference my wife and I were invited to a wine country tour by a consulting firm my company does business with. Now there were two couples on the bus who were not into the party life style which included my wife and I. But the bus was full of mostly married people sans their spouses and there was all sorts of grinding groping and yes women acting out in ways to draw attention. I am not overreating or being a prude here. It was bit over the top. While there was likely some gaming going on it was hard to tell who was gaming whom. As for the tour in general my wife and I had a great time. 

Your comments also back up what I have been saying right along. Venue matters.


----------



## Deejo

coffee4me said:


> If I can't say the above and I really want to, how about this:
> 
> I really enjoy your sense of humor.
> 
> And if that compliment is part of my game, so be it.


I don't feel manipulated in the slightest. Well done.


----------



## Conrad

Deejo said:


> I don't feel manipulated in the slightest. Well done.


Coffee4,

If deej doesn't feel manipulated, you could give me a compliment and see how I feel about it.

You up for it?


----------



## Conrad

coffee4me said:


> Conrad? Do I know you?
> Surely if you had been posting on this thread the last 100 or so pages; I would have gained valuable insight into this thought provoking topic.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I take that as a "no"


----------



## Conrad

Deejo said:


> I'm not one of them. The guys that could give a crap about using, and hurting women? They don't post here.


But, we make handy stand-ins for them, don't we?

BTW - the ex thing is always a minefield.

Next time


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> Weird way to fish for a compliment Conrad! :rofl:


Not all of them are as free with compliments as you are.


----------



## Conrad

coffee4me said:


> Actually Conrad that was genuine compliment. I haven't read enough of your posts to compliment and particular traits you may possess. However, I pointed out that had you posted on this thread, "I'm sure I would have gained valuable insight". You can derive from that many positives. I value your opinion, I think you would be interesting and engaging, it could also be taken as an invitation to contribute so I could gain some insight from you.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And I don't feel manipulated either


----------



## larry.gray

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Years ago I came to this site asking a question. I thought that my marriage would be "cured" if this question could be answered. It wasn't but something else did.
> 
> I stuck around however and read plenty. I posted many times about how much of a jackass my husband was. I wanted sympathy and pats on the back. There was only one person here who told me to own my sh!t. He told me that as much of a jackass I might think my husband is, I have done many hurtful things to him as well. He told me that we are all responsible for our outcome. He told me that to blame somebody else for our anger is a fools game, as we control our own reactions. He told me that pointing fingers at our spouse and saying you are the one who makes me unhappy, should really be turned around and pointed at ourselves. Who was this man? You. I doubt you will ever know how much you changed my life. Own your sh!t is the best advice I ever got.


I have a corollary to that. When I came and posted here, I got what you sought even though that's not what I wanted. I got plenty of posts talking about how horrible my wife was. I'd look at what I posted, and I wasn't that harsh about her. But men saw their own pain, amplified it and vented. I ended up deleting ALL my threads about us, because I love her and I detested reading the bashing of her.

What helped? I read what some women wrote. I worked on myself. I talked to my wife.

We're in a MUCH better place now.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> * He told me that pointing fingers at our spouse and saying you are the one who makes me unhappy, should really be turned around and pointed at ourselves*.


Wow, its a pity ^^^this^^^ nugget of wisdom passed by so quickly and only a few people here recognized it.It is worth a whole lot more than its weight in gold. Like the proverbial " ounce of prevention", it is better than tons of any cure.
Personal responsibility for your mistakes and your own happiness...
Lol,
Maybe you should have posted this on that other thread.
Thanks for your brutal honesty.
Well, we all live and learn!


----------



## Caribbean Man

coffee4me said:


> And if that compliment is part of my game, so be it.


^^Haha!


----------



## Deejo

Conrad said:


> But, we make handy stand-ins for them, don't we?
> 
> BTW - the ex thing is always a minefield.
> 
> Next time


Indeed.

Hard lesson. But those are the ones that stick.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Deejo said:


> Relationships are a very compelling, and interesting dynamic.
> So here is the part that makes me look a lot less 'cool' ... but it's no less real.
> 
> I got dumped twenty minutes ago.
> 
> She was struggling to come to terms with my interactions with my ex (so she says) ... who was struggling to come to terms with the fact that I was in love. Whacky ... I know. I was trying to be very honest about the situation with both.
> 
> Probably should have gamed them ...
> 
> Loved her very much. This one stings.
> 
> That's the risk we take. No doubt I will take it again. Not for a good long while though ...
> 
> And when I do find it, I think I'll keep my mouth shut about it.
> 
> Please no, "I'm so sorry's" and what not. That is not my reasoning for putting this out there.
> 
> My point is that there are guys out there that no doubt deal with women unfairly.
> 
> I'm not one of them. The guys that could give a crap about using, and hurting women? They don't post here.


I don't understand this... You know how this works...you know how to play better than many ......she had to have given YOU ideas (many) that she was REALLY into you - for you to GO there...to open yourself up/ feel comfortable to express what you did.... was that HER GAME, suppressing how she was feeling, whatever was stirring as the days , weeks, months progressed? 

I'm not going to say I am sorry but I am irritated to hear this ... If this hit you between the eyes, you didn't see it coming at all... then







.... someone wasn't being authentic, had she....given you an inkling...you would have restrained those deep feelings to her. 

Don't know how fast this all progressed... it always takes TIME, lots of it ....to slowly get to know someone... Geez. I'm with Trenton -- *DISLIKE*.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> . I'm like Dom Perignon Champagne, any year.


Dom Perignon ?
Wow!
My, 
You have fine taste in Champagne!


----------



## Deejo

I think it was a combination of things.

We moved pretty quickly, but that didn't bother me. We talked lots ...
She said the words "I love you." first ...

I think she was feeling vulnerable because of the ex. She wasn't comfortable with the level of interaction we have.

She has done the crazy ex thing in another relationship, and I believe she just decided she wanted no part of that.

My ex isn't crazy. But ... she did freak out more than a little bit when she knew I was in love with M. 

My mistake, in my mind ... was that I discussed this with M as well. Because she wanted to understand. And I didn't want to hide anything. That was where I thought we were. And that was patently a mistake.

Bottom line, I think she spooked. Not the first time I have moved into emotionally deep water with someone and had this happen. But this one was different. Hadn't declared love with anyone previously. 

I'm guessing she lined up a few other items as well to convince herself that she needed to cut it loose rather than try to talk about or work through the issues.

So bottom line ... she did what was best for her, what she felt she needed to do.

And yes, SA, she gamed me ... hook, line, and sinker. I was completely blindsided.

Trust me, I don't try to make my relationships complex. But ... another downside to dating at midlife? Everyone has some horror stories.

So, the game goes on. 





SimplyAmorous said:


> I don't understand this... You know how this works...you know how to play better than many ......she had to have given YOU ideas (many) that she was REALLY into you - for you to GO there...to open yourself up/ feel comfortable to express what you did.... was that HER GAME, suppressing how she was feeling, whatever was stirring as the days , weeks, months progressed?
> 
> I'm not going to say I am sorry but I am irritated to hear this ... If this hit you between the eyes, you didn't see it coming at all... then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... someone wasn't being authentic, had she....given you an inkling...you would have restrained those deep feelings to her.
> 
> Don't know how fast this all progressed... it always takes TIME, lots of it ....to slowly get to know someone... Geez. I'm with Trenton -- *DISLIKE*.


----------



## inarut

yQUOTE=Deejo;1577127]Bourbon.

Also am a novice Absintheur.

Oh, and another part of my code that I have posted numerous times here; Own your sh!t.

Relationships are a very compelling, and interesting dynamic.
So here is the part that makes me look a lot less 'cool' ... but it's no less real.

I got dumped twenty minutes ago. 

She was struggling to come to terms with my interactions with my ex (so she says) ... who was struggling to come to terms with the fact that I was in love. Whacky ... I know. I was trying to be very honest about the situation with both.

Probably should have gamed them ...

Loved her very much. This one stings.

That's the risk we take. No doubt I will take it again. Not for a good long while though ...

And when I do find it, I think I'll keep my mouth shut about it. 

Please no, "I'm so sorry's" and what not. That is not my reasoning for putting this out there.

My point is that there are guys out there that no doubt deal with women unfairly.

I'm not one of them. The guys that could give a crap about using, and hurting women? They don't post here.[/QUOTE]

It is hard to accept a partner who is still emotionally supporting an ex. Did she make her feelings known? Did she mention it but down played them? I'm suprised given her feelings (if you knew) and yours that you wouldn't have cut the ex loose. If you were staying in contact out of kindness or guilt of some sort you're not really helping her you know....

If contact with the ex is the real reason for the breakup this can be fixed if you want to fix it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> I think it was a combination of things.
> 
> We moved pretty quickly, but that didn't bother me. We talked lots ...
> She said the words "I love you." first ...
> 
> I think she was feeling vulnerable because of the ex. She wasn't comfortable with the level of interaction we have.
> 
> She has done the crazy ex thing in another relationship, and I believe she just decided she wanted no part of that.
> 
> My ex isn't crazy. But ... she did freak out more than a little bit when she knew I was in love with M.
> 
> My mistake, in my mind ... was that I discussed this with M as well. Because she wanted to understand. And I didn't want to hide anything. That was where I thought we were. And that was patently a mistake.
> 
> Bottom line, I think she spooked. Not the first time I have moved into emotionally deep water with someone and had this happen. But this one was different. Hadn't declared love with anyone previously.
> 
> I'm guessing she lined up a few other items as well to convince herself that she needed to cut it loose rather than try to talk about or work through the issues.
> 
> So bottom line ... she did what was best for her, what she felt she needed to do.
> 
> And yes, SA, she gamed me ... hook, line, and sinker. I was completely blindsided.
> 
> Trust me, I don't try to make my relationships complex. But ... another downside to dating at midlife? Everyone has some horror stories.
> 
> So, the game goes on.


Lemme see.
She said " I love you" first, and then she broke it off.
Don't worry,
She'll be back......


----------



## inarut

Caribbean Man said:


> Lemme see.
> She said " I love you" first, and then she broke it off.
> Don't worry,
> She'll be back......


I think so too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602

Deejo banned me twice. Made me aware of my over critical nature and the need to use more care. Does this acknowledgement count as soppy commiseration????

On a serious note. I am guessing here - I give it a week or two and i think she will be back. I think the sticking point for her may be a question of your loving her more than you loved your ex. she may wonder if you were given a choice, would you chose her over your ex? 

It is probably an aspect of the relationship that will never completely go away. If she is reasonably mature and confident, she may come to terms with fact that you loved your ex very much. 

If I had to speculate, I would say she is putting you through a radical test. Something may have triggered the feelings of her being 2nd choice? Some women use leaving as a test of a mans true feelings for her. If you go after her, she will be reassured that your feelings for her are at the very lest sincere. 

You know better than me that going after her is probably a bad idea. A shift in the relationship dynamic such that she may think that you will put up with anything. If there is enough good there, wait her out. Let her give you the right of refusal. Let her apologize for her behavior and feel responsible for atoning for leaving abruptly. 

This isn't gaming, it's establishing boundaries early in the relationship. It sets up a dynamic that she and many women need to remain connected. likely better to reassure without seeming pu$$y-whipped. 

I give my husband a hard time periodically. I don't know why but he does not let me get away with it. He never backs down, in a calm resolute way. No matter how unreasonable I get. he is not mean angry sometimes, yes. I tell you that I am glad he can handle me. It makes me feel safe and that he can take care of our family in the jungle of life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Catherine602

I like Trader Joe's Minhas Simpler Times Pilsner, $2.98/ 6 pack
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## inarut

Trenton said:


> If she is stable and her love is true then she will be back, although I might question her stability if she said she loved you and then a little ex rocking and she runs for the hills. Of course, who am I to judge, I very well might too.
> 
> Your ex has some nerve after all she's done to you...to now want to get in the way of your actual happiness.
> 
> I've begun to believe that everyone is bat a$$ crazy.


I don't think her questioning it makes her unstable. I think it means she's smart...and human....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

inarut said:


> I don't think her questioning it makes her unstable. I think it means she's smart...and human....


*Questioning* = NORMAL , healthy even.... 

*RUNNING* = allowing a *Fear* to supersede an issue that could be worked through.. This is the "unhealthy".


----------



## memyselfandi

The bottom line for all you guys out there looking for a good woman...looks don't matter really when it comes to what we're looking for. It's all about simply starting a conversation with us and even if the conversation begins something as simple as a friendship..well that's a always a start. 

Some of my best relationships started out as friendships and grew from there.

Some "don'ts and some do's?

It's fine to buy her a drink..but respect a woman who's willing to buy you one back. Any woman that is going to sit at the bar and let you buy her drinks all night...forget it...she's not worth your money and neither is taking her home at the end of the night.

Don't sit there sharing drinks with her while you go on and on about your ex..child support..nor your broken heart..but DO talk about your kids and the fact that you're willing to pay whatever you need for child support as it's for the kids..(even though your ex might be taking you to the cleaners..we don't want to hear that in the beginning..save that for later)

Be positive about your life no matter what your situation..along with funny. Believe it or not..when it comes to looks over a sense of humor..most of us good chicks look for a great sense of humor. Nothing more fun than to laugh with someone, so lighten up about the bad things in your life as that's what we really find attractive.

IF you do get a phone number from us...call or text us. It doesn't mean me have to set up a date right away. I'd rather get to know someone over a period of time with texting..talking on the phone..or even Skype so that..if we ever DO go on a date...at least we'll have something to talk about.

It's really not that hard guys. Just be yourself as that's what matters to the good girls out there.

Good luck to you and I hope you find the love of your life. She's out there!!


----------



## inarut

SimplyAmorous said:


> *Questioning* = NORMAL , healthy even....
> 
> *RUNNING* = allowing a *Fear* to supersede an issue that could be worked through.. This is the "unhealthy".


I agree. Regardless of his proclaimed feelings, which I believe, apparently, her questioning isn't yielding answers she is comfortable with. Right or wrong, I don't blame her. It really depends on the amount, type and degree of involveent in the support being given.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> I like Trader Joe's Minhas Simpler Times Pilsner, $2.98/ 6 pack
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Just for you and Trenton , Catherine...










From the Caribbean.

End T/J


----------



## Deejo

inarut said:


> I agree. Regardless of his proclaimed feelings, which I believe, apparently, her questioning isn't yielding answers she is comfortable with. Right or wrong, I don't blame her. It really depends on the amount, type and degree of involveent in the support being given.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Here I am derailing my own thread again.

I would best describe what has happened with my ex over the last month as , 'a series of unfortunate events'.

It looks dumb. It is dumb. But I also recognize that in trying to give M a blow by blow of what was going on, in hopes of making her feel comfortable, I actually escalated her discomfort. Dumb. It isn't what she thinks it is ... but I understand why she thinks what she thinks it is.

I sincerely hope that she reconsiders. 

But knowing what I know of her, I also think it unlikely.


----------



## Conrad

Deejo said:


> I think it was a combination of things.
> 
> We moved pretty quickly, but that didn't bother me. We talked lots ...
> She said the words "I love you." first ...
> 
> I think she was feeling vulnerable because of the ex. She wasn't comfortable with the level of interaction we have.
> 
> She has done the crazy ex thing in another relationship, and I believe she just decided she wanted no part of that.
> 
> My ex isn't crazy. But ... she did freak out more than a little bit when she knew I was in love with M.
> 
> My mistake, in my mind ... was that I discussed this with M as well. Because she wanted to understand. And I didn't want to hide anything. That was where I thought we were. And that was patently a mistake.
> 
> Bottom line, I think she spooked. Not the first time I have moved into emotionally deep water with someone and had this happen. But this one was different. Hadn't declared love with anyone previously.
> 
> I'm guessing she lined up a few other items as well to convince herself that she needed to cut it loose rather than try to talk about or work through the issues.
> 
> So bottom line ... she did what was best for her, what she felt she needed to do.
> 
> And yes, SA, she gamed me ... hook, line, and sinker. I was completely blindsided.
> 
> Trust me, I don't try to make my relationships complex. But ... another downside to dating at midlife? Everyone has some horror stories.
> 
> So, the game goes on.


Of course you know, this isn't over.

Keep your wits about you lad.

I've got your back.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Very possible but those who are smart and human don't like breaking the hearts of those they love because they get scared. That seems more like testing to me or fear or dishonesty.


Trenton,
The thing about humans beings ,is that we are biologically designed to heal adapt and get stronger.
Scar tissues replasces cuts and bruises and makes the affected area tougher and less prone to skin breakage.
If muscles are not worked , broken down ,and repaired by the body through protein synthesis,then catabolism or muscle wastage takes place.

Heartbreak is sometimes unavoidable in relationships, it is the healing process and how well we heal that really matters.
If disappointment never comes then we would never grow.


----------



## inarut

Conrad said:


> Of course you know, this isn't over.
> 
> Keep your wits about you lad.
> 
> I've got your back.


She will be back. I get the impression you did what you could to reassure her with your words and actions. If she reevaluates things she may realize that her fears and insecurities have gotten the best of her but you may need to reevaluate how you deal with your ex as well. 

What makes you think she gamed you?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

inarut said:


> She will be back....but what makes you think she gamed you?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's semantics at this point.

She didn't use a line, or manipulate me, or trick me. That isn't what I mean. What I meant is that 48 hours ago, I thought I was in a rock solid, loving relationship. 

Ten hours ago, I had the rug pulled out from under me. My ex has undobutedly injected herself into my life more ... since learning about this relationship ... and I've had plenty in the past she didn't give a hoot about. This time she knew I was in love.

And I tolerated the behavior. Tried to work around it, basically. And it blew up in my face at the cost of my relationship.


----------



## inarut

Deejo said:


> It's semantics at this point.
> 
> She didn't use a line, or manipulate me, or trick me. That isn't what I mean. What I meant is that 48 hours ago, I thought I was in a rock solid, loving relationship.
> 
> Ten hours ago, I had the rug pulled out from under me. My ex has undobutedly injected herself into my life more ... since learning about this relationship ... and I've had plenty in the past she didn't give a hoot about. This time she knew I was in love.
> 
> And I tolerated the behavior. Tried to work around it, basically. And it blew up in my face at the cost of my relationship.


I just edited my last post.
Why did you allow your ex to inject herself into your life?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## inarut

Trenton said:


> How do such big things happen in such short periods of time?
> 
> Moving so fast and jumping can be great but it can be scary for both.
> 
> You're a loving, thoughtful, intelligent man (Yes, Conrad, I'm doling out the compliments but rest assured I mean them).
> 
> You want to make everyone happy and as a result, you're dealing with chaotic responses at best.
> 
> Your wife most likely holds on to this idea that you will always love her. You're her anchor and even if she left, she may still long to feel the weight of that anchor.
> 
> Your new love, the woman who is so perfect for you, that stole your heart within weeks and felt the same spark, is most likely confused by the anchor that you allow to still be there.
> 
> I don't blame you for having it there. I don't blame you for any move you've made.
> 
> Unfortunately, sometimes, a policy of do no harm may do more harm than not.
> 
> Difficult choices, very intense feelings.
> 
> This is all I've got. I know if I came to you like I have in the past that you would offer me the same.
> 
> All is not lost. If you love M then do the bold thing and try to work through it. Tell her you understand how she feels and that she is important enough for you to try to make her more comfortable within the relationship that you have had and hope to have in the future.
> 
> Firstly, make sure you are very clear in your own heart with what it is you want most of all. If you're still towing the anchor for your wife, now might be the time to decide to let it go.
> 
> I could be totally off but I would still be remiss is I didn't say what I think and I hope you understand I do so with nothing but respect and admiration for you and your quest for the love you deserve.
> 
> Life is shorter than we think.


Being an "anchor" to your ex is definately confusing to your current gf. You can't split yoursef in two or be that for another woman . She sees that and no matter what you say or do with her it breeds doubt and mistrust.

If you haven't already you need to make things clear, make her understand what she is misinterpreting and yes...change the dynamics between you and your ex.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> But you so *haven't* been on her, or anyone woman's, side of the fence. You can't completely understand her perspective, just as she can't completely understand yours.


I was referring to opinion about PUA. Everything you ladies are saying is something I once thought about it.



Faithful Wife said:


> The things you keep saying are "true for everyone" are being shown to you over and over are not "true for everyone". And we keep offering other things that happen in the male-female dynamics, but if any of them didn't happen in your experience, you totally doubt them.


That's because I hear them ALL the time, and no matter how much I hear it, game STILL works. I hear people here saying "Oh, no way I would go for someone that negged me." In my direct experience, it works even on the girls that say that. I've NEVER encountered the reaction some here claim they would have. Nobody gets legitimately pissed off, nobody walks away... I've been called a jerk and still gone home with her.

To this day, I've never met a woman in real life that this stuff doesn't work on. Until I do, I'm going to say it always works... because, well, it always works.



Faithful Wife said:


> I really think you have come to the conclusion that every man's experience is like yours...but I know for a fact it is not, and I would say, yours isn't even at the top of the bell curve. Your experience follows the pattern of a certain type of guy, and only that type of guy.


Let's clear that up then: I don't know nor care what every man's experience is. I'm not interested in men. Maybe they try to neg and it blows up in their faces... I don't know. I'd be inclined to say they're doing it wrong. I know from experience and experimentation what works in attracting women, and I'm speaking directly to the thread TOPIC.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

soccermom2three said:


> I mean if a guy is telling me "too bad you're a brunette, I'm into blonds now". Ummm, okay? Why are you telling me this? And why are you talking to me then?


That's horrible. Where ever you read that messed it up a little. That's a classic example used to explain the concept, and it goes like this:

"You'd make a gorgeous blonde".

The implication being that she's not quite perfect the way she is. At first counterintuitive, but it actually goes a long way to showing nonchalance. Every other guy is blowing smoke up your butt and complimenting you so blatantly that most of them are disregarded as "trying to get into your pants". They seem disingenuous. The guy who is negging is a guy who isn't intimidated by your beauty. He's not walking on egg shells around you or trying to impress you.

Negging works amazingly well on VERY attractive women. IMO, it doesn't work as well from women who aren't used to getting compliments all the time - for whom the neg might not seem very teasing at all. Maybe they really think they're being really insulted... dunno; maybe its more believeable for them. Does the hot blonde really think she'd look better as a brunette? I doubt it, she gets nothing but compliments. Like everything, there's a time and place for it.



soccermom2three said:


> This one was my favorite:
> 
> You: You got something on your shirt. *points with finger*
> Her: *Looks down*
> You: *Moves finger up and hits her face*
> 
> Really? That guy admitted to using this one. Isn't that like junior high stuff? Weirdo.


Not very creative... and its sad, but yeah, that junior high stuff works on the youngins. Generally you need to have a certain amount of rapport built up. But stuff like this works.

"You know your shoe's untied?" (its not)
She looks, "No its not."
"Yeah it is."
She looks again, "No its not."
"It is!"
"It's not untied!?! What are you talking about?"

**bend down, pull lace to untie shoe** "Oh, you're right. My bad."

Her: *flustered* "GAH!" *hits you in the arm*

That alone... not enough. Conversations ebb and flow. Sometimes I might leave entirely. Next time I see her...

"You have something in your hair..."

"There's something on your face..."

It drives them crazy, its annoying, its teasing... they punch me in the arm, they call me a jerk, then they go home with me.

I'm the first to admit that negging works best with the 20-somethings. I wouldn't have thought it practical with older women, nor in marriage, but FW seems to say otherwise... that some negative teasing does keep working and given her example, I can see it. 

Do you other people not play at all?


----------



## Conrad

Trenton said:


> You're a loving, thoughtful, intelligent man (Yes, Conrad, I'm doling out the compliments but rest assured I mean them).


I'm swooning by proxy.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> I thought about this thing today whilst at the gym.
> And I tried to remember how things were when I was single.
> I think Soccermom & Brighteyes are correct.
> This PUA stuff only worked on certain types of girls and if my memory served me correct , the environment also played an important part.
> Please bear in mind my reference point is from a different country / culture.
> But that aside, I had different ways I approached women , depending on the place , environment and the person, at the time.
> If the girl was among a group of other girls , it was tricky.
> If she was by herself , then it was easy.
> 
> A lot of times women approached me too.
> But PUA, negging and so forth, does not work on all women.


If I tell an ugly girl something terrible about her, that might not work. lol She might really believe it or lack the confidence it takes to not affect her. Hmmm... I've never thought of it that way honestly. Negging might have another purpose in weeding out a low value target. If she gets offended on a light neg, she's not very secure. I don't know why I haven't considered it that way before, because that's one purpose of negging for women. Honestly though, I only go after girls hot enough to take a neg for what it is... a tease. 

Taking a jab at a really hot girl does work to your favor in establishing your comfort and value. It says, "I'm used to girls like you. I'm not going to spend all night telling you how beautiful you are like the rest of these lame a$$es trying to pick you up." Say the same thing to an unattractive woman and I can see her actually being hurt by it... its believeable. An insult that lacks believeability, is no insult at all. Maybe that's what many here are missing?

The environment DEFINITELY plays a part, but the principles still hold. Negging can oddly be pulled off anywhere. I used it on my girlfriend when I picked her up at the bookstore and we had a coffee together. We were talking about our interests, branching off from books and I said "Wow, you're like a total geek." Of course there was some setup in my having already revealed a number of my geeky things. She still said "shut up!!" and became all embarrassed looking. It was playful.

At a bar or club, my comments are a lot more overtly sexual... because the activity is more overtly sexual. Those aren't really suited to barnes & noble.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> Everything matters. The trend matters. The honesty matters big time. *Some guys can be more selective than others*.


Sounds more like insecurity to me. I can be selective, but I don't need a biography of her relationship history. I don't rush into relationships. I have plenty of time to find out what kind of person she is for myself. Besides, all you're doing is relying on what she says... if she's the bad person you're trying to avoid, why would that person bother telling you squat? Logic fail there.

Truly, all you have is your own judgement of the person anyway. The rest could be a lie and you'd never know. You trust her or you don't. That's the bottom line. The details are irrelevant.

I have to reconsider my warm and fuzzy thoughts about you given you repeatedly insist on making these subtle and not so subtle jabs. :redcard:


----------



## RandomDude

The only game for me, and has always been, is the "game of love", I can flirt and seduce one woman, give her butterflies, make her want to see me more, tease her and leave her wanting... satisfying her only when I know she will love it the most.

But I'm no player, I respect women and I don't lie to them. Friends with benefits in the past I've always been honest and never have I led them on. Some consider it chivalry and honor I just consider it ethics from one human being to another.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

WyshIknew said:


> What is the eventual outcome of 'game'?
> 
> What I mean by eventual outcome is surely after a number of times getting 'gamed' even a woman with little brains would realise something is going on?
> 
> Although he dressed smart, and had a good line in patter he actually has a crap job, a crap car, isn't all that in the cold light of day, actually lives in a dingy apartment with three other dweebs and to be honest was pretty crap in bed anyway.
> 
> I dunno, am I overthinking this or is it just a bit of fun between two people?


I'm of the opinion that if a guy is talking to them, women know what's going on. I don't think they're that naive.

In my experience, no, they never stop responding to game... they just stop going to that sort of place ("gah... I'm tired of guys at the club"). I've seen buyer's remorse... but never perceived it was due to job/car/living arrangements or sexual skill. Usually, I get the impression its more like, "omg... I can't believe I did that". Like someone is going to think less of her or something.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Sure, that's the moment before the walk of shame.


Mine usually have to ask to be untied first.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife;1575050
By the time women are my age they (my friends) aren't falling for this any more.
However....I would also say that many of my friends who found themselves in that position said:


> They were not openly and awarely into casual sex, so they didn't think they were going in search of it.[/B] But that's exactly what they were doing by allowing themselves to be seduced. In the end, they still got the sex they had wanted...and in several cases, some of them realized later that if they needed sex but didn't have a partner, it is much better and easier for them to just hand pick a FWB than go out and be seduced by whomever.
> 
> There are times in a woman's life (some, not all) when she just needs some sex but the relationship isn't there. Yet many women feel weird about just going for casual sex deliberately.
> 
> At my age, most of them (I'm still talking about my friends here, not women in general) have no problem with it. If that's what they want and need, they go get it without feeling bad about themselves. I think this is more honest, both to themselves and to the men they end up with.


THIS! This is exactly the feeling I get. About 60% of them seem to remain open to or interested in a relationship... but honestly, I think most of them just wanted the sex... just as much as I did. Sometimes you have that sexual chemistry... and no relationship chemistry.

Sometimes its pure awesome regardless of what happens next. Other times I just sucked in bed, it wasn't very fun for whatever reason and its kinda like... oh well, just don't add to the embarrassment. lol Other times I thought she was just boring. Everything happens. Some are gonna think it was ok... some are gonna think it was awesome... and some are gonna think it sucked. Doesn't really matter.

Most of the times where I thought I sucked, I still get called/texted... so who knows.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I only go after girls hot enough to take a neg for what it is... a tease.
> 
> Taking a jab at a really hot girl does work to your favor in establishing your comfort and value. It says, "I'm used to girls like you. I'm not going to spend all night telling you how beautiful you are like the rest of these lame a$$es trying to pick you up." Say the same thing to an unattractive woman and I can see her actually being hurt by it... its believeable. An insult that lacks believeability, is no insult at all. Maybe that's what many here are missing?


I understand.
I think we're talking about the same thing.
You guys call it negging, we called it teasing.
I think it was a fine line to walk that took a certain level of confidence and skill to execute.
I never negged a girl about her looks. What worked for me was just teasing her a little bit about something she might reveal about herself. 
That was usually done after I realized she was comfortable with me.
But often times, a girl would usually send one right back at me and we would banter a bit, make each other laugh, increasing comfort levels.
Worked best that way with me.

But I always tried to " feel out " the mood of the girl and get what " type " she was because pick up doesn't work the same way with all women. There were different types , and I never had any standard approach or lines / script.

My only standard approach was to ask only open ended questions and let the girl do the talking.
This usually led to her talking about herself, and I was able to read between the lines of exactly what she was up to.

But these things were merely a formality for me. I've never had to work hard to get any woman except my wife.
I am a natural conversationalist, I love to talk with people.
Before I approached a woman for pick up, I first established eye contact, and got her to respond by Body language. Based on how she responded , I could tell if she's interested.
When we finally met, we both already knew exactly what this was leading up to, the conversation was just a formality.

I don't think the examples given on here are good examples of it though. Maybe its the cultural difference.

But to me, pick up works both ways.
Women who get picked up for fast sex , are usually the type of women who are not looking for anything long term , at the moment.
During the pick up game, while the man is talking, they are testing the fitness of the man , and if they will have sex with him , when and where..
Even though the guy is coming on to them, in their minds, they are analyzing if they're
really into him , like; " shut up and fcuk me now. " 
Or not into him like; " would somebody please shoot this clown and put me out of my misery?"


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Catherine602 said:


> Do you really think that these gaming men don't get gamed and know it? A man whose ability to get sex is at the center of his manhood cannot admit that he is gamed or humiliated or degraded. The male ego below the belt is exquisitly fragile. With so many pick ups, chances are good that he thinks he has the right of refusal but he gets refused by that hot girl he really sans to impress.


Huh? :scratchhead:

1 - no idea what you mean by getting gamed above. We're all getting gamed, all the time... only they're called social skills.

2 - Getting sex isn't at the center of my manhood. My intelligence is. How does a guy admit he was gamed? Is this like blowing money at the strip club and getting a ton of personal attention from the strippers? Oh *gosh*, I thought she really liked me for me. My eyebrow raises with bewilderment at the guy who says "woe is me, she used me for sex" or "woe is me, she only wanted me for my money". Sounds like a clingy guy to me.

Why would I feel humiliated or degraded? I've been turned down. Hell, I've been slapped. I've been outright laughed at by my friends for abysmal failures. If you haven't failed you're setting your sights too low. Hey, sometimes sexual escapades even end up more pomp than circumstance... sometimes I'm flat out whiskey d*cked. Oh wells!!! I'm sure there's someone out there that thought I was bad in bed.

3 - I don't know where you're going with the so many pickups thing. I get the cold shoulder sometimes. I used to get a lot more of them... that's kind of the point. I get fewer cold shoulders now, always know what to say, and I make her laugh. There's a few people who have spoken to me in PMs who can attest to some of my charm... dear me, maybe they thought I was fake... I'll have to ask them.

Once in awhile though, I'm not on my game at all for whatever reason.

Bottom line though, I didn't learn and experiment with this stuff to boost my ego. Do nothing at all and the average guy is still gonna find a girl. I got into it because I wanted hotter women than I was drawing otherwise. I'm defending it here not because it makes me look awesome (seriously? Have you seen some of the reactions I'm getting? lol ); I defend it because it works.

Its also been dismissed as simply my being more confident now. I'm more funny. I'm more outgoing. I'm a better conversationalist. I'm clever... slick... sly... bold...

That's true, but these things came to me through reading PUA and books on improving social skills, and GETTING OUT THERE AND USING THEM.



Catherine602 said:


> I don't believe that the men who brag have even half the adventures and success they claim. If they did, they would be boning instead of jaw boning.


Yes. I do all my boning at noon on a Monday. Perhaps you haven't noticed, I'm conspicuously absent from the forum all weekend, and pretty much ANY night... and end up having to play catchup in the threads I participate in.



Catherine602 said:


> For all the male bravado, they are the ones who crave emotional closeness acceptance and love. There are few pleople who can provide that for them. Mom dad SO. Single men die younger, have more chronic diseases, are more depressed. Married men, the opposite. So why do they protest so much? Men are always looking for relationships. Always hopping the next hook up will rescue them.


This is cute and fluffy... but c'mon. Everyone is happy to find emotional closeness and love ultimately. I don't put my faith in a hookup, but I'm not gonna be celebate while I wait for the ONE either. Someone else can have fun with that.



Catherine602 said:


> They approach like a player but they are looking for someone who thinks they are special enough to want to stay.


Ha... I beg to differ. I'm looking for someone ***I*** think is special enough to want to stay... not someone that thinks I'm special enough. What they do is up to them and has no bearing on what I want.



Catherine602 said:


> I don't know why men think that there are men out there doing what they can't do.


Welcome to the first chapter of most PUA books. 



Catherine602 said:


> Now women. Women don't, as you can see, brag about our game.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Has something I've said indicated that I'm bragging? That's a primary theme in your post.

I've been relating my experience that what's described in PUA literature actually works... in a thread created to EXPLAIN that very thing. But now I'm bragging?

Women don't need to brag about game anymore than men need to brag about peeing standing up. Its a little more than a matter of the position one's legs.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> You guys call it negging, we called it teasing.


PUA calls it negging. I call it teasing.



Caribbean Man said:


> I never negged a girl about her looks. What worked for me was just teasing her a little bit about something she might reveal about herself.


Its not looks specific. Called my present girlfriend a geek... had nothing to do with her looks.



Caribbean Man said:


> That was usually done after I realized she was comfortable with me.
> But often times, a girl would usually send one right back at me and we would banter a bit, make each other laugh, increasing comfort levels.
> Worked best that way with me.
> 
> But I always tried to " feel out " the mood of the girl and get what " type " she was because pick up doesn't work the same way with all women. There were different types , and I never had any standard approach or lines / script.
> 
> My only standard approach was to ask only open ended questions and let the girl do the talking.
> This usually led to her talking about herself, and I was able to read between the lines of exactly what she was up to.


You've got game sir. :smthumbup:

That's *exactly* how its done.

And this stuff doesn't apply to just fast sex. FW's example of her hubby picking on her butt is a great example of the carry over to marriage I hadn't thought about (its gonna need its own zip code!!).

Her man has game. While I know she said they put each other on the pedastal, I don't interepret it quite that way (thought I get the equal footing she was trying to represent). A person on a pedastal isn't human. They are beyond reproach. They can do no wrong. You can't tease someone on a pedastal... they're perfect (beyond the "perfect for me" way).

I know she means it as saying they put each other above everyone else, but call me crazy I think that's different from the whole putting someone on a pedastal concept. Teasing evolves to say... hey, I know you're not too good for me, you're human, and I like you anyway. 

But regardless of whether its called negging or teasing or playfulness, its all really a value proposition.


----------



## Caribbean Man

^^^Dvls,
You are correct, game wasn't always exclusively for fast,immediate sex.
It was sometimes done to increase the number of potential females in your dating pool.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Wiserforit said:


> They've been evasive in this thread about defining what "works" means. On the PUA sites it is very simple: one night stand sex. But there are no studies whatsoever that they can cite demonstrating the effectiveness of these tactics.
> 
> If they did, they would cite them. More than a hundred pages and nothing but the assertions of self-identified losers.


Okay. I'm lying. On an anonymous internet forum. To people I will never meet and mostly dislike my positions. Yes, we should apply scientific study here. Let's pick up women for sex and science!! No feminists would have a problem with that at all... lmao dude are you for real? ... and to think, I catch hell for my moral standing. 

You would be wiseforit, to actually read my posts where I have repeatedly said that when I go home with someone I don't know whether it will be a ONS or not. Some become relationships... others are over by 10am.

My personal definition of what "works" means isn't even HAVING a ONS. My definition is "willingness". Is she into me now whereas she was not earlier? Yes? Success.

These are all successes...

Taking her home for a ONS.
Getting a future date.
A successful number close.
Her coming back to flirt with you all night or otherwise pursuing you.

If you are more appealing to women having learned how to apply these things, then they "work". There are two ways to look at it in terms of HOW successful it is. The traditional view takes the woman you bed and divides it by every woman you've hit on. Utterly stupid imo.

The more recent view is that you're hitting on EVERYONE - you might have a primary target, but you're charismatic and sociable... you're hitting on EVERYONE all at once. The goal is to be more appealing. This is the view you'll find on more mature forums, but even in places like seddit... "seduction" has migrated from being all about getting a$$... to simply being a more attractive male. The more attractive male gets more (or hotter) a$$ as a byproduct.




Wiserforit said:


> What data do you have other than anecdotes by self-identified losers? That isn't an idle accusation - these guys specifically tell us that they had problems with women so they resorted to this stuff.


What do you want, pics? One person digs me for bragging and another demands proof? lol

Ah, I'm a loser... woe is me. I'm glad this forum degraded to the point that we can openly insult other members without getting banned, because I think people who call others losers for improving their ability to draw women are a$$holes.

But that's okay, I'll still give you pics to spank to.




Wiserforit said:


> What proportion of women are out for one night stand sex? This is also some _very_ small proportion of women.


Very few women are out LOOKING for a ONS. On the other hand very MANY women are outright open to, or can be easily pursuaded into having sex that night.

Its not like you run around propositioning everyone for a ONS till you get one. The game is the art of flirting. If you judge success solely on actually having sex, then I'm 100% successful with EVERY girl I decide to CLOSE on. Why? Because if all I want is sex TONIGHT, I choose someone who has been responsive. If you judge success on how many girls you talk to versus how much sex you have, the percentage is abysmal. Duh? I'm flirting with everyone. I talk to one girl for awhile, then I talk to another, then I talk to another, then I talk to a table full of girls, so on and so forth: Otherwise known as socializing and flirting. I do this even if I have one I prefer. What ends up happening is I've met a ton of people to socialize with, I have a great time, several women are responding to me and coming TO ME to flirt, and I can choose from who I've been able to draw.

It is not a sequential process of moving from one chick to another, with each *move* being a failure. Its more like planting seeds. You water all of them, watch them grow and pick the ripest fruit.

For all your claimed research and amazon logic, you are plainly ignorant of pickup overall. I'm forced to wonder if you've even read a single book... oh wait, no, because that would make you a loser wouldn't it?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^^Dvls,
> You are correct, game wasn't always exclusively for fast,immediate sex.
> It was sometimes done to increase the number of potential females in your dating pool.


To me, that's all it ever was. What you do with the built up attraction is up to you.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The point that is being made here is that some of these offensive things do work for certain people. Some women have low standards, so a guy grabbing a drink out of her hand and rearranging her clothing would work on somebody who doesn't think much of themselves. I guess I don't see the problem here. He's a jerk and she thinks this kind of behavior is acceptable. Those two deserve each other.


My goodness, I bet you folks are fun at parties. I've done the drink thing. Its just playful.

I was in the kitchen at a get together to celebrate my friend getting his masters. I'm there leaning against the counter right beside the fridge. Along came a good looking girl, she goes into the fridge and pulls out a corona (I think?)... its not a twist top so she looks around for a bottle opener... I say "here" and hold out my hand. She hands me the beer, I pop the top with my lighter and quickly chug the beer. She looks at me with utter shock and yells "HEY!!!!!" and all I do is say something like "Oh, I'm sorry I thought you got that for me" with a big grin.

She pulls another corona out of the fridge and I say "need a hand with that one?"

"no, I got it thanks..."

We end up having a fun back and forth where I'm trying to get her to let me help her. She finally lets me me help, and I chug that one too. lol

She hits me with a barrage of smacks, says something like "YOU A$$HOLE! GAH, YOU SUCK!!!" flustered and sort of laughing shocked (hard to describe). Everyone in the kitchen is laughing now.

She opens the fridge AGAIN, then closes it and says "you know what, forget it!!" And I'm like "wait wait wait..." I open the fridge, grab another corona, pop the top with my lighter, and raise it up like I'm gonna chug it again....

She starts to storm away with this frustrated GAAHHH sound and I chase her down, tug at her shirt, grab her wrist and put the corona in her hand with a giant smile. She says "Oh its mine now? *fake angry face* I should pour it on you." *pouty lips*

I didn't take her home or anything, but we were really flirty the rest of the night.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls...you may not realize it, but yes you do sound like you are "bragging" about gaming girls. I'm not saying this is bad, nor do I doubt any of your stories. But the act of telling the stories does sound like bragging when you do it. (I know you've also accused me of bragging, too....maybe takes one to know one? I dunno).


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My goodness, I bet you folks are fun at parties. I've done the drink thing. Its just playful.


I'm plenty fun at parties, thank you very much. :toast: 
All I was saying is that for me, that would not work. I also said several times here that these tactics obviously work on some people or they would cease to exist.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

that_girl said:


> But...who knows what I'd fall for. I just know I still have the power
> 
> Power of the vag. It's real.


Which can be undone only by... the power of another vag. Women are just as competitive as men in the dating game, if not moreso.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls...you may not realize it, but yes you do sound like you are "bragging" about gaming girls. I'm not saying this is bad, nor do I doubt any of your stories. But the act of telling the stories does sound like bragging when you do it. (I know you've also accused me of bragging, too....maybe takes one to know one? I dunno).


Fair enough. I'm not telling stories to brag... but I do like telling them. Subtle difference maybe? I think people find them entertaining or funny, and on this forum I think it helps to demonstrate a concept in real life. A surface description doesn't really suffice for a lot of this stuff... its all about how you pull it off. My motivation in telling them is less about making myself look better, as it is my desire to share and entertain. Do you not like my stories?

Because I know this stuff works first hand, I'm left to wonder if I'm just telling them poorly or if my audience is just much older than I am. Normally when I tell stories people laugh.

My storytelling is one of my more popular qualities. Maybe I'm just handicapped by the inability to show facial expressions and body language on a forum. :scratchhead:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I'm plenty fun at parties, thank you very much. :toast:
> All I was saying is that for me, that would not work. I also said several times here that these tactics obviously work on some people or they would cease to exist.


Can you PM me how old you are? I'm following up another theory.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Can you PM me how old you are? I'm following up another theory.


41. No need for a PM as everybody here already knows my age.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I like telling stories, too. And I could tell many that show a different perspective to the ones you tell. But anytime I try to show you any different perspective, you have long posts telling me I am wrong (even though I'm not). I guess you have nothing to learn, only to teach. You already learned to have game and that's all you wanted to know in life? You think it ends there?

Not saying you are doing or saying anything wrong. Just reflecting to you what it seems like from reading your posts.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My goodness, I bet you folks are fun at parties. I've done the drink thing. Its just playful.
> 
> I was in the kitchen at a get together to celebrate my friend getting his masters. I'm there leaning against the counter right beside the fridge. Along came a good looking girl, she goes into the fridge and pulls out a corona (I think?)... its not a twist top so she looks around for a bottle opener... I say "here" and hold out my hand. She hands me the beer, I pop the top with my lighter and quickly chug the beer. She looks at me with utter shock and yells "HEY!!!!!" and all I do is say something like "Oh, I'm sorry I thought you got that for me" with a big grin.
> 
> She pulls another corona out of the fridge and I say "need a hand with that one?"
> 
> "no, I got it thanks..."
> 
> We end up having a fun back and forth where I'm trying to get her to let me help her. She finally lets me me help, and I chug that one too. lol
> 
> She hits me with a barrage of smacks, says something like "YOU A$$HOLE! GAH, YOU SUCK!!!" flustered and sort of laughing shocked (hard to describe). Everyone in the kitchen is laughing now.
> 
> She opens the fridge AGAIN, then closes it and says "you know what, forget it!!" And I'm like "wait wait wait..." I open the fridge, grab another corona, pop the top with my lighter, and raise it up like I'm gonna chug it again....
> 
> She starts to storm away with this frustrated GAAHHH sound and I chase her down, tug at her shirt, grab her wrist and put the corona in her hand with a giant smile. She says "Oh its mine now? *fake angry face* I should pour it on you." *pouty lips*
> 
> I didn't take her home or anything, but we were really flirty the rest of the night.


^^THIS MADE ME LAUGH!

Gosh I remember those days!
I was a real a$$hole just like that. Some women loved it, some hated it! Nothing wrong with it, really.
Whenever I did stuff like that to my wife [ before we were even dating ] in social gatherings and house parties she would get mad..,lol!

Once we were hanging out, a group of friends and we were enjoying some music and started " dedicating " songs to one another just for the kicks.
She [ my wife , before we started dating ] " dedicated " this song by Carly Simon to me:
Youre So Vain

Everybody cracked up!
This time I was on the receiving end...
Hilarious and embarrassing at the same time.
I could never forget that smirk on her face and the way she stuck her tongue out at me..
Hell, even now, married for 18 years and everytime that song plays on radio, she still turns up the volume , * dedicates * it to me and laughs......
Maybe back then she was trying to send me a message?
Definitely a neg!
Haha!


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's horrible. Where ever you read that messed it up a little. That's a classic example used to explain the concept, and it goes like this:
> 
> "You'd make a gorgeous blonde".
> 
> The implication being that she's not quite perfect the way she is. At first counterintuitive, but it actually goes a long way to showing nonchalance. Every other guy is blowing smoke up your butt and complimenting you so blatantly that most of them are disregarded as "trying to get into your pants". They seem disingenuous. The guy who is negging is a guy who isn't intimidated by your beauty. He's not walking on egg shells around you or trying to impress you.
> 
> Negging works amazingly well on VERY attractive women. IMO, it doesn't work as well from women who aren't used to getting compliments all the time - for whom the neg might not seem very teasing at all. Maybe they really think they're being really insulted... dunno; maybe its more believeable for them. Does the hot blonde really think she'd look better as a brunette? I doubt it, she gets nothing but compliments. Like everything, there's a time and place for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Not very creative... and its sad, but yeah, that junior high stuff works on the youngins. Generally you need to have a certain amount of rapport built up. But stuff like this works.
> 
> "You know your shoe's untied?" (its not)
> She looks, "No its not."
> "Yeah it is."
> She looks again, "No its not."
> "It is!"
> "It's not untied!?! What are you talking about?"
> 
> **bend down, pull lace to untie shoe** "Oh, you're right. My bad."
> 
> Her: *flustered* "GAH!" *hits you in the arm*
> 
> That alone... not enough. Conversations ebb and flow. Sometimes I might leave entirely. Next time I see her...
> 
> "You have something in your hair..."
> 
> "There's something on your face..."
> 
> It drives them crazy, its annoying, its teasing... they punch me in the arm, they call me a jerk, then they go home with me.
> 
> I'm the first to admit that negging works best with the 20-somethings. I wouldn't have thought it practical with older women, nor in marriage, but FW seems to say otherwise... that some negative teasing does keep working and given her example, I can see it.
> 
> Do you other people not play at all?


The shoe example sounds like something my husband would do. lol.  I like that one. A lot, actually. I'm starting to wish I were single to see if my husband would, in fact, use negging on me.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Which can be undone only by... the power of another vag. Women are just as competitive as men in the dating game, *if not mores*o.


^^Definitely MORESO!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> ^^Definitely MORESO!


Yet over 100 pages to talk about gaming women, standing out from other guys and PUA techniques. Oh the irony of your statement.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> I like telling stories, too. And I could tell many that show a different perspective to the ones you tell. But anytime I try to show you any different perspective, you have long posts telling me I am wrong (even though I'm not). I guess you have nothing to learn, only to teach. You already learned to have game and that's all you wanted to know in life? You think it ends there?
> 
> Not saying you are doing or saying anything wrong. Just reflecting to you what it seems like from reading your posts.


Perhaps when he says you're wrong, he's referring to your understanding or interpretation of PUA? No one can tell you that your experiences are wrong; that's nonsensical. Obviously you are the only one who knows what your experiences are. 

I could be misunderstanding what you said, though, and if so I apologize.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yet over 100 pages to talk about gaming women, standing out from other guys and PUA techniques. Oh the irony of your statement.


Pea****ing at it's finest


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I like telling stories, too. And I could tell many that show a different perspective to the ones you tell. But anytime I try to show you any different perspective, you have long posts telling me I am wrong (even though I'm not). I guess you have nothing to learn, only to teach. You already learned to have game and that's all you wanted to know in life? You think it ends there?
> 
> Not saying you are doing or saying anything wrong. Just reflecting to you what it seems like from reading your posts.


The topic is game and my stories were all on point to demonstrate a concept. Its not a competition... its not my story against your story. Its not right or wrong. Its "here is an example of PUA concept A being discussed and how it worked". I find it important to make it concrete... because when I read this stuff, I had a hard time thinking how it could ever work or play in real life.

If it helps, I'll tell them from third person rather than first or otherwise set it up differently. I'm forced to wonder why others would think I'm bragging, when my audience clearly doesn't find the material to be brag worthy. 

About many things to learn I have, but pick-up, one of them is not. Yoda I am. *this is bragging*


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yet over 100 pages to talk about gaming women, standing out from other guys and PUA techniques. Oh the irony of your statement.


There's no irony there.
Women are _definitely _more competitive than men in the dating game...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> 41. No need for a PM as everybody here already knows my age.


You're not helping my hypothesis. 

Maybe the expiration date is lower than I anticipated.


----------



## Deejo

I've used negging as a comfort builder. Done correctly it looks nothing like what people imagine.

Picking up for a 3rd date:
"Are you wearing _that_?"
*Horrified look on her face* "Why what's wrong with this?"

"Nothing.It makes you look beautiful." 

Its play. Its a game.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man;1580164Whenever I did stuff like that to my wife [ before we were even dating said:


> in social gatherings and house parties she would get mad..,lol!


Oh, but the ones that are pissed at you half the night are the absolute best in bed later. They have a lot of aggression to release. 

Its all about the tension. :smthumbup:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> There's no irony there.
> Women are _definitely _more competitive than men in the dating game...


If dating wasn't brutally competitive for men, the logic goes that PUA techniques would not be needed. That's what my comment about irony was directed at. 
I think both sexes are just as competitive about it, at least that's what I've observed but then I've been out of it for a while now.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Deejo said:


> I've used negging as a comfort builder. Done correctly it looks nothing like what people imagine.
> 
> Picking up for a 3rd date:
> "Are you wearing _that_?"
> *Horrified look on her face* "Why what's wrong with this?"
> 
> "Nothing.It makes you look beautiful."
> 
> Its play. Its a game.


Its a reverse! The defense is caught off guard!! He could... go... all... the... way... Touchdown!! (you gotta love how football translates so well to sexual innuendo)

Absolutely. Take her down, pick her up... you're taking her for a ride. Push pull.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're not helping my hypothesis.
> 
> Maybe the expiration date is lower than I anticipated.


Tread carefully. You used me and expiration date together. :rofl:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> I could never forget that smirk on her face and the way she stuck her tongue out at me..
> Hell, even now, married for 18 years and everytime that song plays on radio, she still turns up the volume , * dedicates * it to me and laughs......
> Maybe back then she was trying to send me a message?
> Definitely a neg!
> Haha!


Great story!

THATS WHAT I LOVE! Creating moments. You don't often remember how *nice* you were to each other down to the moment. You remember the zingers. You remember getting caught in the rain, not the sunshine.

Without them, how bland life would be.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> I've used negging as a comfort builder. Done correctly it looks nothing like what people imagine.
> 
> Picking up for a 3rd date:
> "Are you wearing _that_?"
> *Horrified look on her face* "Why what's wrong with this?"
> 
> "Nothing.It makes you look beautiful."
> 
> Its play. Its a game.


Okay, well that is endearing. That is lightyears away from telling a woman she'd look better wearing something else, having a different hair color or grabbing drinks out of her hands. Those tactics sound like third grade to me and the only thing missing are spitballs.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"You remember getting caught in the rain, not the sunshine."

Sigh...I remember the sunshine. I remember how nice he was. I remember the sweet love notes (I still get them weekly, and keep them all). I remember the way he pursued me. The early dates, the first kisses, the first "everythings".

He didn't start with the constant sexual harassment and teasing until we were in an exclusive sexual relationship and there was mutual consent for crazy harassment given (amoung other sexual things).

He just now phoned me "what are you doing for lunch"? I said "hopping in your truck to make out with you, come get me!"...all the girls at work know I will have messed up hair when I get back. These are memorable moments.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Tread carefully. You used me and expiration date together. :rofl:


:slap:

I had some snappy replies... but they were all lame and wouldn't work on you.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> If dating wasn't brutally competitive for men, the logic goes that PUA techniques would not be needed. That's what my comment about irony was directed at.
> I think both sexes are just as competitive about it, at least that's what I've observed but then I've been out of it for a while now.


You are partially correct.
Dating is brutally competitive for men. The cards are stacked against men, because they are expected to make that first move and a high percentage of them get rejected.
Most men fear rejection, and are not nurtured/ cultured in approaching a beautiful woman.
Hence the PUA / social skills / suave techniques .
That's why I said the irony doesn't really exist.

Women on the other hand are usually the passive ones in the entire game. They have the upper hand, they are the ones who decide.
Because very few men actually possess the skill / confidence to approach women, the competition to get the man's attention is fierce among them.
Many times , they just settle for some _other_ guy..

Anyway, my viewpoints are from a different cultural paradigm.
In our country, women outnumber men by about 4:1.[ rough estimate]


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> "You remember getting caught in the rain, not the sunshine."
> 
> Sigh...I remember the sunshine. I remember how nice he was. I remember the sweet love notes (I still get them weekly, and keep them all). I remember the way he pursued me. The early dates, the first kisses, the first "everythings".


Funny, I've gotten the opposite when I've polled. You just like disagreeing with me don't you.  I'm really into what people remember and the stories they tell. Rarely is a story told about how nice he was. That's plain... uninspired... well duh, he's supposed to be nice. Rather, I think the good stories have twists... disaster made endearing. Clumsy made suave. Sneaky made sweet.

There's something more than nice that makes that story uniquely yours. Something he couldn't replicate by just being nice to someone else. Something only you understand.

"You're so vain", becomes a charming story. Or my... "We met because I was bald and she was hairy."

People glow when they talk about how nice their partner is, but they positively light up when they talk about happy twists of fate. Good stories are roller coasters, they take you for a ride. Just my observations... ymmv.


----------



## Faithful Wife

This is what I mean by when I share my own stories, you come back and try to say they "aren't true". No, you didn't say those words, but you are completely washing right past my story even though I am literally GLOWING about my husband every single day. I can't post most of my stories as I will be seen as bragging, but even this innocent one, you just dismiss.

We have tons of cute stories, and they aren't surrounded in negging or game culture. You simply disregard them, but I don't know why.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Wiserforit said:


> Exactly. The cult of self-identified losers. (Frustrated Chumps in their own terminology).
> 
> It has so many parallels to scientology with this immense, pretentious vocabulary, pseudo-scientific basis, and foundation of deception.
> 
> There is a large peer-reviewed literature on human sexuality published by real social scientists. PUA is not found there.
> 
> And just like scientologists, they'll outlast you in any discussion. You just have to walk away from them.


Is it a crime for men to talk about their own experiences and failures with women 
without having to revert to endless " peer reviewed research " and ramblings about things that doesn't even matter to women?

Let me put this to you.
I had been working in the fashion and apparrel industry for years.
I have had the experience of working with some of the most beautiful, desired , educated , female models in the Caribbean region.
I was hit on by a former MISS WORLD first runner up, who also happened to be an attorney by profession.
We were working on a huge fashion project, I was in charge of managing the project.
She didn't approach me with any talk about law or "_ peer - reviewed literature on human sexuality...._"
She just wanted SEX, and being accustomed to having her way with men. she approached ME.

However I was already married, which she knew.
Can you cite any " peer reviewed literature " to explain her sexual advances towards me?

I await your response.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Can you cite any " peer reviewed literature " to explain her sexual advances towards me?"

Women want sex. I think that is in some scientific journals somewhere....

(I know you weren't asking me, sorry).


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Caribbean Man said:


> Is it a crime for men to talk about their own experiences and failures with women
> without having to revert to endless " peer reviewed research " and ramblings about things that doesn't even matter to women?
> 
> Let me put this to you.
> I had been working in the fashion and apparrel industry for years.
> I have had the experience of working with some of the most beautiful, desired , educated , female models in the Caribbean region.
> I was hit on by a former MISS WORLD first runner up, who also happened to be an attorney by profession.
> We were working on a huge fashion project, I was in charge of managing the project.
> She didn't approach me with any talk about law or "_ peer - reviewed literature on human sexuality...._"
> She just wanted SEX, and being accustomed to having her way with men. she approached ME.
> 
> However I was already married, which she knew.
> Can you cite any " peer reviewed literature " to explain her sexual advances towards me?
> 
> I await your response.


I guess she figured your "chump" wife was just a place holder. Probably heard through the womens networks that your wife is VERY happy and she wanted a piece of that. You never know.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> "Can you cite any " peer reviewed literature " to explain her sexual advances towards me?"
> 
> Women want sex. I think that is in some scientific journals somewhere....


And that's my point.
Logic doesn't always apply in human sexuality.
Women want sex.,men want sex., but there are social mores that place strictures on our behaviour.
So hence the dating game on both sides of the gender divide.

Not saying that some of the stuff is really juvenile, but we were all juveniles at some point and because we are now all adults we can either look back at it and laugh at ourselves , or even alter some of the techniques to our advantage , knowing fully well what we already know.
Dating and sex would be extremely boring without gaming.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DaddyLongShanks said:


> I guess she figured your "chump" wife was just a place holder. Probably heard through the womens networks that your wife is VERY happy and she wanted a piece of that. *You never know.*


Exactly.
I don't need any " peer reviewed study" to explain that to me.
Maybe pre selection?
Maybe because we were all working on this project , going into late hours in the morning, she just wanted sex.
I don't know.
Whatever.
The fact is that these things happen, I call it " conventional wisdom" also why do some women respond to other types of men the way they do in the dating game?
We don't need to bore each other with all of that scientific stuff.
We're just talking our experiences.
The hows / whys and when.

I'll post another fact.
I live in the Caribbean. Over 60 million tourists visit these islands every year.
There are entire cruise lines that bring European women to our islands every month for one thing only.
Just raw sex.
No " pick up" no dating. They just go to the topless beaches , get rid of clothes ,and the guys just go talk to them.
They pay these local men to have sex with them.
I grew up on a resort island seeing that happening. I am 43 years old.
These women are professional middle aged women.
Is there any " peer- reviewed studies on human sexuality" to explain that?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

I'm waiting for Devils hypothesis. It's either going to be really awesome or the April Fool's joke nobody has played on me yet.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Dating and sex would be extremely boring without gaming."

Disagree. Dating without real courtship would be extremely boring. And sex with someone who is boring would be extremely boring.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> "Dating and sex would be extremely boring without gaming."
> 
> Disagree. Dating without real courtship would be extremely boring. And sex with someone who is boring would be extremely boring.


" Real Courtship " = Gaming.
Courtship is the origin of gaming.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> This is what I mean by when I share my own stories, you come back and try to say they "aren't true". No, you didn't say those words, but you are completely washing right past my story even though I am literally GLOWING about my husband every single day. I can't post most of my stories as I will be seen as bragging, but even this innocent one, you just dismiss.
> 
> We have tons of cute stories, and they aren't surrounded in negging or game culture. You simply disregard them, but I don't know why.


I feel like you're taking two incongruous lines of reasoning here.

On the first, I'm sure you have tons of cute stories that aren't surrounded in negging or game culture. Why should that story be told to counter something I say about a specific element of game, when it has nothing to do with that element? Not sure how your story relates to negging if its not negging... but hey, if you want to tell it, go for it. I don't mind at all.

One the second, my comments about something being memorable didn't have much to do with game per se. I was just liking CMs post. You remember the sunshine. Okay. I follow you. I believe you. **I** don't remember the sunshine, because the sun shines most days. The rain is different. Its rare. Different and rare are memorable... to me.

**I** don't know many people who remember the normal. People I know remember the unusual. I assume your husband is nice to you every day right?

Look, this is just creative writing 101 here. A story with a turn is more compelling than a story with nothing but ups. There is a reason why the sexy hero in every chick flick has some moment of crisis or screwup that turns the girl away... and then awwww... they end up together anyway.

Without the crisis, there is less awwww. Something atypically romantic usually carries more personal weight... something with a twist.

This is a huge tangent. You remember the sunshine. Great. Go argue with my English professors, because I don't care enough about this hill to die on it. I was just glowing over CMs post.


----------



## Faithful Wife

To CM: Sorry, being a woman who has been courted properly and also had game played upon her, they can be two very different things.

If you (both male and female) are not worried about the sexual component and are more focused on love and compatibility, the process goes a lot differently.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Sorry, being a woman who has been courted properly and also had game played upon her, they can be two very different things.
> 
> If you (both male and female) are not worried about the sexual component and are more focused on love and compatibility, the process goes a lot differently.


I refer to Dejoo's post #1757 pg 118 @ 2.27PM Today:

"_..I've used negging as a comfort builder. Done correctly it looks nothing like what people imagine.

Picking up for a 3rd date:
"Are you wearing that?"
*Horrified look on her face* "Why what's wrong with this?"

"Nothing.It makes you look beautiful." 

Its play. Its a game_..."


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM...yeah that was a really cute thing in Deejo's post. Which proves absolutely nothing about whether courtship and gaming are the same thing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls: "This is a huge tangent. You remember the sunshine. Great. Go argue with my English professors, because I don't care enough about this hill to die on it. I was just glowing over CMs post."

I know, I get it, and I enjoy your stories. But when I share one, you dismiss it, like you just did in the above quote. Why can't I share, too without getting dismissed? This is why I feel you think you already know everything you need to know.


----------



## inarut

Faithful Wife said:


> To CM: Sorry, being a woman who has been courted properly and also had game played upon her, they can be two very different things.
> 
> If you (both male and female) are not worried about the sexual component and are more focused on love and compatibility, the process goes a lot differently.


Yes...I think the sad thing is younger woman today don't even know what it is nevermind expect to be courted properly....I'm 42....so don't know how that fits into dvls's forming theory..
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> CM...yeah that was a really cute thing in Deejo's post. Which proves absolutely nothing about whether courtship and gaming are the same thing.


I never, ever, would have thought to say something like that prior to reading the PUA stuff.

It works. I use it ... for good, not evil.

I have NEVER had a bad response from deciding to try or use some of these social strategies. The one that will always stand out in my mind is that date after I had read about these techniques.

I'm not making any claim whatsoever that these 'methods' will make women fall into one's bed.

What they will do without question ... is make you more confident in your interactions with anyone, and women in particular.

Charm is game.

Bravado is game.

Honor is game.

They are all the same plays, they are simply executed differently.

My second date with M, we had a great date, I walked her to her car. It was freezing. I looked at her serious as a heart attack and asked for her permission to kiss her.

She smiled, leaned in all the way and we kissed.

No PUA worth their salt would ever ask for permission ... right?

I asked with confidence and out of respect, and she loved it. And I knew she would say yes ...

I don't know, maybe we aren't talking about the same kinds of 'game' after all.

I use it. It works. Nobody feels used, insulted, or mortified. Usually they feel better about our entire interaction.

I have been on the road with a salesguy that I work with. He is very happily married. But ... I have NEVER seen anyone pull women like this guy. He is without question, a 'natural'.

He isn't looking for sex. He enjoys 'the game'. 

He had a 24 year old bartender in Houston, yest TRBE we were in your neck of the woods for a few days in January.

This is a 48 year old balding, out of shape guy. But he is very engaging, extraordinarily upfront and just likable. And importantly? He could give a sh!t if you like him back or not. He's fearless in any exchange.

This girl didn't know us from a hole in the wall. And within 40 minutes he knew her life story. He said, "Hey show me the picture of you in the bikini."

Her response? "How did you know? ... I am not showing you that picture ..."

He said, "Ricki, you know, and I know that eventually you're going to show me that picture so let's just get it out of the way." 

And lo and behold she breaks out her phone and pulls up a pic of herself and her besty, hugging in bikinis.

How did he know she had a bikini pic? He didn't. He was playing.

He is like the Yoda of game, and looks the part. He believes thats actually why women engage with him.

If they ask, "Aren't you married?" He says without hesitation, "Oh yes, very happily."

He is fascinating to watch. Once the ice is broken he invariably asks something very personal.
He has said to me, "Tell someone something brutally honest about themselves or their circumstances and they usually respect that."

In Ricki's case, she had left Galveston and an abusive boyfriend .. yeah, he got that out of her too. Girl totally opened up. And importantly? She was safe. And she knew it.

His game is only for the sake of the game. He says it beats the hell out of staying in the hotel and watching cable when he's on the road.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I think the disconnect here is that a lot of women never really got an opportunity to " look behind the veil " and observe the various types of moves their husbands,boyfriends and other suitors used on them in order to actually get their attention.
From getting a new haircut, buying new clothes , asking other men for advice to rehearsing in front of the mirror....
They are unable to connect the dots.
The average woman doesn't understand what is a " play " in guy terms.

So a man offers to help them reach something on the top shelf in the supermarket or " accidentally " bumps into them, and helps them pick up their items.
They don't know that he has been eyeing them since they walked through the door.
He already has a plan in his mind exactly how he's going to approach you.
You are oblivious to it.
You interpret his moves as " charming."
But you don't know that his " charm " is part of his " game " to get your attention.
Once he gets your attention , he moves into the next phase.

No sane man walks up to strange woman and says;
" _Hello , my name is Jake and I'm a decent guy and I'm interested in courting you and getting married to you_.."

lol, she will tell him GTFO of here!
But he was being honest and respectful...!
Yes?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo...um...thanks for sharing a story about a married man using game to bang (sorry, I mean game) chicks and relieve his boredom on the road. Not sure what that info was exactly useful for?

Do you think I don't know the type of man you are speaking of?

I have had lots of happy sex with dudes just like that.


----------



## Wiserforit

Caribbean Man said:


> I await your response.


The "I was hit on by the hottest woman in the world" post? 

Quite telling that your big story isn't about your wife/girlfriend. And that's the case with PUA groupies - you don't see them posting pictures of their wives and girlfriends despite the whole thing being so relentlessly focused on "pulling 9's and 10's".


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> To CM: Sorry, being a woman who has been courted properly and also had game played upon her, they can be two very different things.
> 
> If you (both male and female) are not worried about the sexual component and are more focused on love and compatibility, the process goes a lot differently.


This makes the assumption, though, that no one ever has sex for any other reason than to find a potential long term relationship. Which, in my opinion, is a false assumption. Men and women have sex for more reasons than that and, sometimes, they aren't searching for love and compatibility.


----------



## FalconKing

Caribbean Man said:


> I think the disconnect here is that a lot of women never really got an opportunity to " look behind the veil " and observe the various types of moves their husbands,boyfriends and other suitors used on them in order to actually get their attention.
> They are unable to connect the dots.
> The average woman doesn't understand what is a " play " in guy terms.


I think some women may be angry because it's being broken down to a science. There is no, "We just hit it off" or "We instantly connected" because it is being explained in very technical terms what it is done to attract and engage women. Also, because it is a technique or way to communicate, any man can do this and some of them may do it for the purpose of using women. I think some women don't like that. If there are effective ways to communicate with women and all men learn them. Then women can't differentiate between good and bad men, which a lot of women find frustrating. But it's a lot more complicated than that. Each man has his own unique way of flirting with women. But all you have to do is set standards. Goals, intelligence, drive, and passions. These have nothing to do with icebreakers or setting up a opportunity to get to know someone better. I think that's what a lot of guys are doing.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Men and women have sex for more reasons than that and, sometimes, they aren't searching for love and compatibility."

Yes, that is typically why "game" is for casual sex and/or casual relationships, and "real courting" is for long term relationships. They are two separate things, with only minor overlap, IMO.


----------



## Wiserforit

Deejo said:


> Charm is game.
> 
> Bravado is game.
> 
> Honor is game.


You can keep repeating this as much as you want, but it won't make it true.

The manipulative strategy here is to pretend "game" means human interaction. 

The reason is to divert attention away from the misogynistic features so blindingly obvious in the PUA literature. But that strategy renders the term meaningless and the examples absurd.

"Look how I interacted with my girl. I _said_ something. She _responded_. That's _game_." :sleeping:


----------



## inarut

We all want to be more confident, more secure in ourselves. In my heart of hearts...I. want and seek authenticity... you accept or reject me....and I will accept or reject you...I will and do seek to improve myself..I will not be controlled by anothers response....i also understand that it takes work to change the things you don't like about yourself....I won't knock whatever seems to be working for for you although I will say you are focusing on external results rather than true self belief and direction.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Wiserforit said:


> The "I was hit on by the hottest woman in the world" post?
> 
> Quite telling that your big story isn't about your wife/girlfriend. And that's the case with PUA groupies - you don't see them posting pictures of their wives and girlfriends despite the whole thing being so relentlessly focused on "pulling 9's and 10's".


Sorry man,
But you come across as badly jaded.
Whatever you problem is in life, I hope you find the answers.
Bye.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> "Men and women have sex for more reasons than that and, sometimes, they aren't searching for love and compatibility."
> 
> Yes, that is typically why "game" is for casual sex and/or casual relationships, and "real courting" is for long term relationships. They are two separate things, with only minor overlap, IMO.


Not quite. As many of the men here have said, a lot of the qualities women search for in a potential partner are qualities that help a PUA. Confidence, charm, a sense of humor, a personality, etc. These are things that build game and yet are also the very qualities that women are endlessly searching for. 

Perhaps courting and game are a bit closer than you want to admit? Granted, the _intentions_ behind courtship can be vastly different than the game, but that doesn't mean that the two are only connected in a "minor" way. Many of the things Dvls has talked about would totally work on me if a guy wanted to "court" me. Especially the shoe example, which I thought was adorable. And the hair color example, my husband has said to me before. It's why I was a blonde for a while. So, the "game" and "courting" aren't mutually exclusive; that game _can_ improve a man's chances at the dating scene, as well.


----------



## Created2Write

Wiserforit said:


> You can keep repeating this as much as you want, but it won't make it true.
> 
> The manipulative strategy here is to pretend "game" means human interaction.
> 
> The reason is to divert attention away from the misogynistic features so blindingly obvious in the PUA literature. But that strategy renders the term meaningless and the examples absurd.
> 
> "Look how I interacted with my girl. I _said_ something. She _responded_. That's _game_." :sleeping:


I'm still waiting for you to cite the studies that prove your theories about PUA. Cause, guess what? Just because you think something doesn't make it a fact. And until you can offer facts, then your posts aren't any less "foolish" than the ones written by the "losers" here.


----------



## Created2Write

FrenchFry said:


> Created2Write and I do prove something: Women sure aren't alike!
> 
> I'd have dyed my hair red.


Hahaha! Oh, my hair has been every natural hair color; brown, blonde, red, black. I like having blonde hair, but when it's bleached it grows soooooooo slowly. So, I went back to brunette and now I'm growing it out. Which, interestingly enough, he prefers above the blonde.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> I have been on the road with a salesguy that I work with. He is very happily married. But ... I have NEVER seen anyone pull women like this guy. He is without question, a 'natural'.
> 
> He isn't looking for sex. He enjoys 'the game'.
> 
> He had a 24 year old bartender in Houston, yest TRBE we were in your neck of the woods for a few days in January.
> 
> This is a 48 year old balding, out of shape guy. But he is very engaging, extraordinarily upfront and just likable. And importantly? He could give a sh!t if you like him back or not. He's fearless in any exchange.


I am not doubting that some men have this skill set as I have seen it as well. I do wonder however who was gaming who. The 48 year old man killing time boosting his ego, or the 24 year old bartender making herself likeable to the traveling man with an expense account.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FalconKing said:


> I think some women may be angry because it's being broken down to a science. There is no, "We just hit it off" or "We instantly connected" because it is being explained in very technical terms what it is done to attract and engage women. Also, because it is a technique or way to communicate, any man can do this and some of them may do it for the purpose of using women. I think some women don't like that. If there are effective ways to communicate with women and all men learn them. Then women can't differentiate between good and bad men, which a lot of women find frustrating. But it's a lot more complicated than that. Each man has his own unique way of flirting with women. But all you have to do is set standards. Goals, intelligence, drive, and passions. These have nothing to do with icebreakers or setting up a opportunity to get to know someone better. I think that's what a lot of guys are doing.


:iagree:

And some of these arguments are borderline dishonest.
I can't remember many young girls when I was in college who looked for chivalry , respectfulness and all of these positive qualities in men before they dated them..

As far as I remember girls went crazy over guys who were on the basketball team or football team ,or who were blessed with good genetics and had a silver tongue.

But as we age we get wiser.
I am suspecting some people are trying to rewrite history here.

lol,
Most of us would have passed through that juvenile age where foolishness was the norm!
We acted not out of any principle but basically how we felt!
And at that time, we all felt young and wild and free....

And yes, I too , played basketball in college.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> A guy can have as much game as he wants, if the woman is not interested in his type then it's not likely to happen or at least not in my experience. I have no studies to prove this.


Not true in my experience. I wasn't interested in my husband. I thought him dull and unintelligent. All it took was one conversation with him and my disinterest turned into blatant interest, to the point of utter distraction. Everything he did suddenly became amazing and I couldn't believe that I hadn't noticed any of it before.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"As far as I remember girls went crazy over guys who were on the basketball team or football team".

Who is disagreeing with this part? Many of those jocks don't have silver tongues, but they do have other nice attributes. Also there were the ones on the chess club, the horse club, the computer club....yep, girls like boys.


----------



## inarut

Deejo said:


> I never, ever, would have thought to say something like that prior to reading the PUA stuff.
> 
> It works. I use it ... for good, not evil.
> 
> I have NEVER had a bad response from deciding to try or use some of these social strategies. The one that will always stand out in my mind is that date after I had read about these techniques.
> 
> I'm not making any claim whatsoever that these 'methods' will make women fall into one's bed.
> 
> What they will do without question ... is make you more confident in your interactions with anyone, and women in particular.
> 
> Charm is game.
> 
> Bravado is game.
> 
> Honor is game.
> 
> They are all the same plays, they are simply executed differently.
> 
> My second date with M, we had a great date, I walked her to her car. It was freezing. I looked at her serious as a heart attack and asked for her permission to kiss her.
> 
> She smiled, leaned in all the way and we kissed.
> 
> No PUA worth their salt would ever ask for permission ... right?
> 
> I asked with confidence and out of respect, and she loved it. And I knew she would say yes ...
> 
> I don't know, maybe we aren't talking about the same kinds of 'game' after all.
> 
> I use it. It works. Nobody feels used, insulted, or mortified. Usually they feel better about our entire interaction.
> 
> I have been on the road with a salesguy that I work with. He is very happily married. But ... I have NEVER seen anyone pull women like this guy. He is without question, a 'natural'.
> 
> He isn't looking for sex. He enjoys 'the game'.
> 
> He had a 24 year old bartender in Houston, yest TRBE we were in your neck of the woods for a few days in January.
> 
> This is a 48 year old balding, out of shape guy. But he is very engaging, extraordinarily upfront and just likable. And importantly? He could give a sh!t if you like him back or not. He's fearless in any exchange.
> 
> This girl didn't know us from a hole in the wall. And within 40 minutes he knew her life story. He said, "Hey show me the picture of you in the bikini."
> 
> Her response? "How did you know? ... I am not showing you that picture ..."
> 
> He said, "Ricki, you know, and I know that eventually you're going to show me that picture so let's just get it out of the way."
> 
> And lo and behold she breaks out her phone and pulls up a pic of herself and her besty, hugging in bikinis.
> 
> How did he know she had a bikini pic? He didn't. He was playing.
> 
> He is like the Yoda of game, and looks the part. He believes thats actually why women engage with him.
> 
> If they ask, "Aren't you married?" He says without hesitation, "Oh yes, very happily."
> 
> He is fascinating to watch. Once the ice is broken he invariably asks something very personal.
> He has said to me, "Tell someone something brutally honest about themselves or their circumstances and they usually respect that."
> 
> In Ricki's case, she had left Galveston and an abusive boyfriend .. yeah, he got that out of her too. Girl totally opened up. And importantly? She was safe. And she knew it.
> 
> His game is only for the sake of the game. He says it beats the hell out of staying in the hotel and watching cable when he's on the road.


No! Charm, bravado, honor is not a game! Playful teasing, great, effort and interest...great....the rest can't be faked
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> Not true in my experience. I wasn't interested in my husband. I thought him dull and unintelligent. All it took was one conversation with him and my disinterest turned into blatant interest, to the point of utter distraction. Everything he did suddenly became amazing and I couldn't believe that I hadn't noticed any of it before.


^^Yup.
All he wanted to do first was get your attention. Get you to take a second look at him. Get you to think that he was worth your attention.
He then became the centre of your universe.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> "As far as I remember girls went crazy over guys who were on the basketball team or football team".
> 
> Who is disagreeing with this part? Many of those jocks don't have silver tongues, but they do have other nice attributes. Also there were the ones on the chess club, the horse club, the computer club....yep, girls like boys.


But where does charm, bravado and honour come in?
Much. much, later.
If a guy does not have an ATTITUDE [ game ] that attracts the lady, she doesn't even want to stick around to find out about his other * positive * attributes.
She's thinking that she has other options , why should she be wasting time on him?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

This seems to be getting personal for some. Can we agree that this works on many and not for others?


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM: "If a guy does not have an ATTITUDE [ game ] that attracts the lady, she doesn't even want to stick around to find out about his other * positive * attributes.
She's thinking that she has other options , why should she be wasting time on him?"

I know so many women who love the sweet, shy, quiet types, and most of them married men like this.

There is someone for everyone. Not all women want a man with "attitude". Some specifically go after the quiet ones. There is a lot to be said of a man of few words...many of them are very, very sensual, passionate, loving, mysterious, etc.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> I know you want me to have been one of those girls as it would be convenient but it still wouldn't be true. I knew the game, I knew what they wanted, I knew I wanted no part in it. I wanted meaning, romance and connection even at age 19.


Trenton,
You are the exception in almost every way.
Most girls at 19 years old ARE NOT looking for a husband or a long term partner, and frankly speaking SHOULD NOT BE!

They are looking for passion, romance and sexual experience.
For them if the love comes after , then ok.
I knew lots of guys who made the mistake and told a girl " I love you" and she dumped him because she wasn't looking for that...


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Dating and sex would be extremely boring without gaming.


Boring without gaming? Really? When you can do anything, go anywhere, talk about everything under the sun, learn about a new person, what they think and love? This is boring, and you need games?

Wild.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> I thought it was that it worked on everyone and we just didn't know it? :scratchhead:


That is an interesting theory. If it worked on me, I certainly didn't know it. Maybe it was more subtle. Who knows really but this thread certainly opened my eyes a bit. I'll be more keen in the future.


----------



## Faithful Wife

The Waitresses I Know What Boys Like - YouTube

One of my fave songs in high school. Classy? Oh, hell no. I was never accused of being classy.

Funny, uppity, in-yer-face? Yes, that was me.


----------



## inarut

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> 
> And some of these arguments are borderline dishonest.
> I can't remember many young girls when I was in college who looked for chivalry , respectfulness and all of these positive qualities in men before they dated them..
> 
> As far as I remember girls went crazy over guys who were on the basketball team or football team ,or who were blessed with good genetics and had a silver tongue.
> 
> But as we age we get wiser.
> I am suspecting some people are trying to rewrite history here.
> 
> lol,
> Most of us would have passed through that juvenile age where foolishness was the norm!
> We acted not out of any principle but basically how we felt!
> And at that time, we all felt young and wild and free....
> 
> And yes, I too , played basketball in college.


Yes, it was that way....we were kids...do you want a woman or a girl now....I think the idea of chivalry, honor and respect are no longer common sense
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

inarut said:


> Yes, it was that way....we were kids...do you want a woman or a girl now....I think the idea of chivalry, honor and respect are no longer common sense
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I already HAVE a woman, a good one , at my side now.
I've been married to her for almost 18 years.
Have been friends and known her for 23 years, and we both still game ,tease and seduce each other.

Chivalry- I don't have to prove that to her. She knows no man could dare disrespect her, once I'm alive

Honour- I have never cheated on her, and my word is my bond. She knows when I promise to do anything for her, she can consider it done.

Respect-It goes without saying. We have mutual respect for each other and each other feelings. This is the foundation of our relationship. Respect.


----------



## Wiserforit

Created2Write said:


> I'm still waiting for you to cite the studies that prove your theories about PUA. Cause, guess what? Just because you think something doesn't make it a fact. And until you can offer facts, then your posts aren't any less "foolish" than the ones written by the "losers" here.


You have it backwards. PUA asserts success with zero research demonstrating so.

In 120 pages the pick-up groupies cannot cite a single study on its effectiveness. Because it doesn't even rise to the attention of serious social scientists. 

You are asking for the "prove the negative" fallacy. (Something must be true if it has not been proven false). That is not how science works: 

Negative proof - RationalWiki



> The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.


The burden of proof on the effectiveness of PUA bunk is on the groupies. Anecdotes are not proof, and they are manipulative about even defining what PUA is. When trying to pin them down it becomes all human interaction.

"Human interaction works" is not even something that can be tested.


----------



## Wiserforit

Caribbean Man said:


> Sorry man,
> But you come across as badly jaded.
> Whatever you problem is in life, I hope you find the answers.
> Bye.


Hilarious. Ad Hominem is the best you've got?

I suppose that would be game?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Wiserforit said:


> You have it backwards. PUA asserts success with zero research demonstrating so.
> 
> In 120 pages the pick-up groupies cannot cite a single study on its effectiveness. Because it doesn't even rise to the attention of serious social scientists.
> 
> You are asking for the "prove the negative" fallacy. (Something must be true if it has not been proven false). That is not how science works:
> 
> Negative proof - RationalWiki
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof on the effectiveness of PUA bunk is on the groupies. Anecdotes are not proof, and they are manipulative about even defining what PUA is. When trying to pin them down it becomes all human interaction.
> 
> "Human interaction works" is not even something that can be tested.


Why does their need to be scientific proof that it works? Nobody here is saying it works all the time or even the vast majority of the time. They are saying it works on some people. You have women here saying it worked on them and others saying it didn't. The bottom line is it worked on many.


----------



## inarut

Caribbean Man said:


> I already HAVE a woman, a good one , at my side now.
> I've been married to her for almost 18 years.
> Have been friends and known her for 23 years, and we both still game ,tease and seduce each other.
> 
> Chivalry- I don't have to prove that to her. She knows no man could dare disrespect her, once I'm alive
> 
> Honour- I have never cheated on her, and my word is my bond. She knows when I promise to do anything for her, she can consider it done.
> 
> Respect-It goes without saying. We have mutual respect for each other and each other feelings. This is the foundation of our relationship. Respect.


I didn't mean "you" personaly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Wiser,
Do Pick-Up Artist Techniques Really Work? | Psychology Today

Here is the actual study done at Oxford. http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP10899909.pdf


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> Created2Write was asking him for proof.


I must have missed that part. My response was to Wiser to ask why would proof matter. It works on some so what further proof is needed?


----------



## FalconKing

Wiserforit said:


> Hilarious. Ad Hominem is the best you've got?
> 
> I suppose that would be game?


Man I think you have a problem with conflict resolutions.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> And some of these arguments are borderline dishonest.
> I can't remember many young girls when I was in college who looked for chivalry , respectfulness and all of these positive qualities in men before they dated them..
> 
> As far as I remember girls went crazy over guys who were on the basketball team or football team ,or who were blessed with good genetics and had a silver tongue.
> 
> But as we age we get wiser.
> I am suspecting some people are trying to rewrite history here.


I doubt anyone is trying to rewrite history here. As you yourself pointed out, we come from all walks of life and different perspectives. Personally, I haven't seen the "girls chase the jocks" phenomenon since I was in high school. And even then it wasn't all the girls. Jut some of them.


As far as game goes, even at 16 I was never one to blush and giggle, or play along, when a guy played silly tricks like the ones described on this thread. Just not me.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



Wiserforit said:


> You can keep repeating this as much as you want, but it won't make it true.
> 
> The manipulative strategy here is to pretend "game" means human interaction.
> 
> The reason is to divert attention away from the misogynistic features so blindingly obvious in the PUA literature. But that strategy renders the term meaningless and the examples absurd.
> 
> "Look how I interacted with my girl. I _said_ something. She _responded_. That's _game_." :sleeping:


I keep getting your attention. Misogyny and all ...

This has little to do with what's in the 'literature' and you know it. Hell I read all the literature ... as did you, which given your abject disdain, makes me wonder why you did in the first place?

You keep citing the books, I don't care about the books. I'm not touting the books. 

Your bias is showing. First you called me out for not even having read them. Then you called me out for fraud. Then you called me a loser. 

Would you like to actually share anything with the group?

Where exactly is it that you would like to go next?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> Dunno.
> 
> My questions would be why does it work on some?
> 
> Does it work to engage in a relationship that will sustain?
> 
> Is it the best way to go about getting the relationship most of us want in the end?
> 
> Those would be my questions.
> 
> But honestly, I'm not getting any answers just two very clear and different views with some in the middle.


It's an interesting discussion, that's for sure. I don't have any answers to your questions as I said this would not work on me but many women here said it would for them. We are all unique which makes life interesting.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Dunno.
> 
> My questions would be why does it work on some?
> 
> Does it work to engage in a relationship that will sustain?
> 
> Is it the best way to go about getting the relationship most of us want in the end?
> 
> Those would be my questions.
> 
> But honestly, I'm not getting any answers just two very clear and different views with some in the middle.


You guys need to understand that this is not just black and white. Intimate relationships are way more complex than that.

Entropy gave some ood examples of how game works with married couples and those in LTR's.

I will give an example with my wife & I.

My wife has always known that I dress to kill. I only wear designer stuff and trendy brands.That's me. Has always been part of my " game."
I won't wear a pair of jeans unless its Levis.
Full stop.
For herself,she couldn't be bothered. She wears clothes that she feels comfortable with,and what looks good on her, whether they are brands or not. I have no problem with that.

Some time ago she needed to get a new pair of eye wear.
We went to the optician, got her eyes tested and she decided to try out some frames. Of course she wants to pay for her own frame, she's like that. Fiercely independent.
But she doesn't want to spend above $3K, and there was one in the designer section by Fendi that she liked, but she would never spend that amount of money on a frame. Designer frames start upwards of $6K. So she selects a frame, nice looking frame within her $3K range. Collect the receipt and we were told to return in two weeks.
She gave me the receipt for safe keeping.
Without her knowledge, later on I took the receipt back to the store, did and exchange on the frame before the lens was crafted, and paid the difference.
I never said a word.
Two weeks later we went to collect her frame and was pleasantly surprised when the salesgirl handed her two Fendi cases. One with her prescribed eye ware, and the other with a Fendi sunglasses.
She looked at me and screamed, hitting me on my chest, calling me a
" trickster."
I " gamed " her, but she absolutely loved it.

Of course, there was an element of deceit, if I had offered to purchase it for her , she would have strongly objected, and the result would have been an unnecessary argument.
But I _knew_ what she wanted, and I gave it to her.
That in a nutshell,
Is game.

Anything that a man has that makes him unique and helps define his relationship with his woman or women , can be considered as game.


----------



## soccermom2three

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's horrible. Where ever you read that messed it up a little. That's a classic example used to explain the concept, and it goes like this:
> 
> "You'd make a gorgeous blonde".


LOL, and I would think, "No way! I'd look like every other California babe out there". Haha.





DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The implication being that she's not quite perfect the way she is. At first counterintuitive, but it actually goes a long way to showing nonchalance. Every other guy is blowing smoke up your butt and complimenting you so blatantly that most of them are disregarded as "trying to get into your pants". They seem disingenuous. The guy who is negging is a guy who isn't intimidated by your beauty. He's not walking on egg shells around you or trying to impress you.
> 
> Negging works amazingly well on VERY attractive women. IMO, it doesn't work as well from women who aren't used to getting compliments all the time - for whom the neg might not seem very teasing at all. Maybe they really think they're being really insulted... dunno; maybe its more believeable for them. Does the hot blonde really think she'd look better as a brunette? I doubt it, she gets nothing but compliments. Like everything, there's a time and place for it.


Actually, thank you for the above explanation. I really wasn't understanding it but I get it now.


----------



## Catherine602

I don't get it I really don't. With all of these games when do you get to relax and enjoy life? 

This sales man has game? Let's look at his interaction with this young woman. 

Why does manipulation of a 24 yo young woman with the goal of getting her to show personal pictures of herself and a friend in bikini's considered a sucessful game? Young women like to show off. She should know better that to show personal pictures to a strange man. 

I wonder if this salesman has a daughter her age and how he would feel if she were showing her bikini pictures to a 48 yo man. Puts a completly different picture on it. 

However, men and woman are easier to manipulate at 24 yo than they are at 30yo. They learn from bad experiences and wise up. 

What is the matter with just interacting with people for the pure pleasure of the interaction. Is that not enough? 

What more do you need?

My thing is that if there is a reason to manipulate for commerce - selling an idea or a product, that's fair game. You need to be able to control the interaction so that it goes in the direction of a sale. 

But talking to another person in a social situation and being insincere? If no sales are on the line, why not relax and enjoy people. 

The game is about control and that's it. There is this conversation going on in your head while there is another going on in real time. It has got to be distracting and makes for stilted unnatural interactions. 

When do you stop playing games and get real? How does that transition happen; when do you start being yourself with no mental double talk? 

When do you get to relax and just enjoy the mystery of what is going to come up next? Let the interaction/relationship take it's natural course. It is unpredictable, but that's life. 

I call it control game, not game. It take's you only in the direction you already know. Natural interaction has no script and is unpredictable. You have to be totally present and put your real self out there. 

It all depends on how you want to live. Fear of the unknown makes cowards of us all.


----------



## Caribbean Man

So are we now saying that women , whether married or single don't have , or have never practised game?
Are we saying that no woman on this thread has EVER tried their hand at seducing their boyfriend / husband / or a total stranger?


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> Dunno.
> 
> My questions would be why does it work on some?
> 
> Does it work to engage in a relationship that will sustain?
> 
> Is it the best way to go about getting the relationship most of us want in the end?
> 
> Those would be my questions.
> 
> But honestly, I'm not getting any answers just two very clear and different views with some in the middle.


I don't think you will ever get your answers because detest the word "gaming". But whatever you want to call it, it's not doing the same things over and over. But even that works on some women. Because some women are attracted to different things. If you going around asking women why did they sleep with certain men or like certain men i'm sure you'll get a multitude of answers. If i'm getting women numbers and breaking the ice that's not the same thing as sustaining a relationship. But let's ponder this. If you have some serious flaw or things you don't like about yourself, is it manipulation to try your best to be a better person with someone? If you stop drinking or smoking or sleeping around when you meet someone you really like, we all praise that right? Because most people would consider these negative behaviors. What if you are honest about your faults but try not to indulge in them? What is so wrong about trying to be a better and attractive person. If a woman changes a man for the better it's romantic. If a man changes to meet a woman it's manipulation and lying? Does anyone think some of these things are really just about power and purpose in the relationship?


----------



## Catherine602

Beautiful and very attractive women are probably the most vulnerable group you can pick to play control games. they are probably lest able to defend against it.

Of course if they are not human and have no feelings then it is easy to treat them with a lack of respect and empathy. Hot women are things only to men who are ciphers because they (the men) think that the association makes them matter.

They are scrutinized constantly, put up with the negatives of jealousy, envy and sabotage. They depend heavily on looks because that how they are treated. 

They are approached by so many men, most of them incomplete looking for something from them. 

So outer appearence is more important to them than an average looking woman who has not had to depend so heavily on looks. They are usually looking for someone who validates who they are inside.


----------



## Caribbean Man

FrenchFry said:


> No, I was a manipulative little **** from 18-20. Until it landed me into the worst situation of my life.
> 
> It was also a period of time when I was at my most insecure and most inauthentic. I had no idea who I was, what I liked and what I was actually about.
> 
> This colors my perspective to a great deal, but these emotions attached also make it really hard for me to understand why anyone would willingly study to be like that.
> 
> I'm trying to learn here, really.


Well I'm really struggling here too.

Are you saying that you have never seduced your husband?

Some of the best sex I have with my wife is when she pretends to be a little spoilt juvenile and she seduces me.
Pouting and all.

That's game, to me.
She's hot when she acts and talks like that, and she does it really, really good.
She even has me fooled sometimes when she adopts that persona....


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> Beautiful and very attractive women are probably the most vulnerable group you can pick to play control games. they are probably lest able to defend against it.
> 
> Of course if they are not human and have no feelings then it is easy to treat them with a lack of respect and empathy. Hot women are things only to men who are ciphers because they (the men) think that the association makes them matter.
> 
> They are scutenized constantly, put up with the negatives of jelousy, envy and sabatage. They depend heavily on looks because that how they are treated.
> 
> They are approached by so many men, most of them incomplete looking for something from them.
> 
> So outer appearence is more important to them than an average looking woman who has not had to depend so heavily on looks. They are usually looking for someone who validates who they are inside.


To an extent you are correct. But there are some beautiful women who are very self confident and assured.
Those are the type who don't really know how beautiful they are neither do they really care.
They have very strong parts in their character that outweigh their need for external validation.


----------



## Nsweet

Trenton said:


> Dunno.
> 
> My questions would be why does it work on some?
> 
> Does it work to engage in a relationship that will sustain?
> 
> Is it the best way to go about getting the relationship most of us want in the end?
> 
> Those would be my questions.
> 
> But honestly, I'm not getting any answers just two very clear and different views with some in the middle.


Since no one is giving you any real asnwers. I will tell you based off of my experiences with PUA, as well as the experiences from acquaintances in the field. 

My questions would be why does it work on some?

*There is no magic bullet here or perfect memorized material that will ensure 100% success. Based on the circumstances and your personality you could say the same things word for word everyday for months and you would never have success picking up everyone you approach and open. Now a lot of the books by the so called gurus will say different, but that's just a marketing ploy.*

Does it work to engage in a relationship that will sustain?

*Yes! Generally relationship game is much more tame than the fast paced sex only game talked alot about by these guys. With relationship game you would hold back a lot on the sexual touchand talk and focus more on the comfort phase with just a splash of sexual frustration from the both of you. The dangle technique as it's come to be known. I know it sounds difficult, but in the field you're basically picking up women and not having sex with them or even trying to go for a kiss. Much more eye contact instead and you focus on having fun together while sexual attraction comes more slowly and naturally. So it's more of a long term pick up than anything else. *

Is it the best way to go about getting the relationship most of us want in the end?

*This is a very complicated response you're not going to like. If you have problems with relationship now and want to know how to make better choices in partners or have better relationships in the future there's really only one thing you can do, and that's to look inward and do some work on yourself first. Usually childhood past issues with intimacy, affection, and your attachment style stay with you for life and cause you to choose partners who lead you into a relationship similar to the one you had with your opposite sex parent or the most significant relationship in your life, sometimes a first love but more offten than not it's an issue with whoever raised you.

Now if you're talking more about endgame, or what you do with this person you picked up when you find they are just so incredible you don't want to toss them aside. The answer here is always to downplay any intimacy you had that night or for that brief amount of time and focus on starting all over. Basically it's the 180 except you're not going to be rude or ignore their calls to seem cool. Think about it more like a cycle. If you had freaky sex over the weekend and don't want to be thought of as just a skank he pulled, not that you are, you would go back to treating him/her like a new coworker and start the pickup over again with a much less aggressive and much slower timeframe. *

I would be happy to answer any real questions you have. Like I said before I pulled girls from the street, strip clubs, and all over before giving internet dating another shot and getting married to my ex wife. I took plenty of notes along the way I still use to this day to help others with the 180 and divorce, and am just now getting back out there in the field with a much softer approach to meeting women again. Softer, but much more effective that what these PUA master clowns teach. All I do.... is pay attention to her.:rofl:


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Sounds more like insecurity to me. I can be selective, but I don't need a biography of her relationship history. I don't rush into relationships. I have plenty of time to find out what kind of person she is for myself. Besides, all you're doing is relying on what she says... if she's the bad person you're trying to avoid, why would that person bother telling you squat? Logic fail there.
> 
> Truly, all you have is your own judgement of the person anyway. The rest could be a lie and you'd never know. You trust her or you don't. That's the bottom line. The details are irrelevant.
> 
> I have to reconsider my warm and fuzzy thoughts about you given you repeatedly insist on making these subtle and not so subtle jabs. :redcard:


No. Just the opposite. If someone is secure in who they are they have no problem in being selective.

My reference to the Byzantine Generals problem holds here. What she tells you is information. People who lie have to keep on lying. After a while one who has any real cognitive ability can see the inconcsistency. Again, what is most important is the transaparency. It is about making an informed choice for something so critical.

I think I should point out that it was I that needed to be transparent to my wife. And I was. Now I was an open book and my wife and I were close friends to start. 

Warm and fuzzy thoughts? GMAFB. Semper Fidelis ( Always Faithful )

---

Parris Island or San Diego?


----------



## Catherine602

Nsweet said:


> Since no one is giving you any real asnwers. I will tell you based off of my experiences with PUA, as well as the experiences from acquaintances in the field.
> 
> My questions would be why does it work on some?
> 
> *There is no magic bullet here or perfect memorized material that will ensure 100% success. Based on the circumstances and your personality you could say the same things word for word everyday for months and you would never have success picking up everyone you approach and open. Now a lot of the books by the so called gurus will say different, but that's just a marketing ploy.*
> 
> Does it work to engage in a relationship that will sustain?
> 
> *Yes! Generally relationship game is much more tame than the fast paced sex only game talked alot about by these guys. With relationship game you would hold back a lot on the sexual touchand talk and focus more on the comfort phase with just a splash of sexual frustration from the both of you. The dangle technique as it's come to be known. I know it sounds difficult, but in the field you're basically picking up women and not having sex with them or even trying to go for a kiss. Much more eye contact instead and you focus on having fun together while sexual attraction comes more slowly and naturally. So it's more of a long term pick up than anything else. *
> 
> Is it the best way to go about getting the relationship most of us want in the end?
> 
> *This is a very complicated response you're not going to like. If you have problems with relationship now and want to know how to make better choices in partners or have better relationships in the future there's really only one thing you can do, and that's to look inward and do some work on yourself first. Usually childhood past issues with intimacy, affection, and your attachment style stay with you for life and cause you to choose partners who lead you into a relationship similar to the one you had with your opposite sex parent or the most significant relationship in your life, sometimes a first love but more offten than not it's an issue with whoever raised you.
> 
> Now if you're talking more about endgame, or what you do with this person you picked up when you find they are just so incredible you don't want to toss them aside. The answer here is always to downplay any intimacy you had that night or for that brief amount of time and focus on starting all over. Basically it's the 180 except you're not going to be rude or ignore their calls to seem cool. Think about it more like a cycle. If you had freaky sex over the weekend and don't want to be thought of as just a skank he pulled, not that you are, you would go back to treating him/her like a new coworker and start the pickup over again with a much less aggressive and much slower timeframe. *
> 
> I would be happy to answer any real questions you have. Like I said before I pulled girls from the street, strip clubs, and all over before giving internet dating another shot and getting married to my ex wife. I took plenty of notes along the way I still use to this day to help others with the 180 and divorce, and am just now getting back out there in the field with a much softer approach to meeting women again. Softer, but much more effective that what these PUA master clowns teach. All I do.... is pay attention to her.:rofl:





Nsweet said:


> Since no one is giving you any real asnwers. I will tell you based off of my experiences with PUA, as well as the experiences from acquaintances in the field.
> 
> My questions would be why does it work on some?
> 
> *There is no magic bullet here or perfect memorized material that will ensure 100% success. Based on the circumstances and your personality you could say the same things word for word everyday for months and you would never have success picking up everyone you approach and open. Now a lot of the books by the so called gurus will say different, but that's just a marketing ploy.*
> 
> Does it work to engage in a relationship that will sustain?
> 
> *Yes! Generally relationship game is much more tame than the fast paced sex only game talked alot about by these guys. With relationship game you would hold back a lot on the sexual touchand talk and focus more on the comfort phase with just a splash of sexual frustration from the both of you. The dangle technique as it's come to be known. I know it sounds difficult, but in the field you're basically picking up women and not having sex with them or even trying to go for a kiss. Much more eye contact instead and you focus on having fun together while sexual attraction comes more slowly and naturally. So it's more of a long term pick up than anything else. *
> 
> Is it the best way to go about getting the relationship most of us want in the end?
> 
> *This is a very complicated response you're not going to like. If you have problems with relationship now and want to know how to make better choices in partners or have better relationships in the future there's really only one thing you can do, and that's to look inward and do some work on yourself first. Usually childhood past issues with intimacy, affection, and your attachment style stay with you for life and cause you to choose partners who lead you into a relationship similar to the one you had with your opposite sex parent or the most significant relationship in your life, sometimes a first love but more offten than not it's an issue with whoever raised you.
> 
> Now if you're talking more about endgame, or what you do with this person you picked up when you find they are just so incredible you don't want to toss them aside. The answer here is always to downplay any intimacy you had that night or for that brief amount of time and focus on starting all over. Basically it's the 180 except you're not going to be rude or ignore their calls to seem cool. Think about it more like a cycle. If you had freaky sex over the weekend and don't want to be thought of as just a skank he pulled, not that you are, you would go back to treating him/her like a new coworker and start the pickup over again with a much less aggressive and much slower timeframe. *
> 
> I would be happy to answer any real questions you have. Like I said before I pulled girls from the street, strip clubs, and all over before giving internet dating another shot and getting married to my ex wife. I took plenty of notes along the way I still use to this day to help others with the 180 and divorce, and am just now getting back out there in the field with a much softer approach to meeting women again. Softer, but much more effective that what these PUA master clowns teach. All I do.... is pay attention to her.:rofl:


Sounds like women are the only ones who are subject to these control games, why is that? . Men are immune why? 

You think you are the gamer and you are safe from falling into a trap? 

Why are women the only weak minded sex bots and men the puppet masters in your world? 

When men fall they fall hard. If they are in so much control and have their pick of hot women why would they fall in love and get married and have kids? 

These pick up artist gurus must have trained enough men to sop up every 20something hot women on the planet and converted them into sex slaves. 

Do you know why I don't believe you are as sure as you make? Because there is anger and glee when you talk about manipulating women. You take pains to talk about how you stick it to women. 

If you are so proficient why are you angry? Why do you feel it neccesary to crow? 

You should be happy and excited not angry. Thou dost talk too much. Action is eloquence enough.


----------



## Nsweet

You women don't get it. Seducing your man is not about acting out a sexy role or telling him what you think he want to hear. And you certainly shouldn't give up because one or two things you found in Cosmo failed. 

All you really have to focus on to get a man arroused for you is when to take charge and when to let him lead. The take charge woman needs to rub his ego a little and rally up his motivation. You tell him "We're going to do this NOW! C'mon big guy, I need that itch scratched only way you can do it." or something like that. He needs to feel you need him like never before. 

The submissive woman needs to let her man know she wants him to persue her, but she wants him to take charge and lead the fantasy. But here's the tricky part, he doesn't want to feel llike he's seducing a helpless child. So use your head and decide when to play "helpless" and when to ride him like a stollen pony. 

But the interesting thing about men is we need you to be both dominant and submissive. Sometimes just getting the thought started is enough and other times you could say "I will do this for you any way you like it if you do...... for me first." Not all of the time of course, but sometimes we do like to be c*ckblocked and then rewarded with sex for doing what you want. 

Ladies you have to remember that guys are not the sex crazy pigs you think we are, all the time. We like the same fantasies as you where we get to be dangerous and exciting men who you rescue and teach how to love, but the trick is you have to learn how to get us to that point by rewarding that behavior.... "You're so naughty..... I like it!".:rofl:


----------



## Catherine602

FrenchFry said:


> Trenton, it's ridiculous how much your posts resonate with me.
> 
> 
> 
> It took me being destroyed to the point of insanity to realize that this was not a good way to conduct myself.
> 
> Authenticity is something I had (and have) to grow into. The part playing was easy.
> 
> Vulnerability...still very hard. Reading this stuff most of the time doesn't make it any easier and when I get gamed by my husband, I feel like it's pretty useless as a human thing.


How does he game you? Do you tell him how you feel? If so what does he say? 

I guess I am gamed by my husband but I did not see it that way.


----------



## Catherine602

Nsweet said:


> You women don't get it. Seducing your man is not about acting out a sexy role or telling him what you think he want to hear. And you certainly shouldn't give up because one or two things you found in Cosmo failed.
> 
> All you really have to focus on to get a man arroused for you is when to take charge and when to let him lead. The take charge woman needs to rub his ego a little and rally up his motivation. You tell him "We're going to do this NOW! C'mon big guy, I need that itch scratched only way you can do it." or something like that. He needs to feel you need him like never before.
> 
> The submissive woman needs to let her man know she wants him to persue her, but she wants him to take charge and lead the fantasy. But here's the tricky part, he doesn't want to feel llike he's seducing a helpless child. So use your head and decide when to play "helpless" and when to ride him like a stollen pony.
> 
> But the interesting thing about men is we need you to be both dominant and submissive. Sometimes just getting the thought started is enough and other times you could say "I will do this for you any way you like it if you do...... for me first." Not all of the time of course, but sometimes we do like to be c*ckblocked and then rewarded with sex for doing what you want.
> 
> Ladies you have to remember that guys are not the sex crazy pigs you think we are, all the time. We like the same fantasies as you where we get to be dangerous and exciting men who you rescue and teach how to love, but the trick is you have to learn how to get us to that point by rewarding that behavior.... "You're so naughty..... I like it!".:rofl:


Why do you think the interaction I marriage is a game? 

Do you mean women are inauthentic and not acting out of their real emotions and personality? They are double talking - one convo in the head and one to manipulate the hubbie? 

Women are lying manipulators?


----------



## Nsweet

Catherine602 said:


> Sounds like women are the only ones who are subject to these control games, why is that? . Men are immune why?
> 
> You think you are the gamer and you are safe from falling into a trap?
> 
> Why are women the only weak minded sex bots and men the puppet masters in your world?
> 
> When men fall they fall hard. If they are in so much control and have their pick of hot women why would they fall in love and get married and have kids?
> 
> These pick up artist gurus must have trained enough men to sop up every 20something hot women on the planet and converted them into sex slaves.
> 
> Do you know why I don't believe you are as sure as you make? Because there is anger and glee when you talk about manipulating women. You take pains to talk about how you stick it to women.
> 
> If you are so proficient why are you angry? Why do you feel it neccesary to crow?
> 
> You should be happy and excited not angry. Thou dost talk too much. Action is eloquence enough.


I didn't say men were immune. What gave you that thought?

Already did. BPD professional victim ex wife. nuff said!

What!? Did I say women were weak minded and puppets to be played with? Projecting your own issues I see? 

Why do men fall in love? Do you really want to know why or do you want to twist whatever I say around for your own femanist view point. Men marry based on different values and from their own biased views. I married what I thought would be a loving mother. 

I don't know about the sex slaves. But, a lot of the so called gurus do opperate under the same guidelines as emotional abusers, which is why I saying not to look on them for advice on lasting loving relationships.

Anger? Certainly not. Why, are men not allowed to express themselves in your world without being cast as archetypes for lifetime movies in abusive roles? 

It's like I said before, I enjoy talking with women everyday. But I don't feel any need get anywhere with them because I just don't want to anytime soon. Most of the time I end up picking up women we just talk about their lives for a little while and that's it.

I'll remind you I came here to talk about the light side of PUA and give pointers for approaching and keeping the conversation going. Not to tell men or women "this is how to trick them into sex" and get what YOU want. Don't paint me as the men who mistreated you.


----------



## Nsweet

Catherine602 said:


> Why do you think the interaction I marriage is a game?
> 
> Do you mean women are inauthentic and not acting out of their real emotions and personality? They are double talking - one convo in the head and one to manipulate the hubbie?
> 
> Women are lying manipulators?


Once again you girls are spinning things men say around to make us look like creeps.

Is marriage a game? Sort of, but most of the time you're just trying to "play fair" and keep from losing your marbles when life takes you down the shoots ans you're on a bad role. Happy with that answer.

Inauthentic? No, I'm telling you a lot of men and women don't understand that people's egos have to be boosted sometimes in order for them to "feel" attractive to themselves, and other times they need to "feel" empowered by seducing you. It's not all about playing the sexy roles you think he would want in the bedroom. I also encourage you to check out "Dangerous men, anventurous women" it's a book on how to white romance novels written by women for women and ecplains the how and why better than a lot of psych stuff I know. 

I don't know. Are you lying and trying to manipulate me tonight?:rofl:


----------



## Nsweet

Trenton said:


> N'Sweet...serious question...do you ever think that you're standing in your own way of finding love?


Finding true love? Or finding true love AGAIN? 

I found true love with my ex wife over three years ago and dropped any assumptions I had of playing with her when we met in the airport after flying 3,000 miles out of the way just to meet her. But that was a whirlwind romance at a time when I loved to be needed and never found reciprocation on my lovers part. 

Now that I've gone through a painful divorce and taken about a year to learn about myself and heal I'm getting back out there, but not for the purposes of sex or a relationship over night. If fine with talking to women for now and I will leave it at that until I feel ready to approach more women and open myself for a relationship. It kills me some days to see that second glance and being about to read between the lines that say "'t been nice taling to you" and dummy "I'm saying I would like to talkwith you sometime again". But what are you gonna do. 

Whenever I do find myself in those classic PUA situations where I know she's good to go and I could take her home that night. I have to stop and think now as apposed to just go for it. Do I really want to risk blowing it with someone who could be the one or should I do the smart thing and wait? I'll wait.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Well I'm sitting here , reading these replies and all that comes to mind is damn! 
How unsexy!
A woman who is so " strong and independent " and wrapped in her own sense of self that she doesn't see the need to come out of her comfort zone ,make herself vulnerable and simply , seduce her man....

IMHO , any woman who thinks that a man should be sexually satisfied with a " what you see is what you get , take it or leave it " attitude , is courting trouble.

Ladies,
Take it from a man, sensuality , seduction ,allurement , temptation and creativity are at the centre of the male sexual response. We like the fantasy of the unknown , the new , the untamed ,the wild.
We wish we could have sex with a different woman sometimes, but still have our loving wives.
The truth is a woman can be a different woman without compromising her strong , independent , true self.
She can be b!tchy , submissive , dominant ,innocent ,seductive without have having to spend one cent on costumes or sex toys.

The most erogenous organ on a man is his mind , not his penis. The penis cannot function if you cannot play with his mind.
He may achieve an erection, but he's not having sex with you, he has another woman ,or an idea of another woman in his mind.

Any woman who can do that is SEXY.
Any woman who can do that is fascinating.
Any woman who can take the time and go out of her way ,risk being vulnerable ,in order to please her man in bed,is a sensual woman.

Any man who cannot recognize his woman is making an effort like that ,and make love to her in the way she wants to be made love to, is behind the 8 ball. 

The most beautiful thing is when a woman feels desired by her man and knows that she has that something in her which makes her irresistible to him. She knows how to please him in bed.

The most beautiful thing to a man, is having a woman who is his lady in the streets and a freak, his little freak , in bed. He likes knowing that he is the only one to satisfy her sexual cravings.

A woman without that craving for her man, who doesn't see the need to seduce her man ,is in a completely different world, albeit,
By herself.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



Catherine602 said:


> Why do you think the interaction I marriage is a game?
> 
> Do you mean women are inauthentic and not acting out of their real emotions and personality? They are double talking - one convo in the head and one to manipulate the hubbie?
> 
> Women are lying manipulators?


Respectfully, I am very aware of your bias and the reasons why.

I don't ever expect you to 'like' this line of discussion.

To my knowledge, my colleague is never trying to seduce any of the women he interacts with. Certainly never that I have seen. 
Manipulation? Maybe.
All I'm saying is that I have watched this guy go from 'strange man' to personal connection on multiple ooccasions. Hell he did it to me the first time I met him 4 years ago. He knew every detail of my marriage tanking after our first dinner.

To me, the dark side of this stuff is creating a false sense of comfort and safety. That is about using someone rather than looking to share or build something with them.

And in the case where the woman isn't looking to share or build anything either, then it really isn't manipulation is it? There are women who want casual sex, men have acknowledged that and so have a number of the women participating here. Its unlikely that she is going to go home with the guy that walks up to her and says "Wanna go have sex?"
For a woman this may be a different story. Unless you are like my gf's friend, and actually have done this.

Thus ... game.

Whether we call it courting or gaming or manipulation I don't much care.

The aspects of it that I am interested in are about fostering attraction. I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Well I'm sitting here , reading these replies and all that comes to mind is damn!
> How unsexy!
> A woman who is so " strong and independent " and wrapped in her own sense of self that she doesn't see the need to come out of her comfort zone ,make herself vulnerable and simply , seduce her man....
> 
> IMHO , any woman who thinks that a man should be sexually satisfied with a " what you see is what you get , take it or leave it " attitude , is courting trouble.


Goodness gracious. Why would i need games to be sexy or seduce my h? Granted, not all men appreciate a strong and independent woman, but there are at least some who do. 

My SO finds the caustic side of my personality endearing. Hard to believe, I know, but I am ever so glad that i didn't make the mistake of hiding this aspect of myself to "pull" more interest from men. If i had, I may have been more popular on a superficial level, but i also would be utterly miserable and utterly inauthentic.

You may find the "spoilt juvenile" act a huge turn on. Maybe even most men do, I don't know. But there's no way I could ever play that role, and I'm pretty sure my SO would just tell me to grow up. 

Maybe you find that unsexy. That's ok. Because my mission is not to be sexy to every man that walks this earth. But to be true to myself and find genuine connections, real empathy and warmth.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Goodness gracious. Why would i need games to be sexy or seduce my h?


Of course you don't need these " games " to seduce your husband. You're a strong independent woman , you don't 
* need * such silly things.
We don't need sex toys in the bedroom?
We don't need sex costumes in the bedroom?
We don't need tender kisses and foreplay before sex?
We don't need erotic poetry?
We don't need sexting or erotic text mesages?
We don't need the thrill that seduction brings?
We don't need the feeling of sweet surrender?
We don't really need oral and other variations of sexual positions either.
Nope.
Or do we?
Is it that all we need is just the sex. Insert male appendage into female apparatus, perform required job specification, then wash , rinse , and repeat at a date to be agreed upon by both parties?

But why do so many women and men incorporate such things in their sex life, under the pretence of " spicing things up?"
Maybe they're just perverted?
No?
Or maybe they think its necessary, in order to keep their partner's interest in the bedroom.
Maybe they value their partner, and want to fulfil their fantasies.

Funny, my wife always tried to get into my fantasies, and she's a strong independent woman...
Maybe that's why we're still enjoying sex after all these years.
Maybe?

Is there really a dichotomy between being oneself and adapting a persona or using sexual accessories to enhance and enrich the sexual experience? 
Yes?
Maybe some women have now " evolved " beyond the stage where they no longer need to be just a,sensual , sexy & feminine woman who wants her man to ravage her body.
Maybe?

But I don't know of any man that would prefer a " strong independent woman " who doesn't give two hoots about his sexual desires ,in bed ,to a real hot ,sexy, sensual woman who craves his manhood, sexuality and captivates the lustful imaginations of his mind.

Or maybe that's objectification?
Maybe....


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> *In a loving, romantic relationship where one doesn't have to worry they're being gamed, seduction and everything else that keeps two people deeply connected is the gift they give to one another. It may be the single most important thing that they do give to one another.*


Seduction cannot exist without game.
Seduction in itself is a game of mild deception aimed at intensifying a partner's desire for sexual intimacy with you.

Bruno Mars,When I _was_ your man

Without seduction, sex is reduced to just a bio mechanical interaction between two people.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Of course you don't need these " games " to seduce your husband. You're a strong independent woman , you don't
> * need * such silly things.
> We don't need sex toys in the bedroom?
> We don't need sex costumes in the bedroom?
> We don't need tender kisses and foreplay before sex?
> We don't need erotic poetry?
> We don't need sexting or erotic text mesages?
> We don't need the thrill that seduction brings?
> We don't need the feeling of sweet surrender?
> We don't really need oral and other variations of sexual positions either.
> Nope.
> Or do we?
> Is it that all we need is just the sex. Insert male appendage into female apparatus, perform required job specification, then wash , rinse , and repeat at a date to be agreed upon by both parties?


I see absolutely no contradiction between being strong and independent, and enjoying oral sex, a variety of positions, sex toys, public sex, and so on. Just because I choose not to adopt various personas that I find unappealing, or play stupid games, doesn't mean I'm an unfeeling robot in bed, capable of only one position on a set schedule. Quite the contrary.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> How do you figure?
> 
> Two nights ago I get in thigh highs and short skirt and bra with high heels. I wrap a coat around me and walk in the kitchen acting nonchalant. When my husband meets my eyes I drop the coat and smile at him. He grins at me...you can figure the rest out.
> 
> You can call this seduction, right? I would agree but here's where you and I disconnect on this subject...
> 
> For me, this type of behavior can't be linked to PUA or 180 or MMLS (whatever initials they use) because I can only do this with my husband as I trust him, I believe he is honest with me, and I am honest with him. Our relationship is authentic and seduction is mutual satisfaction and connection.
> 
> I would NEVER EVER want to do this with any other guy. There's not even a chance in hell. There's no line, no generalization or anything else that would allow me to behave this way with anyone besides my husband.
> 
> If I found out that some type of book led to my husband trying something on me without him telling me first, a part of our authenticity would be lost. I'd feel more vulnerable in a bad way and not trusting.
> 
> So this is me and I apologize if I'm not normal but I'm thinking you have a few ladies on this thread echoing my sentiments. Maybe that says something that most men and some women on this thread aren't willing to consider.


Who said anything about having game for people outside of a marriage?
There are women on this thread who thinks that what you did to your husband by dressing up for him is tantamount to you not being your original self.
My argument is and has always been that there is no dichotomy there.
You can be true to yourself and still adapt a persona designed to seduce, or captivate your partner's interest. Your persona is temporary and does not define you. You are that person for a purpose.
Just like you are a strict mummy sometimes when your kids misbehave, you can be a Playboy centrefold for your husband when you want him to misbehave.

It is a game, it is game,is manipulative and it does what its designed to do, and what you want it to do.
Increase sexual attraction.

And what if it comes from a book?
How does that make it less authentic?
Books share ideas, ideas help cultivate awareness, awareness brings confidence, confidence is sexy to any gender.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I see absolutely no contradiction between being strong and independent, and enjoying oral sex, a variety of positions, sex toys, public sex, and so on. *Just because I choose not to adopt various personas that I find unappealing, or play stupid games, *doesn't mean I'm an unfeeling robot in bed, capable of only one position on a set schedule. Quite the contrary.


The part highlighted speaks volumes and is incongruous with the rest of the paragraph.
It is a logical paradox.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> How is it manipulation? Can you explain this to me?


Manipulate. Making people do what you want.

You wanted sex from him, he was otherwise occupied. You dressed in what you thought would turn him on and make him want to have sex with you.
He willing agreed, thus you manipulated him into sex.

I think we're delving into semantics here...
Reasoning and logic is a lot sexier IMO.


----------



## Entropy3000

FrenchFry said:


> Trenton, it's ridiculous how much your posts resonate with me.
> 
> 
> 
> It took me being destroyed to the point of insanity to realize that this was not a good way to conduct myself.
> 
> *Authenticity is something I had (and have) to grow into. The part playing was easy.*
> 
> Vulnerability...still very hard. Reading this stuff most of the time doesn't make it any easier and when I get gamed by my husband, I feel like it's pretty useless as a human thing.


Part playing is something we do to protect ourselves. It is a learned behavior. I think what you are describing is that as part of your maturing process you realized that at some point in a relationship one has to allow themselves to be vulnerable. This is what I am saying about men putting down their shield and removing their armor. It is a leap of faith. To remove that facade. It has risks but the reward is true intimacy. 

Obviously it is a two way street. Our partner needs to have reached a certain level of self awareness and maturity as well. In a pragmatic way though I think one partner can take the lead. If our partner is ready they will follow. Perhaps reluctantly as well. It is fear that holds them back. So we must create a safe haven for them in our hearts. To do this takes courage of our own.

I could say that PUA is all about manipulation. But I could also say that about sales and business and war and so on and be correct. Like most things in life however I think it is how we go about this. Understanding of principles of attraction are not bad in themselves. Encouraging one to join in with life and choose to dance the dance. The mating ritual is a dance. Where is the line between manipulation and dancing? For me if I am creating positive emotions in my marriage and a safe haven for my wife. I am doing it the right way. So I can drink of the these waters once I filter out the bad. One form is poison and the other nourishing.


----------



## tacoma

FrenchFry said:


> He knows me better than anyone else on the planet. That's seduction to me.


That's exactly what I said "game" was 300 pages ago.

Full Circle.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> *Who said anything about having game for people outside of a marriage?*
> There are women on this thread who thinks that what you did to your husband by dressing up for him is tantamount to you not being your original self.
> My argument is and has always been that there is no dichotomy there.
> You can be true to yourself and still adapt a persona designed to seduce, or captivate your partner's interest. Your persona is temporary and does not define you. You are that person for a purpose.
> Just like you are a strict mummy sometimes when your kids misbehave, you can be a Playboy centrefold for your husband when you want him to misbehave.
> 
> It is a game, it is game,is manipulative and it does what its designed to do, and what you want it to do.
> Increase sexual attraction.
> 
> And what if it comes from a book?
> How does that make it less authentic?
> Books share ideas, ideas help cultivate awareness, awareness brings confidence, confidence is sexy to any gender.


Seduction. It does a marriage good.

So yeah let's stop calling it games and call it seduction. How is this bad? Sigh.

Indeed Trenton's was a perfect example.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

FrenchFry said:


> Totally out of left field for me.
> 
> Sorry Caribbean Man. You may be a male, but you definitely aren't my husband and you definitely do not think like he thinks.


Who says your husband thinks in the best way for each situation?


----------



## always_alone

Trenton said:


> I think that what you want me to do is associate a set of behaviors I dislike that are regularly applauded and upheld on the board and in every day interactions between men and women because they can cross over and be part of a healthy, satisfying relationship.
> 
> Although I agree they can cross over, I will not agree that they are OK to be used in any way that is meant to get an individual what they want or to generalize in a manner that says all women fall for it, all women want it, etc.
> 
> This is semantics, but for me, the semantics matter.


:iagree:. I found it very interesting to see the same semantic slippage in the article posted by TheRealBrightEyes.

Ostensibly, it argued that PUA is rooted in social and evolutionary psychology, but at the same time some of the supposed cross overs between PUA and normal human interaction were quite the stretch.

For example, when talking about attraction, it referenced studies that women find wit, charm, and a good sense of humour to be attractive. An unsurprising finding, IMO. This is then tied to PUA openers, which supposedly make men exhibit these qualities. But this is exactly where they lose me. It's not the lines that give me a sense of the man, it's reading between them.

Then when they talk about building comfort, they reference studies that conclude that trust and comfort , good morals, honesty, niceness, empathy, etc., are important. Seems reasonable. But then the PUA connection is "kino" and using touch to establish comfort. Again, they lose me. Touch will not help to build comfort or trust with me. Pushed too far, and i'm more likely to exit than anything. To me, gaming is the very antithesis of what is likely to create rapport

And last, they talk about seduction, referencing studies that show that people seek to expand their sense of self and identity with intimate relationships, and seek strong emotional and intellectual connections through shared interests, values, and ideals. So far so good. But what is the PUA connection? The 7hr rule, which means that you should plan on spending at least 7hrs with someone to get that "deep" understanding of their personality, and then using sex to release the right chemicals in their brain. 

Maybe there really is some cross over, but to me there is a world of difference between the two approaches.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> The part highlighted speaks volumes and is incongruous with the rest of the paragraph.
> It is a logical paradox.


How so? Please enlighten me.

Why can't i be consistently open to all sorts of wonderful sexual experiences without pretending to be the ingenue, the spoiled princess, or whatever other caricatures you may have in mind?


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

FrenchFry said:


> Sexually? Uh...he knows himself way better than I do, he's had a few more years to know himself.


I couldn't disagree with that.


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> That's exactly what I said "game" was 300 pages ago.
> 
> Full Circle.


As the black belt becomes the white belt again.


----------



## Entropy3000

FrenchFry said:


> I mean, it depends on what you are talking about.
> 
> My husband negging me isn't seductive. He knows it, he continues to do it because it "creates attraction" somehow. I'm not sure how making me dislike him creates attraction. Same with him constantly picking out where we eat. Same with him taking over on decisions, little and big.
> 
> Similarly, me dressing up and prancing around isn't seductive for him. Playing a vixen turn him way off.
> 
> Bald-faced tactics like this drive me up the wall because it's not real towards our relationship. There isn't anything seductive about it as proven by my clamped down vagina when he does this crap.


Filter those things that are poison away. Find what works for you guys. As they say this is a jounrney and not a destination. We evolve. If we were all the same how incredibly boring that would be. Even the man who shall not be named says expect only 30% to work. Explore your partner and discover what makes them sing. 

Teasing is good. Negging is bad. --check

There is no one size fits all. Being seduced is taking my hand in a positive way. How wonderful this is when compared to indifference.

Hey some guys need a book to find the G-spot. It was intuitive for me. Some take the road less travelled.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Trenton,
> You are the exception in almost every way.
> Most girls at 19 years old ARE NOT looking for a husband or a long term partner, and frankly speaking SHOULD NOT BE!
> 
> They are looking for passion, romance and sexual experience.
> For them if the love comes after , then ok.
> I knew lots of guys who made the mistake and told a girl " I love you" and she dumped him because she wasn't looking for that...


I was a mixture of the two. I wanted passion and romance while also looking for a long term relationship. It so happened that all of the guys I was interested in _wanted_ to have game, but couldn't figure out how to use it on me. Being a sheltered Christian girl, I know that it was probably intimidating to ask me out. One of the guys had had sex with a stripper and couldn't even tell me the whole truth about it. Even with his darkly handsome looks and charming smile and sensual nature, his "game" was insufficient. He could tell I wasn't swooning all over myself when he tried to sweet talk me, and after three very short weeks, he broke up with me. 

My husband wasn't shy, but he wasn't outspoken either and he _still_ had game. I don't think he even realized it. The reason I thought he was unintelligent was because he could stand in a group of people and everyone would talk but him. Once I'd seen just how intelligent he is(he's basically a genius, literally speaking), I started to see all of his good qualities all at once; he went from being good looking, to being sizzling hot; he went from being dull, to being the most interesting person I knew; I saw his confidence, his sense of humor, his incredible personality. He wouldn't talk to me nearly as often as I wanted him to, so I made conversation with him over as many things as I could. 

I'll never forget when I walked in to the church one night and heard the piano being played gorgeously. I thought, 'Who the heck is that?' It was _him_! I stood in the doorway and just stared because I love classical piano, and to have him play it so well? 

We dated because he wished me a Happy Birthday on myspace and I, in turn, said thank you and commented on one of his pictures. We started talking online, we talked more in person, and a few weeks later we were flirting _a lot_. He's the most masculine and sexy man I know.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Boring without gaming? Really? When you can do anything, go anywhere, talk about everything under the sun, learn about a new person, what they think and love? This is boring, and you need games?
> 
> Wild.


The problem is that you have in your mind a very specific idea of what game is, when what's being said is that it's much more broad than is often realized. My husband isn't a PUA, but he _does_ have game, "negging" was often a part of our dating relationship and is still a part of our marriage. Plus, he has confidence, charm, a sense of humor, and the ability to make good conversation..._all_ qualities of game.

To me, having sex with a man without confidence, a sense of humor, a personality and charm...sounds very boring.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy: "There is no one size fist all. Being seduced is taking my hand in a positive way."


Um.....er......uh.....typo.


----------



## Created2Write

Wiserforit said:


> You have it backwards. PUA asserts success with zero research demonstrating so.
> 
> In 120 pages the pick-up groupies cannot cite a single study on its effectiveness. Because it doesn't even rise to the attention of serious social scientists.
> 
> You are asking for the "prove the negative" fallacy. (Something must be true if it has not been proven false). That is not how science works:
> 
> Negative proof - RationalWiki
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof on the effectiveness of PUA bunk is on the groupies. Anecdotes are not proof, and they are manipulative about even defining what PUA is. When trying to pin them down it becomes all human interaction.
> 
> "Human interaction works" is not even something that can be tested.


So, even though _you_ made accusations against the game and PUA _and_ the men who use them, without offering a shred of evidence to support your claim, you're now saying that it's up to those using PUA to prove themselves right? Your responsibility to prove your own claims suddenly vanishes? So, in that case, we can all just make unfounded, ridiculous claims about things we disagree with without using any evidence to support our claims. Yeah, that makes sense. 

_Then_ you say that "human interaction works" can't even be tested, so you're demanding that these guys "prove" something with studies, even though it's impossible to do so? 

I thought so. You make assignations against the men who use PUA and say that they need to use studies to prove it works, even though there really is no way to accurately test human interactions, and yet _you_ don't have to support your claims. 

You know why we can't prove that _The Five Love Languages_ and _His Needs, Her Needs_ works? Because there's no possible way to distinguish that the applied principles _are_ what caused the changes in the marriages who used them. All we have are the _testimonies_(aka anecdotes) of the marriages that improved after using those principles. 

You are so quick to discount a man's personal experience with PUA, the only real proof that can be given about human interactions, by saying that anecdotes don't count. Well, then you should be just as harsh on _Five Love Languages_ and _His Needs, Her Needs_ because no one can prove that those work either. 

Your bias in this situation means you're no longer credible. You can't even support your own claims about PUA without having to give excuses and pass off responsibility. At least the others who oppose it have offered intelligent arguments. You've gone so far as to call people in this conversation losers for needing to use PUA, yet you can't back up your own claims. Also, I asked for more proof than just what had to do with PUA; I asked for proof about your Amazon.com analyses, and you couldn't even prove _that_. 

Maybe you should do what you said you would a few pages ago and walk away from the discussion?


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy: "There is no one size fist all. Being seduced is taking my hand in a positive way."
> 
> 
> Um.....er......uh.....typo.


:rofl:


----------



## Created2Write

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Why does their need to be scientific proof that it works? Nobody here is saying it works all the time or even the vast majority of the time. They are saying it works on some people. You have women here saying it worked on them and others saying it didn't. The bottom line is it worked on many.


Personal testimonies are anecdotal, and they aren't proof enough for him.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Created2Write was asking him for proof.


I asked _Wiser_ for proof to back up his claims that only losers use PUA, that PUA never works and only involves deceit and lies and manipulation. He was asking the others for proof that it _does_ work, and I was trying to get him to prove them wrong since their personal experiences weren't sufficient. But he can't prove them wrong. All he can do is pass off the responsibility to try and save himself.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy: "There is no one size fist all. Being seduced is taking my hand in a positive way."
> 
> 
> Um.....er......uh.....typo.


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh God, how did I miss that?!?! That is priceless.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy: "There is no one size fist all. Being seduced is taking my hand in a positive way."
> 
> 
> Um.....er......uh.....typo.


LOL. UFB.

I create my own entropy. Dislexia strikes again. 

You can't make this stuff up. So I am now tearing with laughter in spite of myself. Nice catch.


----------



## Created2Write

Catherine602 said:


> Beautiful and very attractive women are probably the most vulnerable group you can pick to play control games. they are probably lest able to defend against it.


Sorry, but no. At least not in my experience.



> Of course if they are not human and have no feelings then it is easy to treat them with a lack of respect and empathy. Hot women are things only to men who are ciphers because they (the men) think that the association makes them matter.


You make a lot of assumptions.



> They are scrutinized constantly, put up with the negatives of jealousy, envy and sabotage. They depend heavily on looks because that how they are treated.


Again, more assumptions. 



> They are approached by so many men, most of them incomplete looking for something from them.
> 
> So outer appearence is more important to them than an average looking woman who has not had to depend so heavily on looks. They are usually looking for someone who validates who they are inside.


Again, more assumptions. I can tell you, as a woman who has been considered hot by some, that I don't identify with the woman you describe here. At all. Sure, if you took the stereotype of "the hot blonde girl" from sitcoms, you'd have hit the nail on the head. And I'm sure some really hot women might feel like you've described. Maybe it's where I'm from, but I know my share of really beautiful women and they don't fit this mold you've created at all.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Well I'm sitting here , reading these replies and all that comes to mind is damn!
> How unsexy!
> A woman who is so " strong and independent " and wrapped in her own sense of self that she doesn't see the need to come out of her comfort zone ,make herself vulnerable and simply , seduce her man....
> 
> IMHO , any woman who thinks that a man should be sexually satisfied with a " what you see is what you get , take it or leave it " attitude , is courting trouble.
> 
> Ladies,
> Take it from a man, sensuality , seduction ,allurement , temptation and creativity are at the centre of the male sexual response. We like the fantasy of the unknown , the new , the untamed ,the wild.
> We wish we could have sex with a different woman sometimes, but still have our loving wives.
> The truth is a woman can be a different woman without compromising her strong , independent , true self.
> She can be b!tchy , submissive , dominant ,innocent ,seductive without have having to spend one cent on costumes or sex toys.
> 
> The most erogenous organ on a man is his mind , not his penis. The penis cannot function if you cannot play with his mind.
> He may achieve an erection, but he's not having sex with you, he has another woman ,or an idea of another woman in his mind.
> 
> Any woman who can do that is SEXY.
> Any woman who can do that is fascinating.
> Any woman who can take the time and go out of her way ,risk being vulnerable ,in order to please her man in bed,is a sensual woman.
> 
> Any man who cannot recognize his woman is making an effort like that ,and make love to her in the way she wants to be made love to, is behind the 8 ball.
> 
> The most beautiful thing is when a woman feels desired by her man and knows that she has that something in her which makes her irresistible to him. She knows how to please him in bed.
> 
> The most beautiful thing to a man, is having a woman who is his lady in the streets and a freak, his little freak , in bed. He likes knowing that he is the only one to satisfy her sexual cravings.
> 
> A woman without that craving for her man, who doesn't see the need to seduce her man ,is in a completely different world, albeit,
> By herself.


WONDERFULLY said CM! QFT!


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Of course you don't need these " games " to seduce your husband. You're a strong independent woman , you don't
> * need * such silly things.
> We don't need sex toys in the bedroom?
> We don't need sex costumes in the bedroom?
> We don't need tender kisses and foreplay before sex?
> We don't need erotic poetry?
> We don't need sexting or erotic text mesages?
> We don't need the thrill that seduction brings?
> We don't need the feeling of sweet surrender?
> We don't really need oral and other variations of sexual positions either.
> Nope.
> Or do we?
> Is it that all we need is just the sex. Insert male appendage into female apparatus, perform required job specification, then wash , rinse , and repeat at a date to be agreed upon by both parties?
> 
> But why do so many women and men incorporate such things in their sex life, under the pretence of " spicing things up?"
> Maybe they're just perverted?
> No?
> Or maybe they think its necessary, in order to keep their partner's interest in the bedroom.
> Maybe they value their partner, and want to fulfil their fantasies.
> 
> Funny, my wife always tried to get into my fantasies, and she's a strong independent woman...
> Maybe that's why we're still enjoying sex after all these years.
> Maybe?
> 
> Is there really a dichotomy between being oneself and adapting a persona or using sexual accessories to enhance and enrich the sexual experience?
> Yes?
> Maybe some women have now " evolved " beyond the stage where they no longer need to be just a,sensual , sexy & feminine woman who wants her man to ravage her body.
> Maybe?
> 
> But I don't know of any man that would prefer a " strong independent woman " who doesn't give two hoots about his sexual desires ,in bed ,to a real hot ,sexy, sensual woman who craves his manhood, sexuality and captivates the lustful imaginations of his mind.
> 
> Or maybe that's objectification?
> Maybe....


I agree 100% here. QFT again!


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> I read your last two posts and I thought...shame that he completely is not capable of understanding what I was writing.
> 
> In a loving, romantic relationship where one doesn't have to worry they're being gamed, seduction and everything else that keeps two people deeply connected is the gift they give to one another. It may be the single most important thing that they do give to one another.


You're assuming that no one wants to be gamed in their marriage. Please don't speak for me. While my husband isn't an active gamer, there are aspects of his personality that align with the game mentality and it's one of the sexiest things about him. And, *wait for it* we have a loving, romantic relationship on top of it. 

The two aren't mutually exclusive.



> He can objectify me as much as he wants but I could argue it's not objectification as he loves the object of his desire. How can you objectify something you love when objectification requires you don't recognize the person as anything besides an object?


Again, the issue is that objectification and game aren't always the same thing.



> Our sexual relationship and his satisfaction is most precious to me.
> 
> I won't associate it with PUA or "games" because, as I already explained in my past post, the two can't correlate for me.


Which is fine. The world would be a dull place if we all identified ourselves with the same thing. Personally, my issue it that it continues to be painted in a negative light when it really doesn't need to be.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> I missed your post before.
> 
> I think that what you want me to do is associate a set of behaviors I dislike that are regularly applauded and upheld on the board and in every day interactions between men and women because they can cross over and be part of a healthy, satisfying relationship.
> 
> Although I agree they can cross over, I will not agree that they are OK to be used in any way that is meant to get an individual what they want or to generalize in a manner that says all women fall for it, all women want it, etc.


No one has said it works for all women or that all women want it.



> This is semantics, but for me, the semantics matter.
> 
> *It'd be great if this could be understood so that I don't have to keep retyping it in 50 different ways.*


I'm sure those of us who don't oppose PUA are thinking the same thing.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> Wow. My inner self teaching me some much needed humility no doubt.


I deleted my post as it was inappropriate. In other news, my accountant just called and told me we will be getting a big refund. Hopefully he wasn't gaming me.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> How do you figure?
> 
> Two nights ago I get in thigh highs and short skirt and bra with high heels. I wrap a coat around me and walk in the kitchen acting nonchalant. When my husband meets my eyes I drop the coat and smile at him. He grins at me...you can figure the rest out.
> 
> You can call this seduction, right? I would agree but here's where you and I disconnect on this subject...
> 
> For me, this type of behavior can't be linked to PUA or 180 or MMLS (whatever initials they use) because I can only do this with my husband as I trust him, I believe he is honest with me, and I am honest with him. Our relationship is authentic and seduction is mutual satisfaction and connection.
> 
> I would NEVER EVER want to do this with any other guy. There's not even a chance in hell. There's no line, no generalization or anything else that would allow me to behave this way with anyone besides my husband.


I wouldn't do it with another guy, either. But I also wouldn't go out in public dressed that way. So, to an extent, I'm being someone I'm not by wearing an outfit for my husband that I wouldn't be comfortable wearing out in public. 

Role play, for instance, you're pretending to be someone you're not to enhance the sexual experience. Or even just foreplay. I'm not the initiating type, yet when I initiate I do so in a very seductive, controlling way...when I'm not a controlling kind of woman normally. 

I think _that's_ what CM was saying.



> If I found out that some type of book led to my husband trying something on me without him telling me first, a part of our authenticity would be lost. I'd feel more vulnerable in a bad way and not trusting.


My husband knows as long as it isn't anal, I don't care what he tries on me. If I don't like it, I'll ask him to stop. No trust lost. No authenticity lost.



> So this is me and I apologize if I'm not normal but I'm thinking you have a few ladies on this thread echoing my sentiments. Maybe that says something that most men and some women on this thread aren't willing to consider.


 

Come on. No one here is trying to say you aren't normal. But the men who use PUA don't want to be painted in the negative way that you and others seem determined to keep painting them in. Sure, some women don't like PUA or game. Some have husbands who don't identify with that kind of personality. 

Some of us _do_, though. I've been reading this thread to my husband and we've had a blast thinking back on our relationship and realizing the things he's done that counted as game or PUA. We've had a running joke that he's my player and I'm his s!ut, because if he hadn't been a Christian man he would have been a player, and after I met him my sexy side became unleashed. 

So some of us really are fine with game and PUA, it seems that you and others aren't willing to consider _that_, and keep trying to convince us that it's bad, bad bad.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> So some of us really are fine with game and PUA, it seems that you and others aren't willing to consider _that_, and keep trying to convince us that it's bad, bad bad.


Hmmm. I think it's more the claims that it works on every woman and bypassess our rational minds to reach our true biological desires that keeps --well me at least --coming back.

That and being told that I must be damaged goods, useless, unsexy, illogical, and so on, simply because these games are not my thing and don't turn me on.

And then there's the slippage about what game really is. For some it seems to include just about everything you do. Others have narrower definitions, but even still, we're not all exactly consistent in the way that we are using the term. That alone makes for lots of confusion.

But overall, and only speaking for me, i am at peace with the idea that some people absolutely love the same things that I hate. I mean, i can't stand eating liver either, but have never told anyone that they shouldn't enjoy it if that's really how they feel.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> No one has said it works for all women or that all women want it.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure those of us who don't oppose PUA are thinking the same thing.


:iagree:
My point exactly!
I live in the Caribbean, there is no snow here.
Does that equate snow does not exist elsewhere and people don't like this " fictional weather system " called snow?

It truly amazes me that people are unable to grasp a simple concept because of ONE WORD?
lol, so if that word was changed, would it make the concept different?
Is there _really _a difference between six and half a dozen?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> I wouldn't do it with another guy, either. But I also wouldn't go out in public dressed that way. So, to an extent, I'm being someone I'm not by wearing an outfit for my husband that I wouldn't be comfortable wearing out in public.
> 
> Role play, for instance, you're pretending to be someone you're not to enhance the sexual experience. Or even just foreplay. I'm not the initiating type, yet when I initiate I do so in a very seductive, controlling way...when I'm not a controlling kind of woman normally.
> 
> I think _that's_ what CM was saying.


^^Yes it is.
My wife is a very dominant woman. She has her own bank accounts, owns property and her own mind. Sometimes I've bought clothes and shoes for her and if she doesn't like it I would have to take it back to the store and get them exchanged.
She's not the type of person to wear it simply because I like it.
lol!
Her, adopting a submissive persona as part of foreplay turns me on because I know she's not like that, but I don't see it as " fake " or stupid.
I am getting to see her in a way nobody else can see her.
_That is my privilege ,our dirty little secret.....,_
No other man has ever even come close to seeing her like that.They could imagine it, I'm having it and enjoying it.
And just thinking about it turns me on.
She has game.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"That is our dirty little secret....."

Ok, if we are going to call our dirty, naughty, fun, marriage sex games the same as PUA Game....I just don't get how they are "the same" but....GAME ON, I guess.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> "That is our dirty little secret....."
> 
> Ok, if we are going to call our dirty, naughty, fun, marriage sex games the same as PUA Game....I just don't get how they are "the same" but....GAME ON, I guess.


She has game because she turns me on , even after so many years of marriage.
I want to have sex with her, I desire her , not porno girl on the computer screen, or any other woman.
There's no competition.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes CM...I can "hear" that you are very into your wife. And you call that her "game", the thing that she has that makes you so into her.

I mean, I get what you are saying. You are using the word in that way for that purpose.

I never called my husband's sexiness or his X factor that makes me so into him his "game" but I can see it could be called that.

Like others are saying, I guess we are just arguing semantics.


----------



## Topical storm

I think the problem with this particular thread is that the 40 year old and above female audience doesn't understand the comtemporary usage of the word "game" and its application. The younger women seem to get it. I guess the word "game" itself has thrown people into a frenzy where it has been hard to understand how its communicated. A "gamer" is a guy in his tighty whiteys that plays xbox in his mom's basement eating a ham sandwich, not a guy trying to get the affection of a female. The mis communication mostly has to do with age and gender from what I have gathered.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Awesome, thank you for explaining it to us. Now everything is so clear!


----------



## Faithful Wife

(ps...that was sarcasm)


----------



## Catherine602

FrenchFry said:


> Yeah, this has nothing to do with my marriage. Barking up the wrong tree here, thanks for trying.
> 
> 
> 
> This is where it hits the fan for me.
> 
> This wasn't an issue early in our relationship. I was vaguely aware of PUA, being a person who likes clubs I'd definitely experienced the run of it, from the super overt to the more subtle. Didn't really care, it wasn't effecting me as I wasn't looking for any kind of relationship got from a club.
> 
> After I gave birth and had a mild case of PPD, my husband an I were out of sync in a major way. We were talking past each other and arguing way more than normal. I found TAM and MMSL. Read a couple chapters of it, gave it to my husband. His attitude changed a lot. I was confused and really not happy with how he was acting, so I read the rest of MMSL, then read some of the blog. Found Roissy and then the charade came tumbling down.
> 
> Before all of this, he never "negged" me. Now I get the "you're luck your so cute!" "It's super cute when you are wrong," "I do like that dress, but your accessorizing *waves hand*" Stupid crap. He will talk down to me under the guise of "taking command" of a situation. Started to just not tell me where we were eating, knowing I actually have issues with food and trying to surprise me in that manner is actually pretty jarring to me. Started groping me in a manner I really didn't like. I was just as confused and encouraged these actions by having more sex with him.
> 
> Then he stopped doing random acts of kindness. Started saying "I know!" when I said "I love you." Then he stepped over the line from kind of jerkish to outright *******-ism. That, I don't blame on MMSL, but giving him that book absolutely changed his view of me in a way I still am trying to undo. He had no reason to believe that I was not saying what I meant before. Now he does and will frequently do the exact opposite of what I ask and cannot understand why I am upset.
> 
> So, yes. I have told him. We communicate a lot better now because I told him I can't be on this rollercoaster anymore and I do much better when he talks to me like a person instead of just his wife...but it still happens. The "don't listIen to what a woman says" part got into his head and when it rears it's ugly head, I am ****ing MISERABLE. Like now.


Why did you give him the book? 

It this new behavior and not natural to him?

You didnt ask me but I'll butt in anyway. Try giving as much as you get from him and no more. Mirror what he does so he has a chance to see himself. Let him know that instead of asking him you will show him. 

I don't think is a game. It's heading off big problems down the road by showing that he has control over the relationship dynamics as do you. One action gets an immediate reaction so he sees cause and effect. You may come to resent him if he ignores your request for changes. Things can go downhill fast. 

Do you have clear boundaries and reasonable consequences if he crosses them?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Hmmm. I think it's more the claims that it works on every woman and bypassess our rational minds to reach our true biological desires that keeps --well me at least --coming back.


No one has said it works on every single woman. What _has_ been said is that it works on the women _they_ have been interested in. 



> That and being told that I must be damaged goods, useless, unsexy, illogical, and so on, simply because these games are not my thing and don't turn me on.


I haven't seen that at all. 



> And then there's the slippage about what game really is. For some it seems to include just about everything you do. Others have narrower definitions, but even still, we're not all exactly consistent in the way that we are using the term. That alone makes for lots of confusion.


That's because everyone identifies with it differently. They have their own opinions on it. Same as how we all likely have different views on seduction and what all actually counts as such. For some people basic foreplay can be seduction, where for others is can take a more active approach to pursuing the other person. For some people a mere smile can be an aspect of seduction. 

We're all going to approach these things differently because we're all different. Sure, it can be confusing, but it's how these things(human interactions, as Wiser called it) go.



> But overall, and only speaking for me, i am at peace with the idea that some people absolutely love the same things that I hate. I mean, i can't stand eating liver either, but have never told anyone that they shouldn't enjoy it if that's really how they feel.


And if you really aren't on board with the PUA thing, then that's fine. Not every man is going to partake with PUA, so if girls only like that kind of thing those would be SOL.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

always_alone said:


> Hmmm. I think it's more the claims that it works on every woman and bypassess our rational minds to reach our true biological desires that keeps --well me at least --coming back.
> 
> That and being told that I must be damaged goods, useless, unsexy, illogical, and so on, simply because these games are not my thing and don't turn me on.
> 
> And then there's the slippage about what game really is. For some it seems to include just about everything you do. Others have narrower definitions, but even still, we're not all exactly consistent in the way that we are using the term. That alone makes for lots of confusion.
> 
> But overall, and only speaking for me, i am at peace with the idea that some people absolutely love the same things that I hate. I mean, i can't stand eating liver either, but have never told anyone that they shouldn't enjoy it if that's really how they feel.


I think you stated it perfectly. I'm still waiting for Devil's hypothesis since he seems to insist all women want/need/respond to his examples of game in a positive way. I can assure you that much of the tactics he mentioned would leave me wondering if a man using it suffered from arrested development. It would have the opposite effect on me but it works on many women.

That said, there were many things mentioned here that resonated with me. Deejo gave an example of him and his ex that made me smile just hearing it, so I know that would have worked if my husband used it on me. 

FrenchFry mentioned her love of chocolate. She is happy when she has it. Oddly, I am thrilled when I have french fries. Most would say that I am weird in that I don't like chocolate. If my husband came home one night with a box of Godiva, I would wonder if he knew me at all, where as most women would find that to be a highly romantic gesture. Red roses to most women are the most romantic flower they can receive. To me, it is the most painful reminder of a previous boyfriend cheating on me twice. I love sunflowers, yet to many women they view them as weeds. My husband has never bought me red roses but he has bought me sunflowers many, many times and copeous amounts of fries. 

What it really boils down to is that we all have our own comfort and attraction levels. There is no "one size fits all". What works on some doesn't work on others. 

The key within marriage is to find what creates/builds/works on attraction. "Game" within a relationship is about that. Most of the guys here are saying that a book/website/blog isn't the end all be all, nor are they defending the unsavory parts. They are saying that they know their wives and over time have used some elements of PUA and game to enhance their relationship and keep her interested. 

The word inauthentic has been mentioned here. I can see how PUA and game in a bar setting is anything but authentic but within marriage? The men here love their wives and know them very well. They understand what will work on them and what will not. They aren't doing anything out of inauthenticity. These are women they pledged their love and lives to. They comforted them during birth, they held when they were sick, they shared their love with, they would die for. I don't see anything inauthentic in keeping attraction, regardless of what techniques they use. If it works for their wives, isn't that all that matters?


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> She has game because she turns me on , even after so many years of marriage.
> I want to have sex with her, I desire her , not porno girl on the computer screen, or any other woman.
> There's no competition.


Right. Makes total sense. It's knowing what your spouse desires, and altering the way you behave to turn them on in a way that they don't always experience. I'm only guessing, but the same could be said of when a man tries to pick up a girl at a bar; act in a way she may not be familiar with. In other words, stand out, be different. The jerk player is definitely NOT unique, though aspects of his personality may be appealing. But just because a guy has similar personality traits to the jerk, doesn't mean he _is_ a jerk. 

Anyway, I'm just rambling now. lol.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> What it really boils down to is that we all have our own comfort and attraction levels. There is no "one size fits all". What works on some doesn't work on others.
> 
> The key within marriage is to find what creates/builds/works on attraction. "Game" within a relationship is about that. Most of the guys here are saying that a book/website/blog isn't the end all be all, nor are they defending the unsavory parts. They are saying that they know their wives and over time have used some elements of PUA and game to enhance their relationship and keep her interested.


Yes,^^Its that simple.

BTW, My wife absolutely loves chocolate, Guylian seashells to be precise, however it makes her fat, and she gets addicted.
But she also loves yogurt, a special brand of yogurt.

Game for her at the moment is when I bring home a six pack of 
_that particular brand _ of yogurt.
She truly appreciates it


----------



## Created2Write

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I think you stated it perfectly. I'm still waiting for Devil's hypothesis since he seems to insist all women want/need/respond to his examples of game in a positive way. I can assure you that much of the tactics he mentioned would leave me wondering if a man using it suffered from arrested development. It would have the opposite effect on me but it works on many women.


Which is the point. In _his_ experience the women he meets respond positively to the things he does. Why is this so hard to grasp? Perhaps he pursues a specific type of woman? While the things wouldn't work on you, they would work on me. You and I are, obviously, different kinds of women. 



> That said, there were many things mentioned here that resonated with me. Deejo gave an example of him and his ex that made me smile just hearing it, so I know that would have worked if my husband used it on me.
> 
> FrenchFry mentioned her love of chocolate. She is happy when she has it. Oddly, I am thrilled when I have french fries. Most would say that I am weird in that I don't like chocolate. If my husband came home one night with a box of Godiva, I would wonder if he knew me at all, where as most women would find that to be a highly romantic gesture. Red roses to most women are the most romantic flower they can receive. To me, it is the most painful reminder of a previous boyfriend cheating on me twice. I love sunflowers, yet to many women they view them as weeds. My husband has never bought me red roses but he has bought me sunflowers many, many times and copeous amounts of fries.


I'm not a chocolate woman, either. But I loooveeee red roses. They symbolize my husbands love for me, as well as sexual desire. Also, sunflowers _are_ pretty. 



> What it really boils down to is that we all have our own comfort and attraction levels. There is no "one size fits all". What works on some doesn't work on others.
> 
> The key within marriage is to find what creates/builds/works on attraction. "Game" within a relationship is about that. Most of the guys here are saying that a book/website/blog isn't the end all be all, nor are they defending the unsavory parts. They are saying that they know their wives and over time have used some elements of PUA and game to enhance their relationship and keep her interested.


Precisely. 



> The word inauthentic has been mentioned here. I can see how PUA and game in a bar setting is anything but authentic but within marriage? The men here love their wives and know them very well. They understand what will work on them and what will not. They aren't doing anything out of inauthenticity. These are women they pledged their love and lives to. They comforted them during birth, they held when they were sick, they shared their love with, they would die for. I don't see anything inauthentic in keeping attraction, regardless of what techniques they use. If it works for their wives, isn't that all that matters?


Definitely. 

I'd like to add that, while PUA _can_ be inauthentic in the bar scene, it isn't always. IMO it depends on the type of man or woman; they make it inauthentic.


----------



## Catherine602

Deejo said:


> Respectfully, I am very aware of your bias and the reasons why.
> 
> I don't ever expect you to 'like' this line of discussion.
> 
> To my knowledge, my colleague is never trying to seduce any of the women he interacts with. Certainly never that I have seen.
> Manipulation? Maybe.
> All I'm saying is that I have watched this guy go from 'strange man' to personal connection on multiple ooccasions. Hell he did it to me the first time I met him 4 years ago. He knew every detail of my marriage tanking after our first dinner.
> 
> To me, the dark side of this stuff is creating a false sense of comfort and safety. That is about using someone rather than looking to share or build something with them.
> 
> And in the case where the woman isn't looking to share or build anything either, then it really isn't manipulation is it? There are women who want casual sex, men have acknowledged that and so have a number of the women participating here. Its unlikely that she is going to go home with the guy that walks up to her and says "Wanna go have sex?"
> For a woman this may be a different story. Unless you are like my gf's friend, and actually have done this.
> 
> Thus ... game.
> 
> Whether we call it courting or gaming or manipulation I don't much care.
> 
> The aspects of it that I am interested in are about fostering attraction. I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.


Good call! I didn't realize it myself. You are absolutely right this thread is triggering me in so many ways. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> Good call! I didn't realize it myself. You are absolutely right this thread is triggering me in so many ways. I need to get off.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I was just getting accustomed to your perspective here. I don't agree with everything , but a lot of what you said , I agree.
Please stay?


----------



## Catherine602

Caribbean Man said:


> I was just getting accustomed to your perspective here. I don't agree with everything , but a lot of what you said , I agree.
> Please stay?


I am not giving responses to what people are saying but what I interpret they are saying. Get's the misinterpreted person annoyed and rightfully so. It is biased based on my unpleasant experiences, as Deejo said.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Catherine602 said:


> I am not giving responses to what people are saying but what I interpret they are saying. Get's the misinterpreted person annoyed and rightfully so. It is biased based on my unpleasant experiences, as Deejo said.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yes and No, in that order.
Everyone speaks from their own experiences.
Whatever unpleasant experiences you've had,has made you into what you are today, and I genuinely think you are a brilliant woman.
I'm sure you know exactly how to navigate your way through your perception of what is being said and what is actually being said.

Just don't let things exceed the * critical mass *


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Catherine602 said:


> I am not giving responses to what people are saying but what I interpret they are saying. Get's the misinterpreted person annoyed and rightfully so. It is biased based on my unpleasant experiences, as Deejo said.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's how I am with the porn threads. It triggers me too much that I avoid them now. I do think I should go back to them however to answer some questions but as you said, experience makes certain topics very painful. 

Your input here is very valuable and as CM said, you're an incredibly smart lady. We are the sum of our experiences. What comes with it is the ability to let others understand a different point of view.


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> I missed your post before.
> 
> I think that what you want me to do is associate a set of behaviors I dislike that are regularly applauded and upheld on the board and in every day interactions between men and women because they can cross over and be part of a healthy, satisfying relationship.
> 
> Although I agree they can cross over, I will not agree that they are OK to be used in any way that is meant to get an individual what they want or to generalize in a manner that says all women fall for it, all women want it, etc.
> 
> This is semantics, but for me, the semantics matter.
> 
> It'd be great if this could be understood so that I don't have to keep retyping it in 50 different ways.


I just said all that women are different and are attracted to different things. What did i say all women fall for? And now it's wrong to want someone? You see anything a man says as a generalization about women. You don't have to type it anymore. You are a intelligent and articulate person. So I keep assuming that your post won't always be bias and defensive. Your response is not directed at me personally but a mentality that some men have that I myself do not associate with. I'm not some secret member of some dark society of men whose cover you have to blow. Don't worry I won't be addressing you anymore in this thread. Your wish has come true.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Holland

Game= 

*desperate, low EQ men seeking desperate low IQ women.* 

Nothing wrong with that scenario except if either the man or women think it is going to magically translate into a quality LTR.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls: "This is a huge tangent. You remember the sunshine. Great. Go argue with my English professors, because I don't care enough about this hill to die on it. I was just glowing over CMs post."
> 
> I know, I get it, and I enjoy your stories. But when I share one, you dismiss it, like you just did in the above quote. Why can't I share, too without getting dismissed? This is why I feel you think you already know everything you need to know.


I apologize. That was not my intent. I often think compartmentally (or silos), and when a reply doesn't fit into the compartment/silo I was rambling about I realize that I do tend to dismiss. I was probably a little iritated already by having been called a loser repeatedly by wiserforit.

I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion now. Holland's post above clearly indicates that I'm just talking to myself. This is simply too wide a gap to bridge. You can't reach someone who doesn't want to be reached. I joined this discussion to explain the underlying pyschology behind game and the practical applications, not be insulted again and again.

I'll have to break the bad news to my girlfriend that we can't have a quality LTR and that we're stupid to boot.


----------



## Created2Write

Holland said:


> Game=
> 
> *desperate, low EQ men seeking desperate low IQ women.*
> 
> Nothing wrong with that scenario except if either the man or women think it is going to magically translate into a quality LTR.


....Not quite. At least, not in all situations. My husband has a high EQ, and I don't think I'm a total dunce, _and_ we have a LTR so...


----------



## TiggyBlue

FalconKing said:


> I'm not some secret member of some dark society of men whose cover you have to blow.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Damn that would have made a epic thread.


----------



## tacoma

TiggyBlue said:


> Damn that would have made a epic thread.


I know, that's why I keep lurking this thread.

I just know the misogynist illuminati are going to be exposed right here any minute now!!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I'm waiting for Devils hypothesis. It's either going to be really awesome or the April Fool's joke nobody has played on me yet.


Nah, its not awesome or April fools, just looking for additional details to associate. Namely, I don't pursue women older than 35, so I can't speak to success there. I do have success with women of all different types below 35. I might shade more toward one thing versus another based on cues I pick up and the details I observe, but its all the same psychology.

It works on single women, married women, women with kids, homemakers, professional women, artsy women, athletic women, intellectual women, socialite women, conservative women, liberal women... the only thing I might be missing is age.

My oldest close guy friend is 40, and has been dating a woman 14 years younger than him for the past several years. We've had more than one conversation about how crazy we think women are as far as dating goes and how counterintuitive some of what works on them is.

My not so grand theory is simply that "game" may lose effectiveness as a woman ages beyond child bearing / mate selection years; the whole point of game is to work in cooperation with a woman's natural mating psychology. If she's past those years, perhaps that pyschology also changes. The way I flirt with older women (which I do because I think it makes them feel good - they certainly glow a bit afterwards, not because I want to sleep with them) is certainly different than the way I flirt with young women. Sorry to disappoint, but hey, maybe that's an alternative "out" for those offended by game rather than declaring other women too young, naive and/or stupid.


----------



## Deejo

You know what? I've changed my mind.

I don't think I use game at all.

All this time I was just restraining my inner awesomeness.

I am just naturally charming and alluring, with an extraordinarily high EQ. Doesn't hurt that I'm packing an armadillo in my trousers and I make huge bank.

And now ... my awesomeness is just out there.

Yeah ... I like that.

It sounds and feels much more authentic then being an average joe whose marriage crashed and burned, and was looking for input and feedback to relate to women and prevent attraction collapse in the future with other partners.

Awesomeness ... get some.

Wait ... is being awesome misogynistic?


----------



## Deejo

Dammit, I think i just peac0cked ...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> Warm and fuzzy thoughts? GMAFB.
> ---
> 
> Parris Island or San Diego?


Parris Island.

Yep, misread you. Carry on.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Wiserforit said:


> The "I was hit on by the hottest woman in the world" post?
> 
> Quite telling that your big story isn't about your wife/girlfriend. And that's the case with PUA groupies - you don't see them posting pictures of their wives and girlfriends despite the whole thing being so relentlessly focused on "pulling 9's and 10's".


Well, since you've called me out, I'll try to get on tonight and post some pics for you. Gotta make a couple calls first. Would that make you feel better?

FaithfulWife... would that be bragging?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I think wiserforit was actually talking to CM in that post you quoted. But hey as far as pictures, etc...what do I know? 

I'm old, can't see, can't hear, don't understand "game", am beyond child bearing years (not literally but I'm done)....therefore, I shall be here creaking in my rocking chair and reading along...but I don't understand a word you are saying.


----------



## FalconKing

Catherine602 said:


> I am not giving responses to what people are saying but what I interpret they are saying. Get's the misinterpreted person annoyed and rightfully so. It is biased based on my unpleasant experiences, as Deejo said.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I can't believe you said that. There is so much of that going on in this thread. Perhaps you are down on yourself but you are the first poster to see this in yourself and realize that this topic has that effect on you. And to be honest, you haven't really been hostile or dismissive when people gave opinions different from your own. I understand why you would want to be away from this thread. That was just so real.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> That is all.


I'm not awesome?

All that and I'm still not jaded. Seriously.

I'm good with where I'm at and how I conduct myself.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Trenton I just noticed your sig line....um....would that work, or...?

Curious.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I know, me either...just was curious. Can a vag drink? Oh well, it is for another thread.


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> You're taking my posts too personally I think...
> 
> I really don't see _anything_ a man says as equal to automatic generalizations about women although you think I do. I see the literature we're discussing in this thread as making generalizations about how _all _women think and I find that to be the issue. It's certainly not a personal reflection about what I think about you. There is a stark difference between the two.


Why would you quote my post and stand against something I wasn't even talking about or defending if you know I personally wasn't saying that?



> In your post to me above you are speaking for me and unfortunately you're not even close...defensive? Dark society of men? Cover blown? Wishes being granted?


 You said you are tired of typing the same thing over and over again. If you are so tired then you didn't have to respond. And point of my post was that all women are different. Why would you use that as a sounding board to talk about how women are generalized. How would you interpret someone doing that?



> Very dramatic but nonetheless wrong on all counts and it is always your choice as to whether or not you address me in any thread, so although I appreciate the announcement, it wasn't necessary.


 You are not trying to understand me nor do you have any interest in any type of common ground. I don't appreciate being associated with something I am don't stand for. 

I'm sure you feel the same way.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> So yeah let's stop calling it games and call it seduction. How is this bad? Sigh.


Ha, the PUA community on reddit, is called seddit... reddit.com/r/*seduction*

Let's see what evil lurks there right now shall we...

Latest 5 posts titles:

"I don't know if I should tell this girl I'm in love with her..."
"Looking for a bit of advice from Reddit" (guy meets girl, doesn't know what to do/say now)
"If you can learn how to do this... you will get women" (funny youtube video about card kiss magic trick)
"When women wanted sex much more than men and how the sterotype flipped" (article being shared)
"I just want someone to talk to me, dammit"

This stuff isn't evil or manipulation. Its mostly just young guys feeling their way around how to get a girl. They trade advice, they share what works, what didn't, and talk about why. Hell, I'd bet 60% them just want a girlfriend. Honestly, I was never as unfortunate as a lot of guys there, I somehow managed to have a few girlfriends by accident. Still, if you run through it, you see a lot of guys just wanting a girl... relationships, sex, numbers, whatever... they just want to get the girl, and they don't know how. Lying is outright frowned upon. Too many here have a picture of a guy lying left and right to get into a woman's pants only to leave her heartbroken and discarded the next morning. I honestly don't know anyone who does this. Do these guys want to have sex? I think that's a safe bet... newsflash, guys want to have sex. But nobody is lying and deceiving to get it.

The fact that everyone gets so bogged down by the terms shows a level of superficial discomfort and lack of understanding or acceptance of the psychology behind attraction... and frankly, I'm just tired of trying to get it across. So whatever folks want to think about it... so be it. 

As I've said before in many threads now, people hate being pegged and predicted and women in particular resent the idea that there is ANY sort of formula. They will cling feverishly to the idea that there is not. I've been down this debate road before, and if you keep breaking it down, you ultimately arrive in religious territory talking about free will vs the illusion of free will. Even if you do carry the day, its with sheer disappointment: The artist lamenting lost wonder at the hands of the scientist explaining the mechanics of the formerly magical.

This is my last post in this thread unless I come back to post pictures for wiserforit to wank to.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This stuff isn't evil or manipulation. Its mostly just young guys feeling their way around how to get a girl. They trade advice, they share what works, what didn't, and talk about why. Hell, I'd bet 60% them just want a girlfriend. Honestly, I was never as unfortunate as a lot of guys there, I somehow managed to have a few girlfriends by accident. Still, if you run through it, you see a lot of guys just wanting a girl... relationships, sex, numbers, whatever... they just want to get the girl, and they don't know how. Lying is outright frowned upon. Too many here have a picture of a guy lying left and right to get into a woman's pants only to leave her heartbroken and discarded the next morning. I honestly don't know anyone who does this. Do these guys want to have sex? I think that's a safe bet... newsflash, guys want to have sex. But nobody is lying and deceiving to get it.
> 
> The fact that everyone gets so bogged down by the terms shows a level of superficial discomfort and lack of understanding or acceptance of the psychology behind attraction... and frankly, I'm just tired of trying to get it across. So whatever folks want to think about it... so be it.
> 
> As I've said before in many threads now, people hate being pegged and predicted and women in particular resent the idea that there is ANY sort of formula. They will cling feverishly to the idea that there is not. I've been down this debate road before, and if you keep breaking it down, you ultimately arrive in religious territory talking about free will vs the illusion of free will. Even if you do carry the day, its with sheer disappointment: The artist lamenting lost wonder at the hands of the scientist explaining the mechanics of the formerly magical.
> 
> This is my last post in this thread unless I come back to post pictures for wiserforit to wank to.



I know I shouldn't respond. I swore to myself that I wouldn't say any more. But I can't help myself. Just two more thoughts:

1) Some women (and by his I mean me) have this picture of game as guys lying to them and dumping them because we have seen it before. All of my pictures of game come from either attempts to game me directly or from friends of mine who have shared their own stories, plus the few things I have read on the topic. This experience is limited, and clearly does not encompass all that is being talked about on this thread. One thing I've learned from the past 100 pages is that for many "game" is just doing their best for themselves and the ones they love --or want to love. Nonetheless, my experiences are also real, and there is a ton of deceit and manipulation going on. And I know that you know this because we've chatted about it in a different thread.

2) Women are not pissed off that there is a formula. They are trying to tell you that there is no formula. The "laws" of attraction are not laws, but stereotypes. It's great that they work for you and make you happy. But if you really had a formula, you wouldn't experience rejection or cold shoulders ever. Don't mistake the fact that you have choices with the illusion that you can "pull" every woman with your tactics. Some are just not going to want to play that game. Does it matter? Probably not to you. But it might to that woman.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> I know, that's why I keep lurking this thread.
> 
> I just know the misogynist illuminati are going to be exposed right here any minute now!!


Are you trying to set me up and blow my cover?

What?
You were refering to DvlsAdvc8?
Ok I get it,
Proceed!:rofl:


----------



## Entropy3000

tacoma said:


> I know, that's why I keep lurking this thread.
> 
> I just know the misogynist illuminati are going to be exposed right here any minute now!!


Why does this make me think of Eyes Wide Shut ....


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> The "laws" of attraction are not laws, but stereotypes. It's great that they work for you and make you happy. But if you really had a formula, you wouldn't experience rejection or cold shoulders ever.


Let me explain this to you.
There are basic laws that govern business. It doesn't mean that every business that follows these laws will succeed.Indeed, a great many business do follow these laws and still fail.
Even though there are laws, the market is subject to its own inertia, and the vagaries associated with it .

Even if all the laws of attraction were based on stereotypes , these stereotypes are based on what?
They are most likely based on a trend.
Because they are based on a trend, then logically, it can be concluded that a law governs this trend, hence the so called 
" laws of attraction."
Doesn't mean if a person follows these laws that they will be 100% successful al the time.
They simply give the thinking observer a bird's eye view of how these things _usually_ operate.

Each person is unique, it goes without saying.
However we are also social beings who like to be understood and appreciated , hence we hang out with others and in groups. Groups have unofficial codes of conduct , and people tend to adhere to them in order sync with the group.
Based on that type of socialization, it is quite possible to predict certain types of behaviours.
So the laws of attraction will work, up to a certain point X.
However if a young man has absolutely no clue on the basics of how they work,it would mean that he lacks basic social skills.
He doesn't stand a snowball chance in hell of even reaching that point X, of discovering a woman's uniqueness.

Hence it makes sense he first acquaints himself with such social skills.


----------



## Caribbean Man

My personal favourite...










"..._No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there's too much fraternizing with the enemy_..."
Henry.A. Kissinger


----------



## tacoma

Trenton said:


> Why do I get the feeling that some are purposely pretending that women fear the lurking misogynists in order to invalidate very valid thoughts?
> 
> Don't worry. I have my own book that I read....hooohahahaha


I was just kidding about the misogynist illuminati.
Not trying to invalidate anything.

Really


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Interesting choice...masked objectification of women by lust and sex even.
> 
> The Misogynist
> 
> Read part of the series of books in World Literature. What I found, when given complete information, well...not too pretty.
> 
> But I know! Let's pretend that didn't happen or that it doesn't matter and continue to project onto women while pretending to know women, what they want and why they want it!
> 
> Great idea!


Opening paragraph, "The Misogynist Toolkit ?"

".....IT WAS late evening and the front lawn at the Jaipur Literature Festival was packed. ‘Reimagining the Kamasutra’ had come to a choice between two points of view: is the Kama Sutra a philosophical treatise teaching men that pleasure is an exchange between equals, or is it responsible for rape?..."
Author: Nistha Jha.
Readers comments:

*Ruth Vanita · Miranda House, Delhi University*
"...You need to read the Kamasutra in the original and in full, before writing it off in this simplistic fashion. If you can't read Sanskrit, read a good translation, like that by Alain Danielou. Quoting lines out of context has the same effect as we have recently witnessed in another unfortunate episode at the JLF. The KS is aware of consensual violence or what is today called S-M as a mutual and reciprocal part of love-making....."


*Bruno Albert · University college, Thiruvananthapuram*
The Art of Making Love to a Woman is wonderful but ultimately it is only relief. Love gives greatest happiness in life and Rathi is just pleasure making which one enjoy aesthetically once there is love.

*Kr Indira*
To read Kamasutra in original ie:in samskritham please visit www.brandbihar.com/hindiliterature.
.........................................................................................

Sometimes Trenton,
Its better to fully study a book in order to get what its saying,the context and era in which it was written before coming to a conclusion. We all have our confirmatory biases, but these biases are able to withstand scrutiny, when they are based on something credible.
I have read the FULL Kama Sutra and other works by Vatsayana
Have you?
Do you have any idea of what is Hinduism ?
Do you know that the Hindu concept of sex is radically different from that of the West? 
Do you know who or what is at the centre of that concept?
Have you ever explored Hindu culture?
If you have not read the entire books, yes the Kama Sutra is actually VOLUMES, then how can you accurately comment?

"....*Contrary to popular perception, especially in the western world, Kama sutra is not just an exclusive sex manual;** it presents itself as a guide to a virtuous and gracious living that discusses the nature of love, family life and other aspects pertaining to pleasure oriented faculties of human life*...."
Kama Sutra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

* sigh *


----------



## tacoma

Ok, you guys really gotta stop this.

Now there is yet another PUA thread just opened.

This is worse than porn.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Holland said:


> Game=
> 
> *desperate, low EQ men seeking desperate low IQ women.*
> 
> Nothing wrong with that scenario except if either the man or women think it is going to magically translate into a quality LTR.


I've been giving "game" a bit of thought and I realized I was gamed by my husband many, many years ago. After I had gotten out of a horribly abusive relationship, wanting nothing to do with men ever again and moved back home, my (now) husband showed up at my front door. He came bearing sunflowers and I opened it in a bathrobe. He said "You and I are going out on a date. Dinner reservations are at 7. Wear something different than what you have on, or don't, I like the access." I got dolled up and we had a fantastic time. We had sex that night, I [email protected] him in to yesterday and have been married for 20 years this October. 
My IQ is 138. Hardly stupid. He is a member of Mensa with an IQ of 163. His EQ hasn't suffered either, clearly.


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> Falcon, we are having a major lack of communication. I really don't want to and if you don't want to why don't we start over. I will admit I am not understanding you but I do want to.


Ok.



> I do not think there is anything wrong with wanting to find a forever love and looking for guidance to do so.


Alright.



> I do think there is something wrong with literature that presumes that all women are the same and what will work for one, will work for all.


 There are many types of books that talk about dating and meeting women. Some books describe different types of women and women to watch out for. Is that steal offensive?



> I do not think that all men that learn from the literature we're discussing are misogynists.


 I don't really feel like you are interested in hearing the men out though. 



> I do think that some of the authors, who may not hate women, look at women as toys to be played and toyed with at their bidding. I don't like this. I wouldn't like it if it were reversed and there is absolutely literature out there targeted to women where it is reversed.


 I honestly feel like you see this a lot more than I do. Because I don't always agree that it's there in certain writings. I think any type of writing pointing out negative behavior some women may lean you towards feeling this way. 



> do not have anything against seduction and being funny or clever as long as the intention is not to use or harm a person. This is not gender specific for me.


 I've said as much but I think even has been given rebuttal. 



> I do think that women and men who are honest and vulnerable are the most likely to find a person who truly loves them.


 I disagree. I think it's more about compatibility in the beginning and vulnerability comes later. I think you can't be vulnerable to everyone because some people will hurt you. Especially when dealing with constant rejection. 



> I think often those who have not found "the one" yet are willing to try out new things to try to find "the one". My thought is that perhaps they're not looking at it correctly and what they're doing is actually working against what they actually want rather than for it.


. That happens. But what also happens is that some people have really high standards. And they won't compromise. This can lead to extended periods of being single. 



> If we were all more honest and more vulnerable with one another, we'd attract those who accept us rather than those we don't really know what they're thinking anyway.


. I agree with the honesty but not the vulnerability. 



> Yes, I am biased and I clearly chronicled in detail why I have that bias.


 I know. But I feel like i'm already fighting an uphill battle and sometimes you don't want to see things from both sides. That's your right. But I guess there are negatives you attach to what I say that I feel are unfair to me. 



> No, I do not think all men who read the literature we're discussing are bad men who hate women.
> It would help me to think about it and understand why you are finding my posts to be so wrong.


I guess I see no interest in seeing my perspective in some responses to my post


----------



## Caribbean Man

FalconKing said:


> I think it's more about compatibility in the beginning and vulnerability comes later. I think you can't be vulnerable to everyone because some people will hurt you. Especially when dealing with constant rejection.


:iagree:x100 %
We are the sum total of our life's experiences,not everyone could handle constant rejection and still make themselves vulnerable .
A lot of times , innocent people are made to suffer because someone took advantage of someone else's vulnerability.

Quite a lot of times people get confused. They make themselves vulnerable ,thinking that the other person is supposed to recognize and appreciate them ,when really , no such rule exist.
That's why I say that the way people love is in many ways selfish.
I love you because I want you to love me in return.
Nothing is wrong with that.
Problems come in when the person expecting the love in return does not get as much as they expected. They are disappointed and wrapped up in their own feelings. 
But is the person the so willingly and freely bestowed their love upon , bound by any law or contract to return it?
The answer is no.

IMO, if people who are interested in finding real love just take the time to cultivate genuine relationships based on mutual respect , compatibility and good values , then the chances of disappointment , hurt and rejection are greatly reduced.
And even if disappointment comes , there is still mutual respect and a good level of understanding.
Making yourself vulnerable to anyone without some measure of mutual respect and comparability ,is only setting yourself up for rejection and disappointment.
We live in a world where people are generally dishonest about themselves and their feelings.


----------



## Deejo

My dating strategy when younger was to go the vulnerable route. If I knew I cared about her, I opened up.

I suppose this can be chalked up as anecdotal as well, but its no less true ...

It worked once. With my very first girlfriend. So I made it my default setting.
The results after that relationship were horrible. Many/most young women simply didn't know what to do with it. To them it looked awkward and unattractive. Being respectful, sweet, open, vulnerable and presuming to let them dictate the pace of the relationship _made them uncomfortable and run for the door_

You don't lead with vulnerability. You lead with attraction. Attraction wins her mind and limbic system. Vulnerability wins her heart and her love over the long term.

I think the flaw to the model you want to see in play is that you presume all/most women are only looking for LTR's.

I'm telling you outright, that simply isn't true.

I was in an extraordinarily passionate whirlwind romance last summer. The moment I told her I was developing strong feelings for her, she was out. 

I have had several short term, passionate relationships ... you know the details of the BPD woman.

I think sometimes women want that whirlwind of passion but may realize they don't want a LTR.

My giving them what they want, certainly doesn't make me a selfish, manipulative, bastard.

It makes us adults.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> My dating strategy when younger was to go the vulnerable route. If I knew I cared about her, I opened up.
> 
> I suppose this can be chalked up as anecdotal as well, but its no less true ...
> 
> It worked once. With my very first girlfriend. So I made it my default setting.
> The results after that relationship were horrible. Many/most young women simply didn't know what to do with it. To them it looked awkward and unattractive. Being respectful, sweet, open, vulnerable and presuming to let them dictate the pace of the relationship _made them uncomfortable and run for the door_
> 
> You don't lead with vulnerability. You lead with attraction. Attraction wins her mind and limbic system. Vulnerability wins her heart and her love over the long term.
> 
> I think the flaw to the model you want to see in play is that you presume all/most women are only looking for LTR's.
> 
> I'm telling you outright, that simply isn't true.
> 
> I was in an extraordinarily passionate whirlwind romance last summer. The moment I told her I was developing strong feelings for her, she was out.
> 
> I have had several short term, passionate relationships ... you know the details of the BPD woman.
> 
> I think sometimes women want that whirlwind of passion but may realize they don't want a LTR.
> 
> My giving them what they want, certainly doesn't make me a selfish, manipulative, bastard.
> 
> It makes us adults.


I presume you are addressing my post since it came after mine. I may be wrong.
Haha.

But seriously, I think we are both saying the same thing.
The first time I ever really fell in love with a woman was a complete disaster. Sex came first, second and last. For her, all she wanted was sex, and me , I equated sex with vulnerability and love.
I was badly deceived, she said she loved me in the most passionate way, and I believed. 
I made myself vulnerable , but she was engaged to another man.
That made me feel like a sex toy.
But after careful analysis,I realized that she controlled the relationship from day one.
She NEVER wanted a LTR with me.
She just wanted sex.
Nothing wrong with that, but she was already engaged. However even if she wasn't engaged , the dynamic would not have been different.She just wanted sex with me. I wasn't her ideal for a LTR, because I was much younger than her.

You are correct ,in your assumptions about attraction and vulnerability. Vulnerability does not create the level of attraction necessary in most women to sustain a LTR.

A certain amount of confidence is what does it. She's looking for a man in control of his emotions but willing to take the risk, not a boy filled with romantic love songs and dreams.

But I have an idea.
As controversial as it may look, I think most people, both male and female actually want the safety of a LTR.
What happens is this;

They either put the sex first and then look forward to the LTR as the " icing on the cake " like in my story above.

Or, they put the groundwork ,relationship and compatibility, first and then the sex become the " icing on the cake."

But whichever one it is, it all boils down to compatibility.
Women especially, should not put sex first if they know they cannot handle the potential fallouts if their expectations of a relationship are not met.
They should first be honest with themselves.
The man _knows_ he wants sex, that's why he's after her.
So if their initial expectations are not matched, how can there be any compatibility?
The guy who's picking them up knows he just wants sex. If she is game for that , then there is no love lost.
There were never any expectations.
They should be truthful about their expectations.
They want just sex, then no problem.
They hope that this sexual encounter will possibly lead to more intimate interactions, then no problem, the onus is now on the guy to say yes, we are on the same level or no baby, just sex.

In the end,
We are all consenting , adults.
There is no real difference between the PUA and the woman who is only interested in sex.
The difference comes when there is no compatibility whatsoever, whether its for just sex or a LTR.
It cannot work and people get hurt.


----------



## Deejo

Should have quoted, I was responding to Trenton and her thoughts about vulnerability and relationships.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Should have quoted, I was responding to Trenton and her thoughts about vulnerability and relationships.


Ok,
I thought so,
But your analysis makes for some interesting , mature , objective discussion.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Oh, and I should add, that I recognize I was never interested in short-term relationships which is why my focus is so much on the long-term. This is leading to a disconnect. I'm a rather forever friend/lover type of person. I enjoy and like to maintain connections I make with others.
> 
> So, on that front, I can't relate.


Trenton,
Let me ask you a simple question.

Do you think that all women who have sex with men are interested in finding love in LTR's with these men?
If a woman had sex on the first date or with a man she just met and found out he was a douche ,or not really " her type", but he was definitely interested in having a relationship with her,
What should she honestly do ?
Should she stay with him because he wants her to?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Here ya go wiser... I got three to let me post pics.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

...


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

This girl sent me another one last night when I asked if she minded me posting a couple pics. I can't post the new one without breaking some forum rules. Maybe I could add some black bars.

These below are of the same girl, she changed her hair over the time I dated her.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> This girl sent me another one last night when I asked if she minded me posting a couple pics. I can't post the new one without breaking some forum rules. Maybe I could add some black bars.


Pentagram?


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM said: "So if their initial expectations are not matched, how can there be any compatibility?
The guy who's picking them up knows he just wants sex. If she is game for that , then there is no love lost.
There were never any expectations.
They should be truthful about their expectations.
They want just sex, then no problem.
They hope that this sexual encounter will possibly lead to more intimate interactions, then no problem, the onus is now on the guy to say yes, we are on the same level or no baby, just sex." (end quote)

When I was much younger, my friends and I had a hard time really "knowing" what we really wanted. But that only lasted into our early 30's and then the understanding and maturity needed to really "know what we wanted" kicked into play.

After that point, I knew if I just wanted a sexual relationship or if I wanted less or more than that. I knew when I was open to an LTR and when I wasn't. Knowing these things about yourself, ("dating goals", as they are called in some circles), helps a person know how to behave and react to others in the dating world.

No one really ever needed to "game" me (in the "pick up" sense of the word) because if I was open for a throw down, I made it clear. I didn't need to be teased and coerced into wanting a sexual relationship. OTOH, if I wanted to date seriously (looking for a boyfriend or partner) I could easily spot the men who were looking for the same, versus the ones who wanted possible casual sex. 

I never looked at any of these men as higher or lower than each other, knowing that their dating goals changed at different times in their lives, too. So a man who tonight is just trying to get into my pants, may in a year or a month from now be looking for a wife. Goals and intentions change throughout our lives.

My husband was looking for a partner when he met me. He had had his fill of less committed relationships, had sewn his oats, and wanted a deeper connection, where he could be vulnerable together with someone. I wasn't looking for that when I met him, but I was open to it *IF* it was The Real Thing. So I was ok with being vulnerable if I felt it was appropriate. Or I was ok with just dating, too.

He said that the night we met (in a crowded room), God whispered in his ear "look over there" and then he saw me walk in. He said he was zapped with electricity at the sight of me. He said he "knew" something, which now he knows what he knew but at the time he wasn't sure what he was knowing. He deliberately made sure we were in each other's path so he could talk to me. He approached me like a perfect gentleman and made conversation with me, without "hitting" on me in any way. We ended up talking about about 40 minutes. The whole time he was very polite, and I wasn't even sure he was single. He was actually finding out small things about me, things to help him decide if he even wanted to ask me out or not BEFORE he "made any moves". I had to meet a few criteria in order to even be worthy of a date with him. Even though he "knew" something and God himself apparently told him to check me out, he still has very high standards for who he would pursue romantically.

He already knew that if his goal was casual relationships or sex, he could have approached me that way. But he did not. Sex (in his life anyway) is actually the easy part of relationships. Common values and real compatibility are the hard part. 

After the first meeting, he dated and courted me properly for months. He never pushed for sex, as I said, he knows that is the easy part. Instead he got to know me, to find out if I was worthy of his hand.

I should say though that the mutual physical attraction was easy and obvious between us. Without that, it wouldn't have gone anywhere.

He was almost 40 and I was 36. We are now 50 and 46. Meeting and courting and the early sexual stuff was WONDERFUL and so full of happy good times. Then came the difficult part....learning to LIVE together and communicate! I wish there was GAME to help us with that part of it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls....dammit, you are a total cutie. DUH. No wonder you are pulling hotties. Game? Look in the mirror! Its YOU, dude!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Don't have a lot of "couple" pics. I'll dig around for some more if you're not satisfied and still have lotion left. Or hey, maybe ask them to send me pics with my name written on their chest... would that be proof?

There's probably no proof you'll accept. I did date all three though... they weren't one night stands, but the latter two did get with me the night I met them, while the first one I just got her number and set a date. That date ended at my place too.

Not too shabby for a 35 y/o bald loser with a low IQ. I doubt they were into me for my smashing good looks.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Pentagram?


She's pagan.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls....dammit, you are a total cutie. DUH. No wonder you are pulling hotties. Game? Look in the mirror! Its YOU, dude!


If only it were that easy. I would have saved myself a lot of time and embarrassment. 

I don't down my looks, I know I'm decent... but no, looks don't get it... at least not at my level of looks.


----------



## TiggyBlue

To be honest DvlsAdvc8 I wouldn't really say they're better looking than you (just my opinion) , I'm not sure 'negging' had as much as a input on your pulling success as you imagine.


----------



## Deejo

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> She's pagan.


Pagans are hot ...

I think it's hilarious that you posted the pics. But we also know they won't change anyone's mind a whit.

But now the ladies know what you look like ... well played.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> To be honest DvlsAdvc8 I wouldn't really say they're better looking than you (just my opinion) .


Well thank you! You're too sweet. 

Really though, these aren't the girls who give me the eyes from across the room. These are the ones who, if not for "game"... I would NOT have been able to go out with.

And just fyi... the first girl, is possibly the smartest person I've ever met; much smarter than me for sure. The middle girl is, imo, the most beautiful girl I've ever met. Just dropdead gorgeous. Even when I see her today I'm all cool on the outside but inside I'm seriously goo goo ga ga-ing. She's also smart and classy... she's a junior pre-law student.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Deejo said:


> Pagans are hot ...
> 
> I think it's hilarious that you posted the pics. But we also know they won't change anyone's mind a whit.
> 
> But now the ladies know what you look like ... well played.


Not to mention I have my preselection game going on. 

haha jk

Hey, I'm hoping he demands my name written on their bellies or something. THAT will be fun to explain. lol


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls...c'mon. You are cute, and that's that. We gals are telling you this and seriously, the girls pics you are posting are just normally beautiful girls the same that you are a normally beautiful man. Get real with yourself and see it!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife,

I fully appreciate your honesty and understand your perspective.

Different people have different dating goals at different periods in their life...
What a brilliant way to put it!
I truly appreciate that.

I firmly believe that the problems in dating comes because people are not honest with themselves and with each other. 

People have emotional baggage, we all do.
My wife did.
She was almost raped when she was a teenager, that's why she was a 26 year old virgin. 
[ Took me long to get that out from her..]
She had sworn off men for her personal reasons.
I , much like your husband was just tired of running around in circles hoping for love , but just settling for sex. Not that the sex was bad, but I felt deep inside there was something more that I was missing because the sex came very easy.
Yes, sex is the easy part, but building a lasting relationship is 
H-A-R-D work.
I was a high risk candidate for heartbreak and everyone told her that.
But really deep down inside I was somebody who was badly burned before , just like her and looking for real love.
We all have our emotional baggage....

There is a reason some men are in the pick up game.
There is a reason some women don't mind.
Lets be honest.
And we are all adults.



PS, 
Yes there is game for married life , and the problems _can_ be fixed.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls...c'mon. You are cute, and that's that. We gals are telling you this and seriously, the girls pics you are posting are just normally beautiful girls the same that you are a normally beautiful man. Get real with yourself and see it!


I think maybe the point your missing from Dvl's perspective, is the one that I'm trying to make. I won't speak for him, so I'll just relate from my position.
The woman whom I hope is my GF again ... after we meet tomorrow night to talk?

Ten years ago, I would have seen her and never even thought to approach her. Or ... in the online dating world, never would have sent a hello. I thought she was out of my league.

I really don't think in those terms anymore. Learning about game is the reason why. It helped me.

I don't use all of it. But the parts I do? Helped me be more ... me. And a hell of a lot more successful with women.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Pagans are hot ...
> 
> .


I " dated " a pagan once....
Wasn't my style.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thanks CM and you said "Yes there is game for married life , and the problems can be fixed."

We found the ways to fix our various communication problems. It was freaking HARD but we did it. Now we're just rolling along, playing the "game", the fun parts.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, Deejo, I get it. I don't mean to downplay his point, either. I do though think he is very cute and just wanted to say so. But I understand if you are cute but too shy (or whatever other "holdback") to approach a woman, your cuteness doesn't matter. I get that part.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls...c'mon. You are cute, and that's that. We gals are telling you this and seriously, the girls pics you are posting are just normally beautiful girls the same that you are a normally beautiful man. Get real with yourself and see it!


Hey, I'm good with my looks... not downing myself at all; I'm just saying that personality goes WAY farther than my looks. Who knows, maybe one of these girls would have found me attractive on looks alone... but the way I used to be, I wouldn't have had enough time to become comfortable enough to show much personality. I was the guy who never knew what to say and was "too nice".

It took a lot of work to overcome my natural introverted self and become a socialite. Learning and more importantly practicing pickup was a very relevant part of that process for me. Even more important than any single technique, was the overall AWARENESS of what was really going on here - Why some of these counterintuitive things WORK. That awareness entirely changed the way I am with women today. I was much more outgoing with guys. Guys readily thought I was funny and smart and awesome to hang with. On the other hand, I was utterly intimidated by good looking women. I was so preoccupied with avoiding saying the WRONG thing, that all I could manage was a boring... vanilla conversation.

So yeah, they might have liked me... more likely though, they would never have noticed me. Getting yourself noticed and building up attraction is key... and that process is game.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Soooooo ,
Do the other 40 something yr old guys on the thread get to post pics of themselves too?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes please!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> I " dated " a pagan once....
> Wasn't my style.


She's also vegan... talk about a pita to take to dinner.


----------



## Caribbean Man

coffee4me said:


> Dvls, you are a Handsome Devil
> 
> I understand perfectly what you are saying. You may be handsome but they have many handsome men pursuing them. You can walk up to a woman like this and tell her sincerely she is beautiful but honestly they have heard that all their lives.* You have to have some "game" and stand out in the crowd, in order to have an opportunity to get to know them.*


^^^Precisely!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes please!


 Ok.
I'll just post two.
The first pic is my Wife & I after a surprise dinner date I took her to at an Italian restaurant. She loves Italian food. Posted it down it the Social section some time ago.
I cannot post any pics of exes, she tore them all up when we began dating , and I think she was well within her rights to do so..lol.:rofl:










Second pic is me @ 42 years old, 1 year ago.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> Second pic is me @ 42 years old, 1 year ago.


Got some swag with them boots! :smthumbup:


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM, I am afraid my husband would not like my answer too well if were completely honest, so I will just politely say, yum. (both of ya)


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Got some swag with them boots! :smthumbup:


Thanks....

Levis & Boots, my comfort zone.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> I cannot post any pics of exes, she tore them all up when we began dating , and I think she was well within her rights to do so..lol.:rofl:


That's like the very first thing a girl does when we start dating. She goes through my facebook and deletes any pics of me with any other girls and questions "who is she?" re: anyone I've commented or liked something recently. Next comes my laptop itself... "Oh I'm just poking around looking for your secrets!"

Three words: external hard drive. 

Gotta get pretty close for me to get rid of all my pics.


----------



## Caribbean Man

coffee4me said:


> CM you are a HOTTIE!!  Mrs. CM is a very lucky woman.


Thanks.
I think I'm the lucky one to have her stay with me all this time.
She's cool, even when she's angry! [ which is very rare ]
I will do anything for her.
She's a good woman.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's like the very first thing a girl does when we start dating. She goes through my facebook and deletes any pics of me with any other girls and questions "who is she?" re: anyone I've commented or liked something recently. Next comes my laptop itself... "Oh I'm just poking around looking for your secrets!"
> 
> Three words: external hard drive.
> 
> Gotta get pretty close for me to get rid of all my pics.


Funny thing about may wife and I was that we were always friends and she was accustomed coming to my place before...
Nothing ever happened , because in my mind we were just good friends.

However the minute we started dating, she decided to " sweep" my bedroom for " residual sentiments ." 
Pics,old love letters, greeting cards etc. She knew some of my exes .
She "owned " me, lol...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mine are sealed up in a shoe box in the attic. Safely tucked away for when I am old and want to reflect on my good, youthful times.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's like the very first thing a girl does when we start dating. She goes through my facebook and deletes any pics of me with any other girls and questions "who is she?" re: anyone I've commented or liked something recently. Next comes my laptop itself... "Oh I'm just poking around looking for your secrets!"


Wow. Wild. It would never occur to me to do this. Not even to my SO of 15 years.

This site really drives home the point of how different we all are.


----------



## Catherine602

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok.
> I'll just post two.
> The first pic is my Wife & I after a surprise dinner date I took her to at an Italian restaurant. She loves Italian food. Posted it down it the Social section some time ago.
> I cannot post any pics of exes, she tore them all up when we began dating , and I think she was well within her rights to do so..lol.:rofl:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second pic is me @ 42 years old, 1 year ago.


Holy frekin' moly!!! 

That's all I'm going to say. 

PS your wife is lovely, looks really classy.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Mine are sealed up in a shoe box in the attic. Safely tucked away for when I am old and want to reflect on my good, youthful times.


What? They're not digital? Quick, hide, your age is showing!

(Sorry, not trying to be mean. My photos were taken on *gasp* film, and I too keep them in a box --although don't know that I have any of exes. Maybe one or two...)


----------



## Faithful Wife

I know...I know...I even want to scan them somewhere, but...how do you explain to your husband that you have to scan pics of your exes just in case the house burns down before I'm old? 

There are also love letters and other cute things in that box. It is just a shoe box.

OTOH, my cute pics, love letters, cards and other sentimental items from my husband could fill 4 Uhaul moving boxes.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> OTOH, my cute pics, love letters, cards and other sentimental items from my husband could fill 4 Uhaul moving boxes.


My wife recently bought an external hard drive just to store her pics and our pics...
Her laptop and ipad are full.
Hundreds and hundreds of pics of us.
She also keeps the cards and the art [ paintings ] I did for her in some boxes.
Says she doesn't want them to get old.

Life,
Memories...
".._Dust in the wind_.."


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> I think it's hilarious that you posted the pics. But we also know they won't change anyone's mind a whit.
> 
> But now the ladies know what you look like ... well played.


I already knew what he looked like, it's in his profile. Duh! My only question to Devils is what jersey are you wearing in your album. The answer makes you either hot or not.


----------



## Catherine602

FF you posts are amazing. So elegant and creative. love the color wheel, I would never have thought of using it but perfect symbol to describe where you both are. 

It sounds like you are working out your differences though. I read that couples who argue a lot in the early stages of the marriage are more likely to still be married in 10 years. 

After the honeymoon stage, the worts are noticed. The partners that jostle around each other to reach common ground, love each other enough to stay engaged and not aviod conflict. 

My husband and I had arguements almost every day for about 2 years after the HM period. Not always major ones. It calmed down after a while. We still get into it but not as frequently. Just this past year, I decided to let the small stupid things go. 

I am much happier. Surprisingly, he is much more likely to remember to avoid doing the little things that annoy the hell out of me. 

Eventually I think you and your husband will get to a stage where you will both know and respect your respective boundaries. It's the getting there that is hard work. 

I hope you are less depressed and if not you will get some help to process what is troubling you. 

I saw pictures of you and your baby on another thread and I could not believe how young you are. Your writing and wisdom makes you sound decades older. The baby is soooo cute!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I already knew what he looked like, it's in his profile. Duh! My only question to Devils is what jersey are you wearing in your album. The answer makes you either hot or not.


#55 Terrel Suggs in one, and the best safety of ALL TIME, #20 Ed Reed... of the Superbowl Champion Baltimore Ravens.

Hot or not, its been a good year for me so far.


----------



## Catherine602

FalconKing said:


> I can't believe you said that. There is so much of that going on in this thread. Perhaps you are down on yourself but you are the first poster to see this in yourself and realize that this topic has that effect on you. And to be honest, you haven't really been hostile or dismissive when people gave opinions different from your own. I understand why you would want to be away from this thread. That was just so real.


Thank you Falcon. 

I just wanted to say that I did not mean to imply that Deejo said anything that I construed as not wanting me to participate. What he said made me realize why the subject matter effects me so negatively.


----------



## Catherine602

Caribbean Man said:


> I was just getting accustomed to your perspective here. I don't agree with everything , but a lot of what you said , I agree.
> Please stay?





Caribbean Man said:


> Yes and No, in that order.
> Everyone speaks from their own experiences.
> Whatever unpleasant experiences you've had,has made you into what you are today, and I genuinely think you are a brilliant woman.
> I'm sure you know exactly how to navigate your way through your perception of what is being said and what is actually being said.
> 
> Just don't let things exceed the * critical mass *


Thank CM 



Therealbrighteyes said:


> That's how I am with the porn threads. It triggers me too much that I avoid them now. I do think I should go back to them however to answer some questions but as you said, experience makes certain topics very painful.
> 
> Your input here is very valuable and as CM said, you're an incredibly smart lady. We are the sum of our experiences. What comes with it is the ability to let others understand a different point of view.


Thanks TRBE


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> #55 Terrel Suggs in one, and the best safety of ALL TIME, #20 Ed Reed... of the Superbowl Champion Baltimore Ravens.
> 
> Hot or not, its been a good year for me so far.


Well crap. I thought it might be a San Diego Chargers Junior Seau #55 jersey. Not a good year but at least they got rid of Norv. You're still hot.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> Is it just me or do Dvls ladies look like they're kids? Maybe I'm so old so this is why or maybe it's that they remind me more of my 16 year old daughter than they do myself.
> 
> Dvls, I could see how you would reign in the ladies. You're not my type at all as you have no hair and are not Latino or Asian...haha but I can see the physical attraction aspect being there. Just stay away from my daughter!!!


Mmmm... pedobear likes. Want some candy? 

jk

The youngest I'm interested in is 21. Women I typically date range anywhere from 21-30... with a couple 30s in there, but avg is about 25.

And seriously... the hair... the toughest thing to get past is the hair!! lol Then, once I get past it, if they date me they oddly like to touch my head (all you dirty minded people, get out of the gutter). One ex-girlfriend texted me out of the blue once... "I miss your head." I'm thinking wtf woman, you almost didn't date me because my head was shaved! Wait... maybe she was talking about something else. :FIREdevil:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Well crap. I thought it might be a San Diego Chargers Junior Seau #55 jersey. Not a good year but at least they got rid of Norv. You're still hot.


Seau was a beast. Would have liked to have seen him get a ring.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Has anyone here ever seen Dejoo's pic?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Has anyone here ever seen Dejoo's pic?


Yup. He looks like Sean Hayes.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yup. He looks like Sean Hayes.


Are you saying that he looks the guy from that comedy Will& Grace?

[ Not sure cuz I'm from a different culture.]


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Are you saying that he looks the guy from that comedy Will& Grace?
> 
> [ Not sure cuz I'm from a different culture.]


Yes. Jack McFarland. Magic hands and sparkle fingers. Deejo's probably dying of laughter right now. I don't think he looks like Sean Hayes but some women do.


----------



## Deejo

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Yes. Jack McFarland. Magic hands and sparkle fingers. Deejo's probably dying of laughter right now. I don't think he looks like Sean Hayes but some women do.


Several people have made the comparison ... I don't see it. But apparently I look like a funny, and exceptionally likable gay man.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

*Awesome Photos Removed by Moderator*


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Deejo said:


> Several people have made the comparison ... I don't see it. But apparently I look like a funny, and exceptionally likable gay man.
> 
> Not that there's anything wrong with that.
> 
> *Awesome Photos Removed by Moderator*
> 
> Oh sh!t ...


I see it, though perhaps not the funny part.


----------



## Ikaika

Deejo said:


> Several people have made the comparison ... I don't see it. But apparently I look like a funny, and exceptionally likable gay man.
> 
> Not that there's anything wrong with that.
> 
> *Awesome Photos Removed by Moderator*
> 
> Oh sh!t ...


Wait you look just like Ron Burgundy


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

I love how everybody is clipping the photo so even if you delete your own, it's here to stay. Of course you could just threaten the hell out of everybody OR edit them yourself which apparently crossed your mind.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo - you are cuter than that Jack dude, any day.

And way less gay.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Right click and save. Deejo's removing all the photos.


----------



## Deejo

drerio said:


> Wait you look just like Ron Burgundy


Got the bod too ...


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> *Awesome Photos Removed by Moderator*


^^That was quick!:rofl:

Geez!


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo - you are cuter than that Jack dude, any day.
> 
> And way less gay.


Thanks?


----------



## Deejo

I'll leave this one up, unless I see it turn into an internet meme ...

Although this isn't the kind of attraction I'm talking about. 

*No mo Deejo*


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo...it was supposed to be funny! 

I can't see the pic you just posted, it is a red X.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo...it was supposed to be funny!
> 
> I can't see the pic you just posted, it is a red X.


So was I. Try a refresh.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

That photo needs to be a caption contest.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> "PUA doesn't just work to get the women."


:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

"The goat told me to tell you that you would look better as a blonde".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> Eep!
> 
> How old are you? If you don't mind me asking.


I just turned 35.



Trenton said:


> There's something about having a young lady for a daughter that makes men like you scare the beegeebus out of me.


What am I gonna do to her stick her in the freezer? What's "men like me" supposed to mean? Its not like I'm sneaking roofies into drinks or something. I'm not generally even seeking just a ONS... I just go with the flow. If she has limits, shell usually let you know... but besides, you usually know if she's gonna let you go there before you even try.

I'm still sort on speaking terms, if not outright friends, with most of the girls I've dated or" picked up", so I dont think I've broken many hearts. Heck, sometimes I wanted more and she didn't. Its all good.



Trenton said:


> I do have a real hair fetish. It's one of my musts. Either that or you have to have the gang member Latino look about you. I know, I'm weird.
> 
> All four ladies I work with love the bald hair look though so I'm thinking my taste isn't the norm, they also don't prefer the Latino gang member look and make fun of me all the time. No idea what is wrong with me.


I do have hair. I just knew years ago that it had started receding. I had long hair when I joined the Marines. I've just kept it shaved ever since... there's not much I could do with it otherwise, other than the George Clooney look. In pics it looks smooth, but its actually buzzed, not shaved or totally bald.

Honestly, id never want it any longer ever again. No styling, no helmet hair, I do my own haircuts, and dont worry about my hair when I have the top down in my car. Its awesome.... until you get a sunburn... on your head. lol


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Something, something, Billy the Kid and preselection, something.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Deejo suddenly realizes he went to the heavy petting zoo.


----------



## Deejo

coffee4me said:


> I saw the Photos- You are quite good looking AND I like your sense on humor. If only I were younger.....
> 
> (you don't feel manipulated do you?)


It's not harassment if you enjoy it coffee.

And I'm really thinking I shouldn't have any pics up ...


----------



## FalconKing

coffee4me said:


> I saw the Photos- You are quite good looking AND I like your sense on humor. If only I were younger.....
> 
> (you don't feel manipulated do you?)


:rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well, I'm glad I got to see them before you took them down, Deejo. Thanks for sharing! Did you take the last one down because you didn't have the goat's permission or...?


----------



## Deejo

Never be afraid to laugh at yourself.
Until you realize everyone else is laughing harder ...


----------



## FalconKing

Trenton said:


> :rofl:
> 
> Sorry.
> 
> You know you're hot! (even with a goat on you)


Yeah. Gloat with the goat.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Whatever floats your goat.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> I'm sorry! I'm wording these words wrong! I don't mean to offend you. You are attractive and 35 is young. I'm just being a judgmental ornery old lady!


No no, no offense was taken. I have a daughter. I also have a gun. Total coincidence.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Well, I'm glad I got to see them before you took them down, Deejo. Thanks for sharing! Did you take the last one down because you didn't have the goat's permission or...?


Now THAT was funny! :lol:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

You're a baaaaahhhd boy aren't you?


----------



## Catherine602

I didn't see the pictures of Deejo. 

Can someone draw an accurate portrait of him from the pic?


----------



## Deejo

LOL ... oh cripes. You people ...

Catherine, you can probably pm somebody, they were being encouraged to save it because TRBE saw I was taking them down.

I can only assure you that I'm extraordinarily handsome ... or look like the actor Sean Hayes, depending upon who you ask.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Catherine602 said:


> I didn't see the pictures of Deejo.
> 
> Can someone draw an accurate portrait of him from the pic?


If I was at my laptop I would sooo create a PhotoShop representation for you.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Whatever floats your goat.



My god,
I'm sitting here on the couch with my laptop, headphone on listening to Michael Jackson's " Billie Jean" on youtube , TAM on the other tab..,
and laughing my a$$ off!

You guys are good!:rofl:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Picture Sean Hayes. Then picture Sean Hayes having a goat making sweet mouth love to his ear.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I was getting up the courage to post a pic but then.....well, I can't compete with a damn goat. Those furry cuties!


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Deejo said:


> LOL ... oh cripes. You people ...
> 
> Catherine, you can probably pm somebody, they were being encouraged to save it because TRBE saw I was taking them down.
> 
> I can only assure you that I'm extraordinarily handsome ... or look like the actor Sean Hayes, depending upon who you ask.


You have them staggered, huh?


----------



## Catherine602

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/562365/thumbs/r-SEAN-HAYES-large570.jpg

This is Sean Hayes playing Larry in the 3 stooges. imagine him with a little off the sides, would that be close to what Deejo looks like? :scratchhead:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo, when you said you had kids, I wasn't expecting this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Man, I wish I was that cool that I had a goat picture! Not even.


----------



## Catherine602

Therealbrighteyes said:


> When you said you had kids, I wasn't expecting this.


You'er expecting multiples!! How many?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Catherine602 said:


> You'er expecting multiples!! How many?


I'm done with the womb raiding.


----------



## Created2Write

So we're posting pics of ourselves?

Oh lawdy. lol. 

Dvls and CM: you guys are smokin'! Dvls, I dated a couple of Marines and my brother is one, so I like the buzz cut look. My husband can't do one though. He has a very weirdly shaped head...lol.


----------



## Deejo

Just fyi, for those following the non-gaming, non-goat elements of the thread, I'm meeting M tomorrow night. Hoping we can work out the issues.

If not, I know I gave it my best shot.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



FrenchFry said:


> This got iiinteresting.


We know how to keep the ladies interested in this thread ... pics of handsome men and baby animals.

We got game all right.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

This thread officially has everything.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Deejo said:


> Just fyi, for those following the non-gaming, non-goat elements of the thread, I'm meeting M tomorrow night. Hoping we can work out the issues.
> 
> If not, I know I gave it my best shot.


Bring the goat. Remember: preselection.

jk 

Best of luck in all seriousness man!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> Do you happen to have a goat picture???


C'mon!!! Who doesn't have a goat picture??? err... oh. Uhm... nevermind.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> C'mon!!! Who doesn't have a goat picture??? err... oh. Uhm... nevermind.


What happens in college, stays in college.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Wait... wait... these things keep coming...

Let's not be sheepish, this thread is the G.O.A.T.

Deejo was horrified when he realized that what everyone had ACTUALLY recommended was sowing his wild OATS before marriage.

Okay, I'm spent. Don't forget to tip your waitress.


----------



## Catherine602

Not so sure about the honesty thing. Being honest and forthright is a good thing. However, I think you have to roll out your inner layers sequentially. 

Revealing too much at one time can scare a person who would otherwise make an excellent match. They have not had time to know and like the essential parts of you yet. 

Therefore, they cannot put your baggage into perspective. Revealing that you were arrested at 19 yo for theft on the first date is a lot different then waiting until your partner knows that your life was exemplary after that time.

You didn't ask Deejo but I'll tell you anyway. My impression is that, perhaps unconsciously, you allow your exw to interject herself into your life at critical times. 

Perhaps making a very difficult decision is in order, to let exw go completely emotionally, once and for all. No matter what happens with M, exw may always scotch things for you, I think. . 

I think i remember you said that you go on vacation with your ex and kids. Further, if I remember correctly, you once said that you would expect your new partner to understand. 

In most situations, that will probably not work.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



Catherine602 said:


> In most situations, that will probably not work.


As I have painfully discovered.

Not like I was trying to have the ex on the side. Not remotely. But ... we were undoubtedly very lax in our dealings. We very often did things with the kids that we both enjoyed.

Lesson learned. Ex and I have already had a conversation regardless of what the outcome of tomorrow is.


----------



## Nsweet

Does anyone have any serious question about how Pick Up works? 

Serious questions only! I don't want to argue with any more married women about ethics and femanism, or how you're smarter than the average 20-something and resistant to this.

I've already estabilished I'm not a game player or manipulative sleazy guy you women seem to think of when reading about PUA stuff. I just write about how it works and how you can use this knowledge to safeguard yourself against the jerks, and maybe improve your love life if you're willing to pay attention to the signals. I also write a lot about how affairs start and how spouses can be stollen back from lovers in the S and D forumn. 

Here's a cool topic I haven't seen anyone write about...... How respecting people's boundaries and being patient can work better for you than trying to force you way on them. What I mean here is if your spouse, lover, date says "I don't want to talk about that" and you respect their wishes and don't pry for answers.... they might be willing to talk about it on their own terms later on if you can be patient and respectful. 

Or how about sex? If a woman wants to wait to have sex with her new date, he could try to talk her into it, but a lot of times this ends up killing the respect she had for him because he didn't respect her right to choose in the first place. And if she has issues with sex he could end up facing rape charges even if the sex was concentual. BUT if he respects her wishes and waits, completely drops any game playing plans to try to change her mind they might have sex sooner than either one of them planned. Often times it's better anyways if you wait and focus on the connection and elevating her mood throughout the day or week. This goes for marriage too! 

It all has to deal with the marshmallow/M&M test...... If you can respect the other person's wishes and sort of follow their bboundaries, the big deal breaker ones anyways, you'll both be happier. So it's not really common PUA practice because you're not scheming to get sex, but it is still about building attraction and connection which can lead to sexual contact over time.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Just fyi, for those following the non-gaming, non-goat elements of the thread, I'm meeting M tomorrow night. Hoping we can work out the issues.
> 
> If not, I know I gave it my best shot.


So tonight is that critical meeting with your
" business partner ", where you present your case and she decides whether or not she wants to continue " doing business" with you.

Man I hate those types of meetings. 

Your position is not a simple one, but I think your job is an easy one. 
In a nutshell, she seems to be saying its either me or your ex, your choice.

If that is the case,and I am saying this based on what you've said, tonight I would tell her that she has every right to feel the way, but the ex [ do not say MY ex] is history and she would always remain history. I would tell her that we
[ you & M ] have a good future ahead and I was wrong to allow the past to impair my judgement. I would tell her that I [please do not say we ]have already discussed things with the ex, and she would have to understand. 

You love your kids ,you would anything for them, you want to be the best dad for them , but you can't allow that woman to continue messing with your life. After all you don't mess with hers, and you owe her nothing.

I think M is seeing you and your ex as a " team" and no woman who is making herself vulnerable to a man she's in love with, would want the phantasm of an ex wife , 
" _le Fantôme de l'Opéra_ " jeopardizing the intimacy she desires between her and her man.
That is a positive.
She also seems to be looking forward to a future _with you_.She wants you, not you and the ghost of your ex.
Another positive

Sounds like a reasonable request on her part.,
And it is not good to keep a lady waiting....


----------



## Catherine602

Im on the bus on my way work and the exhust fumes in the Lincoln Tunnel. makes me talkative. Thought i might as well post on Deejo's thread. 

I agree with CM except I wouldn't talk about the future even if you think there is a possibility. Too early and gives assurances that you really can't know you will be able to keep.

There is the matter of her sudden bail. Is it the way she handles things and does she see that as something she needs to work on? Have you requested that she communicate before she thinks she has all of the answers and bolts. Dosnt seem to make sense to throw away something good without some serious discussion. 

Steer in the direction you intend to go, articulate expectations and negotiate compromises. Is she a good fighter or an avoider? How much are you planning on fixing her? So far you like her a lot but all the of the important info is not in yet. Ok I'll stop. 

Aren't you sorry you ever said anything about your lady. 

PS what's the dating equivalent of break a leg?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Ok Catherine,
I agree with what you said.
May I say this from a male perspective,
When a woman begins falling in love she initially goes through an entire spectrum of emotions. Questions may also arise in her mind , based on her past experience.
Her head is sometimes in conflict with her heart , and she feels pressured to respond in some way.
Sometimes she runs.
Sometimes she makes a compromise.
Sometimes she faces her fears, she stays and fight.
_But she wants to be in love and stay in love._
Because her mind and emotions are in a state of flux and conflict , the man should take her hand give her the reassurance she needs ,and lead. 

_She needs to feel secure._

Other matters can be worked out later that evening after a romantic dinner, and a glass of wine when endorphins are high, lights low and two hearts beating as one.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> _But she wants to be in love and stay in love._
> Because her mind and emotions are in a state of flux and conflict , the man should take her hand give her the reassurance she needs ,and lead.
> 
> _She needs to feel secure._


Assuming those reassurances are actually true, which I think is at least part of Catherine's point. If not, it would be mine.

Last thing that will help (in the longer term) is generating a false sense of security. 

Sorry Deejo. Catherine is also probably right that you are re-thinking posting your story.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Catherine602 said:


> PS what's the dating equivalent of break a leg?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Get slapped??


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Assuming those reassurances are actually true, which I think is at least part of Catherine's point. If not, it would be mine.
> 
> Last thing that will help (in the longer term) is generating a false sense of security.
> 
> Sorry Deejo. Catherine is also probably right that you are re-thinking posting your story.


Well based on what Dejoo said before, and has been saying all along, I think that he's also looking for what she's looking for.
Eight months is a very long time to assume the relationship is still " casual " and for a man to be indecisive about the future.

In her mind, she's at that junction where there's a fork in the road. She wants to go left and wants him ALONE to come with her.
His ex wife is on the right , probably giving him grief about his kids and being a dad , blah, blah, blah,not that he isn't an excellent father , but she needs to exert control over him in order to validate herself. It makes her feel , whatever.

He wants to go to the left with M, but what his ex wife says about, and to him, resonates somewhere in his subconscious. 
A woman's power is in her words.

M also knows this and she trying to stand her ground whilst coming to terms with it. She understands the machinations and the dynamics.
She pulled away IMO, to get him to walk left with her.

I don't think Dejoo regrets posting it, I think there's a reason he posted his situation, giving a ball by ball account.


----------



## always_alone

Nsweet said:


> Does anyone have any serious question about how Pick Up works?
> 
> Serious questions only!


Okay. I'll take the bait, as this thread has left me with one last question.

I've been convinced that some people use game techniques to better themselves and improve their dating skills. Okay, progress. But now that I know this, how am I supposed to distinguish the jerks from the good guys?

It used to be easy. If a guy was gaming me, I immediately lost interest. If my SO were to attempt any of the strategies I saw on the singles scene, I would immediately lose respect. (I say it this way because I'm still not entirely certain what married game looks like. If it's blueberry pancakes, I'm all in. If it's flirting with other women to get a rise out of me, I'm all out.)

But, if I allow that at least some gaming is good, or at least well-intentioned, how am I to recognize the jerks? When I can rightfully accuse my SO of acting like one? If you take away my handy indicator, can you give me a substitute? Ideally one that will work relatively quickly and efficiently?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> M also knows this and she trying to stand her ground whilst coming to terms with it. She understands the machinations and the dynamics.
> She pulled away IMO, to get him to walk left with her.


Maybe. And maybe she pulled away to give him space to decide exactly how he feels about his ex before becoming even more invested.

Or maybe she is just extremely jealous and insecure, unable to believe previous assurances -- or any assurances, and will keep doing stuff like this to keep him chasing her and catering to these insecurities

Maybe she is revealing an overly controlling nature. (My way or the highway)

Eight months isn't that long, especially if both parties are gaming (modifying their behaviour to appear more attractive to each other).


----------



## Faithful Wife

AA said: "But, if I allow that at least some gaming is good, or at least well-intentioned, how am I to recognize the jerks? When I can rightfully accuse my SO of acting like one?"

My H has been a huge jerk to me many times. But it never vibed like what the PUA literature sounds like. He was a jerk because he was used to living a batchelor lifestyle when we met, and being the king of his domain. I was a huge b*tch to him in response to his jerkiness, so it all worked out in a fair way. 

But the whole thing about:

*only give her 2/3 of what she gives you

*don't hand out compliments, neg her instead

*make sure she knows other women are into you

THOSE things, he never did to me and I would have split if he did them even once. I think if he read that type of advice he would laugh out loud as it is very childish (the three I quoted) and he is an adult and gives compliments freely and gives his love freely when it is real.

I can see how the three I quoted might sound like good advice to a man if his natural inclination was to smother a woman with good deeds and compliments (thus turning her away from him, in some cases, I get that). But even if that is the case, I still think there is a more adult way to get a grip on those natural inclinations.

For instance, if my husband feels that I am not returning his love or compliments or not touching him enough or anything along those lines, he will get in my face about it in a fun way and be like "hey woman, get your hands on me" or "where do you think you are going, get back over here and tell me how in love you are before I spank yer azz" or just that plain and easy "whose your daddy? That's right, I am so get over here and fork out the kisses and compliments".

I think men want to be desired and lusted after the way women are used to getting it. They want us to feel the same way they do (or the equivalent). So one thing my husband does is openly and self-awarely present himself to me so I can worship him. If he walks up to me naked, he expects the same "oh la la" response from me that I would get from him. If I didn't feel that way about him, we wouldn't be together (he would have dumped me). But I do feel that way about him so it is easy for me to show him the love. However, in the beginning, I wasn't all that used to it. He showed me how to have a lot more Sex Game, and expected me to be a full participant in our sex life, not just be "the woman, the one who is worshipped for her beauty while the man only gives worship", as is sometimes the roll for a woman in her sex life.

There is something a little similar in there to some kinds of game...in that, he won't just worship my naked body without it being reciprocated - - and not faked, but truly reciprocated. There is no one way worship allowed.

just rambling....

AA - *does* your man do any of those PUA things?


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> I " dated " a pagan once....
> Wasn't my style.


Well there are pagans and then there are Pagan's.


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok.
> I'll just post two.
> The first pic is my Wife & I after a surprise dinner date I took her to at an Italian restaurant. She loves Italian food. Posted it down it the Social section some time ago.
> I cannot post any pics of exes, she tore them all up when we began dating , and I think she was well within her rights to do so..lol.:rofl:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second pic is me @ 42 years old, 1 year ago.


Do you work out?


----------



## FalconKing

Entropy3000 said:


> Do you work out?


:rofl::rofl:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> Do you work out?


Nope,

I just _" eats me Spinach..."_


----------



## Catherine602

Oh didn't know it was 8 months. No wonder she got upset. Deejo bad.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tall Average Guy

A couple



Faithful Wife said:


> For instance, if my husband feels that I am not returning his love or compliments or not touching him enough or anything along those lines, he will get in my face about it in a fun way and be like "hey woman, get your hands on me" or "where do you think you are going, get back over here and tell me how in love you are before I spank yer azz" or just that plain and easy "whose your daddy? That's right, I am so get over here and fork out the kisses and compliments".


Just so that you are aware, that is game. 



> I think men want to be desired and lusted after the way women are used to getting it. They want us to feel the same way they do (or the equivalent). So one thing my husband does is openly and self-awarely present himself to me so I can worship him. If he walks up to me naked, he expects the same "oh la la" response from me that I would get from him. If I didn't feel that way about him, we wouldn't be together (he would have dumped me). But I do feel that way about him so it is easy for me to show him the love. However, in the beginning, I wasn't all that used to it. He showed me how to have a lot more Sex Game, and expected me to be a full participant in our sex life, not just be "the woman, the one who is worshipped for her beauty while the man only gives worship", as is sometimes the roll for a woman in her sex life.
> 
> There is something a little similar in there to some kinds of game...in that, he won't just worship my naked body without it being reciprocated - - and not faked, but truly reciprocated. There is no one way worship allowed.


Glad to see that you worked to that result. I think much of the "good" game (referencing a thread in the general section) is about helping both people work to this. Just as you were not familiar with this when you first got together with your husband, there are many men (and women) who don't understand it either.

I will also note that sometimes talking just does not work. People don't or won't listen or change. People can't articulate their feelings. Actions are needed, which may include things like stepping back and not giving quite so much So while I don't agree on giving less than what you spouse gives, I do agree on giving less where necessary to create balance.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TAG: "Just so that you are aware, that is game."

Well, ok but it involved just telling me what to do, what he needed and wanted, forthright and honestly. It NEVER involved trying to hold back his love or compliments or negging me or trying to make me jealous. Where in the PUA literature does it say "just tell your woman what you need, whether it is love, a hug, a compliment, to be touched, to have sex, to be worshipped, to be respected, or to be babied after you got a boo boo?"


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Faithful Wife said:


> TAG: "Just so that you are aware, that is game."
> 
> Well, ok but it involved just telling me what to do, what he needed and wanted, forthright and honestly. It NEVER involved trying to hold back his love or compliments or negging me or trying to make me jealous. Where in the PUA literature does it say "just tell your woman what you need, whether it is love, a hug, a compliment, to be touched, to have sex, to be worshipped, to be respected, or to be babied after you got a boo boo?"


MMSL for one. I assuming he did not sit you down across the table and tell you those things. Rather, he said it in a joking, ****y, confident, playful manner. Which is what MMSL suggests doing to flirt and game your wife.

As far as not holding back, if a woman (or man) is reacting negatively to demonstrations of love, such as touching, etc., should the spouse continue on, or should they perhaps try something different, such as not smothering them? Again, I agree that a discussion is the first step, but too often that gets you know where. These boards are replete with such examples.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"I assuming he did not sit you down across the table and tell you those things."

Yes, he did. That's what I'm trying to say. Even though the way I quoted things above all sound like flirty, jokey fun...when it came down to his actual needs and desires, we have spent a lot of time just talking about them (and my own) and also doing things like filling out the Marriage Builders Emotional Needs Questionaires.


----------



## Topical storm

always_alone said:


> Eight months isn't that long, especially if both parties are gaming (modifying their behaviour to appear more attractive to each other).


Lol, huh? 

I imagine it has to be frustrating for you in understanding the word "game" and how its applied. The word "gaming" is used out of context here.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



always_alone said:


> Assuming those reassurances are actually true, which I think is at least part of Catherine's point. If not, it would be mine.
> 
> Last thing that will help (in the longer term) is generating a false sense of security.
> 
> Sorry Deejo. Catherine is also probably right that you are re-thinking posting your story.


Happiest I've been in years. I don't regret sharing that.
And I was completely blindsided. Sometimes that's just reality too. 

I can't control how she feels about the ex. Ex and I ARE going to continue to interact. We have 2 young kids. Just won't be with the same laissez faire attitude.

And yes, I need to know from her whether how she deals with relationship challenges is to fight or flee.

I need a fighter.


----------



## Topical storm

Faithful Wife said:


> TAG: "Just so that you are aware, that is game."
> 
> Well, ok but it involved just telling me what to do, what he needed and wanted, forthright and honestly. It NEVER involved trying to hold back his love or compliments or negging me or trying to make me jealous. Where in the PUA literature does it say "just tell your woman what you need, whether it is love, a hug, a compliment, to be touched, to have sex, to be worshipped, to be respected, or to be babied after you got a boo boo?"


I still don't think you understand what "game" is. PUA is a subset of game. A man can have game and not be a geekery pick up artist or use some PUA maneuver to get a woman. It seems like you only restrict the word game to PUA and that's not the case at all. Many men have game but have never even read a PUA book in their life. A man can have game and give a compliment as well. Game is a neutral concept.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



Catherine602 said:


> Oh didn't know it was 8 months. No wonder she got upset. Deejo bad.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What's 8 months, what'd I miss?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Topical Storm...perhaps YOU could actually read and understand some of our individual histories and what we actually think and believe, instead of showing up and taking some posts out of context and then addressing us as if you know anything about us?


----------



## Topical storm

Faithful Wife said:


> Topical Storm...perhaps YOU could actually read and understand some of our individual histories and what we actually think and believe, instead of showing up and taking some posts out of context and then addressing us as if you know anything about us?


 From what I have gathered you and a few other women were in contention with others on the contemporary use of the "word" game and how people use the word in this current generation.

I'm sorry, I don't know your individual history but I do know some things about game. If you have any questions on what game is, I'll be happy to help you.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> TAG: "Just so that you are aware, that is game."
> 
> Well, ok but it involved just telling me what to do, what he needed and wanted, forthright and honestly. It NEVER involved trying to hold back his love or compliments or negging me or trying to make me jealous. Where in the PUA literature does it say "just tell your woman what you need, whether it is love, a hug, a compliment, to be touched, to have sex, to be worshipped, to be respected, or to be babied after you got a boo boo?"


Agreed. But indeed it absolutely counts as game. He was being more Alpha. Assertive. Take charge. Note how the guys keep focusing on these things and others want to focus on negging and holding back. Pretty sure the difference between negging and teasing was covered several times over. There indeed is a time to hold back the compliments. This was covered too. If a guy has been very Beta and had overdone the compliments it is time to back off and try to balance things out. There are actions that fit a circumstance. Just random actions make no sense. Or in PUA lingo it depends on the set. 

Is the glass half empty or half full? Or was it just designed too big for the requirement? Anyway ALL things have pros and cons in a given situation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Topical Storm: Since you clearly aren't reading all of the posts, you have no idea what I know or don't know. Thanks for the offer, I am confused about nothing. But even if I did have questions about anything, why would I ask you when I know nothing about you or what you know or where you've been or anything else? I have nothing to go on to know who I would be asking a question to.

Maybe if you posted your story and people got to know you and where you are coming from, then they might want to have you explain things to them. Otherwise, you could be a troll, right? So why would I ask you any questions.

Tell us about you and then I'll tell you if I want your opinions.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy said: "Agreed. But indeed it absolutely counts as game. He was being more Alpha. Assertive. Take charge."

Okee doke, call it game. Then I will also call filling out Emotional Needs Questionaires together "game". And radical honesty, that's "game". Right? 

Also, the bossy alpha stuff comes straight out of a domme/sub handbook. Is that "game", too? Or is it "game" only if you are into that sort of thing?


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> "I assuming he did not sit you down across the table and tell you those things."
> 
> Yes, he did. That's what I'm trying to say. Even though the way I quoted things above all sound like flirty, jokey fun...when it came down to his actual needs and desires, we have spent a lot of time just talking about them (and my own) and also doing things like filling out the Marriage Builders Emotional Needs Questionaires.


I did the same thing with my wife. I am very familiar with the marriage builder literature. MMSL gives a perspective NOT found there. MMSL builds on these. A find MMSL provides additional Alpha to the more Beta aspects of marriage builders. One does not obviate the other. They work together just fine. 

Again when one views any book ever written one can find all sorts of things they do not like. That does not mean the book does not havce great value. This is why there are many books and many points of view.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"They work together just fine."

Well, no, because MMSL would tell you to pull away your love and compliments and attention from your wife if she isn't responding the way you would like, and MB would tell you that doing this is asking your wife to have an affair.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Entropy said: "Agreed. But indeed it absolutely counts as game. He was being more Alpha. Assertive. Take charge."
> 
> Okee doke, call it game. Then I will also call filling out Emotional Needs Questionaires together "game". And radical honesty, that's "game". Right?
> 
> Also, the bossy alpha stuff comes straight out of a domme/sub handbook. Is that "game", too? Or is it "game" only if you are into that sort of thing?


I think taking charge to improve your marriage takes game. So yeah. No problem. 

You know, I have a faucet where I can adjust the temperature and flow. I can curse the hot water and say OMG that will burn the baby!!! Or I can curse the cold and say OMG that will freeze the baby or I can intelligently adjust the balance of hot plus cold to get the right balance.

Why is this so hard to grasp? An extreme Beta man is an embarrassment to all of us. As is an extreme Alpha. So a man with too much Alpha @$$hole going needs to tweak up the Beta and a guy with too much Beta needs to tweak up the Alpha. That said I think increasing both in a balance is the most positive thing. 

But indeed you know this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"But indeed you know this."

Entropy, the only things in "game" I have an issue with are the ones I noted on the last page. No, I don't think either spouse should ever:

*stop giving compliments, especially in the case of their spouse having WOA as a high LL need

*only give 2/3 of what you get - - makes zero sense to me and is just mean if done on purpose

*make sure she thinks other women are into you - - I know other women are into my husband but this is because I have seen it for myself, he would never rub my nose in it, nor would I, that is just mean

So those three things, no matter how they are framed, to me, are not things we should do in marriage.

Dating is another matter altogether, but then we did cover that.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> "They work together just fine."
> 
> Well, no, because MMSL would tell you to pull away your love and compliments and attention from your wife if she isn't responding the way you would like, and MB would tell you that doing this is asking your wife to have an affair.


Exactly. If it is about balance. Doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different response is insane.

Again I liken this to a ship taking on water. Before it capsizes you flood compartments to level the ship. Not intuitive is it? 

Life is about proper feedback to a given situation. It is not one size or one action fits all. There is a time for all things under heaven. 

His Needs Here Needs is one of my most favorite books ... ever. However it does not cover HOW to meet some of those needs. It does not cover ALL the pratcial aspects of attraction.


----------



## Created2Write

Entropy3000 said:


> I did the same thing with my wife. I am very familiar with the marriage builder literature. MMSL gives a perspective NOT found there. MMSL builds on these. A find MMSL provides additional Alpha to the more Beta aspects of marriage builders. One does not obviate the other. They work together just fine.
> 
> Again when one view any book ever written one can find all sorst oif things they do not like. That does not mean the book does not havce great value. This is why there are many books and many points of view.


This makes sense to me, especially because not every relationship is going to be at the same point, or even suffer from the same issues, as another that's looking for help in self-help books. For some marriages, it might be too late for a book like HNHN to work, whereas a book like MMSL has an aspect of what is currently needed.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"However it does not cover HOW to meet some of those needs."

That is why he later developed the emotional needs questionaires, wrote several more books, and addresses these issues on their website in many articles, etc. So when the whole of the body of work is understood and the principals are employed into a marriage, then you DO have a very specific map of how to meet each other's needs.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> "They work together just fine."
> 
> Well, no, because MMSL would tell you to pull away your love and compliments and attention from your wife if she isn't responding the way you would like, and MB would tell you that doing this is asking your wife to have an affair.


Sometimes, though, a spouse may not know what their husband or wife needs/wants. They assume, and then the husband or wife doesn't respond the way they think they will. If you've been giving your wife attention for months on end and she's not responding, why would you continue? I'm sure you know the saying, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different reaction." Obviously the husband isn't doing what his wife really wants, otherwise she would be responding in a positive way. And, frankly, while attention and compliments are great, they _can_ be taken overboard and seem....kind of pathetic. Almost like desperation. Making a change to his attitude _can_ make a difference. 

Keep in mind that MB and MMSL focus on very different aspects of a greater issue.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> "But indeed you know this."
> 
> Entropy, the only things in "game" I have an issue with are the ones I noted on the last page. No, I don't think either spouse should ever:
> 
> *stop giving compliments, especially in the case of their spouse having WOA as a high LL need
> 
> *only give 2/3 of what you get - - makes zero sense to me and is just mean if done on purpose
> 
> *make sure she thinks other women are into you - - I know other women are into my husband but this is because I have seen it for myself, he would never rub my nose in it, nor would I, that is just mean
> 
> So those three things, no matter how they are framed, to me, are not things we should do in marriage.
> 
> Dating is another matter altogether, but then we did cover that.


I think these are desperate measures. I think if you are in a sexless marriage and your wife is spending most of her time at the bar/club seeking out other more Alpha men then one has to look at these if they have children and want to make the marriage work.

Now for me if one has to go to these lengths I am going to say that the marriage got too far out period. You know sometimes it is instructive to show folks what can happen if they let things go too far. The guy should not have enabled this activity to begin with. But how often do we see guys put up with this because they are told they are jealous, insecure and controlling? These are extreme Beta guys. Their wives are no longer attracted to them. 

So my take away from MMSL on this is OMG!!! NFW I would ever go down that road. If things are going this direction then make your stand on fixing the marriage before things get this far gone. 

But I also will state that much of the information in the book was an interesting view that validated much of my experineces in a life of observation. Some of it was not for me period.

Hey an engine very rough at idle and backfiring requires a different touch than one that is idling smoothly and revving lively. If the engine runs too lean you are in danger of burning psitons and valves. Running a little rich is better than too lean of course. But running way rich does not work well either. So finding a reasonable balance is essential in all of this.

Again His Needs Her Needs is awesome. I read the five love languages but prefer HNHN. I think having proper boundaries is essential. I am all for being in that positve zone where the game is playful and positive.

Just please understand that ALL marriages go through challenges eventually. Making the right adjustments are important. If a guy is interacting with his wife and she finds him attractive throughout the marriage I will show you a guy that has true game. He has a clue. Much of it can be personality but there are 16 documented personality types. So hsades of grayness. Some folks need help with their game to tweak their actions optimally for their spouse. Not everyone is compatible.

I say using the positive aspects of game in marriage is all about meeting needs. I will not settle to be my wifes best friend and husband. I need to be her lover as well.

The problem with extreme circumstances is that the actions may be too late. Like rocking the boat can cause you to be tossed out.


----------



## Topical storm

Faithful Wife said:


> Topical Storm: Since you clearly aren't reading all of the posts, you have no idea what I know or don't know. Thanks for the offer, I am confused about nothing. But even if I did have questions about anything, why would I ask you when I know nothing about you or what you know or where you've been or anything else? I have nothing to go on to know who I would be asking a question to.
> 
> Maybe if you posted your story and people got to know you and where you are coming from, then they might want to have you explain things to them. Otherwise, you could be a troll, right? So why would I ask you any questions.
> 
> Tell us about you and then I'll tell you if I want your opinions.


Actually, I have read all the posts, but I don't know you personally. I think this discussion was based on the fundamental theory of game and its concepts with anecdotal evidence given to explain a view point. I think knowing personal history/ background doesn't give much credence since this is mainly just a theoretical issue. I think it can help but I do not believe it is a lynchpin in understanding basic concepts of game.

At the core root, I think you have a fundamental problem with associating the use of the word "game" with something positive. I think people have tried to convey to you that "game" is neither good or bad it's just a tool that one uses to achieve to use its goal. The manipulation is rooted in the person not the tool itself.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy: "I say using the positive aspects of game in marriage is all about meeting needs."

Ok, I will call this Marriage Game too then, so we are speaking the same language. Meeting each others needs = game. That's cool.

Topical: Clearly from your response to me you have no clue what I think or feel. Also since I still know nothing about you, please address someone else, I don't talk to strangers. (LOL!)


----------



## Entropy3000

Created2Write said:


> Sometimes, though, a spouse may not know what their husband or wife needs/wants. They assume, and then the husband or wife doesn't respond the way they think they will. If you've been giving your wife attention for months on end and she's not responding, why would you continue? I'm sure you know the saying, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different reaction." Obviously the husband isn't doing what his wife really wants, otherwise she would be responding in a positive way. And, frankly, while attention and compliments are great, they _can_ be taken overboard and seem....kind of pathetic. Almost like desperation. Making a change to his attitude _can_ make a difference.
> 
> *Keep in mind that MB and MMSL focus on very different aspects of a greater issue.*


:iagree::iagree::iagree:

Ok so time for me to work out. Just thought I would pop in. This is a great thread. Most people are not as far apart on this as the rhetoric might indicate. I absolutely agree that there are aspects of PUA that do not fit in a stable marriage. But that said at the very least a I think a husband needs to know them. Especially a young couple where the there are in transition from a single life style to a married one. The husband needs to know when to c0ckblock if nothing else. He needs to know when a wifes "male" friend / co-worker is gaming her. It is part of watching out for one another. A guy needs to understand that most women love attention and that some with rationalize it. He needs to know when to call BS on that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, totally agreed that MMSL and MB are not talking about the same thing at all. However, both are intended to hopefully improve marriage so they have that in common.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

I understand you are bound and determined to never agree that game or MMSL has anything of value. But I really think you are taking these out of context.



Faithful Wife said:


> "But indeed you know this."
> 
> Entropy, the only things in "game" I have an issue with are the ones I noted on the last page. No, I don't think either spouse should ever:
> 
> *stop giving compliments, especially in the case of their spouse having WOA as a high LL need


Sure. But if that is the case, your spouse is likely responding well to you. What MMSL advises is that if she is not responding, try pulling back.



> *only give 2/3 of what you get - - makes zero sense to me and is just mean if done on purpose


I don't have MMSL in front of me, but I don't think it says that. Rather, it says reduce what you are giving if your partner is not reciprocating.



> *make sure she thinks other women are into you - - I know other women are into my husband but this is because I have seen it for myself, he would never rub my nose in it, nor would I, that is just mean


One of the parts of MMSL that I agree with you about. I would never actively flirt with another woman, particularly in front of my wife. I personally think it can be beneficial in some relationships if other women try to flirt with a husband, but that can only come about by his improving himself such that they come to him on their own. Any attempt to arrange it will likely cause far more harm then good.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> The husband needs to know when to c0ckblock if nothing else. He needs to know when a wifes "male" friend / co-worker is gaming her. It is part of watching out for one another. A guy needs to understand that most women love attention and that some with rationalize it. He needs to know when to call BS on that.


How about we put the onus on the individual? As nice as it would be to have a man fight all my battles, at some point adults need to take responsibility for themselves. No big, strong man necessary for that, just maturity.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Therealbrighteyes said:


> How about we put the onus on the individual? As nice as it would be to have a man fight all my battles, at some point adults need to take responsibility for themselves. No big, strong man necessary for that, just maturity.


It seems to me it has to be both. Yes, the responsibility is on me to act appropriate, but my wife values what we have enough to step in. She did that with a friend of a neighbor that was friendly. Nothing inappropriate happened, and I had no intent of letting it. But my wife did not like it. She saw something that cause her to believe the other woman was up to no good. I still can't say I saw it, but I was glad that she thought what we had was worth bringing it to my attention.

I think, particularly with young couples, it can be difficult to set up good boundaries. To me, recognizing "game" is helpful in the couple setting those boundaries.


----------



## Faithful Wife

TAG: I understand that you are bound and determined to only read certain posts of mine and not others, or else you would know that I have made many posts about what I did find interesting and useful in MMSL, that I have the book myself, that there is much that is very true in it in my opinion, and that all I am doing here is sharing my opinion about certain aspects I don't think are "right" in marriage. I am not trying to change anyone's mind, just share my opinion. Yet when I do share my opinion, people do try to change MY mind. I simply don't agree that some of the MMSL tactics should be part of marriage at all, but that doesn't mean I am "right". And neither is anyone else "right". We are just sharing opinions here. It also doesn't mean I see no value in it, there is much that is valuable and I have said that before.

As for the "only give 2/3 of what you get", that I took from the 16 Commandments of Poon, so I'm not exactly sure if it is in MMSL or not but he does have a link to the 16 Commandments so I assume he endorses it. And in the 16 Commandments, it doesn't say only do this if your wife isn't reciprocating it says to ALWAYS do this. Total crap, IMO.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> And yes, I need to know from her whether how she deals with relationship challenges is to fight or flee.
> *
> I need a fighter.*


^^Good!:smthumbup:
_"...Iron sharpeneth iron..."_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Topical storm said:


> I still don't think you understand what "game" is. PUA is a subset of game. A man can have game and not be a geekery pick up artist or use some PUA maneuver to get a woman. It seems like you only restrict the word game to PUA and that's not the case at all. Many men have game but have never even read a PUA book in their life. A man can have game and give a compliment as well. Game is a neutral concept.


Long before the internet and before PUA books were formulated, we used to called it " moves ."


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> How about we put the onus on the individual? As nice as it would be to have a man fight all my battles, at some point adults need to take responsibility for themselves. No big, strong man necessary for that, just maturity.


Because I believe in a partnership. I believe that we all have tunnel vision in our activities. I am sorry that many women just have to make a stand for complete independence and I say great ... go be independent. But if one wants to be a true partner then they will be mature enough to face life as a couple and NOT continually fight to be free of them. Until that time women will not have achieved equality. To be free enough to trust your partner to be your wingman/wingwoman. That takes having your sh!t together. I absolutely agree that many couples will never be able to achieve this level but it is worth striving for.

A couple is stronger together than alone. This is a fundamental concept that takes a real ego check. I know. I have been there.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I read this book:

Data, A Love Story: How I Gamed Online Dating to Meet My Match: Amy Webb: 9780525953807: Amazon.com: Books

The female author "gamed" online dating and found her perfect match! What she really did was set up a bunch of fake male profiles of the type of guy she wanted, to see which women would reach out to her fake men - - her theory was she wanted to see who her competition was for the exact type of man she was looking for. From the best female profiles, she observed similarities and copied them (where applicable) into her own profile. She noted which pictures looked best and had pics taken of herself that were similar. In the end, she snagged her "perfect man".

I was hoping it was going to be a cute love story but it was rather blah.

Not really relevant, just sharing because of the notion of "game" involved. This woman's "game" was to find a husband and she did.


----------



## Entropy3000

Tall Average Guy said:


> It seems to me it has to be both. Yes, the responsibility is on me to act appropriate, but my wife values what we have enough to step in. She did that with a friend of a neighbor that was friendly. Nothing inappropriate happened, and I had no intent of letting it. But my wife did not like it. She saw something that cause her to believe the other woman was up to no good. I still can't say I saw it, but I was glad that she thought what we had was worth bringing it to my attention.
> 
> I think, particularly with young couples, it can be difficult to set up good boundaries. To me, recognizing "game" is helpful in the couple setting those boundaries.


I have a real bias on this as my wife did this for us and saved our marriage when I was too blind to see for myself. When my ego said I was fine on my own. But I do understand that women are reluctant to admit to this as they have been fighting so hard to "not be controlled" some have become obsessed with it to their detriment. It is even part of this gaming discussion in that they feel the need to fight against all possible perceived control / manipulation. I get it. I am empathetic. But I feel the need to suggest to them to consider that being a couple with a man is not being controlled by a man. Trust works both ways.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Faithful Wife said:


> As for the "only give 2/3 of what you get", that I took from the 16 Commandments of Poon, so I'm not exactly sure if it is in MMSL or not but he does have a link to the 16 Commandments so I assume he endorses it. And in the 16 Commandments, it doesn't say only do this if your wife isn't reciprocating it says to ALWAYS do this. Total crap, IMO.


Chateau Heartiste tactics are more "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" without the thank you's.

On the other hand, it's really not that hard to expect testosterone driven creatures to be less affectionate.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> :iagree::iagree::iagree:
> 
> Ok so time for me to work out.


 Ha ha!

I just finished!
Now having my recovery meal.
Grilled Blue Marlin, Baked potatoes and lentils.
How does that sound?
Did shoulders and traps today.
Monster workout!


----------



## Entropy3000

Caribbean Man said:


> Ha ha!
> 
> I just finished!
> Now having my recovery meal.
> Grilled Blue Marlin, Baked potatoes and lentils.
> How does that sound?
> Did shoulders and traps today.
> Monster workout!


Actually got distracted. Starting Deadlift Day .... now.
This time I mean it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> The husband needs to know when to c0ckblock if nothing else. He needs to know when a wifes "male" friend / co-worker is gaming her. It is part of watching out for one another. A guy needs to understand that most women love attention and that some with rationalize it. He needs to know when to call BS on that.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:

Like I said earlier, the average woman does not recognize sometimes when a man she genuinely admires is putting down the moves on her.
The planets become aligned when she has marital problems at home, and Mr. Clark Kent at her workplace becomes her superman.
By then, neither His Needs Her Needs nor Love languages would work.
Only drastic action could get her out of the fog.
The same principle applies to wayward husbands.

Early in our marriage, my wife applied for a loan at the bank and was successful.
However, the loans officer , a male kept calling her at home, for all sort of silly reasons. And she realised that he was up to no good.
So told me.
He called one evening around 7.00 PM and she recognized the # and gave me the phone. 
I answered, he was surprised and began to stutter. He apologized and said that he had the wrong number.
My response was;
" _Good , next time don't make the same mistake., because I don't like strange men harassing my wife.."_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Entropy3000 said:


> Because I believe in a partnership. I believe that we all have tunnel vision in our activities. I am sorry that many women just have to make a stand for complete independence and I say great ... go be independent. But if one wants to be a true partner then they will be mature enough to face life as a couple and NOT continually fight to be free of them. Until that time women will not have achieved equality. To be free enough to trust your partner to be your wingman/wingwoman. That takes having your sh!t together. I absolutely agree that many couples will never be able to achieve this level but it is worth striving for.
> 
> A couple is stronger together than alone. This is a fundamental concept that takes a real ego check. I know. I have been there.


Have a wingperson is great but in the end it comes down to our own actions. It's awesome that I have a man around to look out for me but no amount of [email protected] is going to matter if I am not held responsible for my behavior. The onus is still on me. That's all I was saying. :smcowboy:


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM said: "By then, neither His Needs Her Needs nor Love languages would work.
Only drastic action could get her out of the fog.
The same principle applies to wayward husbands."

Maybe not the book HNHN itself, but the MB program has a very detailed way of dealing with this, for wayward men or women. From the reports over there, their way works out well a lot of the time. And yes, it includes drastic action.

It does NOT include pulling your love away from your spouse, nor going all spineless. It involves taking charge of the boundaries of your marriage and yes, taking control of the situation yourself if your spouse will not get out of the fog.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Faithful Wife said:


> TAG: I understand that you are bound and determined to only read certain posts of mine and not others, or else you would know that I have made many posts about what I did find interesting and useful in MMSL, that I have the book myself, that there is much that is very true in it in my opinion, and that all I am doing here is sharing my opinion about certain aspects I don't think are "right" in marriage.


I have read many of your posts. I have rarely seen these posts, but perhaps I have just missed them.



> As for the "only give 2/3 of what you get", that I took from the 16 Commandments of Poon, so I'm not exactly sure if it is in MMSL or not but he does have a link to the 16 Commandments so I assume he endorses it. And in the 16 Commandments, it doesn't say only do this if your wife isn't reciprocating it says to ALWAYS do this. Total crap, IMO.


Not clear to me that linking to something means complete endorsement of everything there. Nonetheless, I can say that what I took away from the book is about reducing what you give to provide some balance.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> CM said: "By then, neither His Needs Her Needs nor Love languages would work.
> Only drastic action could get her out of the fog.
> The same principle applies to wayward husbands."
> 
> Maybe not the book HNHN itself, but the MB program has a very detailed way of dealing with this, for wayward men or women. From the reports over there, their way works out well a lot of the time. And yes, it includes drastic action.
> 
> It does NOT include pulling your love away from your spouse, nor going all spineless. It involves taking charge of the boundaries of your marriage and yes, taking control of the situation yourself if your spouse will not get out of the fog.


Agreed.
But there are many books with many methods.
The MMSL may not be applicable to your husband or your marriage in a case like that, and you may prefer MB.
But there are quite a lot of cases that are 100% worse than yours where the methods in the MMSL may apply.
Like Entropy said, the trick is knowing what to use and how to mix the boiling hot water with the cold.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> TAG: I understand that you are bound and determined to only read certain posts of mine and not others, or else you would know that I have made many posts about what I did find interesting and useful in MMSL, that I have the book myself, that there is much that is very true in it in my opinion, and that all I am doing here is sharing my opinion about certain aspects I don't think are "right" in marriage.


I can't speak for anyone else, but from my perspective, it _does_ seem like you go from one side to the other. One moment you'll say that you understand or agree, but then the next you jump to the opposite, and to the point that it seems you don't like the idea of game at all. So, for me, it's been really confusing. It _could_ be how unnecessarily defensive you get with newcomers to the conversation, but I could also be wrong.



> I am not trying to change anyone's mind, just share my opinion. Yet when I do share my opinion, people do try to change MY mind. I simply don't agree that some of the MMSL tactics should be part of marriage at all, but that doesn't mean I am "right". And neither is anyone else "right". We are just sharing opinions here.


I don't think anyone has been trying to change your mind at all. It's just that some of your ideas about certain aspects have been...well, off base with what was actually said. They tried to reexplain in a way to make more sense. I can see why that would seem that they're trying to change your mind, but I don't think it was the actual intention. 



> It also doesn't mean I see no value in it, there is much that is valuable and I have said that before.
> 
> As for the "only give 2/3 of what you get", that I took from the 16 Commandments of Poon, so I'm not exactly sure if it is in MMSL or not but he does have a link to the 16 Commandments so I assume he endorses it. And in the 16 Commandments, it *doesn't say only do this if your wife isn't reciprocating it says to ALWAYS do this. Total crap, IMO.*


I agree. I think that only giving 2/3 of what you get can be helpful in extreme situations, but I don't think it's something to be applied to all situations no matter what.


----------



## Created2Write

Entropy3000 said:


> Because I believe in a partnership. I believe that we all have tunnel vision in our activities. I am sorry that many women just have to make a stand for complete independence and I say great ... go be independent. But if one wants to be a true partner then they will be mature enough to face life as a couple and NOT continually fight to be free of them. Until that time women will not have achieved equality. To be free enough to trust your partner to be your wingman/wingwoman. That takes having your sh!t together. I absolutely agree that many couples will never be able to achieve this level but it is worth striving for.
> 
> A couple is stronger together than alone. This is a fundamental concept that takes a real ego check. I know. I have been there.


I completely and entirely agree. 100%. And not because I "need a big, strong man to come to my rescue", but because I believe that, as a couple, we are _both_ responsible for the things that occur in the relationship. If I see something potentially dangerous and choose to just let my husband reap what he sows because "he's responsible for his own actions", then I really can't say that I give a rats a$$ about our marriage. If I cared, I would step in and do something.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created...I'm just uppity.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Created...I'm just uppity.


^^In a good way or a bad way?


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> AA - *does* your man do any of those PUA things?


No. Well, definitely not the three main ones you listed. I too probably would have split long ago if he pulled crap like that. 

He'll sometimes do it ironically, though. Sidle up beside me and say something super smarmy like "hey baby, what's your sign.". Or something like that. He gets the eyeroll, same as everyone else ever did. Sometimes a flippant comment. TBH, though, I think that's what he's looking for. he'd probably be disappointed if I responded any other way.

I dunno.  There are all sorts of people here saying it is just a tool for mutual benefit. Hate the player, not the game. But most of the concrete examples seem to range from silly and unnecessary to completely manipulative and disrespectful. Or,conversely, ordinary everyday nice things, like bringing home some yoghurt or making blueberry pancakes.

I mean sometimes my SO will cook me dinner or fold the laundry, and it makes me very happy. Is that game? 

If so, is there anything that isn't game? Or do I just have extremely low expectations?


----------



## Faithful Wife

"^^In a good way or a bad way?"

Umm....there's a bad way?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> "^^In a good way or a bad way?"
> 
> Umm....there's a bad way?


Nah,
just kidding.
Like I said in that other thread, I find arrogance in a woman,
Very sexy.


----------



## Faithful Wife

AA: "If so, is there anything that isn't game? Or do I just have extremely low expectations?"

Good question (is there anything that isn't game?), but I didn't understand the low expectations part.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I mean sometimes my SO will cook me dinner or fold the laundry, and it makes me very happy. Is that game?
> 
> If so, is there anything that isn't game? Or do I just have extremely low expectations?


Game is anything he has that is unique to him or her thaat makes you desire them.

I cook sometimes.
I ALWAYS do the dishes.
I ALWAYS do the laundry
I iron my own clothes sometimes hers, because I'm better at it.

Me doing these things doesn't make her desire me more.

But me teasing her when she throws an unreasonable tantrum, until she so mad that she physically attacks me and then I wrestle her and pin her down on the bed or against the wall gets her excited.

Timing is everything, knowing her mood is important, being able to manipulate it and get the desired result, one in which there is mutual satisfaction, is game.


----------



## Created2Write

I think the difference between game and a guy using PUA for only _his_ benefit is in his intentions. If he doesn't actually care about what happens to the girl he's pursuing, then he's using these things as a way to help himself. From what I understand about the men here, these things are meant to be about achieving _mutual_ benefit. 

Honestly, I knew a guy who used a few PUA tactics to try and get with me, but he was so young and arrogant that his charm and sense of humor really irked me. My husband has a similar personality, but he isn't arrogant and he doesn't act like the sun shines out of his a$$. IMO, my husband has much more game than the other guy, even if the other guy had a "sweep you off your feet" quality about it. Too bad it was suffocated by his inability to actually connect with me. Actually, it wasn't a loss at all. He was an idiot.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> Game is anything he has that is unique to him or her thaat makes you desire them.
> 
> I cook sometimes.
> I ALWAYS do the dishes.
> I ALWAYS do the laundry
> I iron my own clothes sometimes hers, because I'm better at it.
> 
> Me doing these things doesn't make her desire me more.
> 
> But me teasing her when she throws an unreasonable tantrum, until she so mad that she physically attacks me and then I wrestle her and pin her down on the bed or against the wall gets her excited.
> 
> Timing is everything, knowing her mood is important, being able to manipulate it and get the desired result, one in which there is mutual satisfaction, is game.


This kind of thing is what makes marriage so fun, imo. 

Like today I'm feeling down emotionally and my husband went to leave on his break, closed and locked the door, and then came back inside, picked me up from off of the couch, and gave me a really big, passionate hug. Even though he was already late. He stayed for an extra five minutes and gave all of that attention to me. I got those heart flutters that he gives me so often. 

While I love that, I also love how much he enjoys making me laugh, even if it's over the silliest things. I love how he teases me. I love how he knows exactly what to say to get me to make specific facial expressions. I love how he pretends to be the "bad boy" even though he really isn't one. 

It all makes the marriage three dimensional.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> *It all makes the marriage three dimensional.*


:iagree:

I think that's what's lacking in some marriages., Things go flat, deflated.
They try to figure out what's wrong but they cannot put their fingers on it.
Human beings are multi dimensional creatures. Laughter and fun is a huge part of that.
A smile is the same in any language.
Laughter is the same in any language.
Love is the same in any language.

Sometimes we take ourselves too seriously , I have found out that in marriage, it doesn't make sense fussing with my wife over little things.
It created a negative aura.
It is much easier to make her happy and keep her smiling.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo, I hope all goes well tonight!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> I am ALWAYS demanding.
> 
> That's all I got in the always bin.


You are? I wouldn't call you demanding at all. To me, being a demanding person is expecting others to jump at the word go and cater to you, while the demanding ones would never to that for others. You certainly don't fit that category to me. Wouldn't the words particular and passionate be more apt?


----------



## Faithful Wife

He's probably totally into that?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Like my new avatar?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ha! Let's go get some beers wearing these...people will think you're my girlfriend and we can laugh about it. Mwah ha ha!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Weird. You are right. What the...?

Pretty sure the shirt won't look like that on you.

I'm apparently going to look like a truck driver in my hat, but that's ok. Even funnier.


----------



## Catherine602

Deejo said:


> Deejo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Happiest I've been in years. I don't regret sharing that.
> And I was completely blindsided. Sometimes that's just reality too.
> 
> I can't control how she feels about the ex. Ex and I ARE going to continue to interact. We have 2 young kids. Just won't be with the same laissez faire attitude.
> 
> And yes, I need to know from her whether how she deals with relationship challenges is to fight or flee.
> 
> I need a fighter.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a package deal - kids and ex. She needs to be to come to accept you all. There is a thread started by a woman married to a man who has joint custody of his 2 kids. The title is something like "I hate step kids."
> 
> Got to be the type of woman who is compassionate and unselfish enough to love another persons kids. not too rigid (adaptable).
> 
> Well, break a bed (break a leg analogy) don't want you to break any important body parts.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
Click to expand...


----------



## Entropy3000

Mystery the Pick Up Artist on Jimmy Kimmel - YouTube


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> I read this book:
> 
> Data, A Love Story: How I Gamed Online Dating to Meet My Match: Amy Webb: 9780525953807: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> The female author "gamed" online dating and found her perfect match! What she really did was set up a bunch of fake male profiles of the type of guy she wanted, to see which women would reach out to her fake men - - her theory was she wanted to see who her competition was for the exact type of man she was looking for. From the best female profiles, she observed similarities and copied them (where applicable) into her own profile. She noted which pictures looked best and had pics taken of herself that were similar. In the end, she snagged her "perfect man".
> 
> I was hoping it was going to be a cute love story but it was rather blah.
> 
> Not really relevant, just sharing because of the notion of "game" involved. This woman's "game" was to find a husband and she did.


I love your new avatar. Way to get with the spirit of things. Kudos!!!


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Have a wingperson is great but in the end it comes down to our own actions. It's awesome that I have a man around to look out for me but no amount of [email protected] is going to matter if I am not held responsible for my behavior. The onus is still on me. That's all I was saying. :smcowboy:


We are NOT disagreeing here. The comment came out of a discussion about guys who have marriages that are out of balance.

But that cute cowboy is the icing. I feel gamed. LOL.

While I think a couple can have playfulness there is a level of "game" playing which I think is where some are coming from which is counter productive and flat disengenuous. Hurtful even. So yeah I can have a paralax view and see this aspect.

For sure my wife should not have to watch over me to keep me on track or vice versa. Just not worth the effort. Sometimes we get tunnel vision about certain people in our lives though. So in 36 years of marriage my wife had to seriously reel me in once. Should she have had to do that? Hell no. That was all on me. But sometimes and I mean on rare occasions we all need a little help.

But there just could not be a discussion on PUA without bringing up c0ckblocking.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> CM said: "By then, neither His Needs Her Needs nor Love languages would work.
> Only drastic action could get her out of the fog.
> The same principle applies to wayward husbands."
> 
> Maybe not the book HNHN itself, but the MB program has a very detailed way of dealing with this, for wayward men or women. From the reports over there, their way works out well a lot of the time. And yes, it includes drastic action.
> 
> It does NOT include pulling your love away from your spouse, nor going all spineless. It involves taking charge of the boundaries of your marriage and yes, taking control of the situation yourself if your spouse will not get out of the fog.


Ok to be clear, I was trying to explain why that advice was given in MMSL and why it might be needed as a desperate measure by some guys.

I go on the record as saying I absolutely would not want to go there personally. If I could not get things straightened out without that I chose the wrong person or I have been messing up badly myself.

So do not get to a point in your marriage where one would even consider pulling back the love in this way. 

My view gets tainted by some of the threads we see on this forum. I find many of the posts hard to believe.


----------



## Entropy3000

Created2Write said:


> I completely and entirely agree. 100%. And not because I "need a big, strong man to come to my rescue", but because I believe that, as a couple, we are _both_ responsible for the things that occur in the relationship. If I see something potentially dangerous and choose to just let my husband reap what he sows because "he's responsible for his own actions", then I really can't say that I give a rats a$$ about our marriage. If I cared, I would step in and do something.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:

I ducked when I posted that. Actually I went and worked off some of the extra testosterone lifting some heavy sh!t. LOL.

I also get that many women take the gains they have made within society seriously and not to let them fall by the wayside. Message received. Understood. I am suggesting that after that at some point there is another level. A level of confidence and self awareness where they realize that no one can take away their choices. That they are free to be part of couple without fear of losing their own identity. I think this has to come from inside her own heart. It takes courage and wisdom. Choosing the right guy is critical to this of course. And indeed we need to own our own sh!t. Carry our own water in life. Sometimes I think though that a couple comes under attack and a joint response can be especially positve. Double jeopardy works fine for me here.


----------



## Entropy3000




----------



## Catherine602

Deejo said:


> What's 8 months, what'd I miss?


Duration of your relationship with M. Someone mentioned that it was 8 months. I thought it was much shorter.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

View attachment 2781


----------



## Entropy3000

Therealbrighteyes said:


> View attachment 2781


7-10 split

Exciting stuff ................................... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



Catherine602 said:


> Duration of your relationship with M. Someone mentioned that it was 8 months. I thought it was much shorter.


You thought right. M and I have been 10 weeks. And I'm pleased to report that honesty and love will hopefully carry us much lonerr.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> You thought right. M and I have been 10 weeks. And I'm pleased to report that honesty and love will hopefully carry us for another !0


:yay::yay::yay::yay::yay::yay::yay::yay::yay::yay::yay::yay:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Marvin Gaye - Lets get it on - YouTube

Best sexy time song ever. Take her out tomorrow, bring her back to your place, turn on this song and cut the lights.


----------



## Nsweet

always_alone said:


> Okay. I'll take the bait, as this thread has left me with one last question.
> 
> I've been convinced that some people use game techniques to better themselves and improve their dating skills. Okay, progress. But now that I know this, how am I supposed to distinguish the jerks from the good guys?
> 
> It used to be easy. If a guy was gaming me, I immediately lost interest. If my SO were to attempt any of the strategies I saw on the singles scene, I would immediately lose respect. (I say it this way because I'm still not entirely certain what married game looks like. If it's blueberry pancakes, I'm all in. If it's flirting with other women to get a rise out of me, I'm all out.)
> 
> But, if I allow that at least some gaming is good, or at least well-intentioned, how am I to recognize the jerks? When I can rightfully accuse my SO of acting like one? If you take away my handy indicator, can you give me a substitute? Ideally one that will work relatively quickly and efficiently?


Finally a good question.

Yes it's true there are men who use game to help them socialize with women, the natual introverts such as myself. Then there are the jerks who use sexual conquests to get a high and don't care who they hurt along the way. They will f*ck your wife and laugh about it with friends later.

As I've come to recognize the signs, Jerks and b!tches work with the same techniques as abusive people. Most of them lack boundaries and will touch you as soon as possible and use extreme flattery to push past your defences. One of the biggest indicators of an abusive jerk or crazy b!tch is that they seem to push relationship with you as fast as possible and disrespect your boundaries. A femal like this will usually tell you her pity-me story so you will lower your guard, and an man like this will use tell you his verson of "I've had a hard life". 

You'll understand when you come across a pan handler in the city and hear the same sort of stories.... "boo hoo, pity me"

The way you can tell the man or woman you're madly in love with is the abusive type is by how quickly they seem to put you on a pedestal one minute and then devale you the next. Just so you know I've run across several men and women like this, this year. Both women made me feel kind of sorry for them and then flipped out on me as soon as I put my foot down and stopped listening to their sob stories about exes. The couple of guys like this started to get pushy with me and take advantage of me for money as soon as they dropped the friendly act. 

So that's how you know. 

1. They get too close, too fast. 
2. They tell you a bunch or pity stories to earn your sympathy and trust early on. They don't want your help either, they only want to be enabled and will refuse to lift a finger to change. 
3. You hear "I love you" or anything about commitment before you've had a chance to fully get to know them. A.K.A the "whirlwind romance". 
4. You feel an instant connection that seems like you've always known them. Don't trust that feeling! They're using flattery and advanced NLP brainwashing tactics to get you.
5. They flip on you the momment they get close to you and then revert to acting artificial and super sweet again. You get hit with their blame tactics and when you pull away, they act nice again to pull you back in for more.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

trenton said:


> pfft...you're going to attract pua fans like flies!



View attachment 2782


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Marvin Gaye - Lets get it on - YouTube
> 
> Best sexy time song ever. Take her out tomorrow, bring her back to your place, turn on this song and cut the lights.


Marvin Gaye is good, but this guy is my favourite.

Seal , Kiss From A Rose

In surround sound,on repeat mode , 
* incense burner filled with rose scented oils *


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Caribbean Man said:


> Game is anything he has that is unique to him or her thaat makes you desire them.
> 
> I cook sometimes.
> I ALWAYS do the dishes.
> I ALWAYS do the laundry
> I iron my own clothes sometimes hers, because I'm better at it.
> 
> Me doing these things doesn't make her desire me more.
> 
> *But me teasing her when she throws an unreasonable tantrum, until she so mad that she physically attacks me and then I wrestle her and pin her down on the bed or against the wall gets her excited.
> 
> Timing is everything, knowing her mood is important, being able to manipulate it and get the desired result, one in which there is mutual satisfaction, is game*.


I LIKE this definition CB ...







I guess my husband has some Game after all !! 

He is pretty good at purposely annoying me to the point I want to knock him down so I come railing at him - so he can grab me...and I like that! Often we start laughing then.. melt into each other.... though he has yet to wrestle me to the ground.... still waiting on that action...

He doesn't cook or do any of those other things (doesn't need to)...and true....this wouldn't do diddley for upping a little flirtatious Desire.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> I LIKE this definition CB ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my husband has some Game after all !!
> 
> He is pretty good at purposely annoying me to the point I want to knock him down so I come railing at him - so he can grab me...and I like that! Often we start laughing then.. melt into each other.... though he has yet to wrestle me to the ground.... still waiting on that action...
> 
> * He doesn't cook or do any of those other things (doesn't need to)...and true....this wouldn't do diddley for upping a little flirtatious Desire.*


^^^
Good Morning Simply!

Think, there must have been something in him that has kept you passionately in love with him, and wanting him .
It doesn't have to be anything grand or over the top.
It could be that little thing which give you butterflies in your stomach whenever he does it or you think of it, or that part of him that makes you feel " alive" and glad that you married him.
IMO , it is part of what keeps a marriage exciting.


----------



## RandomDude

The game can come in so many forms... hell I have to resist playing it on FB at the moment =/

But oh... too late, think I started a few things >.< ****!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dial it down, Dude! Give the poor ladies a break. They can't resist you.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Faithful Wife said:


> Dial it down, Dude! Give the poor ladies a break. They can't resist you.


What'd I miss? Who are we talking about?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I was replying to RandomDude because he's a babe magnet on FB (post #2195). Was just being silly!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

So now that this thread slowed down... what did we learn? lol

TRBE, you're the recap specialist right?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sooo....Question. (In the voice of Dwight on The Office).

If game is whatever you personally have that makes you attractive to the opposite sex....then this really CAN be anything?

So a shy, silent, strong type man's game, is his smoldering lone wolf thing?

A scientist's game, might be his incredible intellect?

A cowboy's game, is his hat and boots and Wranglers, or maybe his rough, tough hands?

So game then could be a nerdy thing, a bravado thing, a quiet thing, a loud thing....it could be any quality, whatever you authenticly bring to the table?

And then game as a verb...is the action of trying to flirt, using your game qualities?


----------



## ScarletBegonias




----------



## Faithful Wife

Is that toward me?

I was just asking because usually game is described as those things like negging and being extroverted, approaching women confidently, etc.

Usually it isn't described as just "whatever you have is your game", but CM said that a few posts back.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Faithful Wife said:


> Is that toward me?
> 
> I was just asking because usually game is described as those things like negging and being extroverted, approaching women confidently, etc.
> 
> Usually it isn't described as just "whatever you have is your game", but CM said that a few posts back.


lol yeah but it wasn't meant to be a rude or mean. The game thing and all its facets boggle the mind.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Sooo....Question. (In the voice of Dwight on The Office).
> 
> If game is whatever you personally have that makes you attractive to the opposite sex....then this really CAN be anything?
> 
> So a shy, silent, strong type man's game, is his smoldering lone wolf thing?
> 
> A scientist's game, might be his incredible intellect?
> 
> A cowboy's game, is his hat and boots and Wranglers, or maybe his rough, tough hands?
> 
> So game then could be a nerdy thing, a bravado thing, a quiet thing, a loud thing....it could be any quality, whatever you authenticly bring to the table?
> 
> And then game as a verb...is the action of trying to flirt, using your game qualities?


^^^Yes.
Its a relative term.
I live in the Caribbean, because of cultural difference game would mean different things to those in N. America.

On the singles scene, to a N.American female tourist, a guy with game down here has to be tall, physically fit , down to earth ,and a good knowledge of where all the hot clubs , hang out spots and beaches are.
Looks don't count , _and they pay him_...lol!

To a local girl on the club scene down here, a guy with game is one who has access to VIP areas in the hottest clubs, drives a Range Rover and is a regular on the c**ktail circuits.

There are many , many variations. But PUA literature just focuses on getting the woman in bed, because our society is driven by sex.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ScarletBegonias said:


> lol yeah but it wasn't meant to be a rude or mean. The game thing and all its facets boggle the mind.


The dynamics of human relationships and socio-sexual trends are in themselves, very complex.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Caribbean Man said:


> The dynamics of human relationships and socio-sexual trends are in themselves, very complex.


Thank you,Captain Obvious


----------



## Faithful Wife

But CM...in your post there, you only talked about a certain group of people with game.

My point was, geeks, nerds, shy guys, cowboys, freaks, loners, and goofballs....they have their game, too, right? There is a woman who loves every type of man's game, right? Not just the obvious game qualities.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Faithful Wife said:


> My point was, geeks, nerds, shy guys, cowboys, freaks, loners, and goofballs....they have their game, too, right? There is a woman who loves every type of man's game, right? Not just the obvious game qualities.


:iagree:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Sooo....Question. (In the voice of Dwight on The Office).
> 
> If game is whatever you personally have that makes you attractive to the opposite sex....then this really CAN be anything?
> 
> So a shy, silent, strong type man's game, is his smoldering lone wolf thing?
> 
> A scientist's game, might be his incredible intellect?
> 
> A cowboy's game, is his hat and boots and Wranglers, or maybe his rough, tough hands?
> 
> So game then could be a nerdy thing, a bravado thing, a quiet thing, a loud thing....it could be any quality, whatever you authenticly bring to the table?
> 
> And then game as a verb...is the action of trying to flirt, using your game qualities?


Depending on who you're trying to appeal to, yes... game can be almost anything. Game is all about appeal. Its not just what you HAVE... its maximizing what you have. Making what you have align better to what women are looking for. Working in cooperation with female psychology. But in measuring game, we're not talking about whether you found "the one" or not. We're taking a measure of your appeal to women overall. Go find one now. There is no judgement about outcome... be it sex or relationship. Its simply about how hard/easy is it for you to draw women.

Nerdy guy might have a lot of game to nerdy girl, but probably none to the larger array of women. This is really just subject matter, not so much game. Game is the same regardless of subject matter. I draw a very diverse range of women because I have an unusually diverse range of interests and I'm adjusting game to fit. I pull off geek just as easily as I do athletic. I pull off intellectual as easily as I do party guy. Subject matter changes, but the game remains the same. But teasing, baiting, playfulness, nonchanlance, keeping a good frame, touch... its used on everyone with little changes to flavor.

Negging a geeky girl for example wouldn't focus on her looks, where she often doesn't place much value and is often insecure. You neg her on her ability to play Mario cart (the geeky chicks dig retro games... they just do). Again, think teasing and not insulting. She crashes or something bad happens. "Are you sure you've played this game before?" Not really bad at all. I'm personally not a fan of excessively negative teasing.

Regardless of the persona, most elements of game remain. This is why I say it works on everyone. It just comes in different flavors. Showing confidence of some sort is universally necessary... even for shy guys, but the way you show that confidence might require different techniques. The strong quiet type might use slight, sly smiles... a lot of seemingly harmless touch (yes, I think the term kino is dumb too) and body language. You bide your time, avoid commenting on everything, and make your few comments zingers or otherwise standouts. The fact you don't talk much, but when you do its golden, is an excellent draw... you still set things up, you still use wit, you still neg. Interest is piqued and you get the ladies trying to find out more about you - ultimately changing the dynamic from "guy after girl" to "girl after guy". There's a lot of variations on mystery/quiet too. Any given guy might naturally have more of one sort of game than another... most guys couldn't properly neg to save their lives. In my case, my c*cky game isn't my strongest point. However, I've gotten better at a lot of "styles" which I apply as necessary and adjust as I go. Still, most of the tactics and psychological goals are the same. Game is a toolbox, you still have to know what tool to use on who, how much pressure to apply with that tool, and when to use it. This only comes with practice imo... get out there and do it. The way I figure it, those how have it all naturally just learned it through regular socialization when they were younger or otherwise didn't have some other behaviors or characteristics that held them back. It always worked for them and so it just seems part of their personality. Those who seek to up their game either want to pull better women or recognize that what they're doing just isn't working.

Specific tactics and subject matter also depend on locale. You're not gonna pick someone up at the grocery store with the same game you'd run at the club... but its all game and follows the same principles.

We wouldn't generally say the typical geek has much game, because his game is only perceived by other geeks. However, he might have confidence in a group of underconfident people. A guy with a lot of game can appeal to a wider range of women and better looking women.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> But CM...in your post there, you only talked about a certain group of people with game.
> 
> My point was, geeks, nerds, shy guys, cowboys, freaks, loners, and goofballs....they have their game, too, right? There is a woman who loves every type of man's game, right? Not just the obvious game qualities.


......and that's why I answered " yes" to your post and said it was a relative term.

Anybody could have game, it depends upon whose atention he/ she is trying to attract or manipulate.
Some girls dig geeky guys.
Some girls dig rough , bad boy riders.
Different strokes for different folks.
Even in church, there are guys whom all the girls want. They too have game.

Some guys got no game at all.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So now that this thread slowed down... what did we learn? lol
> 
> TRBE, you're the recap specialist right?


This thread is 148 pages long. I'm not tackling a recap of this. All I can say is that we all are different and respond in our own way. Some call it game, others call it being outgoing. Some say it works, others say it doesn't. Some say many have it, others say we all have it in our own ways.

At least we can all agree that Risk is the best game ever.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Some guys got no game at all."

What would this look like?


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *Game is a toolbox, you still have to know what tool to use on who, how much pressure to apply with that tool, and when to use it. *


^^^:iagree:

Everyone has it, some refuse to try because of self doubt or laziness.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Faithful Wife said:


> "Some guys got no game at all."
> 
> What would this look like?



View attachment 2790


He's literally [email protected]


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Everyone has it" and "some guys got no game at all"?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Who is that question directed to?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> "Everyone has it" and "some guys got no game at all"?


......because of self doubt or laziness.
They never cultivate it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I think it is important to differentiate style or content, from actual "game". Whether you wear a cowboy hat is irrelevant. That you have a good frame is relevant - not coming off wanting, needing, reaching.

The fundemental principles apply to all styles imo.

I'm in the south now and had been expanding my social reach into more country-style places. I thought it would be a whole different ball game but its not.

I had gotten into a conversation and sat down at a high top with a girl and things were going well when a song came on that she was really into so I said "dance with me." She got up and I noticed her pants were practically spray painted on, we started dancing I made a comment I intended as a neg "So how did you ever get into those pants?" She had the wit to hit me back with "wouldn't you like to know." Country girl, same game... if I answer too sexually or too weak, it might not sink me, but I lose points. So I said, "Yeah, don't you think they'd make my ass look good?"

Confident, assertive, playfully ****y, not over eager, engaged her physically, avoided direct compliments, and maintained my value.

Fundemental principles of good game.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> ......because of self doubt or laziness.
> They never cultivate it.


I think that is too simplistic. Some are just naturals so laziness and cultivation isn't applicable. It's just second nature to them like breathing.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> "Some guys got no game at all."
> 
> What would this look like?


Sheldon.

And yes, I know a ton of women who find him appealing in theory. A guy like that in real life? No way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Some are just naturals so laziness and cultivation isn't applicable."

Or, I was also going to offer up, some women are agressive and chase the men they want, and some men are more introverted and want this agressiveness in a woman...these types of men and women find each other, without the man having to do any gaming, he is simply himself and she goes after him. This is the case with many strong, silent types.

But then Dvls is saying basically, this isn't the same thing, because the guy didn't specifically use game to get her? 

Dang it, I thought I had it.

But I think I've got one part:

Game as a verb...is flirting.

Game as a noun...is a quality you possess, or would that be an adjective, describing you? Anyway, I think I at least have these two sorted out.

(or maybe not.....this hat on my head is really heavy and truckery....messing up my thought process....)


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Sheldon.


He has two women who fought over him. Amy and that grad student chic. God I'm lame. :rofl:


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Faithful Wife said:


> "Some guys got no game at all."
> 
> What would this look like?


"No GAME at all" may mean the person isn't locked into a phisod...

When we are talking about "GAME" on this site, a lot of times we are mostly referring to a phisod and the traits that go into it. Some of the "no GAME" ers think that's fake, and may be appropriate for the situation, but the ones who lock into a phisod think that's fake.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> He has two women who fought over him. Amy and that grad student chic. God I'm lame. :rofl:


Yeah, he is also a fictitious guy getting fictitious girls.

Its parody... its entertaining precisely because nobody would be interested in a Sheldon for real.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yeah, he is also a fictitious guy getting fictitious girls.
> 
> Its parody... its entertaining precisely because nobody would be interested in a Sheldon for real.


You brought up the fictitious guy.  In real life though you are correct. He has unbelievable disorders that would make it impossible to live with him. Plus he's asexual and a momma's boy.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Sooo....Question. (In the voice of Dwight on The Office).
> 
> If game is whatever you personally have that makes you attractive to the opposite sex....then this really CAN be anything?
> 
> So a shy, silent, strong type man's game, is his smoldering lone wolf thing?
> 
> A scientist's game, might be his incredible intellect?
> 
> A cowboy's game, is his hat and boots and Wranglers, or maybe his rough, tough hands?
> 
> So game then could be a nerdy thing, a bravado thing, a quiet thing, a loud thing....it could be any quality, whatever you authenticly bring to the table?
> 
> And then game as a verb...is the action of trying to flirt, using your game qualities?


It's interesting...when you mentioned Dwight from The Office and then talk about game....

While he is utterly nerdy and weird and not physically attractive....he is _so_ confident and sure of himself that I can't help but think he is _sexy_. Especially towards the end the of show.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> But then Dvls is saying basically, this isn't the same thing, because the guy didn't specifically use game to get her?


I'm not quite sure how I would categorize submissive men who get snagged by dominant women. I find this to be an abberration. My surface thoughts are that there's something not quite right there, with one or both of them. I'll have to think about it.

Just because you end up with a woman, doesn't mean you had much game to get there though. I mean hell, I had girlfriends before I ever even asked anyone out (which is good, because at the time, I'm not sure I could have asked someone out). 



Faithful Wife said:


> Game as a verb...is flirting.


Pretty much. Building up attraction.



Faithful Wife said:


> Game as a noun...is a quality you possess, or would that be an adjective, describing you? Anyway, I think I at least have these two sorted out.


The way I see it, yes and no. Game is a set of principles of interaction that women are naturally attracted to. Any guy can be confident... its really a state of mind. A choice. Women are naturally drawn to confidence.

There are different means for applying these principlels. This is style and flavor. One guy might have more of one than another. How do you show confidence? It might be bold and ****y, it might be nonchalant and laid back... etc etc.

You with me?

My dominant game is generally intellect and wit... that's my best flavor... but the principles must be adhered to. The cases where they don't, I see as red flags: Borderlines, codependents, nymphomaniacs... a lot of different things. Beware the single girl who eagerly soaks up your needy showering of attention and compliments. You've set your value low and she's still taking you eagerly because her deeper perception of her own value is even lower.


----------



## Faithful Wife

sigh....ok.

What movie is Sheldon from?

There was a line in When Harry Met Sally, where Sally had told Harry that some boyfriend named Sheldon had given her orgasms and Harry told her there was no possible way that a dude named Sheldon could be a good lover....and then later sarcastically referred to him as "Sheldon, the Wonder Schlong".

Funny as hell, but I don't think you are talking about the same Sheldon.


----------



## Deejo

Sheldon is from 'Big Bang Theory'
I have an autistic child. People in those circles see Sheldon as a pretty decent portrayal of someone with Aspergers Syndrome. Very structured, very literal, incredible vocabulary, socially ... different. Not awkward, or bad ... but very different.


----------



## Deejo

And is the kind of woman he might have 'game' with ...


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Sheldon is from 'Big Bang Theory'
> I have an autistic child. People in those circles see Sheldon as a pretty decent portrayal of someone with Aspergers Syndrome. Very structured, very literal, incredible vocabulary, socially ... different. Not awkward, or bad ... but very different.


Between Sheldon and Leonard, I'd take Sheldon any day. Leonard is a whiney, wheezy, annoying people pleaser who doesn't take a stand for anything and acts like a perpetual victim. At least Sheldon tells people exactly what he thinks and doesn't put up with crap. Plus he's tall.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I keep wanting to check out that show but haven't yet.

Thanks for the run down.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Not likely. A real life sheldon is not going to appeal to anyone imo... even someone just like him.

He's emotionally indifferent to the needs of others. He recognizes that others have needs but only emulates empathy (on occassion) because he recognizes his social responsibility on an intellectual level (when x, I'm supposed to do y).

Sheldon is Star Trek's Data or Spock. His lack of "humanity" is a device to explore the human condition and amplify humor through absurdity. BBT is so funny because of how absurd lacking social skill and awareness is, to those who have it. So you get a lot of episodes of Sheldon trying to be human. Sheldon dealing with a relationship. Data trying to be human. Spock trying to be human. etc

You know the guy who plays Leonard, who was also in The Roseanne Bar Show, actually dated the girl who plays Penny? Yeah... wtf right? Must be some game there. haha


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Sheldon is Star Trek's Data or Spock."

But I know tons of chicks who are totally into that.

I have also heard people with AS make great dommes.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> "Sheldon is Star Trek's Data or Spock."
> 
> But I know tons of chicks who are totally into that.
> 
> I have also heard people with AS make great dommes.


People like people who don't care about them and have no ability to connect emotionally?

Lies I tell you. Lies.

ps - not really commenting as AS... just on the purpose of the characters.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I think that is too simplistic. Some are just naturals so laziness and cultivation isn't applicable. It's just second nature to them like breathing.


ok I hear you.

The woman in the pic below is Cindy Breakspeare, Miss world 1976.
The guy , is a was well known rebel and " bad boy " and thug during his time.
She met him, and fell in love with him whilst she was reigning Miss world and he still a struggling musician/ weed smoker /bad boy/social outcast.
She was Jamaican upper class , white,from a wealthy family and a Jazz musician.
He was from the ghettos of Trenchtown, jobless.
In a interview recently she said that she did not accidentally get pregnant for him, she wanted to get pregnant with his child even though their relationship was supposed to be a big secret, because of social stigma.
She said that the first time they met, she was hopelessly attracted to him.
IMO, that man had game.



















As a boy, he was a social outcast because he was neither black nor white in a country where racial tensions were high.
He was mixed race.
In a nutshell, he worked on himself and turned from a shy boy who was the target of bullies at school , to a man with a message.
He developed himself and in doing so, got serious game.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Not likely. A real life sheldon is not going to appeal to anyone imo... even someone just like him.
> 
> He's emotionally indifferent to the needs of others. He recognizes that others have needs but only emulates empathy (on occassion) because he recognizes his social responsibility on an intellectual level (when x, I'm supposed to do y).
> 
> Sheldon is Star Trek's Data or Spock. His lack of "humanity" is a device to explore the human condition and amplify humor through absurdity. BBT is so funny because of how absurd lacking social skill and awareness is, to those who have it. So you get a lot of episodes of Sheldon trying to be human. Sheldon dealing with a relationship. Data trying to be human. Spock trying to be human. etc
> 
> You know the guy who plays Leonard, who was also in The Roseanne Bar Show, actually dated the girl who plays Penny? Yeah... wtf right? Must be some game there. haha


You keep jumping between their characters and reality. In reality "Sheldon" has game and is in a LTR with a smokin' hot dude.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> People like people who don't care about them and have no ability to connect emotionally?


Clearly they do......isn't that the basis of Mystery, Roissey and their ilk? Sorry, couldn't resist and well, you stepped in to it. :rofl:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Faithful Wife said:


> "Some are just naturals so laziness and cultivation isn't applicable."
> 
> Or, I was also going to offer up, some women are agressive and chase the men they want, *and some men are more introverted and want this agressiveness in a woman...these types of men and women find each other, without the man having to do any gaming, he is simply himself and she goes after him.* This is the case with many strong, silent types.


 This kinda describes me & mine... although I never chased a guy ...(I hid all my crushes - only my best GF knew & I'd kill her if she spilled it). I was just receptive to what came my direction (if he was cute)....Being older fashioned minded... I never felt it good to chase a man. 

But being naturally assertive (after a little initial shyness)... I came alive unto him knowing I was "wanted" / chosen.... I have enough Gift of Gab to keep the quietest guy entertained... so long as he enjoys my company & BS....with some feedback ... We're good [email protected]#$%^& 

Although my husband is a Laid back introverted sweetheart, he's always been attracted to the Feistier girls / the aggressive ones.. I have always found this rather funny. 

And I've always liked the "*He's so shy*" type. We are a prime example of Opposites attracting.


----------



## Topical storm

Therealbrighteyes said:


> View attachment 2790
> 
> 
> He's literally [email protected]


Even though Rush Limbaugh might be unattractive to a lot of women based on looks, I'd bet a lof of money he has game, based on his aura and personality and being able to capture an audience. Uglier men tend to have better game than good looking guys.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls...re: the Spock loving chicks...I think this is a phenonmenon in human attraction, I don't think it is that uncommon. People are sometimes attracted to the one who is Unattainable.

Sometimes this attraction is the result of the person themself being unattainable or emotionally unavailable. But other times, I don't think it is all that complicated, it just is what it is. I really think the whole design (sorry for "going there"...you already knew it would devolve into a philosophical discussion eventually) is that there really is someone for everyone.

It does confuse me though, that when something doesn't fit into your experience, you straight up doubt its existence.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Uglier men tend to have better game than good looking guys."

Oh my...


----------



## Topical storm

I just have to add that females are usually better then men when it comes to game. 10x better.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Do the uglier chicks have better game than the pretty ones or....?


----------



## tacoma

Faithful Wife said:


> Do the uglier chicks have better game than the pretty ones or....?


Actually..yeah, usually.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Had to change my avatar guys and gals...I just can't do the trucker hat, even though I do have game (apparently am also frugly).


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Faithful Wife said:


> Had to change my avatar guys and gals...I just can't do the trucker hat, even though I do have game (apparently am also frugly).


Is that a "Who"?!?!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> Actually..yeah, usually.


Are we talking as in dressing up more/makeup/heels/etc.?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Not a Who but is from a Dr. Seuss book. I picked this one because the little creature looks so arrogant (you can't see it in the avatar, but the creature is admiring itself in a mirror). LOL!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Faithful Wife said:


> Not a Who but is from a Dr. Seuss book. I picked this one because the little creature looks so arrogant (you can't see it in the avatar, but the creature is admiring itself in a mirror). LOL!


Ha, ha.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Are we talking as in dressing up more/makeup/heels/etc.?


I gotta unsubscribe from this thread it keeps sucking me in.

Women who aren't getting as much male attraction from their looks as some find other ways to illicit male attention.

The get into a sport, they take up golf, they get into muscle cars they find other ways to get close to men.

This is game

I would concede that make-up heels and hose and such is game but I see it more like "plumage" and pretty standard among women.

I'm talking more about personality traits and attitude.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> I gotta unsubscribe from this thread it keeps sucking me in.
> 
> Women who aren't getting as much male attraction from their looks as some find other ways to illicit male attention.
> 
> The get into a sport, they take up golf, they get into muscle cars they find other ways to get close to men.
> 
> This is game
> 
> I would concede that make-up heels and hose and such is game but I see it more like "plumage" and pretty standard among women.
> 
> I'm talking more about personality traits and attitude.


They also shoot high powered rifles , and ride fast motorcycles....
With real attitude.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> I gotta unsubscribe from this thread it keeps sucking me in.
> 
> It's part of my game.
> 
> I'm talking more about personality traits and attitude.
> 
> Ah, okay. I guess I could see that. Get to know someone because of common interests and it goes from there.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You keep jumping between their characters and reality. In reality "Sheldon" has game and is in a LTR with a smokin' hot dude.


I am? I'm only talking about the character Sheldon, turned real. Not the actor... yeah I knew he's gay. Who's the smoking hot guy he's dating?



Therealbrighteyes said:


> Clearly they do......isn't that the basis of Mystery, Roissey and their ilk? Sorry, couldn't resist and well, you stepped in to it. :rofl:


hahaha touche.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I am? I'm only talking about the character Sheldon, turned real. Not the actor... yeah I knew he's gay. Who's the smoking hot guy he's dating?
> 
> 
> 
> hahaha touche.


What I meant was you were saying Leonard in real life dated Penny so he must have game. That's why I mentioned Sheldon in real life is with a good looking dude, has been for 10 years so he too has game. His name is Todd Spiewak. This pic isn't the best of him because he is way better looking.

View attachment 2792


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls...re: the Spock loving chicks...I think this is a phenonmenon in human attraction, I don't think it is that uncommon. People are sometimes attracted to the one who is Unattainable.
> 
> Sometimes this attraction is the result of the person themself being unattainable or emotionally unavailable. But other times, I don't think it is all that complicated, it just is what it is. I really think the whole design (sorry for "going there"...you already knew it would devolve into a philosophical discussion eventually) is that there really is someone for everyone.
> 
> It does confuse me though, that when something doesn't fit into your experience, you straight up doubt its existence.


I think you're talking an extreme sliver of the population. I'm a 6 sigma guy... the 0.00034% nonconformists are allowable defects not worth revising my rule.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> What I meant was you were saying Leonard in real life dated Penny so he must have game. That's why I mentioned Sheldon in real life is with a good looking dude, has been for 10 years so he too has game. His name is Todd Spiewak. This pic isn't the best of him because he is way better looking.
> 
> View attachment 2792


Oh, I gotcha.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls...as I have pointed out a few times, there are a millions books you have not read about attraction, versus the however many you have read. Not possible for you to continue learning and revising what you know based on new incoming knowledge?

Yep, you know about the bell curve. You know about what you have experienced yourself and can attest to and prove. You know about what your friends and confidantes have told you and seen and heard, etc.

That still leaves a whole lot of other things that can happen. Even the top of the bell curve is actually a tiny slice in comparison to the whole bell.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think you're talking an extreme sliver of the population. I'm a 6 sigma guy... the 0.00034% nonconformists are allowable defects not worth revising my rule.


Ohhhhhhhhhh, you are so going to be busted with this statement. Hang on to your hat, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> "Uglier men tend to have better game than good looking guys."
> 
> Oh my...


I think this falls under uglier men needing to do something more to get noticed. I'd say the same for women.

I know some hot girls who are just dull as f... but they still get hot guys because it doesn't really matter. Maybe the same is true for really hot guys... who knows, I don't know any. Guys I know just look like regular guys. The celebs I posted in another thread, you thought were somewhat feminine I think? So apparently my sexy-o-meter just doesn't function for guys (this isn't a bad thing I think lol). To me, guys just look like guys. There's a few desireable features or distinctiveness, after which guys just plateau and all look the same to me.

I mean hey, a few here said *I* was hot. lol In an honest assessment, I think I'm warm. The guys my ex picked out during our "who would you pick" games.... woof. bleh. I didn't think they even passed my low bar.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Ohhhhhhhhhh, you are so going to be busted with this statement. Hang on to your hat, it's gonna be a bumpy ride.


I know! Its why I'm so popular on this forum!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think this falls under uglier men needing to do something more to get noticed. I'd say the same for women.
> 
> I know some hot girls who are just dull as f... but they still get hot guys because it doesn't really matter. Maybe the same is true for really hot guys... who knows.


I have said it before, it is my belief that like gets with like. Yes, there are the rare examples but a 10 get's with a 10 and a 5 gets with a 5. Now, that doesn't mean they won't TRY for higher but the reality is much different. This is for both sexes. Again, yes there are exceptions but for the most part water reaches its own level sort of speak.


----------



## tacoma

Trenton said:


> So you don't think women authentically enjoy those things but take them up to get with le men?


Sometimes they do, some times they don't.

Often though they take them up to have something in common with men/a man and end up authentically enjoying them.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls...as I have pointed out a few times, there are a millions books you have not read about attraction, versus the however many you have read. Not possible for you to continue learning and revising what you know based on new incoming knowledge?


Sure, provided its useful, practical knowledge that can be applied to predicting the behavior of a randomly selected member of the population.

Outlier behavior of the extreme few isn't that, so I toss it out. Its just not very useful information. Including it in a rule or assessment of human psychology would be giving them too much weight imo. I like my mental models and I can't go throwing them out because of 1 noncomformist in a million. haha 

I don't believe however, that there is someone for everyone. Way too romantic and idealistic for reality imo. Sucks for whoever drew the Jeffrey Dahmer or John Gacy card. There is a range of acceptable deviation... and then there's... issues. I don't like to make rules based on the anomalies.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> Sometimes they do, some times they don't.
> 
> Often though they take them up to have something in common with men/a man and end up authentically enjoying them.


Oh, you mean us ugly ones? :rofl:


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Oh, you mean us ugly ones? :rofl:


This is why I'd unsubscribe if I had an ounce of intelligence.


I'm a Florida boy.
Never been into hockey (no ice), met a girl who was from PA, Flyers freak.
She was so into this sport I figured I'd try and get into it too so I could be in on this part of her.
The sport was the focal point of a lot of fun, parties, socializing, flirtations (I first shaved my balls in a lost bet on a Lightning game).
It was fun and gave us something to get into together.
We were together a few years and went our separate ways.

Today, I'm not really into hockey.
I'll check the scores, see who is running for the cup but I don't really care anymore.
I was into it for her and it was fun but now that she's not in my life I'd have no one to share the obsession with. 

I don't think that makes me shallow or the times we had less valuable in any way.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> This is why I'd unsubscribe if I had an ounce of intelligence.
> 
> 
> I'm a Florida boy.
> Never been into hockey (no ice), met a girl who was from PA, Flyers freak.
> She was so into this sport I figured I'd try and get into it too so I could be in on this part of her.
> The sport was the focal point of a lot of fun, parties, socializing, flirtations (I first shaved my balls in a lost bet on a Lightning game).
> It was fun and gave us something to get into together.
> We were together a few years and went our separate ways.
> 
> Today, I'm not really into hockey.
> I'll check the scores, see who is running for the cup but I don't really care anymore.
> I was into it for her and it was fun but now that she's not in my life I'd have no one to share the obsession with.
> 
> I don't think that makes me shallow or the times we had less valuable in any way.


You know I'm teasing you and I totally understand what you just said. For me, I never cared about college football (only NFL) but got in to it because a guy I used to date went to a big football university. So yeah, I hear you in that we adapt some of our likes to who we are with, ugly or not.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Depending on who you're trying to appeal to, yes... game can be almost anything. Game is all about appeal. Its not just what you HAVE... its maximizing what you have. Making what you have align better to what women are looking for. Working in cooperation with female psychology. But in measuring game, we're not talking about whether you found "the one" or not. We're taking a measure of your appeal to women overall. Go find one now. There is no judgement about outcome... be it sex or relationship. Its simply about how hard/easy is it for you to draw women.


I just have to say, you seem to have a particular talent for highlighting the most despicable aspects of game, while defending it as harmless and fun. Not sure if I can put my finger on it exactly, but the way you describe it leaves me with the clear impression that game is absolutely about manipulating woman to do what you want in whatever way you can without zero regard for them. All the mutual benefit, maintain attractiveness, salvage relationships stuff that puts a more positive spin on it goes straight out the window.


----------



## Catherine602

tacoma said:


> This is why I'd unsubscribe if I had an ounce of intelligence.
> 
> 
> I'm a Florida boy.
> Never been into hockey (no ice), met a girl who was from PA, Flyers freak.
> She was so into this sport I figured I'd try and get into it too so I could be in on this part of her.
> The sport was the focal point of a lot of fun, parties, socializing, flirtations (I first shaved my balls in a lost bet on a Lightning game).
> It was fun and gave us something to get into together.
> We were together a few years and went our separate ways.
> 
> Today, I'm not really into hockey.
> I'll check the scores, see who is running for the cup but I don't really care anymore.
> I was into it for her and it was fun but now that she's not in my life I'd have no one to share the obsession with.
> 
> I don't think that makes me shallow or the times we had less valuable in any way.


Geez, so frustrating. I don't care about your interest in a stupid sport. I'd like to hear the end of the story. Are you still into shaving your balls?


----------



## always_alone

Trenton said:


> So you don't think women authentically enjoy those things but take them up to get with le men?


Yes, this was my question too. Last I heard, women actually like to do stuff other than trying to meet men.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think you're talking an extreme sliver of the population. I'm a 6 sigma guy... the 0.00034% nonconformists are allowable defects not worth revising my rule.


I think you need to revise your stats. Your world is smaller than you think


----------



## always_alone

tacoma said:


> Sometimes they do, some times they don't.
> 
> Often though they take them up to have something in common with men/a man and end up authentically enjoying them.


So the guy with the most game is the one that took up knitting?


----------



## Nsweet

This thread has inspired me to get back out there and improve my game. I met four lovely ladies while going about my day so far. :smthumbup:

The very first was Nsweet's kriptonite, a tattooed beauty betty page looking develish delite at Game Stop. God, I LOVE TATTOOS ON WOMEN!!!!!!! We talked a bit while she refunded my money for three bad games, all the while I read her tattoos in congruency with her choice of jewelry and piercings. Too immature for my taste and her low attentention span by her own admission was enough for me to pull away. But, God was it hard for me leaving and not coming back. Hazel eyes, madonna piercings, possibly BDP and bipolar, a lot like the ex wife but prettier. I had to force myself to not go after any more goth chick after my ex wife. 

There was the cutey working the regester at Wall Mart I've seen before, but today I noticed she wasn't wearing gloves. I opened up asking her about that. She sayed it was because her hands get wet ringing up produce and she doesn't like that. She had the softest brown eyes silky and hair straightened by an iron that morning. 

One the way to Wall-Mart the second time when I picked up my kettlebell I ran into a very kind ebony walking a rottweiler and we talked as I rubbed it's belly. She was too young for me though, and I really don't want to date anyone from the neighborhood who may be related to some of the bangers. I love black women though.

Lastly there was a freakin beautiful dirty blonde twenty something with a 4 or 5 year old very pretty blond girl at Subway. She came in while I was thinking over my order while mom finished paying for hers. She was wearing a matching black business skirt and blouse with a tan striped overcoat and a black or blue flour barrett with plastic diamonds. The cashiers there always seem to over charge and she was having money issues, I noticed her voice change after they said they charged extra for certain items and her bodylanguage went from open to withdrawn. When the cashier gave her a hard time I stepped in to repeat what she ordered and clarify things. At that point I was just tired of waiting in line and hungry. Her daughter started getting upset over them charging extra for chips for a child's meal replacement side so I turned to her and said, "It's OK honey, you didn't do anything wrong, we're not mad at you." It all worked out and we ended up talking for about a minute after before I left with my salad. Her eyes were grey, I think she worked as a secretary but it was hard to tell. All I knew for sure was that she was around my age and had a stressful day from her bodylanguage and vocal tones. 

That's my game, my style of dating. I don't memorize a bunch of crap about fictional situations to get people to help me, and I sure as hell don't go around making fun of women to get them to like me. I just use what God gave me, an anxiety ridden brain and an OCD problem and I notice the little things. I make eye contact and avoid looking at her tits. If she's got a big chest who cares, big butt?, so what! I just force myself to not think about her sexually and instead shut off my thoughts so I can hear what she's saying and remember the details. There were girls in college who said they hadn't had anyone notice they changed their hair color or their makeup until I said something. 

But it's kind of a gift and a curse. I notice the little changes in voice and behavior that I could to get dates or meaningless sex from women. The sweet look just before you say goodbye after making her so happy to have someone connect with her and make her laugh without saying one thing about sex. The rounded hips, hair toss, neck rub, exposed wrists, puffed out chest, licked lips, rubbing of anything phalic, or talk of sex. I pick up on these things but I am uncomfortable with going there. So I make a lot of "Just Friends" which is OK with me for now. I love just being around women and not seeing them as perfect creatures or filthy wh*res, I love just spending time and connecting with women the way I enjoyed the afterglow of sex with the ex wife. There's nothing better than that feeling without trying to take advantage or think up some crap to get someone to like you. 

I think I'm maturing and reaching a new stage of my life where I'm looking for a potential wife til death so us part, or maybe I'm gay and don't know it.:rofl:


----------



## always_alone

Trenton said:


> I just made the mistake of projecting my own experience and education on the hair pulling thread. I did doubt its existence for the cause of pleasure. Sheet on me and call me a duck maybe it does exist and I need to try this hair pulling crap out.
> 
> So maybe it is human nature to presume that what we see and know, within our limited realm, is all that exists and we (in this case I mean me) then insist on calling it into existence.
> 
> Interesting lesson learned.
> 
> Hard to be right when there's so many ways to be right or wrong.
> 
> I've learned that people like to box you into not speaking out but that is exactly how I do learn! Freaking puzzle.
> 
> The most frustrating part of this experience is that I feel I'm the only one participating in it and then I want to slap myself because that should be good enough.
> 
> Yeah, I think too much.
> 
> I was with so many guys prior to husband and many of them my girlfriends would tell me were "So HOT!!!"
> 
> Yet, there I would be lying down next to them, trying to connect with them and voila, flat line....
> 
> With my husband, all my girlfriends and guy friends thought I had smoked the pipe. Told me he was totally below me and yet I would talk to him, look at him and be-still my beating heart.
> 
> What is my long winded point? It always comes down to value. What do we value? Why do we value it? What do we essentially want? Why do we want it?


I can relate! 

When I first started dating my SO, I was warned away from him --by one of his oldest female friends no less. He didn't meet her exacting standards in term of social status, wealth, and so on, and suggested that he "wasn't worthwhile" and "wasn't my type". But what I liked most about him was that he didn't play any games. He was just himself. And I didn't feel that I needed any games, and could just be myself. It was so liberating! 

And while some of the examples of game in this thread are truly nice things that could make a loved one happy, it seems strange to me to identify this as a "technique" for increasing attraction. Shouldn't doing nice things for those we love just be something we try to do whenever we can? Why call showing love game?

And some of the other examples just make me want to say, WTF, why on earth would you want to build relationships on that? 

To each their own, I suppose.


----------



## always_alone

Trenton said:


> -and- Yes! Exactly! Why is what we're saying so hard to understand or so easily translated to unheard of, jaded, feminist BS, or unthinkable?


Because admitting that it is about manipulating others to get what one wants would makes them look bad? Or worse. Without their deep tap into women's psychology, the one that bypasses her rational mind and delivers all of their hopes and dreams, where will they be?


----------



## always_alone

Trenton said:


> always_alone if you are together with your husband why are you always_alone? Just curious?


It was just how I was feeling when I registered onto this site. You come into the world alone and you leave alone. When everything is falling to pieces, there is but one person you can truly rely on: yourself. The rest can walk away at any time. 

I don't always feel that way, but it is a feeling that I know very well. 

Entropy says that it's ego that keeps a woman fighting for her independence, when she might be better off by letting go and becoming a better partner. For me, though, the issue isn't loss of identity. I know who I am and what I can do. No, for me the problem is trust. There's just no reliable way to predict the future and I need to be able to look after things come what may.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Because admitting that it is about manipulating others to get what one wants would makes them look bad? Or worse. Without their deep tap into women's psychology, the one that bypasses her rational mind and delivers all of their hopes and dreams, where will they be?


"..._People love conspiracy theories_..."
*Neil Armstrong *

Was he the first man to walk on the moon , or is there a conspiracy to hide the " fact " that someone else, _maybe even a woman_, did it before him?

BTW, its 8.00 AM in my country, and 5.02 AM across there in some parts of your country. Could that be a conspiracy too?


----------



## Caribbean Man

See,
The thing is this.
A few years ago, during lovemaking & sex with my wife, her body began to react in a particular way I had never seen. So I stopped , she immediately said no! don't stop...!
Anyway she had one of the most intense orgasms. Afterwards, during our " pillow talk" she said something about it was different, and she absolutely loved it.
Me being very curious, decided to search sometime later. And I did get the answers. I found out it was called a vaginal orgasm.
I had never heard the term before.
But because I'd never heard it didn't mean that it didn't exist.....

In short,
People who believe that something doesn't exists because they've never experienced it are well within their right, even though they may be wrong.
However, people who choose not to believe something exist in the light of overwhelming evidence, and think that everybody else is wrong...:scratchhead:
It may not apply to your situation, but that does not make it invalid ,or make others who believe it exist, anything but different to you just like you're different to them, 
All of them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> You Must Have Missed That Whole Part On Premise.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Nope,

See, if the fundamental premise if flawed, then nothing else makes sense.
Nothing could.
The fundamentals of this thread is that people are masters of their own destiny, and nothing should be left to chance in our relationships and human interactions.
Pursuing what we want in a relationship does not make us inauthentic or manipulative in a negative way.
On the contrary,
It makes us responsible adults.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM: "The fundamentals of this thread is that people are masters of their own destiny, and nothing should be left to chance in our relationships and human interactions."

Wow, that's totally not what I got out of this thread! Nothing should be left to chance? Strange. A chance meeting is how I met the love of my life.

Trenton - - what hair pulling thread? Where?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Wow, that's totally not what I got out of this thread! Nothing should be left to chance? Strange. *A chance meeting is how I met the love of my life.*


That's exactly what I'm trying to say.
From your perspective, you think its by chance.
But based on what you said earlier this week , it was not.

*04-03-2013 Post # 1978 By poster Faithful Wife:*

"...
*My husband was looking for a partner when he met me. He had had his fill of less committed relationships, had sewn his oats, and wanted a deeper connection, where he could be vulnerable together with someone.*_ I wasn't looking for that when I met him, but I was open to it *IF* it was The Real Thing. So I was ok with being vulnerable if I felt it was appropriate. Or I was ok with just dating, too.

*He said that the night we met (in a crowded room), God whispered in his ear "look over there" and then he saw me walk in. He said he was zapped with electricity at the sight of me. He said he "knew" something, which now he knows what he knew but at the time he wasn't sure what he was knowing. He deliberately made sure we were in each other's path so he could talk to me. *He approached me like a perfect gentleman and made conversation with me, without "hitting" on me in any way. We ended up talking about about 40 minutes. The whole time he was very polite, and I wasn't even sure he was single. He was actually finding out small things about me, things to help him decide if he even wanted to ask me out or not BEFORE he "made any moves". I had to meet a few criteria in order to even be worthy of a date with him.* Even though he "knew" something and God himself apparently told him to check me out, he still has very high standards for who he would pursue romantically.*

*He already knew that if his goal was casual relationships or sex, he could have approached me that way. But he did not. Sex (in his life anyway) is actually the easy part of relationships. Common values and real compatibility are the hard part. *

*After the first meeting, he dated and courted me properly for months. He never pushed for sex, as I said, he knows that is the easy part. Instead he got to know me, to find out if I was worthy of his hand...."*_

To me, 
Nothing in that encounter was by chance.
Your husband apparently KNEW what he wanted, and went after it, a lifetime relationship with YOU
The highlighted parts show what was his intent all along.

"... _*He deliberately made sure we were in each other's path so he could talk to me*_..."
This was his plan , " game ." He left NOTHING UP TO CHANCE , from his perspective.
You were unaware, but made yourself open to the idea.


That is the essence of game in romantic relationships.
Getting a stranger/partner to accept your idea willingly, and follow _your_ lead.
Whether its for sex or a LTR.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> The fundamentals of this thread is that people are masters of their own destiny, and nothing should be left to chance in our relationships and human interactions.
> Pursuing what we want in a relationship does not make us inauthentic or manipulative in a negative way.
> On the contrary,
> It makes us responsible adults.


Such control is an illusion, IMHO. And it is the pursuit of such control that is precisely what I see as manipulative and inauthentic. Responsible adults are much more humble.


----------



## tacoma

always_alone said:


> Such control is an illusion, IMHO. And it is the pursuit of such control that is precisely what I see as manipulative and inauthentic. Responsible adults are much more humble.


Ahh that's my problem, humility.

I fail to see the correlation between responsibility and humility.

No doubt you straighten this out for me
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## always_alone

I mean, when I met my SO for the very first time, he was in an LTR with another woman. He did not notice me at all, and I didn't think anything about him. We met again years later, and we were both single. That was chance.

And while I still hadn't really thought about dating him, he noticed me and asked me out. Turns out we are very compatible in a number of ways. That isn't chance, exactly, but it is coincidence.

I wouldn't say that he followed my lead or that I followed his. Rather, we started hanging out more and more, and found joy in discovering and being with each other. We weren't masters of our own destiny, we opened ourselves up and went along for the ride.

OF course, it's quite possible that neither one of us has game.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Such control is an illusion, IMHO. And it is the pursuit of such control that is precisely what I see as manipulative and inauthentic. Responsible adults are much more humble.


One of my favourite quotes:
"..._Early in life I had to choose between honest arrogance and hypocritical humility. I chose the former and have seen no reason to change._.."
*Frank Lloyd Wright*

Absolutely nothing is wrong with honest arrogance. Arrogance rooted in a system of well thought out, rationale beliefs.
Early in my business, I was a humble hypocrite aka " nice guy."
I let my competitors walk all over me, and my debtors NEVER paid me what they owed....
I tried that " humility " stuff you recommend, and it never worked for me.
I would NEVER recommend it for anybody.... 
Unless of course,
I was trying to manipulate them.


----------



## always_alone

tacoma said:


> I fail to see the correlation between responsibility and humility.
> 
> No doubt you straighten this out for me


I dunno. Just seems to me that someone who thinks they are the master of their own destiny likely has a large slap in the face coming up, at some point or another.

At least that's been my experience with destiny. Never likes it when I get too big for my britches.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> I dunno. Just seems to me that someone who thinks they are the master of their own destiny likely has a large slap in the face coming up, at some point or another.
> 
> At least that's been my experience with destiny. Never likes it when I get too big for my britches.


Well dear, 
At 43 years I am married and own a business.
I cannot depend on " Destiny" to pay my mortgage nor pay my contractors.

In fact, before I was married I once had a girl named Destiny.
She cheated on me and I dumped her , immediately, the same day i caught her.
In tears she begged, but I jumped in the car and left...

That's how I handle destiny.

In this life the only thing guaranteed is DEATH, everything else, you work for.


----------



## TiggyBlue

2 things you can control, how you act and how you respond that's pretty much all anyone has control over really (after a certain age) .


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> One
> Early in my business, I was a humble hypocrite aka " nice guy."
> I let my competitors walk all over me, and my debtors NEVER paid me what they owed....
> I tried that " humility " stuff you recommend, and it never worked for me.
> I would NEVER recommend it for anybody....


It is not arrogant to demand payment from your debtors or to put up the best possible fight. It is arrogant to think you are immune to the vagaries of chance.

The Nietzchean ubermensch that you love to quote is a reaction to the Christian emphasis on meekness and humility. His critique does have something to teach us. But I also think he takes it too far in the other direction. Afterall, Nietzche died alone from tertiary stage syphilis. Nothing too ubermensch about that.

But this is clearly something we disagree on at a fundamental level, and does go some distance in revealing the premise behind game.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> In this life the only thing guaranteed is DEATH


You forgot taxes


----------



## always_alone

TiggyBlue said:


> 2 things you can control, how you act and how you respond that's pretty much all anyone has control over really (after a certain age) .


Even then, you don't always have control. I was in an accident a few years back, and was immobilized for months.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM, Ok I see what you meant about leaving nothing to chance, the way you said it.

I only meant that it was chance that we were both in the same building - - somewhere I went at the last moment.

But the way you mean it, you are totally correct. He was looking for love, and he found me by his deliberate intention to find his life partner. 

How romantic.....xoxo


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> It is not arrogant to demand payment from your debtors or to put up the best possible fight. It is arrogant to think you are immune to the vagaries of chance.
> 
> The Nietzchean ubermensch that you love to quote is a reaction to the Christian emphasis on meekness and humility. His critique does have something to teach us. But I also think he takes it too far in the other direction. Afterall, Nietzche died alone from tertiary stage syphilis. Nothing too ubermensch about that.
> 
> But this is clearly something we disagree on at a fundamental level, and does go some distance in revealing the premise behind game.


Ok.
I don't want to derail the thread by going off on Nietzsche.
However, two quick points on Nietzsche.

1] There is absolutely no proof that Nietzsche dies from neurosyphilis. It has been debunked many times over as an urban myth.
In addition to that, whether he died lonely from Syphilis or happily married to a gay man has absolutely no bearing on his philosophical perspectives

2]Perspectivism is the philosophical view developed by Nietzsche, meaning that all ideations take place from particular perspectives. *This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgement of truth or value can be made. *This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.

End threadjack.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Well dear,
> At 43 years I am married and own a business.
> I cannot depend on " Destiny" to pay my mortgage nor pay my contractors.


I never said you should rely on destiny to pay your bills. I even said in an earlier post that I am acutely aware that I can rely on no one but myself.

Of course we have to make choices and take responsibility for them. I'm only suggesting that the control this gives us is limited.

I'd also just like to let you know that I find your use of the term "dear" to be patronizing in the extreme. But you probably know that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> You forgot taxes


:iagree:
Ok,
You just made me laugh!!!:rofl:


----------



## Caribbean Man

TiggyBlue said:


> 2 things you can control, how you act and how you respond that's pretty much all anyone has control over really (after a certain age) .


:iagree:

Which is what I'm trying t say.

We can control our response to someone we are meeting for the first time. We decide to give them a chance in our lives, and we decide how far to let them in.
But , the universe is way more infinite than we think.
Whilst we are consciously doing these things a lot of other things and machinations are happening outside of our perspective.
We cannot possibly see everything.
Not all machinations are bad.
In the end does it make a relationship less authentic if someone did everything in his power to " accidentally" bump into you, and you were none the wiser?
I think not.
On the contrary, if you knew he was going to bump into you, then you may have politely stepped aside...


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok.
> I don't want to derail the thread by going off on Nietzsche.
> However, two quick points on Nietzsche.
> 
> 1] There is absolutely no proof that Nietzsche dies from neurosyphilis. It has been debunked many times over as an urban myth.
> In addition to that, whether he died lonely from Syphilis or happily married to a gay man has absolutely no bearing on his philosophical perspectives
> 
> 2]Perspectivism is the philosophical view developed by Nietzsche, meaning that all ideations take place from particular perspectives. *This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgement of truth or value can be made. *This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.
> 
> End threadjack.


1) Challenged, yes. Debunked, no. The test was not developed until long after he was cold in the grave. My point, though, still stands. He extols the virtues of seizing destiny and being the master of one's fate, but he himself falls prey to dementia. There is only so much master we can be.

2) True, not all perspectives are equally valid, but one that tempers overt domination with healthy respect for the world beyond oneself is surely a contender. It's not like I'm trying to convert anyone to Pastafarianism by singing the praises of the flying spaghetti monster.


----------



## always_alone

coffee4me said:


> But like Tiggy said you still had control over how you responded to the accident. You could put your mind and energy into recovery or you could wallow in self pity and which is detrimental to recovery.


You are right of course. But at the same time, that accident derailed a whole bunch of my best laid plans.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> 1) Challenged, yes. Debunked, no. The test was not developed until long after he was cold in the grave. My point, though, still stands. He extols the virtues of seizing destiny and being the master of one's fate, but he himself falls prey to dementia. There is only so much master we can be.


Your problem lies in your perspectives.
Dementia in itself is part of the ageing process and dying.
We are all born to DIE.
From the day we were conceived in our mother's womb, there is an expiry date on us.
That is a given.
We CHOOSE what we become in life. We choose how we respond to the opportunities , the tragedies and the vagaries of life.
In a nutshell, 
You own your sh!t.


----------



## Caribbean Man

coffee4me said:


> Then I compare that to my parents, chance meeting in a foreign country and him teasing (some would say negging) her. He then pursued her like a maniac, he simply could not forget this beautiful woman with a razor sharp tongue.
> 
> His determination would have him change the course of his life and cross an ocean to prove his love. He fought through class barriers, education barriers, language barriers, cultural barriers to obtain the object of his desire.
> 
> From what you wrote here you would say he was manipulative and inauthentic. From what I know of my parents he met the love of his life and nothing would keep him from her.
> 
> *At the end of 50 years, he would say she was the best thing in his life, that she brought out he best in him and he never would have achieved half of what he had without her. My mother is the strongest woman I know, smart, independent, she would always achieve but she would say the one thing my father did for her that no one else could have -- he taught her how to love.*
> 
> Nothing inauthentic about that.


^^^^Good old fashioned romance...
Or is it game?
Six of one. half a dozen of the other.


----------



## tacoma

So I realized about a hundred pages ago that we're just arguing terminolgy here
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> So I realized about a hundred pages ago that we're just arguing terminolgy here
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So did everybody else but a good debate is always appreciated. I gotta say, 155 pages and it has remained remarkably civil and respectful. I guess we all know each other enough by now so mutual respect plays a factor in that, or at least an understanding of where each other is coming from.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> It was just how I was feeling when I registered onto this site. You come into the world alone and you leave alone. When everything is falling to pieces, there is but one person you can truly rely on: yourself. The rest can walk away at any time.
> 
> I don't always feel that way, but it is a feeling that I know very well.
> 
> Entropy says that it's ego that keeps a woman fighting for her independence, when she might be better off by letting go and becoming a better partner. For me, though, the issue isn't loss of identity. I know who I am and what I can do. *No, for me the problem is trust. * There's just no reliable way to predict the future and I need to be able to look after things come what may.


And this comes down to be willing to let go of the fear. To have knowledge that IF things do go wrong you have the confidence in yourself to do what is right.

The balances of ego / fear. Yes. One should not trust out of weakness but strength. So to trust anyone one has to have great personal integrity and trust in themselves. One also has to have a partner truly worthy of trust.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Entropy3000 said:


> And this comes down to be willing to let go of the fear. To have confidence that IF things do go wrong you have the confidence to do what is right.


:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree: 100% :iagree:


----------



## Entropy3000

TiggyBlue said:


> 2 things you can control, how you act and how you respond that's pretty much all anyone has control over really (after a certain age) .


"Life is 10% of what happens to you, and 90% of how you respond to it."

I think this is philosophically correct. We have great influence on our lives.


----------



## Entropy3000

Oh and and we get to decide for ourselves what success is. This may be our highest power. Look at so many super wealthy people who lead miserable lives. How much is enough? 

Think about those who have led their lives and touched so many other people in positive ways and tell me they are not successful. We limit ourselves is what I am saying. Enjoy your victories. Large and small. That all add up. Heck just NOT being a drain on society is a wonderful thing.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> *Oh and and we get to decide for ourselves what success is. This may be our highest power*.


:iagree:

I firmly believe that my life is like a book.
Tomorrow's chapter is still _unwritten_.
I posess the pen that writes the words , the ideas that connect the words and make them into sentences and paragraphs. I create the next chapter. I created my own tomorrow by the thoughts , actions and work I put in today.

If I want my marriage to be successful then I must work on myself and my marriage TODAY.
I cannot treat my wife badly today, yesterday and the day before and expect that tomorrow she would stay.
I cannot neglect her needs in the same fashion and expect tomorrow she would still be madly in love with me.

The surest way to fail at anything is to leave it up to chance.


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> "Life is 10% of what happens to you, and 90% of how you respond to it."


I'd debate these numbers.

I didn't choose my parents, my race, or my culture. I didn't choose the historical period into which I was born. I didn't choose my starting socioeconomic class, nor my early peers and teachers. I didn't choose the parenting style with which I was raised, or the location I was raised in. I didn't choose my genetic structure, nor did I choose to be 167 cm tall and to have this build and this face. 

Personally, I think all this adds up to more than 10%.


----------



## always_alone

coffee4me said:


> Nothing inauthentic about that.


A lovely story, and I agree. Going after what one wants and staying true to one's principles and heart's desire is the very definition of authenticity.

What I meant was that a part of 'game' is the the idea that a bit of knowledge of psychology and sociology bestows the power to get what one wants. And that the deliberate wielding of this power for one's own advantage (which is the premise behind much of PUA) is manipulative and an inauthentic way of relating.

Now a number of people say they use their power ethically and for mutual benefit, which does put a much more positive spin on it. Much more appealing than simply that the ends justify the means. 

But going back to your father. Do you think he successfully wooed your mother by understanding her psychology and applying the right tricks? Or was it his passion, persistence, and willingness to go to the ends of the earth for her?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

coffee4me said:


> What you wrote here is interesting. You then went on to describe the way you met your SO. I can tell you that I met my X in much the same way, let's say it was chance and destiny and we fell into a familar comfort with each other easily.
> 
> Then I compare that to my parents, chance meeting in a foreign country and him teasing (some would say negging) her. * He then pursued her like a maniac, he simply could not forget this beautiful woman with a razor sharp tongue*.
> 
> *His determination would have him change the course of his life and cross an ocean to prove his love. He fought through class barriers, education barriers, language barriers, cultural barriers to obtain the object of his desire. *
> 
> From what you wrote here you would say he was manipulative and inauthentic. *From what I know of my parents he met the love of his life and nothing would keep him from her*.
> 
> At the end of 50 years, he would say she was the best thing in his life, that she brought out he best in him and he never would have achieved half of what he had without her. My mother is the strongest woman I know, smart, independent, she would always achieve but she would say the one thing my father did for her that no one else could have -- he taught her how to love.
> 
> Nothing inauthentic about that.


 Love your parents







*STORY * Coffee4Me.... but like Caribbean Man said.. this is like a "*Good Old Fashioned Romance*" of relentless Pursuit for ONE special woman he couldn't wash from his heart & soul...... Don't we all love stories like this....WE DO !! But only when they have a HAPPY ENDING....The Leading man wins his Lady's







. 

It begs the question, at least for me.. is this so much GAME.... because one thing you learn in these PUA books (at least I gathered from this very thread) ... is .... a man should never fall into the trap of  oneitis = (undying love for 1 special woman- after all plenty of fish in the sea!).....Which in my mind - slices Romance down to cropped liver... 

Your father was a "maniac"...he fought how many [email protected]#$% ....Crossed oceans for his Queen. 

I prefer stories like your Fathers :smthumbup:... full of passion...relentless determination for a Love that just wouldn't die.....yeah.....a bad case of oneitis. High Romance that is!! 

Somehow I just don't think the majority of Converts from PAU are too awful Romantic....but maybe I am wrong.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

coffee4me said:


> My father wooed my mother with an understanding of her psychology, no doubt. Like many men in my family he had natural game. He was able to break through my mothers armor because he instinctively knew how to approach her.
> 
> If this ability to be confident and find a way to approach a woman does not come naturally to a man, I don't see it as a trick if he is trying to aquire this skill. He is just looking for a way in, a way to be noticed, after that his personality would still need to be the hook.
> 
> In their particular case had my father not had a natural ability (game) to relate to people and it was a learned skill, I do not think their relationship would have evolved. There are some skills that cannot be taught in a book--like how to get by my grandma.


Skills are ALWAYS learned and matured. Think about it, all of us were babies and none of us could walk or talk at one time.

We learn and get good at what we really want to do. Of course some skills you may not have had when you where younger, and you grow them as you get older.

Socialization and personality is such an area.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> I'd debate these numbers.
> 
> I didn't choose my parents, my race, or my culture. I didn't choose the historical period into which I was born. I didn't choose my starting socioeconomic class, nor my early peers and teachers. I didn't choose the parenting style with which I was raised, or the location I was raised in. I didn't choose my genetic structure, nor did I choose to be 167 cm tall and to have this build and this face.
> 
> Personally, I think all this adds up to more than 10%.


You can go with 80 / 20 if it gives you a more positive attitude towards things. 

If you were not born under Taliban rule then you are fortunate. If you are not living in Somalia you are fortunate. If you are not living on the street you are fortunate. If you have eyes to see you are fortunate. And so on. One could go on and on.

You are somehow measuring yourself against others who you may feel are more fortunate than you and what we are saying is that it comes from within yourself. Success is in walking the next mile. It is having joy with whatever you do. Being in the moment.

To much is given ... much is expected. But indeed life is about the choices we make and do not make.


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> You are somehow measuring yourself against others who you may feel are more fortunate than you and what we are saying is that it comes from within yourself. Success is in walking the next mile. It is having joy with whatever you do. Being in the moment.
> 
> To much is given ... much is expected. But indeed life is about the choices we make and do not make.


You are misunderstanding my point. I'm not trying to compare myself to others or declare how hard done by I am. I'm trying to say that this idea that everything comes down to choice is an illusion. When and where you are born, what gender,race, and culture you belong to defines the options that are available. More than even 20%, I'd say. 

But let me approach it from a different angle. This whole idea of game is about *knowledge* of a woman's psychology and sociology, and using that to control your destiny. So are we to assume from this that only men can be masters of their own destiny and women are just the pawns in their game? This is often how it is described, even by a few individuals in this thread.

But surely you would allow that women too have choices? They are not just playthings to be manipulated, and so can opt to respond or not to the advances of another?

All of which is to say that, yes, we can try our best to get what we want, and we may succeed. We also may fail miserably. To say that we are masters of our own destiny is flattering to the ego, but is overstating one's personal power, no matter how fortunate you have been in being born into all of the advantages of life (wealth, beauty, power, intellect, education, opportunity, freedom, and so on).


----------



## Caribbean Man

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Skills are ALWAYS learned and matured. Think about it, all of us were babies and none of us could walk or talk at one time.
> 
> We learn and get good at what we really want to do. Of course some skills you may not have had when you where younger, and you grow them as you get older.
> 
> Socialization and personality is such an area.


DLS,
I don't know, but I can only tell you my experience.
I never knew what was game, or ever thought I had " moves" until my aunt told me I did , when I was around 12 or 13.
I think for some men it comes naturally. I grew up among my female cousins who were much older than me.Maybe I kind of learned it through socializing with them?
So maybe " naturally " may actually mean learning it subconsciously.
[ If such a thing exist lol! ]
For other guys they have to learn it through socialization.


----------



## Caribbean Man

coffee4me said:


> Is that to some it does not come naturally and those men are just trying to get in the game. *Agreed perhaps not as romantic, but alas... some of us were not meant to be swept off our feet.*


^^ This just made me chuckle!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

coffee4me said:


> SA, maybe you are correct I'm not familiar with the oneitis part of PUA. I would say both my parents had oneitis for the rest of their lives.
> 
> As I have aged and had a failed marriage, I almost dissect their marriage and look at the parts that kept them strong. It's interesting to read all the stories on this site and see everyone recommending books and ways to keep things going, something that seemed to come so naturally to my parents.
> 
> Oddly, their marriage did not "look" like what I read here. We did not "see" affection very often, we did not "hear" ILY. What we did was "feel" a love and respect that would ground us all as a family our entire lives.
> 
> What I see here with "game", wheather game in picking up someone or in long term marriage. Is that to some it does not come naturally and those men are just trying to get in the game. Agreed perhaps not as romantic, but alas... some of us were not meant to be swept off our feet.


I would not understand a woman who didn't want to be swept off her feet....Don't we all ? 

I wanted a man with Oneitis *for me*... though the TRUE meaning (after taking a moment in looking this up...is darker, unhealthy -like an obsession, sometimes the guy isn't even in a relationship yet!)....
*It is * Unrequited Love...which is no good for anyone. 

Explained here >>


> Do You Suffer From Oneitis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oneitis, put bluntly, is a crush gone out of control and turned into something that’s a borderline obsession. Sufferers from oneitis become fixated on one person and believe that nobody else in the world could possibly measure up to how perfect they are. In it’s earliest stages, oneitis feels almost exactly like the honeymoon period of a new relationship. Everything they do is fascinating and you just can’t stop staring at them when you think they aren’t looking.
> 
> You do surreptitious deep-breathing exercises in their vicinity just so that you can properly appreciate how good they smell. The way the sunlight glints in their hair is hypnotic. You look their name up in the phonebook just so you can see it in print. You find yourself imagining all those happily ever afters that you know are coming; sometimes you have the 2.5 kids, the 1.8 cars and the house in the suburbs.
> 
> Unfortunately… this glorious honeymoon period is also entirely one-sided.
> 
> Yup. *Your crush is utterly unrequited.* It’s like being back in junior high again and you can’t stop thinking about the cute girl who sat three seats down from you in Geometry, but she doesn’t know you exist.


My husband felt like some of that when he met me...he wore it on is sleeve... love at 1st site, all that sappy sh**....but it was returned ~ requited ...I can't say as strongly as he was giving or feeling for a time... But ultimately... It was HIS love & die hard devotion/ treatment of me that WON me over....

I knew I could search the world & never find one who loved me like that...... if he was "so so" & acted like he could get any chick (which is PUA's allure apparently).......I would have walked away.... I wanted to FEEL a little madness over me... that's high Romance.

GAME did NOT come natural to my husband... Loving & Giving to the girl he wanted did though....Works for me. Can I say together... we made "GAME"...is that possible ?? 

I think *chemistry* between 2 people is an amazing thing. Him by himself with a quiet girl.. .Lord help them... wouldn't have worked.. with me... it just flowed.


----------



## Topical storm

always_alone said:


> A lovely story, and I agree. Going after what one wants and staying true to one's principles and heart's desire is the very definition of authenticity.
> 
> What I meant was that a part of 'game' is the the idea that a bit of knowledge of psychology and sociology bestows the power to get what one wants. And that the deliberate wielding of this power for one's own advantage (which is the premise behind much of PUA) is manipulative and an inauthentic way of relating.
> 
> Now a number of people say they use their power ethically and for mutual benefit, which does put a much more positive spin on it. Much more appealing than simply that the ends justify the means.
> 
> But going back to your father. Do you think he successfully wooed your mother by understanding her psychology and applying the right tricks? Or was it his passion, persistence, and willingness to go to the ends of the earth for her?


Why do you continue to equate game with PUA? Most people don't associate game with PUA. What is it about the word "game" that burns you up?

Why is "game" an evil word to you? Many people have told you that it's just a form of social skills that people use for good or bad intentions. Many people use the word game and couldn't tell you what the PUA acronym stands for. PUA is a subset of game. Ex. biology and physics falls under the same umbrella as science. This is essentially what game Game is- a broad term. It has no negative connotation on face value, the negative root lies in the person. PUA is a concentrated form of game. The word game in this generation is usually associated with positive qualities for both the man and the woman, but it seems like no matter how many people explain to you it's just a word that you see it as negative. Would you equate the word "drug" as bad? People take "drugs" for honest intentions to better their health and people take "drugs" for dishonest intentions of self gratification. Would you still conclude that the word "drug" is a bad word just because some people use it for nefarious reasons. If I take 2 aspirins to relieve a headache then it's considered normal. If I take 30 aspirins, then I am abusing myself with Aspirin. Do I then conclude that Aspirin by itself is bad or was I myself the root cause that took those 30 aspirins in the first place. A faithful preacher can have game, just like a serial killer can have game. It's what you do with it that matters. Do you simply just have an issue with the word "game'?

Have you spent hours and paragraphs arguing about the words flirting, charisma, dating, courting, romance, wooing, charm? If not, why do you continue to do this with the word "game?"

How old are you? Post 40? approaching 40? Maybe the word game is post generational for you. It wasn't used in your youthful days and the word game has a negative connotation that you associate with someone "playing games" or "using tricks", or being "inauthentic" and you can't possibly fathom that the word game is just an acceptable term in today's society for a set of basic social skills. Is it hard for you to accept this word on face value? If the word was to change to something else the concept would still be the same.


----------



## RandomDude

SA, I've forgotten how that feels 

Wish I can feel it again though, I feel zero chemistry at present with women I've met... but oh well

The game is just a means to an end, now I play a different game: How to reject a woman in the most fun way possible! Which is perhaps cruel, but I save it for those who I feel really needed a kick in an ass... which recently, there have been plenty


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

RandomDude said:


> SA, I've forgotten how that feels
> 
> Wish I can feel it again though, I feel zero chemistry at present with women I've met... but oh well
> 
> The game is just a means to an end, now I play a different game: How to reject a woman in the most fun way possible! Which is perhaps cruel, but I save it for those who I feel really needed a kick in an ass... which recently, there have been plenty


Sometimes it may need to be done, just like what happened to us needed to be done to force us to open our eyes.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



michzz said:


> Here's what's working for me as I move into the dating world.
> 
> Flirting text, then in person. Let her win at Words with Friends (as in don't go for jugular), cook her dinner, invite to my hot tub.
> 
> Ask her best way to hang artwork.
> 
> Hold her hand at stream crossing while hiking.
> 
> Yup, it's working.


That's what I'm talkin about!
PLAYA !!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I have said it before, it is my belief that like gets with like. Yes, there are the rare examples but a 10 get's with a 10 and a 5 gets with a 5. Now, that doesn't mean they won't TRY for higher but the reality is much different. This is for both sexes. Again, yes there are exceptions but for the most part water reaches its own level sort of speak.


This is absolutely true, and that's the point behind upping your sex rank. If I'm a 7 who usually draws 7s, and I develop additional traits that women tend to find attractive, then I become an 8 and draw 8s. More accurately, I think we pick within a range of our own rank. An 8 will consider and have a very realistic chance of getting a 7, 8 or 9.

This is the point of game. Attraction and appeal.

In spite of some opinions on here, I do not think I'm as good looking as the women I posted pics of. The one in the middle is for all intents and purposes physically flawless imo. A high 9. I'm balding... subtract points. My game was enough to make up the difference in our ranks. My attitude and personality pulled me up from 7. As it turns out, we didn't stay together, so maybe I was reaching or perhaps I fell back into more beta patterns... but I had my foot in the door. Before having done anything, I was likely to end up with a 6... the low end of my range of 6, 7, 8. That's what I was drawing. Maybe some 8s would show interest, but it would evaporate just like the 9 did.

Improving my game - attitude, confidence, charm, personality, sense of self and value etc etc - has resulted in my being able to hold onto the interest of 8s now... with 9's being a realistic possibility.

Game doesn't speak to my intentions, it speaks only to my attractiveness. Its the decent looking guy who just carries himself in a way that women are drawn to. I've learned that this "way of being", is far more powerful than looks in terms of attraction.


----------



## RandomDude

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Sometimes it may need to be done, just like what happened to us needed to be done to force us to open our eyes.


Haha, then in that case I'm not only a misleadingly labeled "player", but I'm a TEACHER :rofl:

Bad girl bad girl! LOL
Damn... reminds me of roleplays in the past... argh nvm


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Sorry just wanted to mention this....

This morning we caught this movie Can't Hardly Wait -YouTube

..I was :rofl: with my husband..... it was a perfect example of sappy *ONEITIS*.... 

... I thought the guy was the sweetest damn thing.....he thought the sun , moon & stars rose upon this 1 girl (for 4 long yrs)......now that she was free from the Stud muffin...he was ready to go in for the kill.....

He poured his heart out in a love letter... even before he got to know her (*oneitis* in wreckless action)...it made it to her at a party after he threw it in the garbage -trying to come to his senses..... in the end she was so touched by his feelings...they got together...... I know... I know.. I know...this is Hollywood Sap... . but yeah...I eat that stuff up. 










That movie was a comedy ...but it showed every characters vulnerabilities ....even the Hot girl & her Stud ex.... and how some PLAY too hard at the Game & come off looking like Jacka**s & turn the girl off....Seth Green played that part pretty well.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> Dvls, I can't even begin to understand you or your thinking. I get it exists, perhaps even more normal than my own. I think you're dating very young ladies and perhaps you value the physical form first. And it's not that I doubt that some of the young ladies are horribly smart or kind or brilliant people. I'm sure that some truly are, it's that I get the feeling that is secondary to the physical form form for you.


Physical form IS first for me. Its available at a glance, and I want it. My thinking is, why start sacrificing right off the bat? Practical thinking no? There are intelligent, fun, kind AND beautiful women. When I see someone, I have no idea if they're intelligent, fun and kind... but I know how good looking they are. So of course I'm going to start with looks. Now I'm confused, I thought you and others were arguing on another thread that women are also "looks first"?

There are two ways to approach life: take what comes your way or go get what you want. I'm a go getter. I analyze, improve, apply and repeat... to be the best me I can be.

I do wonder sometimes though, why is it so frowned upon by women for men to seek good looks, while intelligence is thought to be less shallow? And given such attitude, how can you turn around and say women value looks as much as men? I see so many contradictions in posts here its maddening. Most of us are about the same looks wise. Most of us are of about the same intelligence. You can learn what you will, but you will never become more intelligent. You Like looks, it is a quality set largely by genetics (or at best, applied genetics; but that goes for looks too - the best genetics won't overcome being a docile overeater). If anything, it would seem to me that intelligence is the most shallow quality. Knowledge is attained. Skills is attained. Even looks can at least be improved... but intelligence: You have whatever you have and that's that.

I value looks. I value intelligence. I really value making yourself into more. The most unattractive woman regardless of physical beauty or intelligence is the one who is complacent... who seeks no improvement, has no ambition and has no vision.

I will get them in one package and looks are just the most efficient way to make the first cut. I'm 100% positive women do the same all the time... or my "game" would never be successful after getting the initial brush off. In essence, I've been cut... and I just refuse to be dismissed so easily.



Trenton said:


> Maybe this is the norm. Maybe men and women are far more physical by default than I give them credit for. I am also certain that it wouldn't matter day or time, game or sex rank, that I would never be attracted to you.
> 
> I don't mean this to be insulting because I assure you that you'd find me totally below you physically anyway and so the equation works out. So please don't think I'm being cruel. I really just want to be honest here so as not to be mistaken.


Its okay, I wouldn't be attracted to you either based on personality, but in all fairness, these things - and game - are not easily judged from text. Most communication is non-verbal, and we don't even have verbal. Text is stale. It takes hours to reach an agreement on a forum; that same agreement takes 10 minutes in person. Real life humor is infinitely better than forum humor. Real life charm blows away any sort of text.



Trenton said:


> And that is the thing for me. I have to admit that I can't understand what I don't understand. I think about it, I read it, and yet I don't get it.
> 
> I read it from men and women I respect like Falcon, CM, Deejo, and TRBE but yet there's this disconnect. This feeling like I'm John Lennon and not really ever going to fit in and can't understand why no one else gets my vision. Then there are others that tend to agree. They always seem to be women which sort of depresses me on one level and I wonder what this means.
> 
> So I'm going to try and summarize in saying that game exists in everything. It is fun, it's a way to learn, and it's not going away anytime soon. So why is the premise behind the game so important to me? I think this is where we are disconnecting. My value system makes it so the premise really matters. It just does and if I can't resolve the premise within my brain then I can't accept it and believe it needs reform.


So what exactly do you think the premise behind game is? What is it that you can't accept and needs reform?


----------



## RandomDude

@SA

I've incorporated sappy romantic **** into my repitore of my game but never do I allow myself to be as clumsy as that lol - but that's just me, and it seems to work so there 

Still, I found the clumsiness, speaking from the heart, works wonders when the relationship is established, some measure of vulnerability does work I guess


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> But let me approach it from a different angle. This whole idea of game is about *knowledge* of a woman's psychology and sociology, and using that to control your destiny. So are we to assume from this that only men can be masters of their own destiny and women are just the pawns in their game? This is often how it is described, even by a few individuals in this thread.


You just pulled that out of your own head, because this very thread has several people repeatedly pointing out that women have their own "game". I think you yourself tried to point to "dumbing down" as female game... I don't know about that, but then, I don't think a girl I'm teasing really understands that I'm overtly hitting on her... so maybe I'm in the dark and you ladies really do play dumber. I have my doubts. I know some of you will play more sexual - ie - every girl in the club baring a ton of skin.



always_alone said:


> But surely you would allow that women too have choices? They are not just playthings to be manipulated, and so can opt to respond or not to the advances of another?


Seriously? Give the equality thing a rest. Women have a choice regardless of what a man does. Say "go away". Say nothing. Say "no".

You really don't get this. There's NO deception or manipulation. As a guy, I am in control only of MYSELF. I present my most attractive self. I'm to blame that she's now hunting ME down the rest of the night? Please.

Every time you accuse men of controlling women merely by trying to attract them, imo you only further tear down women by gutting their reponsibility for their own actions. Nobody lied. I didn't force her to come after me. I didn't make her go home with me. There was nothing disengenuous or contrived about the interaction... unless you think all humor is contrived.

No offense, but your viewpoint just sounds so horribly depressing. I think I have more confidence than you do in the average woman's ability to navigate the single scene. Do you similarly think women are inauthentic or manipulative because they get all dolled up before going out where other singles will be? I really have a hard time understanding how teasing and telling jokes and being playful is anywhere near as deceptive as a push-up bra. Is a woman who wears a sexy little outfit manipulating me by appealing to my male, visual nature? Funny, I'm kinda thankful to her... and the push-up bra lady. Appeal to me some more! Manipulate me ladies!! And by manipulate I mean put your hands on me... and by "me" I mean my ... anyways. 

Its really a simple matter: I like a girl and want to talk to her. I want her to like me too and I learned how to engage her, without any deceit, to make that much more likely. Men and women engage that which appeals to the other. Its not deception.

You take it way too seriously and always with the most negative spin possible. Did you get burned by someone really bad? Did you want attention you didn't get and this is like a counter rejection? What's the source of the bitterness? 

No matter how many times I tell you there's no tricking or manipulating anyone, you insist that there is!



always_alone said:


> All of which is to say that, yes, we can try our best to get what we want, and we may succeed. We also may fail miserably. To say that we are masters of our own destiny is flattering to the ego, but is overstating one's personal power, no matter how fortunate you have been in being born into all of the advantages of life (wealth, beauty, power, intellect, education, opportunity, freedom, and so on).


Go big or go home. I want the best I can get in every part of my life and it takes work... sometimes, work on myself.

We are born where we are born but we have great influence over where we go - it is that influence that we are referring to as "being master of your destiny". You're given what you're given, but what you do from there is how you "own it".

I was born to a 14 year old mom who was declared an adult by the state because her abusive dysfunctional family threw her out of the house for getting pregnant. I grew up dirt poor. I was bone thin and shy.

I still churned out two masters degrees, got a high paying job and started my own business, hit the weights to put on muscle, and pushed myself out of my shell to meet people and become social though things like toastmasters, motorcycle clubs, sports and many many books on conversation and pickup.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



Trenton said:


> Love you!


PLAYED!!

I'm just kidding.

Seriously, that's about as basic as my advice gets.
Do what works.

I wanted to know if the game 'crap' worked.

It made me think about how I conduct myself and interact with others, particularly women - and none of it for the worst. None of it at the cost of someone's dignity.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *Go big or go home. I want the best I can get in every part of my life and it takes work... sometimes, work on myself.*


^^Winners creed!^^


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> We've already addressed those but keep getting lost in semantics. In this thread what I am talking about is the premise behind the authors intentions and beliefs that creates a problem.
> 
> It puts me on this defensive making it appear as if I think all game is bad or that the word game is bad in and of itself of which I don't think is true.


Oh ok, I understand you. I wasn't trying to put you on the defensive. I just like to understand and get to the roots.

You believe those writing and reading these books have ill intentions right from the start of the discussion. Beginning with a negative frame of mind, its difficult for someone in my position to get any traction explaining the how/why of something being attractive to women; even more difficult when you consider many of these things are completely counterintuitive.

Having read many of your posts and gotten a strong individualist vibe, I gather you also resent the notion that there is anything that would apply to female attraction generally. You're firmly entrenched in "we're all different". This is a theme I see you address directly in many of your posts: "I am different" or "maybe I am not normal." I think you want to be different. In my experience, which you can take or leave as I'm just feeling wordy and analytical at the moment , this is more a frame of mind than actual difference. You're probably more normal than you care to admit. Its the mindset of a person who identifies with the rebel or outcast. I think I have a good understanding of this in men, but not so much in women.

So as I see it, in you, there is initial intention bias and normal surface distaste for counterintuitive techniques (this is the "that would never work" response - its common). This is perhaps topped with disbelief(?) that human psychology is largely the same and can be cooperated with. Regardless, you're inclined to think it wrong to actively cooperate with that psychology and view it as manipulation - but this is more a feeling you have than a rationalization - the root of which, I believe, is the perceived threat to the self-determinism you really cling to. In addition to those things, I'm guessing you have a heightened sense of rebelliousness or individualism, perhaps even victimization, which exacerbates the latter sense that this activity is manipulating and unfairly casts women into a category (which, you go to great lengths to avoid I think... you're not a type... you're different).

In short, you're walled up from this stuff because it challenges your identity as an independent agent with full conscious control. At best, you feel it engages the pieces of the person, the machinery, while bypassing the the actual whole person - whatever that even means. So in frank discussion, it is threatening and inauthetic to you. To be honest, I think this is a common response, and the reason women often reject these books outright - even if they can get past the 13 year old misogyny.

Out of curiousity, would you characterize yourself as a control freak? (no negative connotation)

How many hits did I get? 
Would you really admit it if I did hit on something?

If I'm off... I blame it on lack of sleep and the fact that I get you, always alone, and ... somebody else I can't think of at the moment, crossed up at times when reading posts. So I might be describing a frankenperson. haha


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

I wanted to add something, and I appreciate the previous poster commenting on groups.

We have relegated "game" to the trashy low life bottom feeding scum, who aim to deceive and to pillage and plunder innocent souls.

I have simplified all of this talk into a very short and concise point.

Women have things that they do, mannerisms, appearances, voice tones, attitudes which make them more attractive. I guess you could call this "game".

In men, there are also a bunch of qualities that can be managed to make you more attractive. I guess you could call this "game" too.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Daddy, yes, that's a good summary. But add to that, only the less attractive ones have game (per another poster).


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Faithful Wife said:


> Daddy, yes, that's a good summary. But add to that, only the less attractive ones have game (per another poster).


Lol. We'll it is a lot more "ugly" or not as fair looking with "banging bodies", and the more "fair looking" ones would tend to have less "banging bodies".

One that is not as blessed in the facial region, I guess would HAVE to max out all other qualities, because they have no choice. Their game would be maxed.

The ones blessed with a desireable face and image, would tend to not have to try as hard to up their game or complete body image.


----------



## tacoma

Faithful Wife said:


> Daddy, yes, that's a good summary. But add to that, only the less attractive ones have game (per another poster).


I'd like to think that wasn't true.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> "Sheldon is Star Trek's Data or Spock."
> 
> But I know tons of chicks who are totally into that.
> 
> I have also heard people with AS make great dommes.


Being "into" a guy like that and actually having a successful relationship with a guy like that are two different things, imo.


----------



## RandomDude

Its true though in some cases, but sometimes they up it too much to the point it just looks wrong. Ugly women who think they are all that have confidence, I give them that, but... :rofl:

All I see is denial in my eyes

Still the game isn't bad by nature, and when I consider someone with no game, it's those who lack the confidence and/or doesn't know what to say to a woman to initiate a conversation - fast forward a few years how is he going to initiate sex?! To ask for it? Oh no no no
We play the game when we whisper sweet nothings, we play the game when we play hard to get. That to me is the game.

Not lies/deceit, but perhaps my definition is just weird. I just call people who need to lie to a woman to get into her pants rather pathetic. Honesty does get you laid, still remember when I told a potential date that I wasn't interested as I was reconciling with my wife (when we first decided to seperate) she turned around and told me that it didn't have to be serious.

Women are very liberal these days, no need for deception. (For the record, no I didn't go for her, to this day I've still only fked my wife last 4-5 yrs) The only game is the game of seduction, and that's it. As long as its not overdone. Over-confidence is a major turn off, especially when one doesn't have the goods to begin with as Faithful Wife mentioned - which does however yield hilarious results lol


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> So you don't think women authentically enjoy those things but take them up to get with le men?


I didn't see this implication at all. He was giving examples of things women who don't have great looks can do to get attention from men. He didn't say they only do these things for this reason.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls...as I have pointed out a few times, there are a millions books you have not read about attraction, versus the however many you have read. Not possible for you to continue learning and revising what you know based on new incoming knowledge?
> 
> Yep, you know about the bell curve. You know about what you have experienced yourself and can attest to and prove. You know about what your friends and confidantes have told you and seen and heard, etc.
> 
> That still leaves a whole lot of other things that can happen. Even the top of the bell curve is actually a tiny slice in comparison to the whole bell.


Just because we have a lot a lot to learn about something doesn't mean that what we believe now is wrong, or that that belief will change with an income of more knowledge. I could say that men who play the piano are more likely to hook up with a girl. It wouldn't matter how much I read on the topic of attraction, if my experience tells me that men who play the piano get lucky more often, then my belief will be that men who play the piano have more game. And that wouldn't change until I saw that it was false with my own eyes. 

Perhaps we need to learn that personal experiences are often going to trump thousands of pages filled with knowledge? As much as that might annoy us, it's the truth.

Oh, btw, my husband _does_ play the piano and he does so beautifully. So, imo, he has more game than all of ya'll.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> I just have to say, you seem to have a particular talent for highlighting the most despicable aspects of game, while defending it as harmless and fun. Not sure if I can put my finger on it exactly, but the way you describe it leaves me with the clear impression that game is absolutely about manipulating woman to do what you want in whatever way you can without zero regard for them. All the mutual benefit, maintain attractiveness, salvage relationships stuff that puts a more positive spin on it goes straight out the window.


Not all manipulation is the same, though. There are cases when a man who has wicked intentions manipulates a woman out of selfish gain. But, there are many other cases when a man used manipulation _un_selfishly. My husband does often. He used it when we were getting to know each other to see if I was even interested in him. It wasn't wicked manipulation, it was just manipulating a situation or a conversation to see how I would react or what I would say to things that were important to him. He still does similar things in our marriage to this day. And, for the sake of clarity, I've also experienced the wicked kind of manipulation in other relationships; that manipulation and the kind my husband uses are definitely _not_ the same.

Perhaps your personal experiences with manipulation have only been bad and so you have no point of reference to relate to what's being said. But many of the men in this thread have explained how manipulation isn't always a bad things. It can be beneficial and cute and enjoyable.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Because admitting that it is about manipulating others to get what one wants would makes them look bad? Or worse. Without their deep tap into women's psychology, the one that bypasses her rational mind and delivers all of their hopes and dreams, where will they be?


Manipulation is more common than you might think, and in certain circumstances, totally acceptable. You're getting hung on the word rather than the context, which is what defines whether or not the manipulation being used is actually harmful.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> I mean, when I met my SO for the very first time, he was in an LTR with another woman. He did not notice me at all, and I didn't think anything about him. We met again years later, and we were both single. That was chance.
> 
> And while I still hadn't really thought about dating him, he noticed me and asked me out. Turns out we are very compatible in a number of ways. That isn't chance, exactly, but it is coincidence.
> 
> I wouldn't say that he followed my lead or that I followed his. Rather, we started hanging out more and more, and found joy in discovering and being with each other. We weren't masters of our own destiny, we opened ourselves up and went along for the ride.
> 
> OF course, it's quite possible that neither one of us has game.


He _chose_ to ask you out. You _chose_ to go out with him. 


You _are_ a master of your own destiny.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> I'd debate these numbers.
> 
> I didn't choose my parents, my race, or my culture. I didn't choose the historical period into which I was born. I didn't choose my starting socioeconomic class, nor my early peers and teachers. I didn't choose the parenting style with which I was raised, or the location I was raised in. I didn't choose my genetic structure, nor did I choose to be 167 cm tall and to have this build and this face.
> 
> Personally, I think all this adds up to more than 10%.


But, you absolutely choose how to respond to all of those things, and all of the things that come about because of those things. 

You're in control of more than you realize.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Daddy, yes, that's a good summary. But add to that, only the less attractive ones have game (per another poster).


Haha, you always mischaracterize what people said! I've got documented trend now.  lol

They didn't say "only" anything. They said uglier people have *better* game... because they need to. Analog, not digital.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok cool then....the uglier people have better game, is what was said. I stand corrected, on what was said.


----------



## Created2Write

Entropy3000 said:


> You can go with 80 / 20 if it gives you a more positive attitude towards things.
> 
> If you were not born under Taliban rule then you are fortunate. If you are not living in Somalia you are fortunate. If you are not living on the street you are fortunate. If you have eyes to see you are fortunate. And so on. One could go on and on.
> 
> You are somehow measuring yourself against others who you may feel are more fortunate than you and what we are saying is that it comes from within yourself. Success is in walking the next mile. It is having joy with whatever you do. Being in the moment.
> 
> To much is given ... much is expected. But indeed life is about the choices we make and do not make.


I have analogy. 

I'm training for a couple of 5k's this summer. Due to a circumstance I put myself in years ago, I now suffer from very weak shins. 

The other day I was trying to do sprints on the treadmill. I couldn't even finish a full fifteen minutes because of my shins. They hurt so very, very much. 

I could easily have sat down and pouted, saying that I can't run now or ever because my shins are so weak. I could pity myself and blame the circumstances for my lack of access. I could walk around and tout that, because my shins are weak, I'll never run again. I could maintain that I didn't choose to have weak shins, so none of this is even in my power to change. 

OR

I could look into stretches that will help loosen my shins; I could look into things that I can do to help repair my shins after a workout; I could look into certain things I can wear while exercising to limit the pain in my shins; I could look into why my shins hurt...perhaps it's my form? Maybe it's my shoes? 

Turns out I had horrible shoes. They offered no support whatsoever. My husband had to pay a lot of money to get me the ones I needed with custom insoles to match my foot exactly, as well as compression socks I can wear when I run to reduce inflammation. 

I went back to the gym and did a full hour on the treadmill and my shins haven't hurt since. 

While we may not be able to control what family we're from, or where we we're born, or how tall we are, or what the economy is like or when we have weak shins, we absolutely are in complete control of ourselves and how we respond to those things. Anyone who says otherwise, imo, desires to pass their personal responsibilities elsewhere.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You just pulled that out of your own head, because this very thread has several people repeatedly pointing out that women have their own "game". I think you yourself tried to point to "dumbing down" as female game... I don't know about that, but then, I don't think a girl I'm teasing really understands that I'm overtly hitting on her... so maybe I'm in the dark and you ladies really do play dumber. I have my doubts. I know some of you will play more sexual - ie - every girl in the club baring a ton of skin.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Give the equality thing a rest. Women have a choice regardless of what a man does. Say "go away". Say nothing. Say "no".
> 
> You really don't get this. There's NO deception or manipulation. As a guy, I am in control only of MYSELF. I present my most attractive self. I'm to blame that she's now hunting ME down the rest of the night? Please.
> 
> Every time you accuse men of controlling women merely by trying to attract them, imo you only further tear down women by gutting their reponsibility for their own actions. Nobody lied. I didn't force her to come after me. I didn't make her go home with me. There was nothing disengenuous or contrived about the interaction... unless you think all humor is contrived.
> 
> No offense, but your viewpoint just sounds so horribly depressing. I think I have more confidence than you do in the average woman's ability to navigate the single scene. Do you similarly think women are inauthentic or manipulative because they get all dolled up before going out where other singles will be? I really have a hard time understanding how teasing and telling jokes and being playful is anywhere near as deceptive as a push-up bra. Is a woman who wears a sexy little outfit manipulating me by appealing to my male, visual nature? Funny, I'm kinda thankful to her... and the push-up bra lady. Appeal to me some more! Manipulate me ladies!! And by manipulate I mean put your hands on me... and by "me" I mean my ... anyways.
> 
> Its really a simple matter: I like a girl and want to talk to her. I want her to like me too and I learned how to engage her, without any deceit, to make that much more likely. Men and women engage that which appeals to the other. Its not deception.
> 
> You take it way too seriously and always with the most negative spin possible. Did you get burned by someone really bad? Did you want attention you didn't get and this is like a counter rejection? What's the source of the bitterness?
> 
> No matter how many times I tell you there's no tricking or manipulating anyone, you insist that there is!
> 
> 
> 
> Go big or go home. I want the best I can get in every part of my life and it takes work... sometimes, work on myself.
> 
> We are born where we are born but we have great influence over where we go - it is that influence that we are referring to as "being master of your destiny". You're given what you're given, but what you do from there is how you "own it".
> 
> I was born to a 14 year old mom who was declared an adult by the state because her abusive dysfunctional family threw her out of the house for getting pregnant. I grew up dirt poor. I was bone thin and shy.
> 
> I still churned out two masters degrees, got a high paying job and started my own business, hit the weights to put on muscle, and pushed myself out of my shell to meet people and become social though things like toastmasters, motorcycle clubs, sports and many many books on conversation and pickup.


:smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup::smthumbup:

*insert applause here*

Greatest post here yet!


----------



## RandomDude

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok cool then....the uglier people have better game, is what was said. I stand corrected, on what was said.


But I beg to differ due to what I've seen, then again, I'm probably using just the most extreme examples lol

Reminds me of the first woman I met who was like that, she's a story by herself, but whenever a guy doesn't notice her, she says "he must be gay", "he must be married", etc etc :rofl: When she wasn't really that attractive to begin with

But then again, I guess it's also due to her personality/arrogance that contributes to this, so hey, I don't think uglier people have more game, game is just, game 
You either have it or you dont, and if you don't you can always learn, we were all virgins once.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"I don't think uglier people have more game, game is just, game."

I don't either, I was just noting that others had said that.


----------



## RandomDude

Aye, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, like sometimes my mates will show me woman A, and I go, "meh", and they go "WTF? Forget your ex bro!"

But then I spot woman B walking down the street, and they go "really? you've dropped your standards mate!" and I go "WTF? She's hot!" etc etc


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> No matter how many times I tell you there's no tricking or manipulating anyone, you insist that there is!


That's your story in this thread. But I'm still thinking of that other thread, where you were bragging about how you manipulated and deceived women to get what you want.

And yes, I know that women play some awful games too. Doesn't mean I find their tactics appealing either. Actually, I've been pretty consistent in suggesting that using 'tactics', rather than relating, seems like the wrong way to go about finding and building meaningful relationships. For both men and women.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> That's your story in this thread. But I'm still thinking of that other thread, where you were bragging about how you manipulated and deceived women to get what you want.


I was bragging? That's funny, because I thought it was a confession. I lied about being single to a couple women I was only having no strings sex with in order to protect myself from being blackmailed. Do you think their knowing i was married would have stopped them? "Oh dear... you're such a nice f*ckbuddy, but I can't reconcile my moral values with sleeping with a married man." Ok. It certainly didn't matter to the ones that did know.

That a person lies or doesn't lie is entirely independent of game. Lying about being married, or being a millionaire, or having a 10 inch penis, or whatever... IS NOT game. Can you grasp that concept? Please tell me if you can't because if you don't understand this there's no where else to go.

Way to duck the issue and switch focus to me though. I applaud. :smthumbup:

That's an excellent conversational tactic. 



always_alone said:


> And yes, I know that women play some awful games too. Doesn't mean I find their tactics appealing either. Actually, I've been pretty consistent in suggesting that using 'tactics', rather than relating, seems like the wrong way to go about finding and building meaningful relationships. For both men and women.


Every "tactic" is a means of relating. There you go with semantics again. I'm sorry, but there are patterns and methods to EVERY conversation. Jokes, teases, stories, argument, touch, observation, posture, nonchalance... all are tactics. ALL are means of relating to others. What exactly is your problem with them? I tell you a joke to make you laugh. Am I to assume you don't enjoy laughing? I tell you a story to entertain and share my experience with you. Do you not enjoy entertaining stories? I listen well and engage your conversation with interest, insight and humor. I've never heard of someone NOT liking someone friendly, funny, interesting, entertaining and personable. Please explain how you relate, without doing any of these things. If you have had a conversation with anyone, you are employing conversational tactics, even if you're not aware of it. I'm assuming you're not a robot. I'm assuming you know when to listen and when to speak and when to relate with a counter story of when that happened to you? Everyone learns the basics. There's a lot more complex dynamics to learn. If you didn't know that it made people feel good when you relate to their situation by telling your story of a similar experience, and I told you, is this story telling now a tactic? Or would you really just be happy that you've learned a good way to relate to people?

For the billionth time, game isn't about building relationships. Game is about building ATTRACTION. How many times do I have to say it? If there's no attraction first, there is no relationship! ---bottom line--- Follow?

Let me just say, if mini skirts are awful games, women can play as many awful games as they want. Woe is me... I am being manipulated and gamed. Women who wear sexy clothes must not be interested in a genuine relationship. 

See what I did there? If you're told a joke, I hope you just enjoy it for what it is. Its not a proposal. Its not an offer to be raped. Its just a joke. A tactic. A way of relating to and sharing with other people.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> What you're born into, those who raise you absolutely have an impact on how we see ourselves, how resilient we are, etc.
> 
> Can a child with this background overcome it and make amazingly great choices that lead to him or her living a fulfilling life?
> 
> Absolutely and I believe with better intervention and care we absolutely improve the outcome.
> 
> BUT without better care and intervention...the outcomes are grim across the board.


Nobody said where you start doesn't have an influence on where you are now. Nobody has said help is not a good thing. In the end though, regardless of the help available, its up to each individual to take their own steps. No one is going to do it for you.

Its up to each individual to own their own life regardless of their circumstances. I can point to a lot of people who just sit and wallow. For them, their life to date is nothing more than an excuse to not get off their @ss and improve it. Every change is not monumental, but even a single step moves you forward.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Love your analogy but I want to offer another one.
> 
> Let's say you're a child who's born addicted to drugs. Children's services remove you and works with your parent to try to get them off drugs so they can care for you. You are moved around within homes available. No consistent care, culture or normalcy.
> 
> You Mom gets you back after rehab. You're 2 by now. She relapses and beats you. Division takes you away again and repeats the process.
> 
> You get back with mom at 6 and it repeats.
> 
> Your grades are lacking in Kindergarten/1st grade. You move schools as much as you move homes.
> 
> Your Mom beats you again and this time child services moves to termination. This takes 3 years. You continue to fail at school, misbehave and are prescribed psychotropic drugs to manage your behavior (4 of them).
> 
> At 9 you are now up for adoption but unadoptable or at least so it seems as no one is adopting you.
> 
> Your behavior spirals again and you're placed in a home for disabled children. Your IQ is tested, it's low but not low enough to be considered disabled. You're kicked from the disabled home.
> 
> You float around the system until you're a teen ager. You have had no role models, no consistency, no idea what love is, your education is lacking and your resources are not really helping you.
> 
> I wonder if you see the difference from your analogy and the one I listed. I know thousands of stories just like the one I posted above.
> 
> What you're born into, those who raise you absolutely have an impact on how we see ourselves, how resilient we are, etc.
> 
> Can a child with this background overcome it and make amazingly great choices that lead to him or her living a fulfilling life?
> 
> Absolutely and I believe with better intervention and care we absolutely improve the outcome.
> 
> BUT without better care and intervention...the outcomes are grim across the board.


So where do you think this fits on the bell curve in the Western world? You have just done a typical check for an extreme. Gotcha. SOP in analysis. But way way way too many folks IMHO just flat have the entitlement behavior that the world is keeping them down. I could do the same in my own life. The more we look for things keeping us down the more we give up on ourselves. My only point. I think many folks give up too easily.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Love your analogy but I want to offer another one.
> 
> Let's say you're a child who's born addicted to drugs. Children's services remove you and works with your parent to try to get them off drugs so they can care for you. You are moved around within homes available. No consistent care, culture or normalcy.
> 
> You Mom gets you back after rehab. You're 2 by now. She relapses and beats you. Division takes you away again and repeats the process.
> 
> You get back with mom at 6 and it repeats.
> 
> Your grades are lacking in Kindergarten/1st grade. You move schools as much as you move homes.
> 
> Your Mom beats you again and this time child services moves to termination. This takes 3 years. You continue to fail at school, misbehave and are prescribed psychotropic drugs to manage your behavior (4 of them).
> 
> At 9 you are now up for adoption but unadoptable or at least so it seems as no one is adopting you.
> 
> Your behavior spirals again and you're placed in a home for disabled children. Your IQ is tested, it's low but not low enough to be considered disabled. You're kicked from the disabled home.
> 
> You float around the system until you're a teen ager. You have had no role models, no consistency, no idea what love is, your education is lacking and your resources are not really helping you.
> 
> I wonder if you see the difference from your analogy and the one I listed. I know thousands of stories just like the one I posted above.


Yeah. The difference is that the circumstances you listed are much more extreme. But the outcome can be 100% the same. That person's success in life is _still_ 100% their responsibility. 

We all want to take the harshness of our circumstances and justify our own selfish behaviors by using those circumstances as an excuse. When really, we _choose_ to be unsuccessful. 



> What you're born into, those who raise you absolutely have an impact on how we see ourselves, how resilient we are, etc.


To an extent, yes. I believe we're all born with a desire to succeed and do great things. And I believe that, unless we're born with a mental illness, we're born with a basic understanding of right and wrong. Sure, growing up in a hostile environment when we're abused and neglected can stunt the growth of that understanding, but I believe it's still there. Because at some point we have to stop blaming our past, our circumstances, our families; at some point that merely becomes a cop out because we don't want to take responsibility. 



> Can a child with this background overcome it and make amazingly great choices that lead to him or her living a fulfilling life?
> 
> Absolutely and I believe with better intervention and care we absolutely improve the outcome.
> 
> BUT without better care and intervention...the outcomes are grim across the board.


But _why_ are they grim? Are they grim because that child's failure in life is inevitable? Or are they grim because that child, as they mature into adulthood, _chooses_ to continue that misbehavior? I know a girl who had a similar childhood to the one you brought up; she _was_ adopted. While her parents did the best they could to provide for her and love her, she liked feeling pitied. She did, and still, plays the victim card instead of owning that her hardships are her own. Her parents have been there for her countless times, given her a place to stay - she wouldn't even pay rent when she had the money to do so.

Yeah, there are some people in this world who have been through absolutely horrible circumstances. But the ones who go on to be successful are the ones who choose not to be defined by those circumstances; the ones who see obstacles as opportunities to grow and learn; the ones who don't insist on passing blame off to everyone else; the ones who aren't afraid to admit, "Yeah, I had a horrible childhood and horrible teenage years. I let my circumstances define me partly because I didn't know any better, and partly because I just wanted attention. But now I see that owning to my mistakes and learning from them not only improves my circumstances, but the people around me feel safe with me."

I hope you can see what I'm saying. I'm not at all trying to make light of those horrible situations. But I absolutely believe that are lives are as awful or as wonderful as we choose to make them, regardless of how terrible the situations beyond are control can be.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I was bragging? That's funny, because I thought it was a confession. I lied about being single to a couple women I was only having no strings sex with in order to protect myself from being blackmailed. Do you think their knowing i was married would have stopped them? "Oh dear... you're such a nice f*ckbuddy, but I can't reconcile my moral values with sleeping with a married man." Ok. It certainly didn't matter to the ones that did know.
> 
> That a person lies or doesn't lie is entirely independent of game. Lying about being married, or being a millionaire, or having a 10 inch penis, or whatever... IS NOT game. Can you grasp that concept? Please tell me if you can't because if you don't understand this there's no where else to go.
> 
> Way to duck the issue and switch focus to me though. I applaud. :smthumbup:
> 
> That's an excellent conversational tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> Every "tactic" is a means of relating. There you go with semantics again. I'm sorry, but there are patterns and methods to EVERY conversation. Jokes, teases, stories, argument, touch, observation, posture, nonchalance... all are tactics. ALL are means of relating to others. What exactly is your problem with them? *I tell you a joke to make you laugh. Am I to assume you don't enjoy laughing? I tell you a story to entertain and share my experience with you. Do you not enjoy entertaining stories? I listen well and engage your conversation with interest, insight and humor. I've never heard of someone NOT liking someone friendly, funny, interesting, entertaining and personable. *Please explain how you relate, without doing any of these things. If you have had a conversation with anyone, you are employing conversational tactics, even if you're not aware of it. I'm assuming you're not a robot. I'm assuming you know when to listen and when to speak and when to relate with a counter story of when that happened to you? Everyone learns the basics. There's a lot more complex dynamics to learn. If you didn't know that it made people feel good when you relate to their situation by telling your story of a similar experience, and I told you, is this story telling now a tactic? Or would you really just be happy that you've learned a good way to relate to people?
> 
> For the billionth time, game isn't about building relationships. Game is about building ATTRACTION. How many times do I have to say it? If there's no attraction first, there is no relationship! ---bottom line--- Follow?
> 
> Let me just say, if mini skirts are awful games, women can play as many awful games as they want. Woe is me... I am being manipulated and gamed. Women who wear sexy clothes must not be interested in a genuine relationship.
> 
> See what I did there? If you're told a joke, I hope you just enjoy it for what it is. Its not a proposal. Its not an offer to be raped. Its just a joke. A tactic. A way of relating to and sharing with other people.


Precisely.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Trenton said:


> Love your analogy but I want to offer another one.
> 
> Let's say you're a child who's born addicted to drugs. Children's services remove you and works with your parent to try to get them off drugs so they can care for you. You are moved around within homes available. No consistent care, culture or normalcy.
> 
> You Mom gets you back after rehab. You're 2 by now. She relapses and beats you. Division takes you away again and repeats the process.
> 
> You get back with mom at 6 and it repeats.
> 
> Your grades are lacking in Kindergarten/1st grade. You move schools as much as you move homes.
> 
> Your Mom beats you again and this time child services moves to termination. This takes 3 years. You continue to fail at school, misbehave and are prescribed psychotropic drugs to manage your behavior (4 of them).
> 
> At 9 you are now up for adoption but unadoptable or at least so it seems as no one is adopting you.
> 
> Your behavior spirals again and you're placed in a home for disabled children. Your IQ is tested, it's low but not low enough to be considered disabled. You're kicked from the disabled home.
> 
> You float around the system until you're a teen ager. You have had no role models, no consistency, no idea what love is, your education is lacking and your resources are not really helping you.
> 
> I wonder if you see the difference from your analogy and the one I listed. I know thousands of stories just like the one I posted above.
> 
> What you're born into, those who raise you absolutely have an impact on how we see ourselves, how resilient we are, etc.
> 
> Can a child with this background overcome it and make amazingly great choices that lead to him or her living a fulfilling life?
> 
> Absolutely and I believe with better intervention and care we absolutely improve the outcome.
> 
> BUT without better care and intervention...the outcomes are grim across the board.


I do see what you mean here, abandonment issues, ptsd and many other issues can occur from this sort of background (I was put in a pupil referral unit when I was younger most where found to a have sociopathic tendencies) and can cause chemical imbalances or nerve damage in the brain that is hard to consciously overcome (in extreme cases impossible).


----------



## Topical storm

Faithful Wife said:


> Daddy, yes, that's a good summary. But add to that, only the less attractive ones have game (per another poster).


For future record, if you're going to paraphrase or quote me please be accurate, otherwise I have to conclude you're a willful antagonist (troll), based on your lack of knowledge and refusal to understand the word "game" in the modern era and the nuances and concepts behind it, based on the emotions of your posts centered around this evil word -game-. If you don't talk to strangers don't go around quoting strangers. Thanks.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I was actually quoting Tacoma, I thought, and I was using sarcasm in my post. So .... um, yeah. Don't flatter yourself.

Feel free to conclude I am anything you like! Clearly I know nothing, am ignorant, have no valid opinions or contributions. Sure thang.


----------



## Entropy3000

Monty Python- The Black Knight Fight - YouTube

Pacino Inspirational Speech

"Do not go gentle into that good night" -- Dylan Thomas


----------



## tacoma

Faithful Wife said:


> I was actually quoting Tacoma, I thought, and I was using sarcasm in my post.


Now wait a minute I didn't bring that up I just agreed with someones post and then got piled on by all you damn legbeards!!

I get blamed for everything!!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ha! You are right Tacoma...you are just the one who agreed that uglier CHICKS usually have better game...you didn't actually say that about the dudes.


----------



## Created2Write

And as far as relationships go, it's the individuals who recognize their weaknesses and seek to improve themselves who are the most successful, whatever their goal is. The most unattractive qualities in any person, male or female, for me are:

-*Insecurity*: even in friendships it's difficult for me to be around insecure people. And I don't mean people who have moments of insecurity. I think we all experience that. But those people who are completely and utterly insecure, who can't function without someone there to hold their hand the whole way; who can't take a compliment without insulting themselves afterward; who can't trust the people around them, the people they've known for years; who wants more from life but doesn't believe in themselves enough to even try to change it. 

-*Laziness*: Again, I don't mean those who are lazy on the weekends. I mean those who have the chance to do great things but they'd rather take their sweet time; who talk about bettering themselves, like going back to school or losing weight, but never follows through and always has an excuse for it; who complains about their life, but again, won't do anything to change it. It's like they expect success and happiness to materialize out of thin air when the rest of us have to bust our butts for it. 

-*Entitlement*: This is probably the most unattractive quality out of all of them. I believe that, as long as a person is willing to work hard at whatever they're doing(and as long as they're not breaking the law), everyone deserves happiness. But I know a few people who hate their life and they think their hardships are worse than anyone's. I have a friend who wants to be in a relationship so bad, they hate rejection, but they act like they're the only person on earth who feels or has felt the way they do. And yet, they aren't willing to better themselves. They're in a dead end job, they live with their parents, and they want to be married. I mean, come on! 

Life is what we _choose_ to make it. I _hate_ math. Like, with a passion. It doesn't come naturally to me. I have to work harder to understand it than any other subject. I'm an English person. Give me literature, writing, reading, art, languages, even life sciences like biology and I'll get mostly A's, some B's. The brain I was born with does not retain mathematics easily. Yet, I know that if I worked hard enough and put in the time, I could learn math and get A's in it. I know that I _could_ go on to get a job with it, if I really, truly wanted to. 

Do I want to? No. Not at all. The result? I don't even try to do well at math. I don't care how good I am at it. 

When people genuinely want to succeed, they do what they have to do to overcome their issues and obstacles, and they work hard to change what they're not content with.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ps.....Legbeards?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Clearly I know nothing, am ignorant, have no valid opinions or contributions.


That's precisely what I've been trying to tell you! 

jk muah!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ok Dvls, I can handle all those insults...but legbeards? Really now...that is uncalled for.

I am a leg-goatee, thank you very much. Let's get it right.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> -*Insecurity*: even in friendships it's difficult for me to be around insecure people. And I don't mean people who have moments of insecurity. I think we all experience that. But those people who are completely and utterly insecure, who can't function without someone there to hold their hand the whole way; *who can't take a compliment without insulting themselves afterward; who can't trust the people around them,* the people they've known for years; who wants more from life but doesn't believe in themselves enough to even try to change it.


I used to have serious problems with this. I'd think what everyone else does (or is) is amazing, and everything I do (or am) is mediocre. Its a nightmare and really made me a party pooper. Didn't matter what it was, if I was complimented I HAD to downplay it.

I have to consciously avoid doing it. Even when I bought my car and friends are telling me how nice it was, my first thought is to say "Yeah, its nice... BUT... its not the faster "S" model" or "I didn't get this option or that option etc" and basically tell everyone everything it wasn't. Or the times I've had to write inelegant code at work, I would put comments in the code saying "this is ugly, didn't have time to do it right; should do this or that - update later". The purpose not actually being to remind myself to update it later, but to defend myself from whoever is going to maintain that code down the road thinking "wtf is this? Why did he do this crap?" Utterly retarded, I know.

It took me a long time to recognize that my self-criticisms, which I'd always thought of as being humble, were actually insulting and off-putting. A close friend of mine once said something like "Here you have this nice thing, and all you do is diss it and point out what its not... while I'd kill to have it. Shut up and be happy with it. You make people feel like crap by always pissing on good things; things they would love. Its like nothing is good enough for you". It was a means to pre-emptively block anyone else from attacking me or my stuff. I'd point out the defect, so no one else can. Before her saying that, I never realized just how horrible a trait this was.

Deep down, I still find myself wanting to dismiss compliments and take things apart, so its a work in progress... but I've at least largely eliminated the overt behavior.

Always working. Always improving.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> I was actually quoting Tacoma, I thought, and I was using sarcasm in my post. So .... um, yeah. Don't flatter yourself.
> 
> Feel free to conclude I am anything you like! Clearly I know nothing, am ignorant, have no valid opinions or contributions. Sure thang.


Ummmm,
Nah, I don't think so.
Forget Devil, he's just trying " neg " you.
You're supposed to come back at him with something harder.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> It took me a long time to recognize that my self-criticisms, which I'd always thought of as being humble, were actually insulting and off-putting. A close friend of mine once said something like "Here you have this nice thing, and all you do is diss it and point out what its not... while I'd kill to have it. Shut up and be happy with it. You make people feel like crap by always pissing on good things; things they would love. Its like nothing is good enough for you". It was a means to pre-emptively block anyone else from attacking me or my stuff. I'd point out the defect, so no one else can. Before her saying that, I never realized just how horrible a trait this was.
> 
> Deep down, I still find myself wanting to dismiss compliments and take things apart, so its a work in progress... but I've at least largely eliminated the overt behavior.
> 
> Always working. Always improving.


I understand. I'm self-conscious about my looks. As a teen I didn't care how I looked or whether anyone thought I was attractive. Then, I hit nineteen and suddenly I was all self-conscious and second guessing myself; was my hair too short? Was it the right color? Would anyone notice the zit on my forehead? Why didn't I have clear, normal skin and an even complexion? Why did I have to be so short? Why did I have to be so curvy?

I've since learned to love my hair, long or short(though I love having it long even more), whatever color, I cleanse and moisturize twice a day to limit zits and other blemishes and have clear_er_ skin and a more even complexion, I like my height(even though I still have to roll up the legs a bit, even in petite jeans), and I've learned to love my curves. I still workout...soda and fats and sugar stick to me like nothing else. But I'm learning to love the things I can't change, and to change the things I don't love. 

Confidence is key, imo.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CM - I don't want to come down too hard on Dvls because he is clearly secretly in love with me and I don't want to blow his cover. That would be mean.

He can't help it, my Game is SOOOO good my looks don't even matter!


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> CM - I don't want to come down too hard on Dvls because he is clearly secretly in love with me and I don't want to blow his cover. That would be mean.
> 
> He can't help it, my Game is SOOOO good my looks don't even matter!


Let's be honest here. Ever since he showed his picture and with the hot women that gather to him, you are smitten. This is natural. Do not be hard on yourself. It is your biology after all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes that is true, but I have already traded up, due to hypergamy, which is also my biology. I figure if I trade up every day of my life, I will eventually end up with the hottest man on earth....Conan O'Brian.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> But, you absolutely choose how to respond to all of those things, and all of the things that come about because of those things.
> 
> You're in control of more than you realize.


Okay. If simply choosing how I might respond to a given situation is enough to make me master of my own destiny --then I guess I must be.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Way to duck the issue and switch focus to me though. I applaud. :smthumbup:
> 
> That's an excellent conversational tactic.


One you seem to be quite good at yourself.

I get that you are not at all interested in understanding where I'm coming from, and that's fair. Why should you? You have nothing to gain from it.

I'm only trying to share my (apparently unpopular) perspective. I get what you and others are saying on this thread, - but honestly just can't see all conversation or social relationships as tactics, or as a means of building my attraction, or getting ahead. Or whatever. And maybe that is to my detriment. 

Or maybe not, because my goal is not to attract as many men as I can, or to make people like me, or do what I want them to do. So maybe I don't need it. 

Meanwhile if you are getting what you want from gaming and being gamed, then have at it.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Okay. If simply choosing how I might respond to a given situation is enough to make me master of my own destiny --then I guess I must be.


Let me put it this way: you may not be able to choose your parents, your siblings, your culture, when you were born, where you were born, your gender, your skin color, your eye color, your height, your intelligence level...

But what _can_ you choose? You can choose whether or not you'll go to college, where you'll go to college, what you'll major in, _if_ you'll major in anything or get an associates, or go on to graduate school to get a Masters or a doctorate, or even get a degree at all. You can choose to get into a trade like electrical, piper fitter, metal trades, construction, engineering, plumber; you could choose to work and go to school, or just go to school. You choose what places you want/are willing to work at merely by filling out job applications. You choose who you want to marry, _if you want to marry_, what to name your kids, whether or not you even want kids, how many children you want(even if you only wanted two kids and you have an unexpected pregnancy, you can choose not to have more after that), whether or not you want to adopt or be a foster parent. You choose what talents and hobbies you have. You choose who you vote for politically. If you get laid off from your job due to the economy, you choose what you want to do next, _if_ you even want to do anything next. You choose whether or not you want to exercise, whether or not you want to life a healthy eating lifestyle. You choose whether or not you want to dress in fashion, how you want to wear your hair, whether or not you want to wear makeup. 

Do you catch my drift? There's a lot we can't control, sure. But there is SO much more we _can_ control. We just take so many of those things for granted because many of them are small. And the things we can't control seem so big, when in fact, they mean next to nothing in regards to our individual success in life.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> One you seem to be quite good at yourself.
> 
> I get that you are not at all interested in understanding where I'm coming from, and that's fair. Why should you? You have nothing to gain from it.
> 
> I'm only trying to share my (apparently unpopular) perspective. I get what you and others are saying on this thread, - but honestly just can't see all conversation or social relationships as tactics, or as a means of building my attraction, or getting ahead. Or whatever. And maybe that is to my detriment.


I think your hung up on the words being used. "Tactics" implies immoral intent, or at least mischevious intent; "building attraction" implies that the person is focused too much on the exterior; "getting ahead" implies selfishness. But really, these things are neither bad nor good; they just _are_. So many examples have been given. Makeup, as one of them. Why do women wear makeup? Because they like how they look in it. It boosts their confidence. Or, at least, it boosts mine. Which, impso facto, builds their attraction. It's a "tactic" used to make a woman feel better about herself. Same as teasing and joking is a "tactic" to make a woman laugh, or to build conversation, or to test her personality. Which, if she can take a joke and has a good personality, builds her attraction even more. And as far as "getting ahead" goes, I don't know anyone who doesn't want to be/get the best they can in life.



> Or maybe not, because my goal is not to attract as many men as I can, or to make people like me, or do what I want them to do. So maybe I don't need it.


Personally I think we all "need" at least a little game or we wouldn't even have friends. But, you say potatoes, I say pot-ah-toes. 



> Meanwhile if you are getting what you want from gaming and being gamed, then have at it.


Again with the negative connotation. Since you put it like that, yes, I am getting what I want from being gamed. I get a wonderful husband who respects my morals and boundaries, doesn't watch porn or go to stip clubs, treats me with love and kindness and thoughtfulness and works hard to provide for us...and yes, he uses playful forms of manipulation to make me laugh, or to get me to say something that sounds dirty, and teases me, even negs me, to see what kind of witty remark I can toss at him in return, and was initially interested in me because of my appearance.

I should be concerned, I think.


----------



## Catherine602

Trenton said:


> Love your analogy but I want to offer another one.
> 
> Let's say you're a child who's born addicted to drugs. Children's services remove you and works with your parent to try to get them off drugs so they can care for you. You are moved around within homes available. No consistent care, culture or normalcy.
> 
> You Mom gets you back after rehab. You're 2 by now. She relapses and beats you. Division takes you away again and repeats the process.
> 
> You get back with mom at 6 and it repeats.
> 
> Your grades are lacking in Kindergarten/1st grade. You move schools as much as you move homes.
> 
> Your Mom beats you again and this time child services moves to termination. This takes 3 years. You continue to fail at school, misbehave and are prescribed psychotropic drugs to manage your behavior (4 of them).
> 
> At 9 you are now up for adoption but unadoptable or at least so it seems as no one is adopting you.
> 
> Your behavior spirals again and you're placed in a home for disabled children. Your IQ is tested, it's low but not low enough to be considered disabled. You're kicked from the disabled home.
> 
> You float around the system until you're a teen ager. You have had no role models, no consistency, no idea what love is, your education is lacking and your resources are not really helping you.
> 
> I wonder if you see the difference from your analogy and the one I listed. I know thousands of stories just like the one I posted above.
> 
> What you're born into, those who raise you absolutely have an impact on how we see ourselves, how resilient we are, etc.
> 
> Can a child with this background overcome it and make amazingly great choices that lead to him or her living a fulfilling life?
> 
> Absolutely and I believe with better intervention and care we absolutely improve the outcome.
> 
> BUT without better care and intervention...the outcomes are grim across the board.


I wonder why one child, by some accident of fate, is born in the USA with the gift of leisure time to run, get shin splints and have the exemplary work ethic to handle the injury without assistance. 

Another child, by some misfortune, is born in Mumbai and sold to a factory at 7 yrs old to work long hrs 7 days a week. This slacker does nothing to pull herself up by her bootstraps.


----------



## Created2Write

Catherine602 said:


> I wonder why one child, by some accident of fate, is born in the USA with the gift of leisure time to run, get shin splints and have the exemplary work ethic to handle the injury without assistance.
> 
> Another child, by some misfortune, is born in Mumbai and sold to a factory at 7 yrs old to work long hrs 7 days a week. This slacker does nothing to pull herself up by her bootstraps.


Nice sarcastic jab there to me personally. 

But still, I don't buy your sarcastic point at all. In college, we heard the story of a man from Asia who, _as a kid_, left the war-stricken country he was born in, _by himself_, after watching his parents die in front of his eyes, and come to America and succeed. He had had little education, and is now a highly successful business man who has a Master's Degree. 

Our lives are what we make them. I don't buy that the lack of privilege to one sect of people defines a principle for everyone else.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Considering I know over 600 cases in my county alone of children who have stories similar to this, and those are the ones reported, I don't think it's as uncommon as we like to think.
> 
> Now add to it children living in poverty, lacking access to education, regularly exposed to drug use and a host of other factors and your population grows even larger. A host of things play into the development of the brain, coping skills, expectations and otherwise.
> 
> I agree that many folks give up too easily and I agree that responsibility is important. What I am saying is that it's easier to be responsible when responsibility was taught to you, when those things you had to be responsible for were less dire, etc.
> 
> I don't believe that our environment plays as little a role as you suspect.
> 
> It's not about applying an excuse. It's about having understanding and then working to change it.


Right, but at some point we have to step back from the circumstances we can't control and say, there is a line between appreciating where we've come from, and using where we've come from as an excuse. There are so many stories of those who've come from nothing, from poverty, from drugs, from being highschool drop outs, who still made great lives for themselves.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Yes and yes and yes. Couple that with never being taught coping skills, never bonding with a loving adult, never knowing consistency and never having trust in anyone including yourself...and I hope you understand that the answer is not as simple as saying, "Hey! Get some responsibility! You have choices!"


Maybe it's not _always_ that simple.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Trenton said:


> Yes and yes and yes. Couple that with never being taught coping skills, never bonding with a loving adult, never knowing consistency and never having trust in anyone including yourself...and I hope you understand that the answer is not as simple as saying, _*"Hey! Get some responsibility! You have choices!"*_


I really hope I didn't say anything to come across that's my view because I don't think that at all.


----------



## Created2Write

All I will say in reply is that, if I am entitled, I am so because I _made_ my entitlement. I wasn't born into riches or glory, I haven't been blessed with glorious opportunities. I didn't get a highschool education because my parents decided they didn't want to put me through public school. Their choice was to have a relative teach me, and she did a poor job of it. I taught myself the GED. I couldn't even afford to finish college. But through hard work and effort and creativity and sacrifice, I'm building my resources to finish college and to run my own business. 

We create our success. Even those less privileged than us. Even those without the resources we have. Perhaps those in the worst possible circumstances don't have the power to create their own success, but I don't believe that their situations define a principle that applies to the rest of us.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Now compare these to the stories you never hear about and I think you'll find that unless intervention is provided and offers children the tools they need to become successful adults, the outcome is not in favor of the stories you're hearing about.
> 
> Statistically, we know this. It's well documented. It's not a mystery.


Sorry. Read the post I wrote in response to Catherine. I've heard many amazing stories of people with less than we can think of who _still_ managed to make a great life for themselves. I'm not saying that our environment doesn't play any part it in. In some cases it can play a huge part in our success. But I believe those situations to be rare, whether they're documented or not.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Created2Write said:


> Sorry. Read the post I wrote in response to Catherine. I've heard many amazing stories of people with less than we can think of who _still_ managed to make a great life for themselves. I'm not saying that our environment doesn't play any part it in. In some cases it can play a huge part in our success. But I believe those situations to be rare, whether they're documented or not.


For me personally these stories should be used as inspiration more than comparison.


----------



## Created2Write

TiggyBlue said:


> For me personally these stories should be used as inspiration more than comparison.


I totally respect that. For me, personally, I can't agree.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Trenton said:


> But we should understand it and we should empower and connect to one another rather than tell people to get some responsibility like we, ourselves, have.
> 
> Disadvantage does not equal victim. It equals a chance to overcome great odds, right? They still have to overcome those great odds and that's my point.


I wish I could like this 100 times :smnotworthy:


----------



## Deejo

This derail is utterly EPIC ...

And has no correlation with the topic whatsoever. None. Zero.

Everybody has a sob story. Everybody. 

I started with a much smaller goal than changing the world for the better. I wanted to get laid.

Lets keep things in perspective people.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Deejo said:


> This derail is utterly EPIC ...
> 
> And has no correlation with the topic whatsoever. None. Zero.
> 
> Everybody has a sob story. Everybody.
> 
> I started with a much smaller goal than changing the world for the better. I wanted to get laid.
> 
> Lets keep things in perspective people.


It's an excellent first goal, I might add.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



Trenton said:


> How are things with M? Did you two work things out?


I'm not talking about it any more. And yes. Because of my awesome.


----------



## Entropy3000

Catherine602 said:


> I wonder why one child, by some accident of fate, is born in the USA with the gift of leisure time to run, get shin splints and have the exemplary work ethic to handle the injury without assistance.
> 
> Another child, by some misfortune, is born in Mumbai and sold to a factory at 7 yrs old to work long hrs 7 days a week. This slacker does nothing to pull herself up by her bootstraps.


And this is why I personally specified the West. Slavery still exists in this world. 

But we all make choices to make our life better or we don't. If we love someone we encourage them to make the most of their life. We do not tell them to live in self pity and blame others. There is injustice in this world. But we have the ability to fight against it.

Again I concede I have a warrior mentality about life. This is not to say I do not have empathy and cannot nurture. But for sure we tell those we love who fall down to get up. To move forward. To make the choices they can to improve themselves. Not dwell on their disability. 

We all make choices in life. Giving up is the among the worst. There are so mny times in my own life I could have just said I was being treating unfairly and perhaps I was, but the answer was never to give up. never to concede defeat to anyone.

We have a ton of control. We teach others how to treat us. We make choices. If we are in an abusive relationship it is because we choose to stay in it. Yes decisions are difficult. Everything has a cost. 

But you are right. It bothers me most when people in the West complain. So many other people fought for our freedoms that we now take for granted.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Considering I know over 600 cases in my county alone of children who have stories similar to this, and those are the ones reported, I don't think it's as uncommon as we like to think.
> 
> Now add to it children living in poverty, lacking access to education, regularly exposed to drug use and a host of other factors and your population grows even larger. A host of things play into the development of the brain, coping skills, expectations and otherwise.
> 
> I agree that many folks give up too easily and I agree that responsibility is important. What I am saying is that it's easier to be responsible when responsibility was taught to you, when those things you had to be responsible for were less dire, etc.
> 
> I don't believe that our environment plays as little a role as you suspect.
> 
> It's not about applying an excuse. It's about having understanding and then working to change it.


You are big on nurture. I am a warrior. Hmmmm. We would make a great team.

The bell curve still applies. I am not saying do not help those children. I AM saying they need to be encouraged. They need to be empowered by the knowledge that their lives can improve. I have no doubt that you when interacting with such children encourage them to be fighters.

But again, there are so many more fortunate people that dwell on some perceived handicap which is mostly in their own mind.

But indeed, my comment was a shot across the bow of those people posting here. The "assumption" is that folks here are adults. That they have access to an internet device. They mostly live in the West. It was intended to call people out who feel they have no control over thier lives and I call BS. We have way more choice than we let ourselves believe.

Again to much is given much is expected. We should encourage others to make right choices and not give up.

I have used my own finances to give to others in big ways. I will leave it at that. So I am not saying we should not give a helping hand. We have to teach them to fish as well.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> *We all make choices in life. Giving up is the among the worst.* There are so mny times in my own life I could have just said I was being treating unfairly and perhaps I was, *but the answer was never to give up. never to concede defeat to anyone.*


:iagree:
"... *Men at sometimes are masters of their fate. The fault , dear Brutus is not in the stars but ourselves that we are underlings*..."

Julius Ceasar, Act1 Scene II
William Shakespeare


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> This derail is utterly EPIC ...
> 
> And has no correlation with the topic whatsoever. None. Zero.
> 
> Everybody has a sob story. Everybody.
> 
> I started with a much smaller goal than changing the world for the better. I wanted to get laid.
> 
> Lets keep things in perspective people.


Can we go back to the goat making beautiful mouth love to your ear? Clearly you have game when even animals want to hump on you. 

Bottom line, while we might all call game something different or disagree on its meaning, I think we can all agree that confident and outgoing people are more attractive than their counterparts. What I can gather from this thread is that is what "game" is really all about. Yes?


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



Therealbrighteyes said:


> Can we go back to the goat making beautiful mouth love to your ear? Clearly you have game when even animals want to hump on you.
> 
> Bottom line, while we might all call game something different or disagree on its meaning, I think we can all agree that confident and outgoing people are more attractive than their counterparts. What I can gather from this thread is that is what "game" is really all about. Yes?


The goat is fair game ...

As for game itself, I used to hate the guys that so obviously appeared to be pandering to women. I hated it all the more because those dudes GOT the women. 

We can judge the practitioners as manipulative and the respondents as weak willed, low quality, or flawed ... doesn't change the fundamental formula for attraction that by and large applies to most people.


----------



## Entropy3000

Deejo said:


> The goat is fair game ...
> 
> As for game itself, I used to hate the guys that so obviously appeared to be pandering to women. I hated it all the more because those dudes GOT the women.
> 
> We can judge the practitioners as manipulative and the respondents as weak willed, low quality, or flawed ... doesn't change the fundamental formula for attraction that by and large applies to most people.


Agreed. So one could just sit back and say that life is not fair, and it isn't, but some guys make a choice to do something about this. To improve their skills and engage with life more fully. Knoweldge is power. Adapting to use such knowledge is wielding power. 

I also insist that the ability to adapt is NOT faking anything but rather demonstrating an actual real value. For most guys they are just tapping into what they already have and presenting it. But they are no doubt evolving while doing this. Good stuff. In todays world the ability to adapt is as valuable as anything else. It demonstrates an agile mind and is for sure part of survival in the gene pool.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> The goat is fair game ...
> 
> As for game itself, I used to hate the guys that so obviously appeared to be pandering to women. I hated it all the more because those dudes GOT the women.
> 
> We can judge the practitioners as manipulative and the respondents as weak willed, low quality, or flawed ... doesn't change the fundamental formula for attraction that by and large applies to most people.


Yup, that's pretty much what I gathered from this thread. Many techniques do not work with me but other examples do. I am not weak willed or low quality either. Flawed? You bet.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Then the only real question I still have is, does it work on goats?


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Deejo said:


> The goat is fair game ...
> 
> As for game itself, I used to hate the guys that so obviously appeared to be pandering to women. I hated it all the more because those dudes GOT the women.
> 
> We can judge the practitioners as manipulative and the respondents as weak willed, low quality, or flawed ... doesn't change the fundamental formula for attraction that by and large applies to most people.


I would think the women don't know they are being pandered to. But like you say it's so obvious. So women, do you realize you are being pandered to and you find it charming?


----------



## Deejo

Another book that is VERY different than "The LayGuide" or "Rules of the Game" that I read and would highly recommend is 
"Being the Strong Man a Woman Wants".

I reviewed it a long time ago in the 'Man Up' book thread.

Without question, it's singular purpose is about fostering attraction, respect and love. But I find it hard to believe that anyone would refer to it's content as manipulative.

The foreword is written by Glover, the author of No More Mr. Nice Guy.

Game exists.

Game works.

I think of just about every social or emotional transaction as an opportunity to practice influence, rapport, security building, boundaries, or seduction.

And it's all on auto-pilot. So ... it is effectively no longer 'game'. 
It's just me.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Then the only real question I still have is, does it work on goats?


Of course it works on goats. I have the picture to prove it. 

See? Dvls posts pics of beautiful young women, CM posts his beautiful wife and handsome, strapping, gigantic self, but what and who does everyone remember?

Deejo and the goat.

Pre-selection ... not.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"So women, do you realize you are being pandered to and you find it charming?"

If the man is charming, it is charming. But I always just assume they want in my pants. Not that there's anything wrong with that, human nature being what it is.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> Of course it works on goats. I have the picture to prove it.
> 
> See? Dvls posts pics of beautiful young women, CM posts his beautiful wife and handsome, strapping, gigantic self, but what and who does everyone remember?
> 
> Deejo and the goat.
> 
> Pre-selection ... not.


Showing humor and your soft furry sensitive underside makes a man very attractive. Your goat pic is being discussed for that very reason.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I know and don't always find it charming, unless you mention my awesome shoes.


Must remember the shoe line.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Confidence is key, imo.


You're absolutely right.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Part of my husband's game is that he notices everything about me...any new article of clothing, shoes, jewelry, did my hair different today...he notices and comments on it and usually compliments me. He just calls it "paying attention".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> One you seem to be quite good at yourself.
> 
> I get that you are not at all interested in understanding where I'm coming from, and that's fair. Why should you? You have nothing to gain from it.


Sure I do!! Or have you not noticed that I'm a hyper analytical cartographer of people? 



always_alone said:


> I'm only trying to share my (apparently unpopular) perspective. I get what you and others are saying on this thread, - but honestly just can't see all conversation or social relationships as tactics, or as a means of building my attraction, or getting ahead. Or whatever. And maybe that is to my detriment.


I'm happy you're sharing your perspective... and in case you haven't noticed, I LOVE trying to achieve breakthroughs in understanding. As far as I'm concerned, we're actually on the verge of one now that we're effectively only talking symantics.

I really do understand your problem with the word "tactic". Let's examine ANY conversation though. Is there a pattern to it? Yes. There is a certain ettiquette required for acceptance in certain social situations. Are there specific means (verbal and nonverbal) of responding to show great interest, to be more likeable, or perceived as more friendly? Can we name and catalogue these things? Yes, there are and we have named and catalogued many of them in a wealth of books on the art of conversation. The documentation of these things does not make them manipulative or engaging them less genuine. Game is the EXACT same thing.

I have a natural tendency to fold my arms if I have nothing in my hands; I don't like the feeling of my arms just dangling there with nothing to do.  As it turns out, crossing your arms is an off putting signal that is scientifically proven. It says "I am closed. I am not friendly. I am not interested in engaging. I am defensive."

So what did I learn to do? Keep myself from crossing my arms. A "tactic" to become more socially appealing. Keeping my arms unfolded, keeping my head up, looking people directly in the eyes, smiling big and proud, speaking with gusto, authority and confidence are all things that make one more appealing to the vast majority of people... not just women. Uncrossing my arms is a tactic to make me perceived as more friendly and increase my appeal. I'm actually pretty darn friendly. My posture, my body position and my presence are all part of my game. Its a part of looking my best and increasing my appeal. See how there's nothing wrong there? Now, I could do all of these things that appealing people do, and I could be disingenuous... or I could be entirely genuine. That's the motive of a person and that motive is irrespective of the "tactics". Being appealing is just being appealing.

Tactics, techniques, means of relating... its all the same. Do X to encourage Y response. We are all human with a mostly common psychology and we are largely drawn by the same things.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Part of my husband's game is that he notices everything about me...any new article of clothing, shoes, jewelry, did my hair different today...he notices and comments on it and usually compliments me. He just calls it "paying attention".


And this IS an awesome skill for a man to have. This is an area I have failed miserably all too often in my marriage years gone by. Many women have attention as a high emotional need. Not noticing these things about a woman screams you are not paying attenion to her. They you may not truly be into her. And probably a lot more than this. Anyway, just being in the moment and paying attention is worth so very much. 

This works in LTRs but also works in the short term. Perhaps you you have never met her before. But if you are observant you may be able to pick up on enough to let her know YOU get it. Maybe it is just that you actually listened.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Part of my husband's game is that he notices everything about me...any new article of clothing, shoes, jewelry, did my hair different today...he notices and comments on it and usually compliments me. He just calls it "paying attention".


Attention to detail is one of my best qualities as well. It is indicative of a man with focus and care. Desirable qualites imo.

We hear it all the time in popular culture: Notice her hair. Notice her shoes. She took care in the selection... notice her care.

Its an absurdly simple tactic that goes FAR.

Another rule in this vein is on complimenting a woman. Avoid complimenting natural qualities ("You have gorgeous eyes" is a loser... you hold that one back until you know she's already into you). If you're complimenting anything early on, compliment her skill; take note of her style or something she DID... not her natural beauty. It points toward liking HER for who she is, not not what she is. In order to do this well, a guy really needs to pay attention - to everything about her, what she's wearing, what she said and REMEMBER.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Another rule in this vein is on complimenting a woman. Avoid complimenting natural qualities ("You have gorgeous eyes" is a loser... you hold that one back until you know she's already into you). If you're complimenting anything early on, compliment her skill; take note of her style or something she DID... not her natural beauty. It points toward liking HER for who she is, not not what she is. In order to do this well, a guy really needs to pay attention - to everything about her, what she's wearing, what she said and REMEMBER.


Damn dude, that would so work on me. :toast:


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> So have I. In fact, I often read them for inspiration and they restore my belief in possibilities and push me to achieve more. _What is the What_ is a phenomenal story of a boy who trekked 100's of miles in Sudan to a camp to eventually the states where he was robbed as he was living in a dangerous area...still went on to write the book and use the proceeds to build a school in Sudan.
> 
> Now go read _Damaged_. A girl so abused she never truly recovers.
> 
> Over 250,000 children enter foster care every year in the United States, there are currently just under half a million children in foster care in the United States.
> 
> Is this a tiny number for you?


Not at all. I have major issues with the foster care system. My sister in law was abused by most, if not all, of her foster care parents before she was finally adopted by my in laws. I've never once said that there aren't major, life changing circumstances that we go through...things we can't avoid or change. My only statement has been that, if others can go through horrific situations and still make great lives for themselves, others can too. 



> How about poverty figures? Hard to develop your brain as a child when you don't have food, nutrition or access to healthcare.


I don't argue this. I don't argue it at all. And I'm not trying to say that if someone lives in poverty it's their own fault for not working harder. I get that there are uncontrollable circumstances that often define what we can do in life. But I absolutely believe that those of us who live in countries with options, have choices that we can make to at least better our circumstances.



> Listen, I applaud you for overcoming odds in your own life and achieving the life you want to live. All I'm saying is, where we come from matters and it matters more than you think.


I never said it didn't matter.



> People always thinks I'm saying it's an excuse and we should excuse anyone who had a difficult childhood. Not Not Not at all!
> 
> But we should understand it and we should empower and connect to one another rather than tell people to get some responsibility like we, ourselves, have.


I'm not against helping each other out at all. In fact, my belief tells us to help the poor. I believe very strongly that those who are more privileged should help those who are not. Believe me, I've had people help me when I most needed it and I don't see myself as a lazy person at all. The disconnect between us, I think, is that I believe that help should be temporary in most situations. That it should be more of a boost to get them going, rather than a lifelong crutch. 

I get that not everyone has the viewpoint I have in life. I've seen some horrible things happen to some amazing people, and they didn't complain. They brushed themselves off and kept moving toward their goal. I get that sometimes this isn't possible to do, depending on the situation. But generally speaking I maintain that our success is, for the greater part, up to us. People can help us all they want, but if _we_ don't have the desire to do or be better, their help won't mean a thing. Moreover, if we want something badly enough and no one will help us, we can _still_ reach those goals. Again, generally speaking.



> Disadvantage does not equal victim.


Ah, it doesn't _necessarily_ equal victim. There are many people who are at disadvantages for whatever reason and they adopt a victim mentality. 



> It equals a chance to overcome great odds, right? They still have to overcome those great odds and that's my point.


I never said anything different than this at all. In fact, my point has been very similar; that those who see those great odds as great opportunities are the ones who will succeed. I think we agree on, at least, this principle.


----------



## Created2Write

Entropy3000 said:


> And this is why I personally specified the West. Slavery still exists in this world.
> 
> But we all make choices to make our life better or we don't. If we love someone we encourage them to make the most of their life. We do not tell them to live in self pity and blame others. There is injustice in this world. But we have the ability to fight against it.
> 
> Again I concede I have a warrior mentality about life. This is not to say I do not have empathy and cannot nurture. But for sure we tell those we love who fall down to get up. To move forward. To make the choices they can to improve themselves. Not dwell on their disability.
> 
> We all make choices in life. Giving up is the among the worst. There are so mny times in my own life I could have just said I was being treating unfairly and perhaps I was, but the answer was never to give up. never to concede defeat to anyone.
> 
> We have a ton of control. We teach others how to treat us. We make choices. If we are in an abusive relationship it is because we choose to stay in it. Yes decisions are difficult. Everything has a cost.
> 
> But you are right. It bothers me most when people in the West complain. So many other people fought for our freedoms that we now take for granted.


:smthumbup::smthumbup:

This.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Deejo said:


> Of course it works on goats. I have the picture to prove it.
> 
> See? Dvls posts pics of beautiful young women, CM posts his beautiful wife and handsome, strapping, gigantic self, but what and who does everyone remember?
> 
> Deejo and the goat.
> 
> Pre-selection ... not.


Trust me, the goat beats my ladies by wide margin. What I did is generally considered insecure and unappealing.

I got away with it probably only because I was specifically called out by someone who's attitude was pretty unpopular... and everyone always likes to see that guy get a big stfu.

That and I'm really, really hot.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> :iagree:
> "... *Men at sometimes are masters of their fate. The fault , dear Brutus is not in the stars but ourselves that we are underlings*..."
> 
> Julius Ceasar, Act1 Scene II
> William Shakespeare


My favorite Shakespearean play!


----------



## Faithful Wife

It (paying attention) is a bit different in the wild than in your marriage.

In the wild, you know the man has a reason for paying you so much attention, and you typically know what the reason is. The man doesn't know you at all (no harm in trying to get to know you, I am just saying it is different).

In your marriage, when you get this type of attention, you know your husband is just that into you, that he actually does know you and is truly paying attention. You have captured his heart and mind, and he is seeing you clearly. 

If my husband wasn't paying attention to me, I would know I had lost his interest.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Sure I do!! Or have you not noticed that I'm a hyper analytical cartographer of people?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm happy you're sharing your perspective... and in case you haven't noticed, I LOVE trying to achieve breakthroughs in understanding. As far as I'm concerned, we're actually on the verge of one now that we're effectively only talking symantics.
> 
> I really do understand your problem with the word "tactic". Let's examine ANY conversation though. Is there a pattern to it? Yes. There is a certain ettiquette required for acceptance in certain social situations. Are there specific means (verbal and nonverbal) of responding to show great interest, to be more likeable, or perceived as more friendly? Can we name and catalogue these things? Yes, there are and we have named and catalogued many of them in a wealth of books on the art of conversation. The documentation of these things does not make them manipulative or engaging them less genuine. Game is the EXACT same thing.
> 
> I have a natural tendency to fold my arms if I have nothing in my hands; I don't like the feeling of my arms just dangling there with nothing to do.  As it turns out, crossing your arms is an off putting signal that is scientifically proven. It says "I am closed. I am not friendly. I am not interested in engaging. I am defensive."
> 
> So what did I learn to do? Keep myself from crossing my arms. A "tactic" to become more socially appealing. Keeping my arms unfolded, keeping my head up, looking people directly in the eyes, smiling big and proud, speaking with gusto, authority and confidence are all things that make one more appealing to the vast majority of people... not just women. Uncrossing my arms is a tactic to make me perceived as more friendly and increase my appeal. I'm actually pretty darn friendly. My posture, my body position and my presence are all part of my game. Its a part of looking my best and increasing my appeal. See how there's nothing wrong there? Now, I could do all of these things that appealing people do, and I could be disingenuous... or I could be entirely genuine. That's the motive of a person and that motive is irrespective of the "tactics". Being appealing is just being appealing.
> 
> Tactics, techniques, means of relating... its all the same. Do X to encourage Y response. We are all human with a mostly common psychology and we are largely drawn by the same things.


Exactly. :iagree:


----------



## Created2Write

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Damn dude, that would so work on me. :toast:


Me too.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Faithful Wife said:


> It (paying attention) is a bit different in the wild than in your marriage.
> 
> In the wild, you know the man has a reason for paying you so much attention, and you typically know what the reason is. The man doesn't know you at all (no harm in trying to get to know you, I am just saying it is different).
> 
> In your marriage, when you get this type of attention, you know your husband is just that into you, that he actually does know you and is truly paying attention. You have captured his heart and mind, and he is seeing you clearly.
> 
> If my husband wasn't paying attention to me, I would know I had lost his interest.


Chris Rock on needs in marriage:

Women: food, water, many compliments and the occasional pair of shoes. 

Men: feed me, [email protected] me and shut the [email protected] up. 

:rofl::rofl: 

I know is was tongue and cheek so hopefully everybody takes it with stride.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm so glad my husband isn't of that variety. He has vast emotional, mental and physical needs that go so far beyond those few things. He actually wants my companionship and conversation and admiration and respect.

Having said that...

I love Chris Rock on why black men love white women. He did a whole routine on this, and it was very enlightening. And then he got to, so why do black men love BIG white women? And he said simply "because it's just more white". Cracked my fat azz up.

(I aplogize in advance if this was insulting to anyone). 

(Perhaps you just don't have a big enough azz to appreciate it?)


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> *In your marriage, when you get this type of attention, you know your husband is just that into you, that he actually does know you and is truly paying attention. You have captured his heart and mind, and he is seeing you clearly. *
> 
> If my husband wasn't paying attention to me, I would know I had lost his interest.


:iagree:

My wife has told me this at times in the past.
It took me sometime to finally " get it."
*_ men_ *


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> It (paying attention) is a bit different in the wild than in your marriage.
> 
> In the wild, you know the man has a reason for paying you so much attention, and you typically know what the reason is. The man doesn't know you at all (no harm in trying to get to know you, I am just saying it is different).
> 
> In your marriage, when you get this type of attention, you know your husband is just that into you, that he actually does know you and is truly paying attention. You have captured his heart and mind, and he is seeing you clearly.
> 
> If my husband wasn't paying attention to me, I would know I had lost his interest.


Here's how I pull it off in the wild: I'm not upfront with the things I notice, unless its to be used as a tease, joke (disarm), or just anecdotal approach. I'll bring back the complimentary details I noticed a good while later based on the overall state of the interaction. But seriously, women's eyes light up when they discover I'm really paying attention, am focused on who they are rather than what they are, and I don't appear to be "trying to get them". Everything else gets amplified... funny is now more funny... as the guard comes down.

All these elements play *together* - there's a synergy to it. While a woman might think a guy paying her so much attention is trying to get something from her, paying her all that attention and throwing in some negs/teases or casual disinterest works to disarm that reflex. Step one is breaking past the guard that most women have that "ugh... you're just trying to get laid. Its so obvious. Lame." Honestly, most women have this guard up in the single scene REGARDLESS of what a guy says. Humor and bizzare psuedo jerk-dom like negging/teasing works to break this wall down if done right. The bad boy gets the girls, because he doesn't look like he's trying to get the girls. He isn't walking on eggshells, oogling and fixated on her every word. He's just doing his own thing.

I agree that it translates to marriage in a different way. Honestly, I think noticing the details is even more powerful in marriage... and you don't have to have as much of yourself held in reserve.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"The bad boy gets the girls, because he doesn't look like he's trying to get the girls."

LOL! Well, real bad boys, and I've had my share, actually have no problem being straight up sexual with a woman. My brother is a bona fide bad boy, and he used to literally wear it on his sleeve...as in, he had a shirt that said: Wine Me, Dine Me, Sixty-Nine Me. He said he got laid every time he wore that shirt. I think he got laid no matter what shirt he wore but anyway....

No, bad boys don't bother with the slowly getting to know you crap. They ask you to sit on their face the first time they meet you.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Part of my husband's game is that he notices everything about me...any new article of clothing, shoes, jewelry, did my hair different today...he notices and comments on it and usually compliments me. He just calls it "paying attention".


I have used that simple phrase to sum up the entire arc of 'manning up' or 'having game'.
90% is paying attention. 10% is changing your behavior based upon paying attention to yourself and your actions, or those of someone else.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Faithful Wife said:


> Wine Me, Dine Me, Sixty-Nine Me.


Well hell. I just sucked in Diet Coke and read this at the same time. Furiously trying to find that shirt for my sleepy time. 

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

I do wish we would have framed that shirt, like a retired basket ball jersey.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Found it. $23.99 at CafePress. Whipping out credit card.

http://www.cafepress.com/mf/2990722...m_source=google&utm_campaign=sem_product_feed


----------



## Faithful Wife

Awesome. I might go buy him a new one, too. He will love it!


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> But indeed, my comment was a shot across the bow of those people posting here. The "assumption" is that folks here are adults. That they have access to an internet device. They mostly live in the West. It was intended to call people out who feel they have no control over thier lives and I call BS. We have way more choice than we let ourselves believe.


Who on this thread has even remotely suggested that we have no control over our lives? All i suggested was that humility is a nice quality and that this "master of one's destiny" thing is an overstatement. Somehow this was spun into me feeling sorry for myself, blaming everyone else for my problems, and refusing to pull myself up by my bootstraps. 

Huh? 

Go to another thread, or even earlier on this one, and there are people saying that we are biologically determined, that our rational minds can be bypassed, and that we tend to have gendered psychological responses, knowledge of which allows us to influence people. Given that these sorts of responses are what makes game work in the first place, I'm really very curious how it (game) affects our sense of self and world mastery.

(I also think this idea that we are "masters of our own destiny" is itself part of cultural conditioning, and perhaps counts as evidence that we are not, but I can't tie this thought back to game, so I will just leave it as a by the way.)


----------



## always_alone

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I think we can all agree that confident and outgoing people are more attractive than their counterparts.


I actually don't agree with this personally, but I can definitely accept that such people tend to be considered more valuable in the media and society at large.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> Who on this thread has even remotely suggested that we have no control over their lives? All i suggested was that humility is a nice quality and that this "master of one's destiny" thing is an overstatement. Somehow this was spun into me feeling sorry for myself, blaming everyone else for my problems, and refusing to pull myself up by my bootstraps.
> 
> Huh?
> 
> Go to another thread, or even earlier on this one, and there are people saying that we are biologically determined, that our rational minds can be bypassed, and that we tend to have gendered psychological responses, knowledge of which allows us to influence people. Given that these sorts of responses are what makes game work in the first place, I'm really very curious how it (game) affects our sense of self and world mastery.
> 
> (I also think this idea that we are *"masters of our own destiny" is itself part of cultural conditioning*, and perhaps counts as evidence that we are not, but I can't tie this thought back to game, so I will just leave it as a by the way.)


I myself am reading Modern Bushido to further embrace this concept. This is a choice I am making. It is less about conquering the world and more about conquering oneself. We indeed interact with the world. Call it a dance if you will. Knowing you have this power is the biggest challenge. We do have much control. But indeed many people do not realize this due to social conditioning. So it IS something I personally do push. It is a way of giving back.

Remember the book "who moved my cheese?"

I was required to read this book for management training. And it did impact me. It helped me decide to teach full time for a period in my life. I had confidence I could do this for a while and then land on my feet the better for it. A leap of faith.

I also remember Steven Jobs 2005 Commencemnt Speech he made at Stanford.

However you feel about Steven Jobs I think it is interesting. He talks about connecting the dots.


----------



## Entropy3000

Trenton said:


> Love that speech but, again, my problem with it is premise (as in the man making it).


Yin and Yang

Isn't it wonderful?

Steven by many accounts was a real @$$hole to a good number of people.

Yet in the bigger picture he touched so many lives. He was also unfortunate to have died relatively young. 

And also consider so many people we may admire. When we look closely at ANY of them we can see their flaws as well.

Most of us, not all can learn from his speech though. The nuggets that we choose to put together to create our own path. They are everywhere.

Fortune plays a huge role in our lives. Some believe that fortune favors those who are well prepared. But there are NO guarantees.


----------



## Created2Write

Entropy3000 said:


> Yin and Yang
> 
> Isn't it wonderful?
> 
> Steven by many accounts was a real @$$hole to a good number of people.
> 
> Yet in the bigger picture he touched so many lives. He was also unfortunate to have died relatively young.
> 
> And also consider so many people we may admire. When we look closely at ANY of them we can see their flaws as well.
> 
> Most of us, not all can learn from his speech though. The nuggets that we choose to put together to create our own path. They are everywhere.
> 
> Fortune plays a huge role in our lives. Some believe that fortune favors those who are well prepared. But there are NO guarantees.


I saw you mentioned a few posts back about having the "warrior" mentality. My dad had/has that same mentality and raised my brother and I to have it too. He taught us that our lives(and he was talking to us, not about anyone else) will have ups and downs, and while we can't always control what happens to us, we can control how we respond, how we behave, and where we go after the downs. We can choose to wallow in the disappointments, or we can move on and try our absolute hardest to do something great in this world. 

A lot of people misunderstood my dad because of this. I'm not surprised to see similar things here. Being raised this way, it's easy for me to see open doors where others might see a dead end. And it isn't that I think either one is right or wrong, just that I think a lot more people would be introduced to their full potential if they started to alter their thinking. I have a close friend who constantly talks about not liking her weight, wanting to find the right man, needing more money, and yet she doesn't do anything to make any of those things happen. Recently I was excited to see she was applying for more jobs, but now she's stopped. As if she's waiting for other jobs to find her. _That_ is the main reason I believe we're the masters of our own destiny.


----------



## Deejo

Just had a very long conversation over lunch with a colleague over his 5 week old relationship.

He is 34, never married. She is I believe, the same age and has been divorced for 7 months.

He's a picky dater. So is she. She had only briefly dated one other individual since her divorce.

So ... things have been steaming along. Connection. Attraction. Comfort. Sex. 
Not at all an uncommon arc for the 30+ crowd in the timeframe they have been together.

It's all very early, but lets face it, that never stops anyone from speculating about the future and screwing up a good thing NOW.
She sees a future with him. Wants a future with him. But ... she's basically freezing him out because she's afraid she's jumping the gun.
She is in my estimation, 'afraid to fail again'. So ... her mind is doing back-flips over thinking that she needs to have seen more people
prior to settling on one, versus believing that she has found a guy she could settle with.

My sniffer is pretty good when it comes to BS. Based on what he shared, I don't get the sense at all that this is a case of her alienating him
to the point where he just goes away, because she's disintereste. Her inner housewife wants my friend. Her inner party girl wants to know what else is out there. And the
daughter in her, feels like she failed herself, her siblings, and her parents by getting a divorce. In a nutshell she wants to keep him around
and wants to be exclusive, but doesn't want to talk about being exclusive. She wants the 'sense' that she is still independent and not 'suffocated'.
She actually used the word suffocating, which I find telling. 

So we talked about game. And he HATED it.
"Why does it have to be that way?"
"That's so stupid." "So childish." etc ... etc ...
But the more I talked, the more he listened.
I counseled that he needs to be very discerning about contact or reaching out to her. He can't look to her for comfort, or answers, or reassurance. 
He can't check in and ask her about her day, what she's doing, how she is feeling, what she thinks, or prattle on how he feels about things ... not now.
I told him about push/pull. I stressed that right now he has to focus on pull. Using push will fast-track the arc of the relationship to game over.

I counseled that he send her text that says: "This is all going to work out. I will call you next Wednesday." and that's it. Nothing else.
(Also oddly enough, told him I'd give him 2 books, NMMNG and How to be the Strong Man a Woman Wants)

Again, he declared, "But I miss her. I want to talk to her. I want to deal with this and get some answers. You're telling me to just stuff my true feelings?"
I asked, "What does she want?"
Him: "She doesn't know."
Me: "And you, you know you want her, and you want to save this relationship if it can be saved?"
Him: "Yes."
Me: "Then why would you actively choose to do the things that will push her further away from you and end the relationship? She doesn't know, dude. She can't give you what you want.
So, if you want the girl, you need to be strong, confident, reassuring, upbeat ... and pull her attention back. If you chase or demand it, she'll rabbit. Trust me. And that's why it's a game."

He stared at me for about 10 seconds, processing and then said, "F*ck, you're right."

Game isn't always about charm and manipulation. Quite often it's also about self-regulation. Ten and twenty years ago? I was the guy chasing, demanding, questioning ... smothering. Learning to
take a calm, measured, step back and let the other person come to me was a game-changing lesson.

Used it myself less than a week ago with that person I'm not talking about. Not the goat, to be clear ...


----------



## Faithful Wife

If she's only dated him and one other guy post divorce, he should give up trying to make her his girlfriend. She's just not ready. Game shouldn't be used to remain in a relationship like this one.

I think people who pursue people who are emotionally unavailable have some inner work to do, besides just game skills.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> "The bad boy gets the girls, because he doesn't look like he's trying to get the girls."
> 
> LOL! Well, real bad boys, and I've had my share, actually have no problem being straight up sexual with a woman. My brother is a bona fide bad boy, and he used to literally wear it on his sleeve...as in, he had a shirt that said: Wine Me, Dine Me, Sixty-Nine Me. He said he got laid every time he wore that shirt. I think he got laid no matter what shirt he wore but anyway....
> 
> No, bad boys don't bother with the slowly getting to know you crap. They ask you to sit on their face the first time they meet you.


Hmm... maybe I'm not being clear. Being straight up sexual right off the bat is not "trying". "Trying" is doting on her and complimenting her and basically going beta[arded]. Still, there is an element of ****y charm that must be employed with the overtly sexual approach - ie responding to the girl looking for the seat with "wait... wait.. let me make a space for you", tilting your head back, opening your mouth and sticking your tongue out a little... "Okay, you can sit now." Its clearly a joke. Out of my social group, I'm only aware of a single time where an upfront, serious, sexual comment actually worked: A girl I hardly knew said "how's it going?" or something like that and I said "Its been one of those days, I really need a bj". She said "I might be able to help you with that" and that was that. No one else has a story where an overtly sexual approach was successful (and mine isn't really much of an approach). Being sexually comfortable, using sexual innuendos and what not, absolutely yes... being blunt about it, not so much.

I tended not to go there often as its something you have to commit to up front and as I've said, the ****y game isn't my strong suit. ****y game is more like casting yourself at women and jumping on whoever bites imo. If she doesn't bite, you've usually poisoned the well.

Most of the guys I know that wear those T's get squat or low quality.


----------



## Faithful Wife

There you go again, doubting my experience because it doesn't match yours.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> If she's only dated him and one other guy post divorce, he should give up trying to make her his girlfriend. She's just not ready. Game shouldn't be used to remain in a relationship like this one.
> 
> I think people who pursue people who are emotionally unavailable have some inner work to do, besides just game skills.


I agree. But human hearts do not agree with you and I.

To hear him talk about their relationship, she most certainly has not been behaving as emotionally unavailable. Hysterical bonding ... maybe? But that can be fun while it lasts, as long as you know what you are in for.

Talked to him a good deal about boundaries as well. Stressed that if they do get back together, he should make clear what HIS expectations are ... and if she can't be onboard, then they should move on.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I actually don't agree with this personally, but I can definitely accept that such people tend to be considered more valuable in the media and society at large.


So you're more attracted to the silent guy who never smiles, sits in the corner ignoring everyone and looks like he can't wait to leave - than the smiley friendly guy who introduces himself to you, is openly jovial with everyone and is happy to be there?

If this is true, I've NEVER seen it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"If this is true, I've NEVER seen it."

This is apparently your only guage as to whether something is true or not.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Faithful Wife said:


> "If this is true, I've NEVER seen it."
> 
> This is apparently your only guage as to whether something is true or not.


Says the person whose only argument is "I'm not like that and neither are my friends."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Deejo said:


> So, if you want the girl, you need to be strong, confident, reassuring, upbeat ... and pull her attention back. If you chase or demand it, she'll rabbit. Trust me. And that's why it's a game."


THIS! :smthumbup:


----------



## Faithful Wife

My ex-h was the shy, silent type, and gorgeous babes were throwing themselves at him, left and right. There is a certain type of woman that goes for this type of man, usually the women are fairly agressive.

Shadow Nirvana...did you really just pop in to insult me? At least Dvls gives me a kiss now and then. But not you. You just have a boner for me and I don't even talk to you. 

Oh well, my Game is showing.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Faithful Wife said:


> At least Dvls gives me a kiss now and then. But not you. You just have a boner for me and I don't even talk to you.


 Passing by negging.

On the other hand, my point still holds, unfortunately.

Edit: Oh come on, that was insulting you? Seriously?


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So you're more attracted to the silent guy who never smiles, sits in the corner ignoring everyone and looks like he can't wait to leave - than the smiley friendly guy who introduces himself to you, is openly jovial with everyone and is happy to be there?
> 
> If this is true, I've NEVER seen it.


LMFAO I usually am..... what the heck does that say about me


----------



## Faithful Wife

Soo...I should just shut up or....?


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Trenton said:


> Wait a second...is that game? WTF


No, that is just hurting my feelings 

My boner is for everyone, dammit.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Trenton said:


> This has me thoroughly confused. How can you share your boner with everyone?


It's that big. It's like 3 in... wait, that's private knowledge.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> Everyone can see his *protruding* boner for you.


Wait, there are innies?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> It's that big. It's like 3 in... wait, that's private knowledge.


Please change your name to Trident.


----------



## Deejo

trenton said:


> i agree because i am aggressive. However, i wouldn't throw myself at a man, especially if every other woman was. I'd have to formulate a plan.
> 
> Wait a second...is that game? Wtf
> 
> :rofl:


*Playa!!*


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> This is me!
> 
> I love the quiet, mysterious one as long as they're not pouting or something. No idea why you think they're waiting to leave. I'm always wondering why they're there in the first place which is why...
> 
> That's the one I would go up and talk to, 4 SURE!


Because I was one. Most of my friends at that time were the same. We hated social gatherings. We hated being around people we didn't know. 

Its not quiet or mysterious... its insecure and underconfident. As that guy, you're not going to start a conversation, and rarely will a woman start one for you. You just stand there awkwardly waiting to leave, or at best conversing with one maybe two friends about how much this sucks or how contrived it all is. Even more often, you avoid being there in the first place.

Surely you've seen the guy at the hot hangout on Friday night, sitting out of the way, never smiling, never engaging, has his lonely drink in front of him, which he sips and puts down often - just to distract his hands. His head is on a swivel as he looks around, careful to avoid eye contact... clearly trying to look cool and comfortable but only succeeding at the opposite. He's careful to remain unnoticed while hoping he gets noticed.

Its not Vigo Mortensen's Aragorn in the Prancing Pony Inn & Tavern looking all badass in his lone wolf world. He's not strong. He's a puss waiting for someone to engage him because he's too afraid to engage anyone himself. He barely worked up the nerve to be there at all.

If he's good looking, he might get a few eyes that he's unable to follow up. These guys don't get the girl's number. They go home alone and wonder why they're single.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> "If this is true, I've NEVER seen it."
> 
> This is apparently your only guage as to whether something is true or not.


Yep. Without evidence of something from a credible source, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist.

Hundreds of outings, hundreds of friends, multiple cities, hey... even multiple lifestyles and even a major change in personality... and I've never seen it nor heard of it, except on a forum from two or three sources that seemingly contradict everything I say no matter what I say.

When I see it, I'll change my view.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Trenton said:


> Maybe you're projecting your previous insecurities on all quiet men. Just a thought. One can be quiet, reserved and confident.


If we are speaking about the general population of men, what DvlsAdvc8kslzxc(how many more consonants can there be) is explaining about quiet and reserved men is much more probable. Of course, exceptions do exist, like every other stuff, but it reaally doesn't show the truth about the general population.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> It's how my husband got my number.
> 
> Maybe you're projecting your previous insecurities on all quiet men. Just a thought. One can be quiet, reserved and confident.


Sounds like YOU got his number. If he's quiet and reserved... he probably didn't approach you. Did he? That's not confidence.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Because I was one. Most of my friends at that time were the same. We hated social gatherings. We hated being around people we didn't know.
> 
> *Its not quiet or mysterious... its insecure and underconfident.*


This. My mother met my dad at a private college. He was a maintenance guy, she was a student. It was an art school, and the majority of women there were...well, from incredibly wealthy families and had the attitude to prove it. My dad was a grump all the time. 

My mom comes to the school and he helps her carry up her television. She says hi and wants to strike up a conversation because she thought he was cute. He didn't want to talk. It took my mom weeks and weeks of saying "Hi" whenever she saw him before he actually started talking to her. And then eating lunch with her. And then...well, you don't get to hear the rest. 

He wasn't shy. He wasn't insecure. He was just a grouch. 

My husband wasn't the type to be very outgoing most of the time. When around those he was comfortable with, he'd liven up. It took weeks of trying to initiate conversations with him to get him to really notice me. Not to mention it took me weeks to muster the strength to initiate those conversations. I wanted him to come to me, dammit. But no. I went to him. Cause he was worth it. But anyway, he wasn't insecure either. He walked with his head up. He was strong and well built. He spoke with intelligence and confidence. He just didn't like the giggly, groupy kind of atmosphere around our acquaintances. 

He's my real life Mr. Darcy. *sigh* *melt*



> As that guy, you're not going to start a conversation, and rarely will a woman start one for you. You just stand there awkwardly waiting to leave, or at best conversing with one maybe two friends about how much this sucks or how contrived it all is. Even more often, you avoid being there in the first place.
> 
> Surely you've seen the guy at the hot hangout on Friday night, sitting out of the way, never smiling, never engaging, has his lonely drink in front of him, which he sips and puts down often - just to distract his hands. His head is on a swivel as he looks around, careful to avoid eye contact... clearly trying to look cool and comfortable but only succeeding at the opposite. He's careful to remain unnoticed while hoping he gets noticed.
> 
> *Its not Vigo Mortensen's Aragorn in the Prancing Pony Inn & Tavern looking all badass in his lone wolf world.*


Yummmmmmmm.  Sorry. I'm in a strange mood right now.



> He's not strong. He's a puss waiting for someone to engage him because he's too afraid to engage anyone himself. He barely worked up the nerve to be there at all.
> 
> If he's good looking, he might get a few eyes that he's unable to follow up. These guys don't get the girl's number. They go home alone and wonder why they're single.


The one shy guy I know is pretty much this way. A girl actually gave him her phone number once, and he didn't even call her back. Two weeks later he's whining about being alone. 

Go figure.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yep. Without evidence of something from a credible source, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist.
> 
> Hundreds of outings, hundreds of friends, multiple cities, hey... even multiple lifestyles and even a major change in personality... and I've never seen it nor heard of it, except on a forum from two or three sources that seemingly contradict everything I say no matter what I say.
> 
> When I see it, I'll change my view.


:smthumbup::iagree:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Because I was one. Most of my friends at that time were the same. We hated social gatherings. We hated being around people we didn't know.
> 
> Its not quiet or mysterious... its insecure and underconfident. As that guy, you're not going to start a conversation, and rarely will a woman start one for you. You just stand there awkwardly waiting to leave, or at best conversing with one maybe two friends about how much this sucks or how contrived it all is. Even more often, you avoid being there in the first place.
> 
> Surely you've seen the guy at the hot hangout on Friday night, sitting out of the way, never smiling, never engaging, has his lonely drink in front of him, which he sips and puts down often - just to distract his hands. His head is on a swivel as he looks around, careful to avoid eye contact... clearly trying to look cool and comfortable but only succeeding at the opposite. He's careful to remain unnoticed while hoping he gets noticed.
> 
> Its not Vigo Mortensen's Aragorn in the Prancing Pony Inn & Tavern looking all badass in his lone wolf world. He's not strong. He's a puss waiting for someone to engage him because he's too afraid to engage anyone himself. He barely worked up the nerve to be there at all.
> 
> If he's good looking, he might get a few eyes that he's unable to follow up. These guys don't get the girl's number. They go home alone and wonder why they're single.


You have a way with words and while you and I often disagree, this is bang on in my situation. My husband used to be very, very quiet. It really wasn't getting him anywhere so in college, he joined Toastmasters. Nothing gets you out of your shell like having to make speeches in front of total strangers. He survived and built up a level of confidence that now borders on arrogance at times. I would be lying if I said I was attracted to his quieter self. We met when we were kids so I have known him for years. His bolder, confident self is why I agreed to go out with him.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls..."Hundreds of outings, hundreds of friends, multiple cities, hey... even multiple lifestyles and even a major change in personality... and I've never seen it nor heard of it, except on a forum from two or three sources that seemingly contradict everything I say no matter what I say."

You only remember the things I say that contradict you, never the things I say that support what you say. Thus you have painted a picture of me that you believe...but it isn't accurate. You seem to me to just not want to believe that a guy like who you USED to be could still pull in the women, just because you didn't, back in the day. But like you, I know hundreds of people, have dated a lot, have read a lot of books...and I don't doubt your experience itself. I have never said "well you say so but since I've never seen it, I doubt it exists". I accept that your experience has actually happened as you report it. You can't afford someone else the same type of courtesy? I am not just one person claiming my own one story...I have read thousands of different people's stories, and that is what I am reporting on, as well as my own experineces and my friends. I have known, seen, or read about hundreds of women who were into the shy, silent types. Why on earth would there be any doubt to this?

Oh well, I guess you have Created here to agree with you on everything.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> No he didn't. He didn't have to. I'm aggressive.


So basically, you frightened your husband into going out with you. It's all starting to make sense.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Deejo said:


> So basically, you frightened your husband into going out with you. It's all starting to make sense.


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

The only reason my husband sticks around is because he's chained to the radiator.


----------



## Entropy3000

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> No, that is just hurting my feelings
> 
> My boner is for everyone, dammit.


Ron Burgundy, Masive erection - YouTube

Living the PUA dream to the extreme ... too far?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> There you go again, doubting my experience because it doesn't match yours.


No sh*t sherlock! 

What do you expect me to do, throw away all my experience for yours? No.

Here's a thought experiment:

All variables being the same, ME, but emphasizing two different attitudes. One is ****y, bluntly sexual upfront. The other is confident, engaging and sexually playful.

On any given approach, who is more likely to go home with THAT particular girl in your opinion?

Now here's the thing, its not really a thought experiment. I've done this for real. I've tried a LOT of different kinds of approaches. The overtly sexual approach is a home run or a strike out. Dial it back a bit and disarm her in the approach and I hit singles, doubles, and triples... which can still be converted into runs, with greater frequency.

There's a distinct line between being sexually assertive and being a douche. The douchey stuff has a high variance in success, which in statistics usually means another factor is more influential - the type of girl or her mental state quickly jumps into mind.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Because I was one. Most of my friends at that time were the same. We hated social gatherings. We hated being around people we didn't know.
> 
> Its not quiet or mysterious... its insecure and underconfident.


You are making the mistake of assuming that if someone isn't outgoing and radiating confidence (like you are now), that he must be exactly like you were then: insecure and hating where he is. 

But there are lots of people who are more introverted and humble, but not at all insecure and quite happy with where they are.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But Dvls...if YOU are your only test subject, then how can you be objective about other people's experience? People meet in places other than bars.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's another way to say it Dvls...I believe that you have more game now than you did before. I believe that you feel confident now and you did not before. I believe that you are scoring more numbers than you did before.

But that does not then make it so that OTHER silent type men do not get with the ladies. Some of them do.


----------



## tacoma

Deejo said:


> So basically, you frightened your husband into going out with you. It's all starting to make sense.


Would you tell her no?

In person?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You have a way with words and while you and I often disagree, this is bang on in my situation. My husband used to be very, very quiet. It really wasn't getting him anywhere so in college, he joined Toastmasters. Nothing gets you out of your shell like having to make speeches in front of total strangers. He survived and built up a level of confidence that now borders on arrogance at times. I would be lying if I said I was attracted to his quieter self. We met when we were kids so I have known him for years. His bolder, confident self is why I agreed to go out with him.


Toastmasters is the sh*t. Two thumbs up for your hubby. :smthumbup:


----------



## TiggyBlue

FrenchFry said:


> I also attracted the kind of people I wanted to be with when I was more me (introverted...not humble) than when I was pushing myself to be more extroverted.
> 
> Maybe that's the catch?


Makes sense. I have always observed people before deciding if I want to talk to them, I think that's who the sort I'm most attracted too.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls..."Hundreds of outings, hundreds of friends, multiple cities, hey... even multiple lifestyles and even a major change in personality... and I've never seen it nor heard of it, except on a forum from two or three sources that seemingly contradict everything I say no matter what I say."
> 
> You only remember the things I say that contradict you, never the things I say that support what you say. Thus you have painted a picture of me that you believe...but it isn't accurate. You seem to me to just not want to believe that a guy like who you USED to be could still pull in the women, just because you didn't, back in the day. But like you, I know hundreds of people, have dated a lot, have read a lot of books...and I don't doubt your experience itself. I have never said "well you say so but since I've never seen it, I doubt it exists". I accept that your experience has actually happened as you report it. You can't afford someone else the same type of courtesy? I am not just one person claiming my own one story...I have read thousands of different people's stories, and that is what I am reporting on, as well as my own experineces and my friends. I have known, seen, or read about hundreds of women who were into the shy, silent types. Why on earth would there be any doubt to this?
> 
> *Oh well, I guess you have Created here to agree with you on everything.*


Hey. I resemble that remark.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> My ex-h was the shy, silent type, and gorgeous babes were throwing themselves at him, left and right. There is a certain type of woman that goes for this type of man, usually the women are fairly agressive.


False. You've said previously he approached you and chatted you up based on eye contact from across the room.

That's not shy, nor very silent. 

Shy:
1. bashful; retiring.
2. easily frightened away; timid.
3. suspicious; distrustful.
4. deficient.

Deficient of confidence. Fearful. I don't get the impression your husband is shy from your prior descriptions of him at all.

Am I mistaken, and you approached and struck up a conversation with him? Is he actually shy?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls...My EX-husband was the strong, silent type. Not my current husband.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's another way to say it Dvls...I believe that you have more game now than you did before. I believe that you feel confident now and you did not before. I believe that you are scoring more numbers than you did before.
> 
> But that does not then make it so that OTHER silent type men do not get with the ladies. Some of them do.


He hasn't said silent men don't get with ladies. He's said that the overly shy and insecure type aren't usually a woman's first pick.

There I go, agreeing with everything he says again.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Nope, he said this: "These guys don't get the girl's number. They go home alone and wonder why they're single."


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> But Dvls...if YOU are your only test subject, then how can you be objective about other people's experience? People meet in places other than bars.


The person isn't the variable being tested. The approach is. All other variables must remain the same in order to draw any conclusion from the results. This is how science works.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Nope, he said this: "These guys don't get the girl's number. They go home alone and wonder why they're single."


Right...because _usually_ those insecure types are not a woman's first pick.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"Right...because usually those insecure types are not a woman's first pick."

Not all strong, silent type men are insecure. Some of them know very well that the ladies dig them and they are SOME women's first pick.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls..."The person isn't the variable being tested. The approach is. All other variables must remain the same in order to draw any conclusion from the results. This is how science works".

So even if I tell you about the approach of other people and how it works for them, since you have not tried it yourself, you will tell me it doesn't work because you haven't seen it. And then you say it is the approach being tested not the person, but your point in saying that is that the person, YOU, have not experienced it.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> "Right...because usually those insecure types are not a woman's first pick."
> 
> Not all strong, silent type men are insecure. Some of them know very well that the ladies dig them and they are SOME women's first pick.


But _strong_ is still confident. The guy isn't insecure if he's strong. By dad and my husband are both examples of this. Silent when in unfamiliar places/around unfamiliar people, but confident and sure of themselves. 

Shy and silent aren't the same thing, imo. Insecurity here is the key that Dvls is talking about.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dlvs...please note again in case you missed it, you are mixing up my two husbands in your previous post.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created: "Insecurity here is the key that Dvls is talking about."

Even though I never mentioned insecurity at all? So why am I still wrong? There are women who dig strong, silent types. Believe it or not, but it is still true.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Created: "Insecurity here is the key that Dvls is talking about."
> 
> Even though I never mentioned insecurity at all? So why am I still wrong? There are women who dig strong, silent types. Believe it or not, but it is still true.


My mom was one of those women. You must have missed the two times I mentioned that. My husband, while not the silent type, he wasn't...overly talkative when around specific groups of people. 

_Dvls_ mentioned insecurity. The issue here, I think, is in the wording. He can correct me if I'm wrong. Shy, as he posted, implies a lacking in confidence. Shy and silent aren't the same thing, necessarily. No one I know who is shy actively approaches other people and engages them in conversation, because they lack the confidence to do so. The silent people I know don't actively engage others in conversation either, but not because they aren't confident enough, but because they just aren't interested in talking to those people. Once they do find someone they're interested in knowing, they're more than capable of initiating conversations with them. My dad is the silent type. 

_Choosing_ to be silent is one thing. Wanting to be involved with the people around you, and lacing the confidence to approach a stranger, is another thing entirely. Dvls, from what I saw, was describing the latter; they are the ones who go home alone, and not because they want to, but because they don't know how to initiate conversations with the women they're interested in. _Those_ are not *usually* a woman's first choice. In fact, the women I know(all of them), aren't attracted to or dating or married to shy men. Silent and strong and confident? Sure. Shy and insecure? No. 

Personally, I'm not doubting your experience or Trenton's, or any other woman who is more attracted to the shy type. I absolutely believe that some women are attracted to the shy man. I don't believe that most are. I'm not. If a man doesn't have the guts to talk to me, then he's SOL. No matter how great a person he is, or his personality, or his IQ, if he can't buck up enough to express his interest, I can't even try to feel attracted to him. Harsh, I know.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm happy you're sharing your perspective... and in case you haven't noticed, I LOVE trying to achieve breakthroughs in understanding. As far as I'm concerned, we're actually on the verge of one now that we're effectively only talking symantics.


Breakthrough? I'm still under the impression that you haven't heard a single thing I've said.

And it isn't just semantics. It's a different way of approaching social interaction. Maybe words like 'deceit' and 'manipulation' are too strong, but it really seems to me that if you are doing the following sorts of things, you are not being genuine:
-joke with the intention of disarming her into thinking you are not trying to pick her up, when in fact you are
-teasing her to feign casual disinterest, when in fact you are interested
-complimenting what she does to give the impression that you care about who she is, when you really don't
-pretending to be a jerk, to give the impression that you are a bad boy
- holding back what you think or believe because it will interfere with your mission

All of these machinations just sound exhausting and pointless to me. I'd rather just say what's on my mind without all that time and energy figuring out whether I'm being too aggressive, not aggressive enough, too likable or not likable enough. 

But like I said, if you are getting what you want from gaming and being gamed, and you think you will continue to do so, then by all means, have at it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> You only remember the things I say that contradict you, never the things I say that support what you say. Thus you have painted a picture of me that you believe...but it isn't accurate.


I'm not sure what you're saying. My responses aren't out of bias for how I have you typed. We're just talking about how our experience differs. I'm not attacking you or being hostile in any way. If you've taken offense to something I've said, I assure you my intention was only playfulness.



Faithful Wife said:


> You seem to me to just not want to believe that a guy like who you USED to be could still pull in the women, just because you didn't, back in the day.


Nope. I won't believe it till I see it. Shy guys do NOT "pull in the women". The notion is entirely absurd. You should go to seddit and post that... thousands of shy guys there would beg to differ.

Now, if by "pull in the women"... you mean get occassional attention from girls who seem to talk to everyone (I mean that as outgoing, not as in easy). Okay. That fits my experience.

I'd hardly characterize that as "pulling in the women". Maybe I'm just greedy. 



Faithful Wife said:


> But like you, I know hundreds of people, have dated a lot, have read a lot of books...and I don't doubt your experience itself. I have never said "well you say so but since I've never seen it, I doubt it exists". I accept that your experience has actually happened as you report it. You can't afford someone else the same type of courtesy? I am not just one person claiming my own one story...I have read thousands of different people's stories, and that is what I am reporting on, as well as my own experineces and my friends. I have known, seen, or read about hundreds of women who were into the shy, silent types. Why on earth would there be any doubt to this?


I'm sorry FW... but the shy guy that pulls women is just so far outside my realm of experience to render itself as believeable as claiming to have seen a unicorn. Maybe you're talking about absurdly good looking guys.

It utterly violates everything I've proven in my own trials.

Women having the hots for shy (read: fearful; read: insecure; read: lacking confidence) guys... yep... unicorns.

Oh wait! You know what!? On second thought, maybe you're right! I do know a couple very masculine women who basically have whipping boy husbands. These women both come off like mildly abusive men... and their husbands look... for lack of a better term, "broken."

Is this the kind of guy you're talking about that pulls women?



Faithful Wife said:


> Oh well, I guess you have Created here to agree with you on everything.


She's just another account I created for one of my multiple personalities so I could agree with myself. She's pretty, but damn she talks a lot doesn't she?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here you go, Created...he is saying it straight up, with no caveats: "Nope. I won't believe it till I see it. Shy guys do NOT "pull in the women". The notion is entirely absurd."


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> But like I said, if you are getting what you want from gaming and being gamed, and you think you will continue to do so, then by all means, have at it.


So ... has the last 170 pages helped, or made things worse?
I think it's great that you've hung in there all this time.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls..."We're just talking about how our experience differs."

Well, not really...you are talking about how your experience is the only one that counts and that my experience is not true.


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> I also attracted the kind of people I wanted to be with when I was more me (introverted...not humble) than when I was pushing myself to be more extroverted.
> 
> Maybe that's the catch?


It's certainly one of the reasons why I resist the game. 

I totally understand why people want to work on themselves to overcome insecurities, or even just to grow. But it also seems to me that the more you become what other people want you to be, the less you can be yourself, and the less likely it is you will find the types of relationships that will really make you happy.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Breakthrough? I'm still under the impression that you haven't heard a single thing I've said.
> 
> And it isn't just semantics. It's a different way of approaching social interaction. Maybe words like 'deceit' and 'manipulation' are too strong, but it really seems to me that if you are doing the following sorts of things, you are not being genuine:
> -joke with the intention of disarming her into thinking you are not trying to pick her up, when in fact you are


Any woman who is in a bar or a club or a place where single mingle and is approached by a man she doesn't know who makes a joke and thinks he just wanted to make her laugh, and nothing more, is utterly naive. 



> -teasing her to feign casual disinterest, when in fact you are interested


What's wrong with this? There's nothing more annoying than a man or a woman who wears their intentions/feeling on their sleeves on a first date, or a first meeting. It comes off as being needy or desperate. Besides, I don't need to know that a man is burning hot with interest over me. Not right at first. Just the fact that he's talking to me is enough for me to see that he is, at least, mildly interested. 



> -complimenting what she does to give the impression that you care about who she is, when you really don't


He's not said this, ever. I can't even comment beyond this because the statement is so wrong.



> -pretending to be a jerk, to give the impression that you are a bad boy


I haven't seen this either. 



> - holding back what you think or believe because it will interfere with your mission


Huh? Where was that?



> All of these machinations just sound exhausting and pointless to me. I'd rather just say what's on my mind without all that time and energy figuring out whether I'm being too aggressive, not aggressive enough, too likable or not likable enough.


But that's it; he's not trying to figure those things out. He's being who he is, and testing the waters to see what kind of girl _she_ is. He's just doing so in a way that will maximize his chances. 

Imagine if a girl was approached by a guy, and within three hours of the conversation, she said that her current goal in life was to marry and have babies. That she'd accomplished all she wanted to accomplish in college and her career was booming, and now she was ready for the next stage in life. How many guys would feel massively uncomfortable with that? Do you think very many would sit and talk with her for longer than another few minutes?



> But like I said, if you are getting what you want from gaming and being gamed, and you think you will continue to do so, then by all means, have at it.


Guess you missed where I listed what I've gotten from being gamed. But I didn't expect anything different. Recognizing what I said would mean acknowledging that you can get good things from being gamed, and getting anything positive from being gamed destroys your argument.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not sure what you're saying. My responses aren't out of bias for how I have you typed. We're just talking about how our experience differs. I'm not attacking you or being hostile in any way. If you've taken offense to something I've said, I assure you my intention was only playfulness.
> 
> Nope. I won't believe it till I see it. Shy guys do NOT "pull in the women". The notion is entirely absurd. You should go to seddit and post that... thousands of shy guys there would beg to differ.
> 
> Now, if by "pull in the women"... you mean get occassional attention from girls who seem to talk to everyone (I mean that as outgoing, not as in easy). Okay. That fits my experience.
> 
> I'd hardly characterize that as "pulling in the women". Maybe I'm just greedy.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry FW... but the shy guy that pulls women is just so far outside my realm of experience to render itself as believeable as claiming to have seen a unicorn. Maybe you're talking about absurdly good looking guys.
> 
> It utterly violates everything I've proven in my own trials.
> 
> Women having the hots for shy (read: fearful; read: insecure; read: lacking confidence) guys... yep... unicorns.
> 
> Oh wait! You know what!? On second thought, maybe you're right! I do know a couple very masculine women who basically have whipping boy husbands. These women both come off like mildly abusive men... and their husbands look... for lack of a better term, "broken."
> 
> Is this the kind of guy you're talking about that pulls women?
> 
> 
> 
> *She's just another account I created for one of my multiple personalities so I could agree with myself. She's pretty, but damn she talks a lot doesn't she?    *


My grandpa told me at age two that I talked too much. I haven't shut up since.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Here you go, Created...he is saying it straight up, with no caveats: "Nope. I won't believe it till I see it. Shy guys do NOT "pull in the women". The notion is entirely absurd."


Yeah, I know. You must not be reading what I type. Shy and _silent_ aren't the same. The shy guys, the insecure ones lacking in confidence, don't pull women. The silent ones _can_ because they have confidence. Shy and silent, again, aren't necessarily the same. By dad is silent, but he sure as heck isn't shy or insecure.

I'm being consistent, here.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> It's certainly one of the reasons why I resist the game.
> 
> I totally understand why people want to work on themselves to overcome insecurities, or even just to grow. But it also seems to me that the more you become what other people want you to be, the less you can be yourself, and the less likely it is you will find the types of relationships that will really make you happy.


Since when as anyone advocated being others want you to be? Going from shy and insecure to outgoing and confident may change those things, but it absolutely won't change anything else unless the person wants other things to change as well. That would be like saying if I went from being so talkative to being much less talkative that I wouldn't be me. No, I'd still be me. I'd still love reading and writing and singing and dancing, I'd still have my core beliefs and values, I'd still have my job and my husband. I just wouldn't talk as much.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Created2Write said:


> Since when as anyone advocated being others want you to be? Going from shy and insecure to outgoing and confident may change those things, but it absolutely won't change anything else unless the person wants other things to change as well. That would be like saying if I went from being so talkative to being much less talkative that I wouldn't be me. No, I'd still be me. I'd still love reading and writing and singing and dancing, I'd still have my core beliefs and values, I'd still have my job and my husband. I just wouldn't talk as much.


No, you have to stay exactly the same,forever, for you to be yourself. And don't even consider changing your diet or daily hygiene routine. We will find you.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created, Dvls...I now pronounce you, the same person. You may kiss yourself.


----------



## RandomDude

@Created2Write

I learnt when I was 18 from one of my exs indirectly that cool, calm, and collected was the best approach. Not silent to the point of non-confidence, but not too talkative to the point that everything that comes out is garbage. Hence I incorporated it as part of my game.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Created, Dvls...I now pronounce you, the same person. You may kiss yourself.


My husband is in for quite the surprise tonight when I'm replaced by a husky handsome pickup artist with a cowboy hat...


----------



## RandomDude

> But I understand a little more now. I worked on myself too, which (maybe?) could be classified as game, but because I worked on being my true self, I attracted the person who was best suited for me. I would bet pennies that gamers feel the same way, even though I see the techniques we used as totally different.


That to me is game
Besides first thing I do if I was to go on a date is look in the mirror after all. No holes in pants, no hair sticking out that somehow missed my shaver. And that can translate onto the non-physical, if I'm not confident with myself, or if I'm in a bad moon, I can kinda predict an epic fail coming up. But recently I just do it anyway...

Like hey, a date, I'm mostly "meh whatever" about all of it really. Just meeting people and seeing what I find, realised I'm not ready for anything as my STBX really did her number on me, but just going to have fun ne ways, no expectations, yet still disappointments, but nvm that!


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> So ... has the last 170 pages helped, or made things worse?
> I think it's great that you've hung in there all this time.


Haha. Thanks again, Deejo, for the great thread. I'm starting to wonder if it will go to 200 pages.

Has it helped? 

Well, I'm still troubled by the underhanded aspects of it (and may never date again should my current relationship fall apart), and I still question whether it's really accomplishing as much as many proponents seem to think. (My bet is still that honest interest and ordinary conversation would usually do just as well, and might even be less off-putting to some.)

But I have learned that game can actually work, and that not all game is bad all of the time. 

How's that for success?


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> @Created2Write
> 
> I learnt when I was 18 from one of my exs indirectly that cool, calm, and collected was the best approach. Not silent to the point of non-confidence, but not too talkative to the point that everything that comes out is garbage. Hence I incorporated it as part of my game.


Definitely. I wanted a guy I could talk _with_. Someone who could keep up with me, for one; someone who didn't need me to pick the subject all of the time, for two; and someone who was interested in what I had to say, for three. I think you're right about that.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

At this point it is confirmed that this is no longer the five minute argument but the full half hour.


----------



## Created2Write

FrenchFry said:


> Well, you'd be a different version of you, and if your husband liked talkative women and you weren't, your situation may be different.


Yes and no. I am a communicator, and I certainly have the gift of gab. But talking _less_ isn't the same as not talking at all. I would still be me, 100%, even if I talked less than I do now. If I didn't talk at all, or if I limited my talking to only responding to what others said, then yeah, I wouldn't be me. But just cutting back on talking in general? Wouldn't change me a bit. 

Going from being shy and insecure to being confident and outgoing may change those aspects of someone's personality, but they won't change who they are inside. Just like an overweight person working out and getting healthy isn't going to change who they are as a whole, even though it will change an aspect of who they are. 



> If you were less talkative and you found that you attracted more people by being more talkative, you could become more talkative and attract the men who like talkative women. The challenge, which I think always_alone is talking about, is figuring out if:
> 
> a) you enjoy being more talkative to a point where the benefits in attracting your husband would be worth it and
> 
> b) how long you can keep up being more talkative when you are naturally less talkative, knowing that being talkative is one of your husband's attractors that isn't natural to you.


But no one has advocated being insincere in who you are. And from what you and AA are saying, one can surmise that changing _anything_ about us is going to change who we are as a whole, no matter how great or insignificant that change may be. I don't buy that. I believe we're always changing in little ways. Learning lessons, becoming better people, etc.

Hypothetically, if I weren't a natural talker but I wanted to be, I could take classes on how to be a better communicator. Am I altering something I was born with? Sure. Is that going to change my entire person? No. Whether that was me wanting to be better at speaking publicly, or if I wanted to be better and communicating my thoughts and feelings to my friends and family, or if I wanted to be better at interviews...learning to be a more confident communicator would be beneficial. 

The things we're talking about, like confidence and talking, are things that eventually become habit and "natural" over time. Like riding a bike. Like running. Like learning a new language. Learning to play an instrument. Learning a sport. Learning how to dance. No one is born with those things naturally, even though they may have a natural apt for them. They still have to learn them.Practiced enough, given enough effort, these things which aren't natural will, eventually, become so. 

This idea that we should never strive to be more than we naturally are sounds utterly boring, and I don't think AA really believes that either.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> Don't make me come after you TRBE's. I will and with a strong fist!


I have a sword. Take that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Always Alone said: "Well, I'm still troubled by the underhanded aspects of it (and may never date again should my current relationship fall apart), and I still question whether it's really accomplishing as much as many proponents seem to think."

No worries. If you end up single again, let me know, I'll show you where the grown ups hang out.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> I will find you simply by looking for the 3 inbred horse boners.
> :smthumbup:
> 
> Unless you succumb to plastic surgery...
> 
> Wait, wasn't that already covered on this thread?
> 
> *Confidence can sometimes just be stupidity or feigned all together. Let's not pretend here. True confidence is showing yourself when it would be easier to not be. Try that one on. Guess what, not everyone is going to like you, flock to you or agree with you.*


Of course. That's why it's important to be the best you that you can be, and to be you with confidence. _True_ confidence. Feigned confidence is just the worst kind of insecurity, imo.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Really? Things that make you go hmmmmmm.
> 
> So are we advocating for becoming a better you?
> 
> Just curious. Want to make sure I get my PC speak correct.


What exactly is the issue? Unless we assume that bettering yourself in every way is the same as being insincere, I don't see where the issue is. Because I see a shy person who isn't content with being shy, choosing to change and become more confident, as bettering themselves. I don't see it an insincerity. Anymore than I would see me being less talkative _if I genuinely wanted to be less talkative_ as being insincere either. 

Pretending to be less talkative just to fit in with others? Yeah, that's insincere. But that's also not real change.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> Dare me! I may not have great game but I can locate Austin on a map! :rofl:


Good thing I don't live in Austin. I'm about 150 miles south as stated below my avatar.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Amen sister!
> 
> But if you are having to gain your confidence from books written by men who presume they know what women want...well, I'm confused.


Where else are you going to gain confidence from? Or, I should say, learn how to gain confidence from.

We accept books like HNHN and 5LL as potential marriage self-help books, right? Why? Because they're written by someone who has worked with countless couples, seen countless situations, and found that these principles seem to work for these specific issues. 

Why is it suddenly lame for individuals to do this when it comes to gaining confidence? Is it that a man assuming he knows what women want is offensive? Well, it seems to work quite often so...he must be right about _some_ women.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> The pen is mightier than the sword as I found out when it stabbed me a night or so ago. Damn that **** hurt.


That just made me shoot out a laugh. Yup, I've done some damage to my hand with a BIC pen. Wowza that hurt!


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> Guess you missed where I listed what I've gotten from being gamed. But I didn't expect anything different. Recognizing what I said would mean acknowledging that you can get good things from being gamed, and getting anything positive from being gamed destroys your argument.


No, I didn't miss what you said. You are reading a negative into what I am saying, even though there isn't one. My point was intended at face value: if your game gives you want you want, then go ahead and get what you want.

For me, it doesn't give me what I want. All I get is a headache thinking about how I would have to squash my personality in order to be more appealing to the masses. Masses that I probably don't even want to appeal to in the first place. So, it's much, much simpler for someone like me to just be who I am, scare off all of those who wouldn't be at all interested in the real me anyway, and go from there.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> No, I didn't miss what you said. You are reading a negative into what I am saying, even though there isn't one. My point was intended at face value: if your game gives you want you want, then go ahead and get what you want.
> 
> For me, it doesn't give me what I want. All I get is a headache thinking about how I would have to squash my personality in order to be more appealing to the masses. Masses that I probably don't even want to appeal to in the first place. So, it's much, much simpler for someone like me to just be who I am, scare off all of those who wouldn't be at all interested in the real me anyway, and go from there.


Fair enough. Sounds sad and depressing to me, but we're definitely not similar women.


----------



## RandomDude

> Of course. That's why it's important to be the best you that you can be, and to be you with confidence. True confidence. Feigned confidence is just the worst kind of insecurity, imo.


Yeah, being one's self is a vital part of the game IMO - like hey, I'm abit of a daredevil, and even though I consider myself a natural flirt, my antics can turn off some women, like hey, remembered when I brought up a stereotype that "AAA women are hairy" to see her reaction and ironically ended up breaking the physical boundary using that line - which could have got me SLAPPED hehe

Or when I was in sales years ago, which helped with my confidence alot, flirting became part of my pitch with women, and when getting her details to close sales sometimes I threw lines like "and this is the part where I get your number" lol, which would have offended some, but that's still just me.

I don't really take things seriously - but that's just me, and alot of women would find that a turn off. But it's a win/win - I spare her a life of putting up with sh-t she can't handle, and she spares me a life of putting up with a woman who doesn't understand my sense of humor. Hence being yourself is vital to the game. Besides if I can SMELL FEAR I'm sure women can too


----------



## Faithful Wife

His Needs, Her Needs...and The 5 Love Languages.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Trenton said:


> Being willing to feign known behaviors to get said woman is insincere.


Well, common knowledge in the PUA/game/seduction community is that people who live this stuff as a lifestyle are the ones who succeed. Not the ones who memorizes routines and cheesy lines and just stays there. It's not an act, it's a way to live. It isn't opening up the game valve when a hot chick comes near you. The valve must always be open and you must always be living fully.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Right I get that...unless...the reason why they are not content with themselves is because they want a woman and so they'll read up and practice learned behaviors in an attempt to get said woman. They don't care about the premise or the respectability of the source...if it works, it works.


So, for you, the issue is in the source and the premise of what's being said? 



> Wanting a woman is sincere.
> 
> Being willing to feign known behaviors to get said woman is insincere.


But who is "feigning" anything? A person who naturally doesn't have confidence _can_ learn to become more confident without faking it. No one has said anything about lying or pretending to be someone you're not. 



> If everyone stopped asking me to call a boner, confidence. We wouldn't have any issues.


Oh please. No one has said any such thing. lol.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Trenton said:


> So it's a cult?


Yeah, we sacrifice AFCs and they are reborn as masters of the game.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Trenton said:


> AFC's?


Average Frustrated Chump 

You gotta brush up your PUA lingo.


----------



## Created2Write

RandomDude said:


> Yeah, being one's self is a vital part of the game IMO - like hey, I'm abit of a daredevil, and even though I consider myself a natural flirt, my antics can turn off some women, like hey, remembered when I brought up a stereotype that "AAA women are hairy" to see her reaction and ironically ended up breaking the physical boundary using that line - which could have got me SLAPPED hehe
> 
> Or when I was in sales years ago, which helped with my confidence alot, flirting became part of my pitch with women, and when getting her details to close sales sometimes I threw lines like "and this is the part where I get your number" lol, which would have offended some, but that's still just me.
> 
> I don't really take things seriously - but that's just me, and alot of women would find that a turn off. But it's a win/win - I spare her a life of putting up with sh-t she can't handle, and she spares me a life of putting up with a woman who doesn't understand my sense of humor. Hence being yourself is vital to the game. Besides if I can SMELL FEAR I'm sure women can too


Hahaha! I like that line you used! It would have made me laugh and blush, and I likely would've given you my number.  

But yeah, since you can't please every woman(as has been said countless times here), there's no point in pretending to be who you're not. But genuinely wanting to be different than you in an area, is not shallow or lame or "feigning" anything.


----------



## Created2Write

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Well, common knowledge in the PUA/game/seduction community is that people who live this stuff as a lifestyle are the ones who succeed. Not the ones who memorizes routines and cheesy lines and just stays there. It's not an act, it's a way to live. It isn't opening up the game valve when a hot chick comes near you. The valve must always be open and you must always be living fully.


Right, it's a lifestyle choice. Just like choosing to eat healthy and exercise is a lifestyle choice. Those who just learn the tricks and diet for three months to lose the weight, usually put it all back on. Whereas those who actually learn about food and nutrition and how to exercise are the ones who succeed long term. 

It makes total sense.


----------



## Catherine602

Entropy3000 said:


> And this is why I personally specified the West. Slavery still exists in this world.
> 
> But we all make choices to make our life better or we don't. If we love someone we encourage them to make the most of their life. We do not tell them to live in self pity and blame others. There is injustice in this world. But we have the ability to fight against it.
> 
> Again I concede I have a warrior mentality about life. This is not to say I do not have empathy and cannot nurture. But for sure we tell those we love who fall down to get up. To move forward. To make the choices they can to improve themselves. Not dwell on their disability.
> 
> We all make choices in life. Giving up is the among the worst. There are so mny times in my own life I could have just said I was being treating unfairly and perhaps I was, but the answer was never to give up. never to concede defeat to anyone.
> 
> We have a ton of control. We teach others how to treat us. We make choices. If we are in an abusive relationship it is because we choose to stay in it. Yes decisions are difficult. Everything has a cost.
> 
> But you are right. It bothers me most when people in the West complain. So many other people fought for our freedoms that we now take for granted.


Sorry had to anwer this. 

I can not pat myself on the back or judge anyone's life because I have no idea how I would bear up under the weight of their disadvantages. I had nothing to do with my fortunate life, nor did they have anything to do with their misfortune. 

Moreover, i can think of many spiritual reasons to be humble, Those to whom much is given, much is expected, seeing thy brother in need and not helping ......, judge not .......


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Trenton said:


> Man oh man. I need to write one of these books. I got lots o' acronyms. We can start with TSAW.
> 
> The Stupids Are Winning, for those not familiar with my 1337 speak.


Yeah, give it to us hard cause that's the way we like it.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> Well, common knowledge in the PUA/game/seduction community is that people who live this stuff as a lifestyle are the ones who succeed. Not the ones who memorizes routines and cheesy lines and just stays there. It's not an act, it's a way to live. It isn't opening up the game valve when a hot chick comes near you. The valve must always be open and you must always be living fully.


I was about to write that. I think it becomes second nature to these guys, not a series of lines to whip out at a bar. To them it isn't inauthentic because it has become who they are now.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> I'm saying that we should care about the source of which the books we read spring from.
> 
> Anyway, have no idea what HNHN and 5LL is. Honestly.


So how would you decide whether or not something is respectable? Would you look at how often the principles work as compared to how often they don't? Would you only look at who wrote it?


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Trenton said:


> Are you sure? You positive you don't want to consult your PUA manual first?


There are so many, which one? :smthumbup:


----------



## always_alone

Trenton said:


> Being willing to feign known behaviors to get said woman is insincere.


Yes. This. The whole premise of game is insincerity. You don't get to be yourself, you aim to be something that women want. 

If you are already inclined that way, it may suit you. Or maybe, one or two of the tricks can help you approach things from a different angle. So it's not all bad. But at base, it's about becoming something else that's supposedly "more appealing".



Trenton said:


> If everyone stopped asking me to call a boner, confidence. We wouldn't have any issues.


This too! :rofl::rofl:


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Trenton said:


> Dunno! Which one gets you the most hawt womanz?


My inner shyness and silence and just being myself does that.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

^^^^^^

He was kidding.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Okies. Yeah, I haven't read them.


I mentioned them because a lot of people dislike them. A lot of people dislike the idea of using books to better your marriage in the first place, but specifically those books, a lot of people I know don't like them. They feel they're too...basic. Too stereotypical. They don't like the gender roles; they don't like the way it's written; they feel as if they're being patronized by the writer. Even though many marriages have been saved, or at least improved, by adding those principles, they are set against them because they disagree with this or that. 

So, again, how do we decide when something really is insincere, disrespectful and untrustworthy? 

In my opinion we should first look at the overall intent; what is the writer trying to achieve? If the point of PUA and sex rank and things was to _only_ get a man as much as sex as he wanted, then I would have a major issue with this. But, the intent goes further than just sex. The intent is to help men who are uncomfortable around women and insecure in themselves to build the confidence needed to engage a total stranger in conversation. Or, to help the insecure man overcome his fears and doubts and finally ask out that girl he's madly attracted to. 

Do I agree with everything listed in PUA? No. I didn't agree with everything in 5LL or HNHN, either. But I recognized that there are many who might actually agree with what I don't, and there are other great principles in both books. I don't discard those just because I don't like one or two other things. 

Same with PUA. I don't agree with it all. I think a lot of men misunderstand it and abuse it. But I absolutely agree with people changing those aspects of themselves that they truly are discontented with.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here you go, Trenton.

Amazon.com: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Jokes (9781592575381): Larry Getlen: Books


----------



## TiggyBlue

Trenton said:


> Me too
> 
> Damn. Why do I have such a crappy sense of humor?
> 
> I must master new sense of humor now. (I'm still kidding!)


Don't worry I knew you were kidding.
Your game is just so subtle it's practically undetectable


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Trenton said:


> Don't forget it! Duh!


Oh, don't worry, what's necessary has been ingrained into my mind very, very powerfully. 

Of course it's a learning process, I'm young, just known this stuff for 6 months. Some are what I had already subconsciously understood while watching "natural" friends and how they interacted with girls. But those PUA manuals ( you know, the ones you despise) are huge help. Huuuuuge help. Huge. Just like me.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh Trenton...you left yourself wide open on that one.

Of course he is 12. Inches.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Trenton said:


> Are you twelve? I'll feel so bad if you are.


Trying to cold read? with a hint of negging? Another PUA tactic. Damn you are good at this.

Yes, I am. Why? Twelve is the new eleven, is it not?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Failed PUA book title: "Up Your Confidence, Stupid".


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oooh ooh...me, me!

"B*tches Love Bro-tards"


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Source, Research, Inquiry, Reasonableness, Relevancy, Value, Logic, More Research


Okay, so when is a source reputable enough for you? I don't ask with attitude, but with interest.

What would you research? I assume the source. I assume also the results. 

Inquiry, I assume, would be to other who've tried it and whether or not they liked it or it worked for them.

How would you define reasonableness? What would you base this on? How would you measure this? 

Relevancy, I assume, would be in reference to whether or not the principles are relevant to our society, as well as the target audience. 

Value, I assume, would be in whether or not these principles are even worth a man's time and effort, given the outcome of the results.

Logic is a confusing one. It's not set in stone. What may make sense to one person may utterly dumbfound someone else. How would you measure this?

And more research, I assume, would be in double checking your findings?


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> Yes. This. The whole premise of game is insincerity. You don't get to be yourself, you aim to be something that women want.


Okay, let me use an analogy and see if I can translate the same idea into a less controversial setting. 

Let's say you're not a naturally confident person. You're not shy, per se, but you're not comfortable around strangers. You go in to interview for a job. It's a great opportunity, it's what you've been looking for for a while. You have the interview and you find out that you're qualified in all areas but one: you've never been in a management position before. Based on that alone, you don't get the job, and the interview is over before you had a chance to give your speech. 

If you really wanted this job, you'd go out and look for a management position, right? You'd stay in that position for as long as was required to get that other job or one like it. Let's say you're on that management position for two years. Suddenly, you hear that that other job has opened up again. You apply, you take your revised resume with you, and what do you know? You get the job! 

It's not about being insincere. If Dvls was happy as a shy, insecure person, do you think he would have changed? No, he would have happily waited for the kind of woman who _is_ attracted to shy men, and never known the different. But he _wasn't_ happy or content. He _wanted_ to be different than he was, so he changed. That's not being insincere. 

If he _only_ changed because of one specific girl, when he really didn't want to, that would be insincere. But that isn't what happened. 

Not everyone is happy as a shy, insecure person. Some people truly do want to change and gain confidence for _them_. Not to impress anyone else, but for _themselves_. Do they get noticed more often now because of the change? Sure. Just like when that guy who has a long, scraggly beard and long hair
shaved his beard and cuts his hair, he gets noticed too. 



> If you are already inclined that way, it may suit you. Or maybe, one or two of the tricks can help you approach things from a different angle. So it's not all bad. But at base, it's about becoming something else that's supposedly "more appealing".
> 
> 
> 
> This too! :rofl::rofl:


Who _doesn't_ want to be more appealing? I know I certainly do. I don't change my interests to be more appealing. I don't choose to talk less to be more appealing. I don't change who I am as a person to be more appealing. But I certainly change my attitude, my range of knowledge, how I talk, how I carry myself. How is that insincere?


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> I myself am reading Modern Bushido to further embrace this concept. This is a choice I am making. It is less about conquering the world and more about conquering oneself.


Although, intriguingly, Japanese culture is not at all about the individualistic concepts like "master of destiny". They emphasize the collective, and children are taught from a very young age to think of others and society before themselves.


----------



## Caribbean Man

RandomDude said:


> @Created2Write
> 
> I learnt when I was 18 from one of my exs indirectly that cool, calm, and collected was the best approach. Not silent to the point of non-confidence, but not too talkative to the point that everything that comes out is garbage. Hence I incorporated it as part of my game.


Ok,
I'm a little late.
But with the cool , calm and collective thing, this works when already in a relationship with a woman.
A guy who's like this is attractive to her because he handles his business in that type of way.

I don't know if " quiet & cool" is really a way to approach a strange woman.
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Maybe you mean men shouldn't be overconfident and boastfull, when approaching a strange woman?
Anyway,
Early in my life I learned one important thing about women that gave me relative success with them.
Women like to talk, especially about themselves. All a guy has to do is know what type of questions to ask, the correct tone of voice and body language.
Add a great sense of humour ,and you always win.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Premise matters to me very much.


It matters to me too. Which is why I'm asking these questions, and making these points. Two women, both who likely have similar desires for their relationships, and value the premise of self-help books, are on different sides of the fence on this subject. Perhaps PUA isn't as insincere as you think it?


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Sort of...


They were questions meant to be answered...


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> Where else are you going to gain confidence from? Or, I should say, learn how to gain confidence from.
> 
> We accept books like HNHN and 5LL as potential marriage self-help books, right? Why? Because they're written by someone who has worked with countless couples, seen countless situations, and found that these principles seem to work for these specific issues.
> 
> Why is it suddenly lame for individuals to do this when it comes to gaining confidence? Is it that a man assuming he knows what women want is offensive? Well, it seems to work quite often so...he must be right about _some_ women.


:iagree:

And this is what I find funny in some of these posts.
I think one could use the same approach as those in the marriage self help books.
Use only what applies to your marriage.

I am a recreational bodybuilder, I lift heavy weights.
There are literally hundreds of books with all different , sometimes conflicting approaches to building muscle.

I consume at least 3500 calories and 250g or protein / day.
Some would say I am crazy, you guys have seen my pics , so doe it work?
Hell yes!
It works for me.
See, my metabolism is high , in order for me to build muscle, I'd have to eat almost twice the amount of food a normal man my age would eat / day.

I believe that some of these self help books are not for everybody, and not everything in these books can apply to any one person.
People are responsible for themselves and can change.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> Lose.


Well it worked for me,
And its still working today in our marriage.
Both my wife and I like to talk and laugh,
_A lot_.....


----------



## Created2Write

FrenchFry said:


> I agree it won't change who they are inside.
> 
> But significant changes like going from overweight to healthy weight, or going from shy to outgoing will have changes on who they attract. The new people that a significantly changed person attracts may or may not be the kind of person who is attracted to the non-changed parts of a person, and I think that's kind of a gamble in the long run.


Well, it's all a gamble in the long run, then. As a shy, insecure person they might attract someone who's too aggressive or controlling. If we're going to base this all on if's and the potential setbacks to changing things about ourselves and who we may or may not attract, then we might as well never attempt to make friendships or romantic relationships at all. A person may not every change anything about themselves, and they could still attract someone they don't want to attract. 

That's why I believe we should always strive to be the best us we can. That way, even if we attract a few people we aren't into, or if some aren't interested in us, at least we can be fully satisfied with who we are, independent of everyone else.



> I'm not naturally outgoing or talkative. I could force myself to be moreso with a little effort and I've done so. But I was attracting the people who like outgoing talkative women when I'm really introverted and quiet and consequently while we might be a nice pair for a minute, the friction is significantly less when I attract people who like introverted quiet chicks.


But _why_ were you trying to force yourself to be more talkative and outgoing? Was it because you genuinely wanted to be outgoing? Or was it because you felt pressured? That is important, imo, and is what makes these kinds of changes sincere or insincere. 



> Yes. I think changing something about you changes you. What is important is if changing something about you changes who you attract and if you like the people who you are attracting. Which is why I think it's important to examine the premise of any changes you make within yourself.


Of course. Ultimately, though, we should seek to have happiness within us and who we are, independent of who we attract or don't attract. If we, as an individual, are dissatisfied with something about ourselves, we absolutely should change it. If others aren't attracted to the change? Oh well. Didn't want their attention anyway. 



> always_alone posted this list:
> 
> These are changes that a person can make to attract a person. Positive, negative or neutral is clearly in the eye of the beholder, but what I'm getting at is you'd better be prepared to attract the kind of person who responds to this list and then be prepared to be happy being in the kind of relationship with the kind of person who responds to those tactics. If you want to change into this kind of person and attract these kind of people, then this is an absolutely perfect change for you.


This is common sense and applies to everyone, regardless of what kind of person they're attracted to. 



> This is probably why gaming works on the majority of women gamers go after-they are looking for these types of qualities in a partner.
> 
> However, if you happen to pick-up gaming as a means to meet women like always_alone or I, well it's not going to work as well.


I think that's the point; people who have a gaming lifestyle likely wouldn't try to pick up women like you or AA. Or, if they did, they would quickly see that you're not interested, and move on to a woman who is. 

On a more interesting note:



I'M PREGNANT!!!


----------



## Created2Write

coffee4me said:


> That's the best thing I've read in this thread. Congratulations!!


Thank you so much!!!! I'm ecstatic. This little one is certainly a surprise, but I am so happy!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> Why did I sincerely believe you were in Austin???
> 
> !


Because I am too cool for Houston and just weird enough for Austin.


----------



## Nsweet

Ah, finally I got internet at home so I can weigh in on this in time.

You know what I discovered during my divorce after three years of marriage and time spent picking up in the years before settling down? That was time spent reading everything from PUA and dating advice, to marriage books, books on divorce, and many books on reconciling. I discovered that the PUA game doesn't start and stop at sex and dating, it only changes very little through the other cycles. 

The things in common throughout are the same rules like.... Don't chase your love interest, be respectful of their boundaries and don't get pushy, pay attention to the details(which is probably the biggest help because many men miss the signs), know when to pull away, be comforting and supportive but don't try to fix all of her problems.... just listen, let her experience her feelings and be mad at you if she wants, don't throw around "I'm sorry" or "I love you" unless you're prepared to explain exactly why, and seduction is a slow proccess that starts from the moment you first speak. Simple things like that a lot of married women here know and take for granted. 

But I keep going back to the two things that helped me get dates when I was a lovable loser, which transpired into marriage, and into having that irresistible factor for women.*Direct eye contact* & *Attention to details* Those two things have never failed me and they are so natural I never had to lie once I figured this stuff out. 

I think the reason why is women don't get a lot of direct eye contact from men becuase men are either staring at your body or looking through you like you're not even there. And when they do make eye contact for long it's usually to lie to your face. When I talk to a woman for any reason I'm not looking at anyplace but her eyes and I'm too focus on her pupils to lie without it being detected. I've already seen enough naked women to not try to picture her without her clothes, and when she tells you about herself you're never going to be bored or need stupid lies to keep her talking. 


The second pard of that is harder to learn but pays off in the end. Attention to details means more than just looking at what she's wearing or the words she says, you have to learn to pick up on the small changes she wants youto see and the use of her words. That's where years of reading up on bodylanguage and MC books payed off, but it's different with everybody. If she's upset you'll miss it because she's withdrawn and quiet, if she's wishing you would notice her and say hello she might smile slightly and show her vulnerable side, and if she's bored with what you're saying she might shut down and look away. You have to know the signs women show and the little things other guys are too reckless to notice. 

There is a third thing I ought to include, even thoughts is a stupid no brainer everyone should know by now. Take sex out of the getting to know you phase and just focus on the other person's "about me" stories and values. The reason I pit it here is that guys are usually guilty of getting creepy and sexual once they think they're getting somewhere with their date, and that ends up blowing their chances for what could be a great relationship. Even though the person you're talking to may be a sexual goddess you have to separate your mind from your genitals and have fun with them while getting to know them first. 

If you're having trouble dating, man or woman. If you can just pick up on one thing it's that respect for others, and the treat them the way you would be treated rule you learned as a kid can make the difference between using men for free dinners and finding someone you can connect with and end up marrying. And for men that would mean finding a woman you can't wait to marry and start a family with because you get along so well without sex first. 

These are just things you should know by now, but only the happily married seem to practice.


----------



## Nsweet

Trenton said:


> No offense but if you're not pregnant I don't want to read what you have to say.


Well then don't read it! I know what you're going to say in return is just going to be rude anways..... You've proven that yet again. 

No offense, but is this thread about pregancies? Take it outside!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> I have to admit I see you in Austin, not Houston.
> 
> CA to Houston?
> 
> Who does that and survives?


Only idiots.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Nsweet said:


> No offense, but is this thread about pregancies? Take it outside!


To be fair, this thread has been about game, what's sexy, blueberry pancakes, a penis/pissing contest, cosmetic surgery, more game, negs, sh!t tests, patterned hosiery, humping goats, more game and now pregnancy. 
Deejo should kill us all.


----------



## Nsweet

Ah, crap! 

I missed the penis measuring pissing contest extravaganza????


----------



## Faithful Wife

Congrats, Created!


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

:yay::yay::yay::yay::yay::yay::yay::yay::yay:


----------



## Created2Write

Nsweet said:


> Well then don't read it! I know what you're going to say in return is just going to be rude anways..... You've proven that yet again.
> 
> No offense, but is this thread about pregancies? Take it outside!


Dude, she was making a joke. Not being rude. I just announced that I'm pregnant. 

 lol.


----------



## Created2Write

Thanks FW and TRBE! My husband's family is freaking out. One of his grandmothers almost gave it away before I had the chance to announce myself on facebook. ROFL. My husband was the first born of his generation, so they've all been waiting for him and I to conceive.

We didn't plan to get pregnant, but we're super happy anyway!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

*So happy for you both Created2Write ! Such an exciting time....

Maybe I missed it -how did you tell him ?*


----------



## Deejo

This thread officially, has it all.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> I'M PREGNANT!!!


Congrats my dear!:smthumbup:

Boy meets girl,
Mind meets mind, 
Eye meets eyes and,
Heart meets heart. 
Body meets body.
Sperm meets egg,
A new life is started.
Baby meets brand new world , grows up and ,
Boy meets girl...

Ah, the beauty of the cycle of life.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

DaddyLongShanks said:


> It's an excellent first goal, I might add.


I wanted to also add. This basic and EXCELLENT first goal, might be the very best thing a male can do if he is questioning, "game", "attractiveness", "having good skills with women".

We can theorize all we want, but the world just works better for you and you are more attractive when you are having sex. And if you are having sex and it's readily at your disposal, it works even better.


----------



## Created2Write

SA, he was right next to me when I took the at home tests. Neither of us expected it to be positive. I've been late before and taken a test and they've always been negative. Less than thirty seconds after setting the test down, these two red lines appear and I was actually rendered speechless for the first time in my life. When I did speak, all I could say was, "Uh....uh.............uuhhhhhhhh...........babe?" 

He just stared for like two minutes and then gave me a huge hug. We were both all smiles last night.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> My husband asked me out, but if he was in my face any longer than he was, I'd have forgotten all about him as another brodude.


Push-pull psychology in effect again.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> You are making the mistake of assuming that if someone isn't outgoing and radiating confidence (like you are now), that he must be exactly like you were then: insecure and hating where he is.
> 
> But there are lots of people who are more introverted and humble, but not at all insecure and quite happy with where they are.


I'm not making a mistake. I'm drawing a distinction by pointing out the opposites of the scale. The confident outgoing guy is more appealing to women in general than the shy introverted guy.

Everything else is a matter of degree. Sliding along the scale.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> But that does not then make it so that OTHER silent type men do not get with the ladies. Some of them do.


Take any shy silent type and make him more confident and outgoing and he's going to be more appealing to more women in general. Its not like I was a virgin until I became outgoing. Even a blind squirrel occassionally finds a nut.

Some guys are content to be the blind squirrel. That's fine, but its not more appealing.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Nope, he said this: "These guys don't get the girl's number. They go home alone and wonder why they're single."


C'mon... leave me some hyperbole or my posts are going to become extremely empirical and dull.

Its quite obviously a scale. The confident outgoing guy gets a lot more female attention than the shy silent type. Always has, always will.

Even a shy woman will pick the lesser of two shy men.

Confidence is king. Shyness is the opposite of confidence.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> DvlsAdvc8, do you have a "type?" that you go after?


Tough question... no, I don't think so. And yet I'm the type to really love a woman's quirks whatever they may be.

Its easier for me to pin what I don't want than to pin what I want.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> "Right...because usually those insecure types are not a woman's first pick."
> 
> Not all strong, silent type men are insecure. Some of them know very well that the ladies dig them and they are SOME women's first pick.


You're altering the charicature. What happened to shy?

The "strong" characterization is entertaining though. Exactly how do you judge someone strong if they're sitting in the corner by themselves not talking to anyone?

Appearance? Ah, so what you really mean is he's good looking huh?


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You're altering the charicature. What happened to shy?
> 
> The "strong" characterization is entertaining though. Exactly how do you judge someone strong if they're sitting in the corner by themselves not talking to anyone?
> *
> Appearance? Ah, so what you really mean is he's good looking huh? *


Probably lol
I don't automatically see someone as insecure if they ain't talking to anyone over in the corner, they always could be one of the strong silent.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls..."The person isn't the variable being tested. The approach is. All other variables must remain the same in order to draw any conclusion from the results. This is how science works".
> 
> So even if I tell you about the approach of other people and how it works for them, since you have not tried it yourself, you will tell me it doesn't work because you haven't seen it. And then you say it is the approach being tested not the person, but your point in saying that is that the person, YOU, have not experienced it.


FW, that is not how anything is conclusively determined as causal... ANYTHING.

What you have is one thing that worked for them. You're not being empirical for one. By your example, everything works equally for everyone because everyone finds someone. Its nonsense. All other things being equal, including my standard of women, if I can attract 10 women doing one thing, and only 1 woman doing another thing, then CLEARLY the former is more attractive than the latter. Follow?

You can come up with 100 examples of a guy getting a girl even while doing something I've proven to be less attractive. I'm pretty sure I could do just about anything and get a really ugly girl. Until you set a standard of attractiveness and keep all other elements EXCEPT the one variable being tested (introversion? extroversion? shyness?) the same... you can make no conclusive statement.

Now, if your shy guy learned to be outgoing, and discovers he attracted more women of a given standard when he was shy... now you have something.

You will never see it. Go look and see how many posts in places like seddit come from guys who lament "I don't understand, I attract much fewer women now that I'm more social. I was better off sitting quietly in the corner." You won't find any. I've never even seen a single one. Meanwhile, "thank you seddit, you changed my life" is a daily refrain.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Probably lol
> I don't automatically see someone as insecure if they ain't talking to anyone over in the corner, they always could be one of the strong silent.


Again, what makes them strong?


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Again, what makes them strong?


Posture mostly, if someone has their head down/eyes down avoiding looking at people or talking then yes probs insecure. If someone is standing in the corner just looking disinterested in what others are doing could be strong and silent.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Breakthrough? I'm still under the impression that you haven't heard a single thing I've said.


Dang. I was hopeful.




always_alone said:


> And it isn't just semantics. It's a different way of approaching social interaction. Maybe words like 'deceit' and 'manipulation' are too strong, but it really seems to me that if you are doing the following sorts of things, you are not being genuine:
> -joke with the intention of disarming her into thinking you are not trying to pick her up, when in fact you are
> -teasing her to feign casual disinterest, when in fact you are interested
> -complimenting what she does to give the impression that you care about who she is, when you really don't
> -pretending to be a jerk, to give the impression that you are a bad boy
> - holding back what you think or believe because it will interfere with your mission
> 
> All of these machinations just sound exhausting and pointless to me. I'd rather just say what's on my mind without all that time and energy figuring out whether I'm being too aggressive, not aggressive enough, too likable or not likable enough.


Blind squirrel philosphy for you eh?

Thought that enters virtually every guy's head: "Sexy legs."

Approach a woman at the bookstore with by saying "sexy legs" first, and he probably just weeded himself out. Even if, had she continued with him, they might have discovered they're perfect for each other.

Or maybe you'll relate better to this one from a woman: "I want to get married and have kids so bad!!! I feel like I'm almost out of time!!"

Wow girl, slow your roll. We just met. I might want to get married too... but you know what? You don't want to be bringing that up when you just met someone.

Or here's another I've been told by a girlfriend that a guy said on a second date: "I've had a checklist since 6th grade that has everything I want in my future wife... and you have everything." He didn't get another date. lol

If I knew all about your own dating life, I'm 100% confident I could point out some game.


----------



## Created2Write

FrenchFry said:


> It can become natural, agreed. But if you really like being quiet, or you want to attract the people who like quietness, I think it's doing a disservice to a person's happiness to become a natural at something just to have more mass appeal.


But again, if someone was genuinely happy with being shy and insecure, they wouldn't _want_ to change. I've said this so many times, I'm starting to wonder if certain people are intentionally ignoring this point; *I'm not talking about changing something you like about yourself just to fit in or be more attractive*. If someone is happy being shy, I absolutely think it's horrible for them to try and change that aspect. That really wouldn't be sincere. 

Change is only sincere when the person making the change genuinely wants to change that aspect.

I've said that so many times, and you and AA keep talking about this as if I'm advocating changing ourselves anytime we think something might not be attractive to someone. That's not at all what I, or Dvls, or CM or SN are saying.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Ooooh pick me! Pick me!
> 
> I don't want to become more appealing.
> 
> If you were a lonely woman without a man and a book told you that in order to become more appealing you had to change your interests and talk less, would you?


No, because I _like_ my interests; I _like_ talking. That's the difference that people seem to ignore. 

The change isn't the point; the _reason_ for the change is the point. If a person genuinely _wants_ to change something about themselves because *they don't like that aspect of themselves*, it's NOT insincere to do so. If a fat person hates being fat, is it insincere for them to lose weight? No. If they are happy being fat(like Gabriel Iglesias, just to give an example), but they only lose weight to attract attention, then yes, that is insincere. 

I don't understand why this is so complicated.


----------



## Created2Write

FrenchFry said:


> I agree, but I cannot consider that game in the same way that structured PUA tactics are because being the best me looks exactly the opposite of what a "gamer" looks like. That's my personal disconnect.


No one has said that everyone needs to agree with the game lifestyle. You're happy the way you are, and you want to attract people who like your personality. That's awesome. 



> A little of both, and that's is an issue I look at with gaming tactics. Is it pressure to fit a societal model of what a "man" looks like, how a "man" is happy and people respond to what society wants or is it an authentic change because a person is unhappy? The premise matters.  Thanks Trenton.


Yeah, premise matters. But this premise is going to be different for every person. If Dvls had been happy as a shy person, I very much doubt if he would even have read anything on PUA. He wouldn't have been looking to change. Or, if he was happy being shy and chose to change anyway, I doubt that the changes would have held, and I would have had to find a different pick up artist to agree with. 






> I say both because I was a competitive and varsity dancer throughout school. I love dancing, I'm not fantastic at socializing. Being more social got me more solos which I wanted, but I wasn't happy doing so. Short version.


I get it. That's why this is a personal choice.



> Gaming doesn't promote this line of thinking, btw. It's always trying to find the biggest and bestest thing to get more, better, hotter women.


So? Every man deserves to get the best he can. Just like every woman deserves to get the best she can. I really fail to see why this is a bad thing.



> I linked PUAhate.com before, and the board is full of men who have become completely disillusioned that changing everything about themselves got them absolutely nowhere because it's not a gaming tactic to "love yourself and screw the rest."


No one has said to change everything about themselves! I mean, seriously! Going from being shy to confident is NOT changing everything about yourself. Or those who do change that much, completely misunderstand the point.


----------



## Nsweet

A lot has been said about PUA being only for the extroverts, or those introverted men who have to fake it and act like the life of the party. Again I say, it depends on where you learn game from. 

There are some guys like Mystery who tell you to keep talking until you run out of things to say and then make up lies. The same guys who tell you to wear flashy clothes, so you dress and act like a douche and girls can avoid you from far far away. 

Then there are the more realistic dating masters who tell you if you're shy, be strong and silent, and a little more mysterious. To dress however your're comfortable and only force yourself to talk to her to get the ball rolling, but not to make up anything or use canned material to open her.

The former extroverted type naturally does better in public places like clubs and bars, but struggles to get dates from women on the streets and in stores. The latter can pick up women he meets day to day in the office and in stores with relative ease, but it out of his zone when around too many people or loud noises. 

I myself am the shy type naturally. I broke my fear of people when I served in the Navy, and can give public speaches with ease, but I prefer to say very little and stay reserved. Whenever I meet women I find worth talking to I just focus on getting them to talk more, maybe use a little humor, and make them comfortable with me by using a calm vocal tone and eye contact. I naturally do my best when they want to "just talk".

And again I'll remind you 90% of the posters here are women who don't have a clue when it comes to PUA. The majority know a few things, I'll give them that, but things like the Attraction, Comfort, Transition, and Seduction phases, push/pull and when to do it, the dangling technique, and positive reinforcement when dating or in the bedroom are lost with a lot of the posters here. 

If you ask me PUA is a form of arrested development in between commitment and marriage. Just felt like saying that.:rofl:


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I'm not making a mistake. I'm drawing a distinction by pointing out the opposites of the scale. The confident outgoing guy is more appealing to women in general than the shy introverted guy.


You are making the same mistake again. Shy is not the opposite of confident. Insecure is the opposite of confident. 
But the opposite of shy is brash, and the opposite of quiet is loud. 

So, yes, usually the confident person will be more appealing than the insecure one. (Usually. Some insecurities are endearing.) But brash and loud will not necessarily win out over shy and quiet. Brash and loud can be entertaining, it's true, but it can also be thoroughly obnoxious.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> The change isn't the point; the _reason_ for the change is the point. If a person genuinely _wants_ to change something about themselves because *they don't like that aspect of themselves*, it's NOT insincere to do so. If a fat person hates being fat, is it insincere for them to lose weight? No. If they are happy being fat(like Gabriel Iglesias, just to give an example), but they only lose weight to attract attention, then yes, that is insincere.
> 
> I don't understand why this is so complicated.


The point that you seem to be overlooking is that the changes aren't actually sincere attempts to correct something they don't like about themselves, they are about bagging more women.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Blind squirrel philosphy for you eh?


There is nothing "blind squirrel" about it. Nor is it demanding that you have a running ticker tape announcing every stupid thought that crosses your mind.

Being authentic/direct isn't groping around in the dark or waiting for fortune to fall in your lap. It is being true to yourself, without worrying if people don't like you. It is treating relationships as a meeting between equal individuals, not a series of machinations designed to elicit the responses you want.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> The point that you seem to be overlooking is that the changes aren't actually sincere attempts to correct something they don't like about themselves, they are about bagging more women.


Firstly, I'm not overlooking anything, thanks. Secondly, you're making a very grand assumption about people's intentions; wanting to be more successful with women does _not_ make their change insincere. Dvls said himself that he did NOT like being shy and insecure. He wanted to be different. He wanted to be more successful at talking with women, not just "bagging them", even though you're determined to paint it that way. He's said countless times that his goal isn't to get as much as sex as possible. His goal was to be comfortable around women he's never met. Thirdly, you keep seeing things as only black and white. You see the desire to be more successful with women as a bad thing, when it _isn't_. We _all_ want to be more successful at our relationships. To do so often requires we change our attitudes and our behaviors, our social habits.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Created2Write said:


> Firstly, I'm not overlooking anything, thanks. Secondly, you're making a very grand assumption about people's intentions; wanting to be more successful with women does _not_ make their change insincere. Dvls said himself that he did NOT like being shy and insecure. He wanted to be different. He wanted to be more successful at talking with women, not just "bagging them", even though you're determined to paint it that way. He's said countless times that his goal isn't to get as much as sex as possible. His goal was to be comfortable around women he's never met. Thirdly, you keep seeing things as only black and white. You see the desire to be more successful with women as a bad thing, when it _isn't_. We _all_ want to be more successful at our relationships. To do so often requires we change our attitudes and our behaviors, our social habits.


These are some great goals. It would be a great benefit to be closer to mastery in various social interactions, one of them being with women.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

always_alone said:


> There is nothing "blind squirrel" about it. Nor is it demanding that you have a running ticker tape announcing every stupid thought that crosses your mind.
> 
> Being authentic/direct isn't groping around in the dark or waiting for fortune to fall in your lap. It is being true to yourself, without worrying if people don't like you. It is treating relationships as a meeting between equal individuals, not a series of machinations designed to elicit the responses you want.


Being yourself can change? What if you add new skills, reduce or remove old fears? Add or build confidence?

Is that still you?


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Just had a very long conversation over lunch with a colleague over his 5 week old relationship.
> 
> He is 34, never married. She is I believe, the same age and has been divorced for 7 months.
> 
> He's a picky dater. So is she. She had only briefly dated one other individual since her divorce.
> 
> So ... things have been steaming along. Connection. Attraction. Comfort. Sex.
> Not at all an uncommon arc for the 30+ crowd in the timeframe they have been together.
> 
> It's all very early, but lets face it, that never stops anyone from speculating about the future and screwing up a good thing NOW.
> She sees a future with him. Wants a future with him. But ... she's basically freezing him out because she's afraid she's jumping the gun.
> She is in my estimation, 'afraid to fail again'. So ... her mind is doing back-flips over thinking that she needs to have seen more people
> prior to settling on one, versus believing that she has found a guy she could settle with.
> 
> My sniffer is pretty good when it comes to BS. Based on what he shared, I don't get the sense at all that this is a case of her alienating him to the point where he just goes away, because she's disintereste. Her inner housewife wants my friend. Her inner party girl wants to know what else is out there. And the
> daughter in her, feels like she failed herself, her siblings, and her parents by getting a divorce. In a nutshell she wants to keep him around and wants to be exclusive, but doesn't want to talk about being exclusive. She wants the 'sense' that she is still independent and not 'suffocated'.
> *She actually used the word suffocating, which I find telling.
> *
> So we talked about game. And he HATED it.
> "Why does it have to be that way?"


I was thinking about this story today, and I find myself wondering why the need to invoke game. The relationship is but 5 weeks old and she has said that she feels suffocated. This is more than telling, IMO. It is a fairly clear expression that for her the 5 weeks isn't enough for her to commit, and it's time to back off. Isn't it?

If a guy ever told me he felt suffocated, that would be my first thought . Surely that's not game, but just common sense?


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> I was thinking about this story today, and I find myself wondering why the need to invoke game. The relationship is but 5 weeks old and she has said that she feels suffocated. This is more than telling, IMO. It is a fairly clear expression that for her the 5 weeks isn't enough for her to commit, and it's time to back off. Isn't it?
> 
> If a guy ever told me he felt suffocated, that would be my first thought . *Surely that's not game, but just common sense?*


Many aspects of game _are_ common sense.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

always_alone said:


> I was thinking about this story today, and I find myself wondering why the need to invoke game. The relationship is but 5 weeks old and she has said that she feels suffocated. This is more than telling, IMO. It is a fairly clear expression that for her the 5 weeks isn't enough for her to commit, and it's time to back off. Isn't it?
> 
> If a guy ever told me he felt suffocated, that would be my first thought . Surely that's not game, but just common sense?



He might not have the awareness.


----------



## always_alone

DaddyLongShanks said:


> Being yourself can change? What if you add new skills, reduce or remove old fears? Add or build confidence?
> 
> Is that still you?


Absolutely. Change is good. Growth is good. It is not the alterations to the self that I find problematic. It is the approach to them.

But if game helps to make you a better person, and gets you what you want, then by all means. Have at it.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> I was thinking about this story today, and I find myself wondering why the need to invoke game. The relationship is but 5 weeks old and she has said that she feels suffocated. This is more than telling, IMO. It is a fairly clear expression that for her the 5 weeks isn't enough for her to commit, and it's time to back off. Isn't it?
> 
> If a guy ever told me he felt suffocated, that would be my first thought . Surely that's not game, but just common sense?


You're misreading it ... ya'know ... because of that little thing we all have called bias. Yours prevents you from seeing anything redeeming about 'game'. At least that is certainly the impression I get. I could be wrong. I've been wrong once or twice before.

She used the word suffocated. Not him. She didn't use it in direct reference to him. She used in the overall sense of fearing that feeling as a result of committing to a new relationship. Committed relationships are by definition; committed. 

As others stated, and I agree with, my colleague is the first man she has been intimate with post-divorce. That's going to bring up some stuff. I relayed this to my friend, and he looked heartbroken. He said "but we talked about this. She said that she had moved past the ex and the divorce. She assured me, so she lied?"
I looked at him rather pitifully, he knew what the look meant.

He wants to be with this girl. His first instinct is to hound her for reassurance that she will be. So ... that would be him being 'genuine'. You tell me, do really think that would work?

My pointing out that invoking game would be beneficial is for him ... not her. This example coalesces everything I have been trying to say about game.

Right now? She is subconsciously looking for reasons to torpedo the relationship. 'He lives too far away.' 'He won't move closer.' 'He's a libertarian' 'He doesn't like little dogs.' 'He wants children' 'He doesn't want children.' Any silly thing can be turned into a red flag. And that ... is a game. It most certainly isn't genuine ... or maybe you think it is?

So if he were to chase her, beg, cry, plead for answers, or her love, or to help him see or feel that she still loves him, because he doesn't want to lose her and he's hurting ... he WILL lose her.

So when I say I talked to him about game, I wasn't talking about negging, framing, cat-string theory, kinosthetics, or openers. I was talking to him about the other facet of game that I think most guys here are actually talking about and has been mentioned previously ... inner game.

What I made him see was that what he wanted to do, the actions he felt compelled to take ... was in direct contradiction of the outcome he wants to foster. Being utterly, and completely, open, honest and genuine with his feelings right NOW, means she runs screaming for the hills feeling 'smothered' and overwhelmed. He needs to game himself. He needs to be confident and collected ... so she can feel confident and safe. Else, they both lose.

Clear as crystal to me of course, but I'd imagine it may muddy the water for the yet-to-be-believers, as well as the nay-sayers and rock-throwers.


----------



## Deejo

I'll also say, in contrast to the above, and in my own personal case, after M dropped the bomb on Easter, and I asked her on the phone, "Is your mind made up about this?" Her response was "Yes it is. Goodbye D."

I'm glad she wasn't being genuine.


----------



## Nsweet

Of course, she's going to feel suffocated by any new relationship! She's just divorced her exhusband, which I'm basing on the fact that women file for divorce 70-75% of the time. So she's still living in the denial of those greener pastures, looking to be enabled in her persuit of self gratification, and dating to fill the void instead of looking for a healthy relationship. Very narcissistic tendencies too!

Hearing that she feels "suffocated" by him after just 5 weeks is a pretty big red flag for narcissism too. Narcissists can't stand it when their love interest gets too close, because they don't actually like themselves and hold resentment for anyone who whould love them without making them earn it. I should know, been through a few very short relationships with those "perfect" girls. 

If you're buddy want her back, or ever want to stand a chance with another girl he needs to learn how to game properly. And my type of game is not about toying with her to get anything from her. My game in short, is all about finding that girl you really want and holding back on seduction to avoid moving too fast which allows you to know her better. Make sense? You resist temptation and build up sexual tension slowly, rather than push everything with her and use trickery to get sexual touch. 

You've already tried to knock some sense into him about chasing her, great. But he's not going to get it unless you teach him everything about the 180 and the dangle technique. The 180 you already know, don't chase and such and no gifts unless she's earned them. The dangle technique is everything I said above about taking your time to build up sexual attraction by moving slowly. 

With that you do not touch her, you do not try to kiss her, and you do not try to have sex with her until like the 7th or 8th date when she feels comfortable with you. To avoid being in the friend zone you do let her know you find her attractive in the beginning, but then don't try to act on it or talk about sex. It works wonderfully because it's the way women prefer it. 

If you want to tell him the best way to get over her and how to get her to chase him, tell your friend to find another woman ASAP. This is not to use the other woman and their relationship as dait-bait, because you already know she's toxic. Even being around other women who like him will help him get over, LOL, a 5 week relationship.

You might want to tell him about BPD & NPD and why you should avoid saying "I love you" in those first couple of months even if she cries when you won't say it back. Because someone with poor boundaries may want you to say "I love you" too soon, and you really should learn to show your love more often and make those words very special and very well deserved. I like the 90 day rule for this and waiting to see if I still love her after her problems start to arise. 

I also got to give you a real life example of a girl who said this to me, and told me she never wanted to see me again after just a couple weeks of dating platonically and long distance. Now I wanted to break up with her because we had nothing in common and she was dim and would always get confused when we spoke, but she was also a pretty little redhead with a baby. After the breakup she started calling me because I took it so well, relieved actually.Then she started calling every couple of days to talk for a few, sending pics of her in front of the mirror (fully dressed), and texting me little things. When I got married, eloped actually, I called her in front of my new wife to kindly tell her to stop, that was the longest we talked in a long while. Guess what happened next, she didn't stop calling me! She almost ruined my first year of marriage by trying to make my wife jealous, then she finally went away. Then she came back after a year or so to "meet" me. She was really adamant on meeting me ASAP and going out, which was not cool with my wife but she said she trusted me, but she creeped me out so bad. I eventually found a way to lose her, I called her crying about my day and told her how all my hopes and dreams had been crushed and that I needed her now more than ever..... Worked like a charm! I later found out she was looking for some sex on the side while her new husband and the baby's father was fighting in Afghanistan. No loss there.:rofl: Just goes to show you the most narcissist want what they can't have the most.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> She used the word suffocated. Not him. She didn't use it in direct reference to him. She used in the overall sense of fearing that feeling as a result of committing to a new relationship. Committed relationships are by definition; committed.


But that's what I mean. If she's feeling smothered or suffocated, isn't that a giant warning sign that it's time to step back a bit?

And couldn't he then just say, something like "I'm sorry you feel this way. I'd like to keep seeing you. I think we're good together. Is there a way we can make this work?"



Deejo said:


> He wants to be with this girl. His first instinct is to hound her for reassurance that she will be. So ... that would be him being 'genuine'. You tell me, do really think that would work?


I get that he genuinely likes her and wants it to work. But clearly hounding her won't work. She isn't ready to be committed, and so no matter how much he hounds her, she will not and cannot offer the reassurance he is seeking. So he needs to decide how he wants to respond to that. Further begging would just be banging his head against a wall.



Deejo said:


> My pointing out that invoking game would be beneficial is for him ... not her. This example coalesces everything I have been trying to say about game.
> 
> Right now? She is subconsciously looking for reasons to torpedo the relationship. 'He lives too far away.' 'He won't move closer.' 'He's a libertarian' 'He doesn't like little dogs.' 'He wants children' 'He doesn't want children.' Any silly thing can be turned into a red flag. And that ... is a game. It most certainly isn't genuine ... or maybe you think it is?


I do realize that your advice about game was to benefit him, not her. And maybe he does need it, if she really is playing games with him. I couldn't say for sure with what little I know. But it sounds to me like she is genuinely unsure of how she feels, and is therefore unwilling to commit. It's unfortunate for him, to be sure, but really not very surprising. It's only been 5 weeks!



Deejo said:


> What I made him see was that what he wanted to do, the actions he felt compelled to take ... was in direct contradiction of the outcome he wants to foster. Being utterly, and completely, open, honest and genuine with his feelings right NOW, means she runs screaming for the hills feeling 'smothered' and overwhelmed. He needs to game himself. He needs to be confident and collected ... so she can feel confident and safe. Else, they both lose.


I can see that your advice got him to where he needed to be, especially if he is refusing to tolerate her uncertainty. That's the most important thing. And I can certainly appreciate the self improvement goals that some posters have been advocating in this thread. Ironically, though, it seems the best parts of game utterly contradict its origins.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I'll also say, in contrast to the above, and in my own personal case, after M dropped the bomb on Easter, and I asked her on the phone, "Is your mind made up about this?" Her response was "Yes it is. Goodbye D."
> 
> I'm glad she wasn't being genuine.


But wouldn't it have been better still if she had been completely genuine, and found a way to talk to you, rather than dumping you in the first place?


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



always_alone said:


> But wouldn't it have been better still if she had been completely genuine, and found a way to talk to you, rather than dumping you in the first place?


Of course. But who gets to decide what's genuine?

Had I presumed she had done all of her emotional due diligence and truly just walked away, we'd be done. Had we not had the emotional investment we did, I likely wouldnt have reached out at all.

I don't mean to criticize you, but there appears to be an awful lot of evaluation of the circumstances after the fact.

In general, my experience with people, particularly when it comes to emotions appears to be very different than yours, and I'm wondering if that can be true.

I readily accept that people will say one thing but will mean, or do, something completely different. 

I accept that they can love you on Monday, and be screaming 'I hate you.' on Friday and that both circumstances can be genuine. Or ... neither may be genuine. Its how people are.

We've come around the bend again. Nobody here is advocating the use of game to leave a path of emotional human wreckage in ones wake. I recognize that there are those who do.

In my buddies case she wants him to stick around. But she doesn't want the feeling of being joined at the hip. Is she crazy? I don't think so. Is she human? Most certainly. And there are ways to deal with that and assure that everyone is still happy.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



always_alone said:


> If a guy ever told me he felt suffocated, that would be my first thought . Surely that's not game, but just common sense?


Does everyone you know display or use common sense at all times?


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> And I can certainly appreciate the self improvement goals that some posters have been advocating in this thread. Ironically, though, it seems the best parts of game utterly contradict its origins.


Well yes, this is true.

It's also true that we used to walk around naked on our knuckles and fling poop when we were angry.

We evolve. So does the nature and dynamic of how we relate to one another.

Maybe, someday ... we will evolve to that place when both sexes can read the mind of the other ... and won't that be a train wreck. 

I have to confess, if human interactions were always pure, real, honest, and devoid of uncertainty ... they wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable as I find them to be.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> I have to confess, if human interactions were always pure, real, honest, and devoid of uncertainty ......
> .


.......then we'd all be like Commander Data of Star Treck.
No longer human, just highly intellectual beings , capable of complex calculations, full of reasoning and logic, but unable to feel emotions.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Posture mostly, if someone has their head down/eyes down avoiding looking at people or talking then yes probs insecure. If someone is standing in the corner just looking disinterested in what others are doing could be strong and silent.


Improving posture is one of the things a guy can do to improve his attractiveness because it makes him look more confident.

I wonder if standing straight instead of naturally slouching is viewed as "fake" like all of the other social improvements I've been referring to... or is something fake only when its verbal? This is just silly folks.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls..."We're just talking about how our experience differs."
> 
> Well, not really...you are talking about how your experience is the only one that counts and that my experience is not true.


And you're not? lol

Honestly, I don't even know what your case is. That any male can find some female? Duh?

My position has been very clear, even though you don't really like hyperbole.

SHY MEN DO NOT "PULL" WOMEN. Unless you think a random rare aggressive woman that he didn't actually target counts as "pulling women". SHY men get the few that come their way... and its extremely dependent on his looks.

If that's pulling women, omg... I can't wait to tell everyone on seddit that they have it all wrong. The best strategy is to sit in a bar not talking to anyone... but be sure to have good posture so you look like the strong silent type.

Just to let you in on something... this "strong silent" type thing is all in your head. Its a judgement you're making solely on his looks with no evidentiary basis. Its as accurate as me thinking the blonde bombshell that just walked in is a ditz; Or the girl with the black frame glasses is artistic.

He's silent. That's all. Everything else is something you're attaching to his looks. So what you're really saying is you're attracted to physically attractive men. Damn... I wish I had thought of that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Created, Dvls...I now pronounce you, the same person. You may kiss yourself.


Tonights gonna be a good night! Bow Chicka Bow Wow!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> My husband is in for quite the surprise tonight when I'm replaced by a husky handsome pickup artist with a cowboy hat...


...aaaanddd there's a side effect I had not considered.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



michzz said:


> Used to?


Can't really argue that point.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls said: "SHY MEN DO NOT "PULL" WOMEN. Unless you think a random rare aggressive woman that he didn't actually target counts as "pulling women". SHY men get the few that come their way... and its extremely dependent on his looks."

Who are you to decide how other people get together is or isn't "the good way" or "the valid way"? There are shy men and there are agressive women, of ALL types of looks, and these two types make really great couples sometimes. How in the world did you get to the point where you believe you can judge other people's relationships as invalid? It is not random and it is not rare.



Dvls said: "If that's pulling women, omg... I can't wait to tell everyone on seddit that they have it all wrong. The best strategy is to sit in a bar not talking to anyone... but be sure to have good posture so you look like the strong silent type."

Why do you think that seddit is the only place where people might discuss men and women meeting? Why are they to judge what is good or bad as far as the way people meet each other? People meet at work, in class, on the bus, in church, through friends, online dating, picking up their kids from school...I don't get your reasoning here that seddit is the place of authority or that those guys are the only ones who have it going on. Ever thought that maybe guys who do pull babes don't bother writing about it on message boards? 



Dvls said: "Just to let you in on something... this "strong silent" type thing is all in your head. Its a judgement you're making solely on his looks with no evidentiary basis. Its as accurate as me thinking the blonde bombshell that just walked in is a ditz; Or the girl with the black frame glasses is artistic."

It is a judgment I'm making based on WHOSE looks? I know strong, shy, silent types personally and well. I used to be married to one and I work with, am related to and am friends with several others. How are you comparing that to you seeing a strange girl walk into a bar and trying ascertain her personality?

Believe whatever you want, my dear Dvls.

I know wonderful men of all types of personalty and all types of looks who are in good relationships or successfully dating. I *know* them personally. You can try to judge these men however you please, but you don't know them and I do.

Yes, I also know some men who really need some game and don't pull chicks. So please don't come back and just share with me stories of dateless men you know. I know them, too.

But there are MORE than just that type of men out there, Dvls. Much, much more.

Please note, I am NOT saying that YOUR way doesn't work for you and many others.

I am simply saying that in millions of cases of relationships, people really did just be themselves and end up meeting the love of their lives and lived happily ever after. You seem to doubt that any man who doesn't have the type of game you speak of can pull babes, and the main reason you seem to be using as an argument is to say these women I'm calling babes are actually unattractive. Do you think that unattractive people "don't count" or something? WTF? People of all types of looks find each other and mate, some without ever using what you call game. Some are totally insecure. Some make HUGE relationship mistakes....and yet they make their way through it.


----------



## Created2Write

FrenchFry said:


> I get the impression you are missing my point as well.


I hope I am. Because what I see you to be saying sounds absolutely horrible. I could never live such a cautious life; always considering the pros and cons of changing something I'm dissatisfied with. If I sat and thought about every single thing I wanted to change about myself, or have changed about myself, before I made those changes and asked myself, "Is this a sincere change? Will I be fake or unhappy if I change this?", I would feel like there was no point in existing. There are _always_ negatives with every choice we make. The ultimate goal should be the best _we_ want to be. If a person is happiest being less outgoing, then they shouldn't change no matter what society tells them. But if a man can't even approach a woman without having a mild panic attack, or getting all nervous and insecure, I applaud him for being brave and facing his fears and insecurities head on. Very few people do this in life, imo, and they should be applauded, not berated and told, "You should think carefully about this". I'm sure they've thought about it many times before actually taking the step to change.

If I make a change to my life or to me, and a few months later find that I'm less happy than I was before I changed that thing, I can always change back. It's not it's irreversible. We should all pursue what makes us happy. If that means adding a new interest, or overcoming a fear, or conquering a shortcoming, then we should do it.



> Or maybe not!
> 
> I have zero problem believing that Deejo and Dvls are happy with how PUA has changed them in a positive manner.
> 
> Then there guys like this who get taken in by the premise, spend a ****ton of money trying to...get women? Gain confidence? And end up bitter and screwed up about men, women and gaming in general.


Because they misunderstand the point. The point isn't to go and buy a sports car so you can _pretend_ to be rich; the goal isn't to go out and buy a whole new wardrobe so you can _pretend_ to be into a certain fashion; the goal isn't to add a bunch of interests that you care nothing about so you can _pretend_ to relate to people. The goal is to change what you are genuinely unsatisfied with in regards to yourself, and keep the things you like. The point is to be happy. 

Most people can sense "fake" anyway. Maybe not right at first, but as you continue to talk to them, it becomes plain that the aren't their own person. That is an incredibly unattractive quality. 

Of course someone will be bitter if they spent a lot of money trying to get women. The changes won't be sincere, they won't feel confident, they'll only be pretending to be confident, so they won't actually be happy. But for those who don't want to be insecure any longer, and they apply principles to overcome their insecurity, they _will_ be happy. They won't have to pretend any more; they won't have to spend oodles of money being who they really aren't. In fact, being true to yourself is an important aspect of overcoming insecurity. If you have to fake everything about yourself, you're still insecure. Being "secure" and "confident" means that you're true to yourself and proud to be you.



> My point is for all of the positives that get talked about by the gamers who found this successful, there are also potential negatives and before you go changing your self *in any way,* you might want to take into account both sides and promoters will most likely not tell you the potential negatives.
> 
> Potential negative: Changing your personality may not actually make you happier/more confident/more successful with women.


"Personality" covers a lot of things, though. If someone goes from being insecure to being secure, the rest of their personality can remain intact. You seem to think that if you change one aspect of yourself, the rest of who you are suddenly disappears. Even a substantial change, like going from being insecure to being confident, won't inevitably change everything about a person. They'll still have their sense of humor, their interests, their strengths, their other weaknesses, their lifestyle choices; the difference is that they will be proud of who they are now, whereas they weren't before.



> Potential negative: Changing your personality may make you more attractive to the kind of men/women who aren't really a good match for you in other aspects.


There are always potential negatives to change, any change. We don't know what will or won't happen. Should we sacrifice our happiness because we _might_ attract a certain type that we don't like or won't be a good match for us? I mean, that negative is present no regardless of whether or not we're confident or insecure. Even without changing that aspect, that negative exists. Being insecure, for instance, could attract a man or woman with abusive and controlling tendencies.

In my opinion these fears do not outweigh the chance for someone to be truly happy and content with themselves.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Improving posture is one of the things a guy can do to improve his attractiveness because it makes him look more confident.
> 
> I wonder if standing straight instead of naturally slouching is viewed as "fake" like all of the other social improvements I've been referring to... or is something fake only when its verbal? This is just silly folks.


Oh I'm not naive enough to not know that this can be 'game', but it's a game I'm more likely to join in with.
Everybody has front where I grew up in every aspect of there life so I automatically assume someone is fronting until I get to observe them better.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls said: "SHY MEN DO NOT "PULL" WOMEN. Unless you think a random rare aggressive woman that he didn't actually target counts as "pulling women". SHY men get the few that come their way... and its extremely dependent on his looks."
> 
> Who are you to decide how other people get together is or isn't "the good way" or "the valid way"? There are shy men and there are agressive women, of ALL types of looks, and these two types make really great couples sometimes. How in the world did you get to the point where you believe you can judge other people's relationships as invalid? It is not random and it is not rare.


He's NOT judging anyone's relationship as invalid. He's saying the shy men don't "pull" women; he didn't say they don't "attract" them. You're misunderstanding his point. 

A confidant man is going to approach a woman, talk to her, flirt, neg, etc. A shy man is going to be approached _by the woman._ She is pulling HIM. 



> Dvls said: "If that's pulling women, omg... I can't wait to tell everyone on seddit that they have it all wrong. The best strategy is to sit in a bar not talking to anyone... but be sure to have good posture so you look like the strong silent type."
> 
> Why do you think that seddit is the only place where people might discuss men and women meeting? Why are they to judge what is good or bad as far as the way people meet each other? People meet at work, in class, on the bus, in church, through friends, online dating, picking up their kids from school...I don't get your reasoning here that seddit is the place of authority or that those guys are the only ones who have it going on. Ever thought that maybe guys who do pull babes don't bother writing about it on message boards?
> 
> Dvls said: "Just to let you in on something... this "strong silent" type thing is all in your head. Its a judgement you're making solely on his looks with no evidentiary basis. Its as accurate as me thinking the blonde bombshell that just walked in is a ditz; Or the girl with the black frame glasses is artistic."
> 
> It is a judgment I'm making based on WHOSE looks? I know strong, shy, silent types personally and well. I used to be married to one and I work with, am related to and am friends with several others. How are you comparing that to you seeing a strange girl walk into a bar and trying ascertain her personality?
> 
> Believe whatever you want, my dear Dvls.
> 
> I know wonderful men of all types of personalty and all types of looks who are in good relationships or successfully dating. I *know* them personally. You can try to judge these men however you please, but you don't know them and I do.


I'm sure he's known his fair share of them too, FW. You keep accusing him of being judgmental, when you're doing the same thing. 



> Yes, I also know some men who really need some game and don't pull chicks. So please don't come back and just share with me stories of dateless men you know. I know them, too.
> 
> But there are MORE than just that type of men out there, Dvls. Much, much more.


Which he has never argued. He lives in the same world you do, and likely knows plenty of men of all personality types.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created...you know I love you and all...but can Dvls just speak for himself to me, or do you have to back him up on every post I write to HIM, before HE even has a chance to?

I understand you agree with him. I get it. Can we just leave it at that? I don't really want to have to make the same argument to two people.

Feel free to bash me yourself. I'll just let you have at it as you are too prolific to keep up with.


----------



## Nsweet

She men DO PULL WOMEN when in their right game zones!

I've seen shy guys work it one of two ways, either they did their own thing like read books at the park and let women come to them, or the got a little more invested and played guitar or picked up women at shoppes using non aggressive openers and comforting small talk. They really shine when they can get women away from crouds and show them their sensitive side.

The myth of the shy guy, who's always shy is just a myth. They have their moments but nobody gives them credit. And I'll remind you there are women who like the challenge of getting them to open up more just like how men go after the good girls. And whatabout internet dating, lots of shy guys clean up and seem more extroverted when on the first date.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Created...you know I love you and all...but can Dvls just speak for himself to me, or do you have to back him up on every post I write to HIM, before HE even has a chance to?
> 
> I understand you agree with him. I get it. Can we just leave it at that? I don't really want to have to make the same argument to two people.
> 
> Feel free to bash me yourself. I'll just let you have at it as you are too prolific to keep up with.


I now have to censor who I respond to? Seriously? 

You know, sometimes it _helps_ to have two people explaining a similar idea. One often words it differently than the other to offer better perspective. 

You can always choose not to respond or read my posts, if that will make things easier for you.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Has anyone's mind changed?
> 
> There are those who value authenticity and open learning and expression as the foundation of their relationships and care about the source and credibility of the source more so than whether or not it works.
> 
> There are those that value experimentation as a way to discover what they like and dislike in regards to personality traits and relationships and do not care as much about the source and credibility of the source if the information provided works in practice.
> 
> Okies!


And then there are those who value the first one AND like to experiment what they like in regards to personality.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Pickup and Game Thread Never Ever Ends ... Ever


Right. Because it's a game. And games are supposed to be fun ... not evil.

My buddies gf called him last night. They talked for an hour plus.

She said, "You're the right person at the wrong time. I don't want to hurt you."

Sounds sweet doesn't it? "I'm busy and stressed and I like you, but I'm not really sure how much, so I hope you stick around, but I know I can't ask you to do that, even though I'm keeping my options open, and I'll be p!ssed if you start seeing other people."

He followed my suggestion and reached out to her today, and said, "Finish school. I don't want to see or hear from you until the end of May." 

Gives them both some time.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> And you're not? lol
> 
> Honestly, I don't even know what your case is. That any male can find some female? Duh?
> 
> My position has been very clear, even though you don't really like hyperbole.
> 
> SHY MEN DO NOT "PULL" WOMEN. Unless you think a random rare aggressive woman that he didn't actually target counts as "pulling women". SHY men get the few that come their way... and its extremely dependent on his looks.
> 
> If that's pulling women, omg... I can't wait to tell everyone on seddit that they have it all wrong. The best strategy is to sit in a bar not talking to anyone... but be sure to have good posture so you look like the strong silent type.
> 
> Just to let you in on something... this "strong silent" type thing is all in your head. Its a judgement you're making solely on his looks with no evidentiary basis. Its as accurate as me thinking the blonde bombshell that just walked in is a ditz; Or the girl with the black frame glasses is artistic.
> 
> He's silent. That's all. Everything else is something you're attaching to his looks. So what you're really saying is you're attracted to physically attractive men. Damn... I wish I had thought of that.


Maybe she's attracted to physically attractive men who don't talk to much.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Yes. This. The whole premise of game is insincerity. You don't get to be yourself, you aim to be something that women want.


You know everyone seeks social acceptance right? Its an instrinsic quality of being human.

Makeup; Doing your hair; Breathmints... these aren't things you do for you. You do them for the acceptance of others. Otherwise we're being ourselves and going out with our sincerely stinky breath. 

We are social creatures. Social acceptance, like it or not, is fundementally necessary to human health. Very social people are even proven to live longer.

Shyness isn't YOU. Slouching isn't YOU. Walking on eggshells afraid something you say might be found offensive isn't YOU. Confidence or lack thereof isn't YOU either. All of this is you as much as a hairstyle is you. None of this defines who you are. These are all choices.

Game isn't changing who you are.


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Trenton said:


> Your example of the above is the stupid crap I never want to deal with ever, won't be attracted to it, don't want to be involved in it.


Your just happy to have a good relationship and to take care of it...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Daddy, I wasn't talking about my own attraction types...but Dvls thinks I was.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Trenton said: "Your example of the above is the stupid crap I never want to deal with ever, won't be attracted to it, don't want to be involved in it."

Do you mean the little break up thing they did?


----------



## Nsweet

Trenton said:


> Sigh.
> 
> So sum up the different sides to this argument, unless you're suggesting there are more than two, then please offer me them all.
> 
> I'm so confused by all the silly typing that I've no idea wth the point is.


No, to sum it up there are men and a few ladies posting who know what game is. REAL GENIUNE GAME and know how it transforms through a relationship. 

And then there's a bunch of women here who think they know but only have speculations, gists, bad memories of being hit on, and a few pages out of hundreds of possible PUA books read. They think they know EVERYTHING and can speak for EVERYBODY and tell what works and what doesn't, but they have no freakin idea! 

Those are going to be the ladies who can't understand how an affair "just happened", because they were so full of it then could read about it with an open mind to maybe know how it works instead of telling their church lady opinion. ANGRY FACE!!!!!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> Me too
> 
> Damn. Why do I have such a crappy sense of humor?
> 
> I must master new sense of humor now. (I'm still kidding!)


I would recommend some good books on comedy, but there's often a lot of setup involved. It might be too insincere for you.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh Trenton...you left yourself wide open on that one.
> 
> Of course he is 12. Inches.


Wide open for 12 inches... 

ouch?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> Well it worked for me,
> And its still working today in our marriage.
> Both my wife and I like to talk and laugh,
> _A lot_.....


Laughing? God... that's aweful. How does she put up with you?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> On a more interesting note:
> 
> 
> 
> I'M PREGNANT!!!


Wow! CONGRATS! :smthumbup:

Was this planned?


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Not when both are so verbose. Then it's just a lot of repeat reading and high five'ing.


Then ignore what I write. I won't be offended.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Wow! CONGRATS! :smthumbup:
> 
> Was this planned?


Nope, it definitely wasn't. lol. And that's why I about had a heart attack when I saw the positive test.


----------



## Nsweet

Trenton said:


> Yeah. OK. Glad your reading comprehension is about equal to your game.


Clever. You got any small penis jokes or comments you wanna throw at me about not being a "real" man? 

I'm just glad you're here with us to give your over opinionated often missing the point side no one asked for and be as rude as you want to those with something inteligent to say.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Nsweet said:


> I've seen shy guys work it one of two ways, either they did their own thing like read books at the park and let women come to them, or the got a little more invested and played guitar or picked up women at shoppes using non aggressive openers and comforting small talk. *They really shine when they can get women away from crouds and show them their sensitive side.*


 ABSOLUTELY !



> The myth of the shy guy, who's always shy is just a myth. They have their moments but nobody gives them credit. *And I'll remind you there are women who like the challenge of getting them to open up more just like how men go after the good girls.*


 I am being a broken record again....Yep.. some of us women are like this.... This is all ME... (once the guy puts himself out there)... when we dated..through all these yrs really....when this song comes on the radio >> He's so shy ..... I'll grab him / a big grin singing every word ...that's just how I've always felt .


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Nsweet said:


> Clever. You got any small penis jokes or comments you wanna throw at me about not being a "real" man?
> 
> I'm just glad you're here with us to give your over opinionated often missing the point side no one asked for and be as rude as you want to those with something inteligent to say.


Dude, just be yourself and maybe she'll go away.


----------



## Faithful Wife

(Trenton...I, personally, DO ask you to please keep it coming with your opinion).


----------



## Faithful Wife

SA....I love that Pointer Sisters song! So cute!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Nsweet said:


> But I keep going back to the two things that helped me get dates when I was a lovable loser, which transpired into marriage, and into having that irresistible factor for women.*Direct eye contact* & *Attention to details* Those two things have never failed me and they are so natural I never had to lie once I figured this stuff out.


Eye contact is one of the easiest and key things I tell people to do. Men or women, doesn't matter.

I still remember how excited I was to discover how effective it was to not be the first to look away. You and hottie across the room lock eyes... you HOLD it until she looks away. If she doesn't, well, a couple seconds of staring into anyone's eyes WILL naturally make you both smile... and at that point, you're golden. If she does look away, she almost always looks again and shys away once more. But if the guy looks away first, she's much less likely to look again. 

Its a dominance game of some kind imo, and for whatever reason... it is a huge a winner; and its sooo simple!

How insincere.


----------



## Nsweet

Ladies and gentle men, THIS IS GAME! This is what I've been trying to write about and have you comprehend!

If I didn't know any better I'd mistake their testing me and busting my balls a little as a direct attack and get offended. But I know, they're not really that upset and they're having too much fun with this thread. 

In game, in dating knowhow for lack of a better word, you have to not be afraid to rial a few women up, you have to know how to keep the situation under control, you have to know how to handle tests, and you just plain have to have fun with what aggrivating ball busters women can be.

For the most part I just think of everything a woman says as a test for the first few phases of attraction and avoid those pitfalls like giving her the thrill of teasing me or ticking me off. Not gonna work on me, I grew up with the mean women of the villiage and learned all their game. 

Now I could take it a number of different ways, but I think I'll keep it light and fun and just day....

What's the matter Trenton you run out of those small penis jokes with your husband?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Nsweet...you confuse me. I would love to read your posts, but you end up insulting people for no reason, so I end up ignoring them.


----------



## Nsweet

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Eye contact is one of the easiest and key things I tell people to do. Men or women, doesn't matter.
> 
> I still remember how excited I was to discover how effective it was to not be the first to look away. You and hottie across the room lock eyes... you HOLD it until she looks away. If she doesn't, well, a couple seconds of staring into anyone's eyes WILL naturally make you both smile... and at that point, you're golden. If she does look away, she almost always looks again and shys away once more. But if the guy looks away first, she's much less likely to look again.
> 
> Its a dominance game of some kind imo, and for whatever reason... it is a huge a winner; and its sooo simple!
> 
> How insincere.


Which would lead perfectly into the 3 second rule. 

The three second rule is where you get that green light to go over there and meet her and you have only have three seconds to force yourself to do it or you'll chicken out and lose than window of opportunity. 

3 second rule works wonders, but it's going to feels like an eternity getting over to her and the whole time you're heart is beating a mile a minute. It's exciting and scary, everything moves in slow motion, a lot like riding a roller coaster.


----------



## Nsweet

Faithful Wife said:


> Nsweet...you confuse me. I would love to read your posts, but you end up insulting people for no reason, so I end up ignoring them.


That's the thing, if I seem like I'm being a jerk I'm usually just being ****y and assertive.... It seems to magnify 10X in my writing. But if I seem like a real assh*le, then I'm actually trying to be. You'll know I'm being an ass hat if I use a lot of these "!!!!!!!!!"


----------



## Nsweet

Trenton said:


> I'm really bored at work so that's why I keep typing here. That is if you want the actual truth.
> 
> It's not my intention to get you offended or angry. I'm just passing time. I get, at this point, that we will not understand one another. After many attempts, I've resolved this.
> 
> Asking twice about small penises and when I'm going to whip them out in my text via snide remarks is not light or fun. It's redundant.


Like I said, you can't get me upset. I'm trained to remain calm under stress and handle people yellling in my face trying to tear me down on a daily basis. 

You're right, I just went there because the small penis remark is like a woman's number one silver bullet to get under a guy's skin when she's offended. Number one next to "You're not a man", "you're a momma's boy, worse than your father", and "you don't earn enough" in some variant or another in her top ten list. And when she's telling you this, she's also telling you what she likes herself. Haha, there are more truths in anger than they're are in love. 

It's like how I say a woman will only criticize it once. She'll criticize what she doesn't like only a couple times, when she's quiet it's like the quiet before a major storm, and when she explodes she's not going to filter anything..... So if she's doesn't like something you do or something about you even subconsciously, she'll tell you when she's furious.:rofl:


----------



## Created2Write

FrenchFry said:


> It's actually a really nice life.  This is reminding me of conversations I have with my hardcore extrovert friends who do not understand my need to drop off the face of the planet for a couple weeks. It's just a different mindset is all.


For clarification, I don't think people who are introverts should suddenly want to become extroverts. The world would be very dull if they did. I have some fantastic friends who are introverts. 



> Mystery now has an estranged GF and a daughter he rarely sees. Sometimes it isn't so easy.


Huh? 



> I agree, I'd love to see quotes from books or websites that say this, maybe I'm missing it. From my perspective, however, this is an independent conclusion that formed away from the community.


_If_ PUA and game really did teach men to change absolutely everything about themselves, or to pretend to be what they aren't, I doubt it would be a very successful lifestyle. Are there those who do those things and succeed at picking up women? Sure. Again, a little bit of confidence goes a long way. 

As for what the men _here_ have been saying, I don't see the promotion or encouraging of insincerity at all. 



> Depends on what their goal is. PUAs looking for ONS' have success in being fake long enough to get into someone's pants.
> Add alcohol (which is recommended in a few places) and it becomes a non-factor.


Right...but not every PUA looking for a ONS is going to fake anything. I'm sure some do, but to assume that they all do is to make a judgment that no one here is qualified to make.




> Again, I'd love to see where this is promoted. The money making PUAs don't want you to be secure. They want you to be on edge, to buy more books, more tapes and more seminars. They are entrepreneurs at their core, and like anyone who is trying to sell me something, I look at every aspect of their product.


Firstly, you and I don't know the intentions of those writers. It's impossible to know. That's like saying that, because Mary Kay consultants are trying to sell you makeup and skincare products, they think you're ugly. Or that the author of 5LL doesn't really care about marriages, he just wants to sell books. Could it be true? Sure. Does that change the principles in the books/company? No.



> I have no beef with the people who take something positive away from them, but I truly do not believe that they have anyone's best interests at heart, except for themselves.


But we're not talking about them. We're talking about the people who apply the principles. Regardless of what the authors want, it's the _men who use the books_ that are either sincere or insincere in their changes.



> This is what you are taking from me and not what I mean at all. I'll try and see if I can expand on it.
> 
> I'm fairly introverted. I can be more extroverted with an internal push and be equally happy for a medium amount of time, I can even extend it for as long as it socially suits me as long as I am seeing returns. I even like being extroverted at times because then I get to go see The Yeah Yeah Yeahs in 7 days.  But while I can push myself to be extroverted, I am most comfortable at home with a burrito and DS9 reruns.
> 
> I meet someone during an extroverted push phase. He really likes going out, he likes the Yeah Yeah Yeahs too and he likes going out all the time. We have other things in common, but we have mostly connected on going out and doing things. I like him a lot, enough to see the social return of being extroverted but because going out all of the time isn't who I am in the long run, I get exhausted and my personality reverts back to it's default state, which is on the couch with Chipotle.
> 
> Person I met: Why don't you like going out anymore?
> Me: I do, but I like burritos on the couch with you more.
> 
> We still might have some things in common, but if his attraction is based on a facet of personality that is not sustainable in the long run, issues occur. Personal experience talking here, and to use an example outside of myself, if Dvls ex was more honest with herself in the beginning that she liked being a homebody with kids more, those kind of stress issues might not have occurred.


Which is why no one is suggesting being fake or insincere. You _prefer_ being at home. You're _happiest_ as an introvert. Dvls *wasn't happy* as an insecure, shy man lacking confidence. Changing something you like about yourself is counterproductive. Changing something you don't like about yourself increases happiness, confidence and contentment. 

A personal example: I used to hate what I looked like without makeup. I might not even leave the house and I would put on foundation, concealer, blush, eyeshadow, eyeliner, mascara, lip liner, lipstick, lip gloss and do my hair. I had a horrible fear of being seen without makeup. I wasn't happy about it, so I actively started wearing less and less. Eventually, I was comfortable wearing little to no makeup. 



> So I congratulate people who change a facet of themselves that they don't like, whatever method they use. That isn't my issue. My issue ends up being without a good amount of introspection, changes like this may put you in bad situations.


_Not_ changing can put you in equally bad situations, or potentially worse. Imagine a person who is insecure and shy, and they hate not being able to meet new people. Imagine they think over the issues or bad situations that could arise from changing; change, in and of itself, can be a scary prospect. Venturing into completely unfamiliar territory, without knowing whether or not you will succeed; add to that the thought that the change might produce uncomfortable situations, and that might negate their resolve to change altogether. 

Which is worse? Changing an aspect you don't like to be happy, or living the rest of your life cautiously, but unhappily? 

I don't support pretending to be what you're not. I absolutely support changing what you don't like about yourself.



> If the change is what sacrifices your happiness, perhaps it would be a good idea to inspect that before you go whole hog on it.


I'm not sure what you mean by this...



> In my opinion, there isn't anything wrong with weight both sides for their happiness potential.


No, there's nothing wrong with that at all.


----------



## Nsweet

You're making me defend my comments more than Republican on trial. I said I think of everything a woman says as a test in the first few phases of attraction, that only like ten or fifteen minutes at the most of getting to know here where I'm holding myself back. I know a lot of the tests and that grin and look in the eye ladies get when they're just messing with you and want to see how you'll handle your response. 

The thing is IT WORKS! While I'm slowing everything down she says to regester it, because I want to see how she's going to react and change the conversation to match that, I'm also testing her too to see if she relationship material. 

And just so you ladies don't think this is game playing, it's really nothing more than seeing how she holds up to a list known or unknown of the values you want in a parter. Things like "If I mention loving kids will she come clean about her "baby sister" being HER baby? Or How can I tell she's being honest with me about her drug history being over? If I mention drugs later on I'll bet her eyes will tell me? These things you do naturally without really thinking about it, because dating is like interviewing for a job. 

I certainly would have fun teasing you and firing off those questions. "How was childbirth for you?"


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> I don't know. Is it written by a sexist man who thinks he knows every joke I'd ever find funny since I am a woman and because he is a Game King?
> 
> If it is, you'd be right...not interested.


Yes. Because every really good comedian is sexist... racist too. You don't watch much standup do you?


----------



## Created2Write

FrenchFry said:


> *C2W*
> Right, but I was talking more about the questioning everything way of living.  I enjoy questioning everything.


That's awesome for you.  I question those things which I think might effect _others_ in a major way. 



> Mystery is one of the big name PUA's. His gaming has gave him some not so positive results he can't really reverse.


I don't know his story; is the gaming that gave him those negative results, or other choices?



> I agree, which makes them better spokespeople than some other gamers, but I also think that we are only talking about the nice stuff. Which is cool with me, because the nice stuff is probably what is most impactful on marriages.


I don't think so. We've talked about negatives too, as well as things like negging and others which, to some, are positives and to others are negatives.



> I don't think it is impossible to know at all, especially when you can look at their words elsewhere. And for me, it absolutely changes the principles.


If the principles still work though, than the author's intentions(while not necessarily honorable) won't directly impact the people who use them. If Gary Chapman only wanted to sell books, it wouldn't change the effectiveness of the Five Love Languages. It would make his reasons for writing the principles pretty shallow, but since the principles happen to be sound and helpful for many, there could still be a lot of good to come from them. Even if the people you're referring to don't care about helping men gain confidence, the fact is that many _have_ gained confidence from things like game and PUA. That, imo, should _not_ be overlooked in this case.



> Not here, but go take a look at the realsocialdynamic forum and say the same thing.


I'll do that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> Ooooh pick me! Pick me!
> 
> I don't want to become more appealing.
> 
> If you were a lonely woman without a man and a book told you that in order to become more appealing you had to change your interests and talk less, would you?


Oh, lets not do half-measures... let's go full monty.

If you believed you would NEVER have a man that you wanted unless you changed something you do, would you change, or would you settle for what you didn't want (possibly having nothing at all)?

This is about contradictory desires. Its all about what's more important to you.

I think most people would rather change almost ANYTHING about themselves rather than be alone the rest of their lives. Thankfully, such tradeoffs aren't so dramatic in real life.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> You are making the same mistake again. Shy is not the opposite of confident. Insecure is the opposite of confident.
> But the opposite of shy is brash, and the opposite of quiet is loud.
> 
> So, yes, usually the confident person will be more appealing than the insecure one. (Usually. Some insecurities are endearing.) But brash and loud will not necessarily win out over shy and quiet. Brash and loud can be entertaining, it's true, but it can also be thoroughly obnoxious.


Nope. No mistake. I intentionally chose shyness vs confidence.

WHY is someone shy Always Alone? Hint hint... its the literal opposite of confidence.

Someone brash and loud is confident. Let me tell you, I've played both, and brash and loud is very often obnoxious and offputting to many but STILL attracts more women than shy. That's just how unattractive it is for a man to be shy.

Women want a man who will handle things, not shy away from them. FW's brother for example and his brash sexuality... wine me dine me sixy-nine me? Obnoxious to some... but he'll get a lot more women than a shy guy. He might be obnoxious, but women know he's not a coward.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I think most people would rather change almost ANYTHING about themselves rather than be alone the rest of their lives. Thankfully, such tradeoffs aren't so dramatic in real life.


:iagree:
I had to change,
Albeit drastically, before I could even kiss my wife ,who was just my friend back then....
Hell, I had to study books like " Love Languages" , " Why I won't tell you who I am", I had to go dating and marriage seminars,
I had to read tonnes of books on relationships,
before we could even say " I do" much less have sex.....


----------



## Nsweet

Whatever, I'm not arguing with you French Fry. You were right, I was wrong, I am sorry. Damn it, I'm a man, but I can change..... if I have to, I guess.

Rule #2: You'll never win an argument with a woman when she wants to win. 

You'd actually like me more in person, I'm less ****y and a little more reserved. But I walk and speak with an assertive side that turns heads even though I'm not trying to get attention. 

I'm 25yo, Coffee4me. Old soul, young breakable body.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Nope. No mistake. I intentionally chose shyness vs confidence.
> 
> WHY is someone shy Always Alone? Hint hint... its the literal opposite of confidence.
> 
> Someone brash and loud is confident. Let me tell you, I've played both, and brash and loud is very often obnoxious and offputting to many but STILL attracts more women than shy. That's just how unattractive it is for a man to be shy.
> 
> Women want a man who will handle things, not shy away from them. FW's brother for example and his brash sexuality... wine me dine me sixy-nine me? Obnoxious to some... but he'll get a lot more women than a shy guy. He might be obnoxious, but *women know he's not a coward.*


This is the crux of it for me. A man can seem obnoxious, he can be annoying, arrogant...qualities I'm not attracted to...and I'm still more likely to give him a second chance than a man who is too chicken to talk to me.


----------



## Nsweet

Created2Write said:


> This is the crux of it for me. A man can seem obnoxious, he can be annoying, arrogant...qualities I'm not attracted to...and I'm still more likely to give him a second chance than a man who is too chicken to talk to me.


There's no double standard there!

You could be the biggest b!tch of a man-eater telling us all how you're a royal pain in the ass, and guys would STILL be knocking each other down to talk to you. A shy little girl type might get one or two people approaching her if at all.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> There is nothing "blind squirrel" about it. Nor is it demanding that you have a running ticker tape announcing every stupid thought that crosses your mind.


How dare you conceal your intentions! I thought that was manipulation? What happened to being upfront and authentic?



always_alone said:


> Being authentic/direct isn't groping around in the dark or waiting for fortune to fall in your lap.


A guy with poor posture, poor eye contact, inability to hold an engaging conversation, inability to hold back, too "nice" because he likes her so much he's very careful to avoid saying anything that might upset her etc etc... ie no game... is ABSOLUTELY groping around in the dark waiting for fortune to fall into his lap.



always_alone said:


> It is being true to yourself, without worrying if people don't like you.


Uh oh... we may have made a connection...

Every single PUA book will tell you not to worry if people don't like you. Throw all of yourself out there. Hence the mantra: "give no f*cks" - outcome independence. Paradoxically, this makes you more attractive. Since other people don't actually SEE what you think, there is GAME: How you show that you're not worried about it. That's one of the intents of negging, for example. The truth is, people DO care. You do want a person you like to like you. To say that people don't actually care if they are liked is perhaps the most disingenuous comment in this thread. You actually do care. Everyone wants a person they like to like them. Oh... but the cliche is nice. You've missed the point of the cliche though. The point is to be yourself. Last I checked, standing up straight doesn't make me a different person.

I don't know what world you're in, but it sounds very dull. One thing I know without ANY doubt at all, is that if you come on to someone showing too much serious interest too quickly, she will in fact rabbit (as OP put it).

What?? He's being genuine!! He's being authentic!! Why did she bail when she would have gone for him if he withheld more? The real world all but requires a measure of game.



always_alone said:


> It is treating relationships as a meeting between equal individuals, not a series of machinations designed to elicit the responses you want.


Game is about attraction not relationships. 

Building that attraction is absolutely a machination... whether your aware you're doing it or not. Just as your wearing nicer clothes or putting on more make-up is a machination. It is superficial cat and mouse. It is only about attraction. It is absolutely about push-pull techniques and the like. It is playful. There are rules. That's why they call it game.

In all honesty, I think a lot of it is utterly stupid and inefficient, but you know what? I didn't design women! One particular example of stupid game that applies to most women that I find ridiculous, but which I've found to be a true fact of life: If a guy texts a woman more than she texts him, she WILL lose interest. If the degree to which he seeks her exceeds the degree to which she seeks him, she WILL lose interest. All he has to do is keep it balanced or make sure she is seeking him more than he seeks her and she'll be all about him (all other things being the same).

This has nothing to do with authenticity. There is psychology behind it, but AFC out there is oblivious... and never quite understands why he's giving all this attentiveness to show how much he likes her and yet he gets nowhere. Its just one of those things where women seem retarded... and its in a guy's interest to be aware.

(oh yeah... that was a joke. Not sure if everyone's read jokes for dummies or not yet.)


----------



## Nsweet

coffee4me said:


> This might be off topic but--
> 
> Help me pass on some advice to a friend. He is just started dating after his divorce and has been involved with 3 women. These women attach to him very easily. He doesn't really feel that they are the right fit but has such a difficult time hurting their feelings and putting distance between himself and these women. Should he read that book about Nice Guys or is that just for married men? Is there another source I can recommend?
> 
> He asked me because I'm very aloof about dating and keep my distance but I don't think it's the same for me as a man, who has a woman who wants to attach.


You talking about that "No More Mr. Nice Guy Book" that has had reccomendations floating aroung here for a while? Don't! It's the biggest piece of crap and will end up hurting him in the long run. That author isn't anything but a wimp trying to reassert his dominance by being a bigger jerk. I'd rate it side by side with the Manhood Academy crap about puffing your chest out and forcing your wife to have sex with you even because you, an "Alpha man". Pieces of sh!t!

If you want a good book or books for him I would stay away from the game stuff and send him "Stop Your Divorce" which has a lot of great advice about taking it slow and not going against her boundaries, which is what will grant him a long term relation better than trying to get her too soon. Off the top of my head I would get him a flash drive with a bunch of pdf file books you can make for free and have him read in secret. Also, there was a couple of great books I had on my computer that just crashed, I might be able to get back.... A lot of stuff about body language, leadership skills, and bushido. 

I know a lot of great books, because I read these constantly, but I can't think of one that will tell him the advice he needs to hear. This advice:* If he's having trouble dating women and doesn't feel confident enough to break up these short relationships, then he needs to just focus on making female friends first. It won't be forever and the circle of platonic female friends will actually help him see all the wonder and joy in being around women for fun, without trying to get anywhere or heal his bruised ego using sexual touch and attention. Just give it 3-6 months and see how he feels. The ladies will also find him irresistable if he's surrounded by women, obviously not gay, and not letting them kick him around like a sugardaddy or boytoy.*


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

coffee4me said:


> This might be off topic but--
> 
> Help me pass on some advice to a friend. He is just started dating after his divorce and has been involved with 3 women. These women attach to him very easily. He doesn't really feel that they are the right fit but has such a difficult time hurting their feelings and putting distance between himself and these women. Should he read that book about Nice Guys or is that just for married men? Is there another source I can recommend?
> 
> He asked me because I'm very aloof about dating and keep my distance but I don't think it's the same for me as a man, who has a woman who wants to attach.


Is he trying to keep them in a more distant orbit, or is he just wanting to send them away?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Everybody is a samurai around here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

To TRBE: Not me! I'm a fuzzy bunny.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I was thinking about this story today, and I find myself wondering why the need to invoke game. The relationship is but 5 weeks old and she has said that she feels suffocated. This is more than telling, IMO. It is a fairly clear expression that for her the 5 weeks isn't enough for her to commit, and it's time to back off. Isn't it?
> 
> If a guy ever told me he felt suffocated, that would be my first thought . Surely that's not game, but just common sense?


Now what if I told you, that you could avoid suffocating someone in the first place by doing x?

That is game.

By the time you get the "suffocating" speech, its often too late.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Everybody is a samurai around here.


What do you mean by that Brighteyes?


:scratchhead:


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> What do you mean by that Brighteyes?
> 
> 
> :scratchhead:


The constant quoting of bushido. I was mostly teasing. Mostly.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> The point that you seem to be overlooking is that the changes aren't actually sincere attempts to correct something they don't like about themselves, they are about bagging more women.


You assume wrong again.

Don't take my word for it... go look at reddit.com/r/seduction

Some of them are there to get more women.
Some of them are there to get A woman.
Some of them are there to get a better woman.

Myself personally. I wanted better women primarily. Secondarily, I wanted to be more comfortable in social situations and conquer anxiety. By all accounts, my level of socialization was pretty normal... I was by no means a recluse. But nervousness *bothers* me. Not taking action *bothers* me. Ultimately, what triggered my journey was the simple fact that I got fed up with myself for not able to say anything to this cute girl I saw every day.

The biggest benefit I've gotten hasn't even been with women. Its in my business relationships and general networking ability.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> The constant quoting of bushido. I was mostly teasing. Mostly.


Oh, I missed it.

I'm slow like that.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Caribbean Man said:


> .......then we'd all be like Commander Data of Star Treck.
> No longer human, just highly intellectual beings , capable of complex calculations, full of reasoning and logic, but unable to feel emotions.


Always Alone is Commander Data!?!?!?!?!? 

I kid. I kid. Don't take it personally. 

Its funny AA, I know you view me as artificial, calculating and methodical too. With you, I actually just feel there's an absence of passion. The way you describe dating is just so... sterilized.


----------



## Nsweet

Frenchfry: All good wives are argumentative and give their husbands a hard time. That's what wives do! That's what their purpose is. Woman keeps man from killing himself, man makes a killing for her. 

Did you think the lifespan was increasing because of medicine and technological advances? No, it's that women have more power and freedom to express themselves. Women keep men alive with their nagging, and keep us on our toes by bickering back. 

It's true. You keep us alive by reminding us to not to do stupid things that kill us over and over, and not to forget the milk for the last time. You keep us on our toes by reminding us we're not God's only greatest gift, our strength is no match for your witts, and we can't be right all the time. 

A man privides for his woman and then comes to her to show her he understands what she was trying to to do, he shows her he appreciates her for pushing him to achieve, and he gives her part of his kill as payment and a peace offering so he can make his "higher conscious" happy. 

It's a little caveman, because it's funnier to me that way, but it goes to show you a nagging means she cares, and you want to have a wife you and bicker with a little. I won't date a girl I can't bicker with and still have fun. I remember how marriage will piss you off at times, women will piss you off at times, but my God help us if we didn't have them.


----------



## Nsweet

coffee4me said:


> He's 57 and only dates women his age. I agree he should just keep them as friends but this seems to be his problem, he doesn't know how to keep them as just friends. Maybe his game attracts the needy type that want a R right off the bat. :scratchhead:


I know what type that is too! Usually it's the rescuer white knight good guy type that attracts the girls who push-push-push for relationships to seal the deal before they let go of the "victim act". If he's way too nice or way too lovey-dovey up front he'll attract the damadged girls looking for a relationship to solve her emotional problems. 

The no fail method here is just to have him carry a VAR or bring you along so you can meet them too or sort of listen in. If there's any signs he's missing as a man, you'll pick them up in you red flag radar. The baby cutsie voice, the talk about bad men who hurt her, getting too close too fast, believe me you'll get the creeps long before he does.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> How dare you conceal your intentions! I thought that was manipulation? What happened to being upfront and authentic?
> 
> A guy with poor posture, poor eye contact, inability to hold an engaging conversation, inability to hold back, too "nice" because he likes her so much he's very careful to avoid saying anything that might upset her etc etc... ie no game... is ABSOLUTELY groping around in the dark waiting for fortune to fall into his lap.


This principle could apply to many aspects in life, and no one would complain. I tried offering examples and they were ignored. Go figure. The fact remains that, in most things in life, the more confident people are more successful. The employees that actively do well at their job, improve their performance, and go after raises with confidence, get those raises. They're the ones who get promotions. My husband has dealt with this in his job, and it's made his other coworkers really angry and jealous. But hey, if they're not working as hard, if they screw around and make major mistakes(like misusing the forklift in a dangerous way), if they mouth off to the boss...ultimately, if they don't _try_ to make a positive impression, they will not get the raise or the promotion.

I don't see why attraction should work any differently. 



> Uh oh... we may have made a connection...
> 
> Every single PUA book will tell you not to worry if people don't like you. Throw all of yourself out there. Hence the mantra: "give no f*cks" - outcome independence. Paradoxically, this makes you more attractive. Since other people don't actually SEE what you think, there is GAME: How you show that you're not worried about it. That's one of the intents of negging, for example. The truth is, people DO care. You do want a person you like to like you. To say that people don't actually care if they are liked is perhaps the most disingenuous comment in this thread. You actually do care. Everyone wants a person they like to like them. Oh... but the cliche is nice. You've missed the point of the cliche though. The point is to be yourself. Last I checked, standing up straight doesn't make me a different person.
> 
> I don't know what world you're in, but it sounds very dull. One thing I know without ANY doubt at all, is that if you come on to someone showing too much serious interest too quickly, she will in fact rabbit (as OP put it).
> 
> What?? He's being genuine!! He's being authentic!! Why did she bail when she would have gone for him if he withheld more? The real world all but requires a measure of game.


This is exactly why you don't talk about sexual history on the first date, or long term relationship goals. You've barely gotten to know the person! You don't have to spill every truth about yourself as soon as you know you like them. Even if they like you, coming on too quickly can push them away.



> Game is about attraction not relationships.


Something I keep forgetting. Thanks for the reminder. 



> Building that attraction is absolutely a machination... whether your aware you're doing it or not. Just as your wearing nicer clothes or putting on more make-up is a machination. It is superficial cat and mouse. It is only about attraction. It is absolutely about push-pull techniques and the like. It is playful. There are rules. That's why they call it game.


Right. Like, when my husband first asked me out(even though we said it wasn't a date), I wore my cutest pair of jeans, my cutest pair of tennis shoes, a flattering blouse with just a tiny bit of cleavage, I wore my hair in a ponytail and a normal amount of makeup. I dressed up just nice enough to be slightly flirtatious without making it obvious that I was overly into him. 

My dad almost ruined my game, though. During this time my husband was teaching me to play the piano. He came over, game me the lesson, and then we went to the church for band practice. My dad came with to run the sound board. I drove, dad sat in passenger seat, future husband sat in the back. 

I said: Dad, the light on the truck went out today. 
He said: Why are you telling me?
I said: .........Cause I don't know how to change it...
He said: Do you not have a boyfriend? (Which, we hadn't decided we were actually boyfriend and girlfriend yet.)
I didn't answer. 
He said: Why not ask him to help you? It would be an excuse to spend more time with you. 

My dad was joking, but it freaked me out. I didn't want this guy who I liked _*a lot*_ to think I'd been telling everyone we were dating when we weren't officially. Luckily, I was able to explain that, to my parents, a guy and a girl going to the theater together was a date, whether they called it one or not. He laughed and then said, "Well, maybe we should make it official anyway?" 

I got lucky.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Who are you to decide how other people get together is or isn't "the good way" or "the valid way"? There are shy men and there are agressive women, of ALL types of looks, and these two types make really great couples sometimes. How in the world did you get to the point where you believe you can judge other people's relationships as invalid? It is not random and it is not rare.


No one. No one at all... but then, I've said no such thing either. I've said a shy guy will get more/better women as he becomes less shy. The implication being that shyness is less attractive.

I've even admitted that everyone can eventually find someone. Maybe eventually is good enough for them. I don't care. Myself personally, I'm not going to wait for chance or good fortune. I'm going to go get them.

Don't put words in my mouth. Giant noses are less attractive, but I'd bet there someone out there with a nose fetish. Shy is less attractive, but I'm sure some woman out there wants a gimp. It doesn't change the fact that they are less attractive for those features. You might be stuck with your nose, but being shy is ultimately a choice.





Faithful Wife said:


> Why do you think that seddit is the only place where people might discuss men and women meeting? Why are they to judge what is good or bad as far as the way people meet each other? People meet at work, in class, on the bus, in church, through friends, online dating, picking up their kids from school...I don't get your reasoning here that seddit is the place of authority or that those guys are the only ones who have it going on. Ever thought that maybe guys who do pull babes don't bother writing about it on message boards?


Where did I say it was the only place? How about this: go ANYWHERE that guys are reporting their successes and failures with women, and you'll see I'm exactly right.

I don't care how an individual couple meets. Do you not understanding proving a correlation and causality?

Guys who pull babes don't bother writing about it on message boards unless they learned it. You relate to the guy asking the same questions you used to ask and making the same mistakes. Guys who are very attractive to women naturally were the whole reason these books were written and these forums exist. Some clever nerd realized the attributes these guys possessed were not all physical (or even mostly physical); they were readily observed, tested and documented.




Faithful Wife said:


> It is a judgment I'm making based on WHOSE looks? I know strong, shy, silent types personally and well. I used to be married to one and I work with, am related to and am friends with several others. How are you comparing that to you seeing a strange girl walk into a bar and trying ascertain her personality?


You constantly shift the target. I'm talking about a generic shy guy being unattractive and you shift that to "strong silent types are sexy". lol I attack the strong silent TYPE being applied to my generic shy guy example by pointing out that you'd only be judging looks, and you counter with your strong silent friends?? YOU'RE ALREADY FRIENDS! You have a lot more information to go by. The shy guy in my example is still just a lame shy guy, unless you think his "looks" say "strong" lmao. So get out with the strong silent nonsense. You might as well have said "good looking guy is good looking". Thanks for the insight.



Faithful Wife said:


> Believe whatever you want, my dear Dvls.


I always do. 



Faithful Wife said:


> I know wonderful men of all types of personalty and all types of looks who are in good relationships or successfully dating. I *know* them personally. You can try to judge these men however you please, but you don't know them and I do.
> 
> Yes, I also know some men who really need some game and don't pull chicks. So please don't come back and just share with me stories of dateless men you know. I know them, too.
> 
> But there are MORE than just that type of men out there, Dvls. Much, much more.
> 
> Please note, I am NOT saying that YOUR way doesn't work for you and many others.
> 
> I am simply saying that in millions of cases of relationships, people really did just be themselves and end up meeting the love of their lives and lived happily ever after. You seem to doubt that any man who doesn't have the type of game you speak of can pull babes, and the main reason you seem to be using as an argument is to say these women I'm calling babes are actually unattractive. Do you think that unattractive people "don't count" or something? WTF? People of all types of looks find each other and mate, some without ever using what you call game. Some are totally insecure. Some make HUGE relationship mistakes....and yet they make their way through it.


"pull babes" and "pull chicks" doesn't mean "manage to get a girlfriend", Faithful.

I don't judge anyone. I've said repeatedly that everyone finds someone regardless. I have been VERY consistent in my focus on what makes a man MORE attractive. Everyone counts. People of all types can do specific things that will make them more attractive.

Its often as simple as standing up straight. The guy who does is more attractive to women than the guy who doesn't. BOTTOM LINE. What do you not get about that?


----------



## coupdegrace

Nsweet said:


> Frenchfry: All good wives are argumentative and give their husbands a hard time. That's what wives do! That's what their purpose is. Woman keeps man from killing himself, man makes a killing for her.
> 
> Did you think the lifespan was increasing because of medicine and technological advances? No, it's that women have more power and freedom to express themselves. Women keep men alive with their nagging, and keep us on our toes by bickering back.
> 
> It's true. You keep us alive by reminding us to not to do stupid things that kill us over and over, and not to forget the milk for the last time. You keep us on our toes by reminding us we're not God's only greatest gift, our strength is no match for your witts, and we can't be right all the time.
> 
> A man privides for his woman and then comes to her to show her he understands what she was trying to to do, he shows her he appreciates her for pushing him to achieve, and he gives her part of his kill as payment and a peace offering so he can make his "higher conscious" happy.
> 
> It's a little caveman, because it's funnier to me that way, but it goes to show you a nagging means she cares, and you want to have a wife you and bicker with a little. I won't date a girl I can't bicker with and still have fun. I remember how marriage will piss you off at times, women will piss you off at times, but my God help us if we didn't have them.


I disagree with that. If someone (not just a woman) is nagging you constantly about nothing, that means they have a personal problem that needs to be explored and rectified. If my wife was nagging all the time, I would have never married her. I work too hard and put up with too much BS on the job to come home to more nonsense. Home should be a sanctuary, not hell, and life is too short for that crap.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Nsweet said:


> Frenchfry: All good wives are argumentative and give their husbands a hard time. That's what wives do! That's what their purpose is. Woman keeps man from killing himself, man makes a killing for her.
> 
> Did you think the lifespan was increasing because of medicine and technological advances? No, it's that women have more power and freedom to express themselves. Women keep men alive with their nagging, and keep us on our toes by bickering back.
> 
> It's true. You keep us alive by reminding us to not to do stupid things that kill us over and over, and not to forget the milk for the last time. You keep us on our toes by reminding us we're not God's only greatest gift, our strength is no match for your witts, and we can't be right all the time.
> 
> A man privides for his woman and then comes to her to show her he understands what she was trying to to do, he shows her he appreciates her for pushing him to achieve, and he gives her part of his kill as payment and a peace offering so he can make his "higher conscious" happy.
> 
> It's a little caveman, because it's funnier to me that way, but it goes to show you a nagging means she cares, and you want to have a wife you and bicker with a little. I won't date a girl I can't bicker with and still have fun. I remember how marriage will piss you off at times, women will piss you off at times, but my God help us if we didn't have them.


Because you love a bickering woman so much: Nagging is nothing more than a woman holding a man accountable for a promise he made and failed to follow through with.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

It's negging, not nagging.


----------



## Nsweet

Don't you get it? It's the nagging for your to strive in work, watch your cholesterol, and remeber your promises I'm talking about, Coup.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> It's negging, not nagging.


NSweet used the word nagging and many, many men do as well. I wanted to point out that a man saying a woman nags should be focusing on his failure to deliver. Plus I wanted to be a pain in the ass.


----------



## Created2Write

> Hah! Okay, have you taken a Myers-Briggs?


I have not.



> Because: The extravert's flow is directed outward toward people and objects, and the introvert's is directed inward toward concepts and ideas.
> 
> We are totally demonstrating the differences between an Exxx and an Ixxx.


Indeed, it seems we are.



> True, but we aren't talking about the door thing or the egging on of date rape or the tendency to hold this POV:
> 
> Quote:
> Men are better than women. Everything of value that was ever created in society was created by a man. More specifically, by a white straight beta man
> 
> I enjoy hashing out terminology on this board because of the level of respect here. Out there in PUA world...it's not so nice.


I certainly don't advocate date rape, nor do I think either gender is better than the other. (Can you show me a link to where that quote is from, btw?) 



> I'm not a consequentialist, and I don't see things this way I think is the simplest way to put this.


Okay.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Therealbrighteyes said:


> NSweet used the word nagging and many, many men do as well. I wanted to point out that a man saying a woman nags should be focusing on his failure to deliver. Plus I wanted to be a pain in the ass.


It was a joke. I was joking. A joke was trying be told by me.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> It was a joke. I was joking. A joke was trying be told by me.


Gah, I suck! My joke radar is off today, clearly.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> Pickup and Game Thread Never Ever Ends ... Ever


:lol: :rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Me too, French Fry. I have been having fun and bantering...but the topic is done (for me).

BTW, hopefully you know by now that you are a hottie?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

FrenchFry said:


> Hmm, to be crazy personal for a minute:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why as a black woman I cannot spare zero cares as to what is "less attractive" because I've been informed my entire life that my entire being is less attractive and that I'm a fetish.
> 
> Sorry, that pushed a huge button.


"Lord, grant me the power to accept the things I cannot change and change the things I cannot accept."

I don't see it as a racial thing at all, but I understand why you might feel it.

The average black woman's nose looks plenty fine to me. Its those jewish women that...  jk

Its okay, I'm white, so I don't have a butt. We all got problems!!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> What would your response be if she did not look away?


I mentioned it. It has always caused both of us to smile. Then approaching her is simple and welcomed.

You know what sucks? When you only *think* you've been making eye contact with someone and they're really looking at something behind you.. and then they realize you think they're staring at you and give you this freaky omg oops face.

Okay... its only happened to me once, but it still sucked; at least at first. A minute later she says "sorry, didn't mean to make you think I was staring" and I said, "Yeah I'm sorry too... I thought I was gonna get a date."

She laughed and said she would but she had a boyfriend and I didn't worry about following up any further.


----------



## Nsweet

His song:
The Lonely Island - Jizz In My Pants - YouTube

Her song:
Jizz In My Pants response: "Puke In My Mouth" -MsTaken.com - YouTube


----------



## Created2Write

Nsweet said:


> His song:
> The Lonely Island - Jizz In My Pants - YouTube
> 
> Her song:
> Jizz In My Pants response: "Puke In My Mouth" -MsTaken.com - YouTube


:rofl:

I love both of those songs!


----------



## Nsweet

Created2Write said:


> :rofl:
> 
> I love both of those songs!


Really? I got about a million more! I'm always on youtube trying to find more joke vids. 

Check this one out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1IxOS4VzKM:rofl:


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> I often do but not with the intent of offending you.


Likewise.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> What men wish women want:
> 
> Saturday Night Live - **** In A Box - YouTube






> What women actually want:
> 
> Pearls Of Wisdom - YouTube


*yawn* 

Shakespeare all the way for me.


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> See? That one I read and smiled.


Oooohhh, so as long as they're short you read them? 

Who wants who to be insincere now?


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> I read the long ones sometimes but short is easier for me. This is sad considering I'm generally really wordy.
> 
> In your posts you ask me to answer several questions which is cool if I haven't already answered them.


No worries. I'm a very descriptive writer. I get that, for some, that might be overwhelming. 

I ask questions to try and reach understanding. Choosing not to answer them, even when you feel you've answered them already, gets me no closer to understanding your view point or position. Usually when I repeat a questions it's because the answer I previously received didn't make sense to me; it's clarification, as it were. Plus, there was one instance when I asked you some questions I hadn't asked before and you chose not to answer...I have to assume, then, that you care very little as to whether I understand your point of view or not. 

Which is fine with me. I don't think you care to understand my view much, either, to be frank.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Created2Write said:


> *yawn*
> 
> Shakespeare all the way for me.


:iagree:
"...*She’s beautiful, and therefore to be wooed; She is woman, and therefore to be won*..."

Henry VI Part 1 – Act V, Scene II

More proof that " Game " has always existed.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I have to confess, if human interactions were always pure, real, honest, and devoid of uncertainty ... they wouldn't be nearly as enjoyable as I find them to be.


Human interactions will never be devoid of uncertainty. It always takes a while to get to know people, and they are always changing, growing, and full of surprises. It certainly does keep life interesting!

But I am of the mind that there is already sufficient confusion, drama, and heartache to go around, and so I aim for as much sanity as I can muster. I won't pretend that I always succeed. But I do try.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Game isn't changing who you are.


Maybe not for you. If I were to have women's game, though, I would have to completely overhaul my personality, dress differently, act differently, and spend all of my time self-consciously analyzing every mannerism and comment as to whether it would "pull" men.

[Is my hair long enough, I hear that men like long hair. Oh and let me run and get some more make-up. Men don't like women who aren't trying to look good for them. Is this dress sexy enough? Looking sexy is a must. But don't go overboard or he'll think you're a slvt. Should I have invited him out? Oh my gawd, now he thinks I'm too aggressive, and I scared him off. I'm supposed to let him take the lead! Stupid me! Should I let him win this game? I need to make him feel like a manly man, but maybe he's letting me win, to disarm me. Where's my psychology text when I need it! Is it okay to have this opinion? No that's too controversial, I don't want him knowing that I have a mind of my own. That's so unappealing.]

Ugh! I would rather just be.


----------



## tacoma

Found this on Reddit.
Thought it fit here.
The Game starts young folks, very young...



> My 8 year old son has a crush on this girl Sara and asks me for advice (they've never spoken)... I suggest he ask her to partner up for a class project that's coming up. I found this in his room today...


Edit:

Looks like a good plan


----------



## tacoma

always_alone said:


> Maybe not for you. If I were to have women's game, though, I would have to completely overhaul my personality, dress differently, act differently, and spend all of my time self-consciously analyzing every mannerism and comment as to whether it would "pull" men.


Why do you think that?


----------



## always_alone

tacoma said:


> Why do you think that?


What Trenton said!

Edited to add:
I learned from a very young age that asking difficult questions, challenging the status quo, or having a contrary opinion makes a person much less appealing. Doubly so for a woman because she is expected to be compliant and submissive. The slightest sign of assertiveness, and you start acquiring nasty labels pretty quickly.

One little example: One job I had, on the very first day of work, I walk in and my supervisor says "oh, so you're my new sex slave." I looked him in the eye and just said "no". He stammered something else, and we moved on and finished our business. He never bothered me again after that. The other women employees were amazed because he harassed them constantly. They would ask me for tips with handling him. But in the end, they just continued to blush and because it turns out that I am just a frigid b*tch and no one wants to be one of those.


----------



## Nsweet

I'm going to have to write out the PUA flow chart formula and show you ladies the complicated start to finish behavioral and body language process that everyone seems to over simplify with "just be yourself". There's more to it than smiling and direct eye contact, even though those are two big parts not to be taken lightly. 

The whole process from meeting Mr. or Mrs. Right to passing each others screening tests, having them want to meet you again over coffee, etc. etc. is actually more complicated that people realize! It's more closely related to an off site job interview, except people are more careful with what they say in job interviews. 

And when I say complicated, I mean understanding PUA and how dating works is like understanding music theory. You don't need to spend years studying it in order to pick up an instrument and just play a chord, but after studying and practicing you'll know how to play better, and when you really get it you'll understand you're just picking up an instrument and playing with purpose. 

Social interactions are a lot like this, you communicate in the way you want others to communicate with you and respond better when they communicate using your style. Without spending time trying to understand how and why certain people respond to you better in certain situations you would have trouble getting the message through constantly. After a time spent trying to understand how you could improve your social situations better, you'll find you're just being more open and responsive to other styles of communication. 

How does that relate to PUA? It can short circuit the "getting to know you phase" by creating a feeling of instant intimacy before it would naturally happen. Instant intimacy being the GIANT RED FLAG for an emotional abuser using flattery and advanced NLP to persuade you. This knowledge can also be used to have a healthy relationship business or personal by teaching you the signals to pick up on and respond to in order to COMMUNICATE BETTER!


----------



## TiggyBlue

Trenton said:


> Meanwhile, be a woman who = appreciates her man (preferably with long hair and a size 5 shoe and hour glass figure), understands a man's perspective yet retains complete femininity, compassionate but not overly so, blushes at the right time and understands the 3 second rule and her place enough to not challenge it (because it WORKS after all), appreciates her man's needs and desires, likes to be spanked, played and toyed with so that a man can show his mettle (aka love??) because that's what all women secretly or knowingly want and = a real woman.


A woman doesn't have to be a giggling airhead in a short skirt, full face of make up and nodding in agreement with everything a man says to have 'game'. That is a very specific type of 'game' that from experience a certain type of woman plays.


----------



## tacoma

Trenton said:


> Have you had a look on the boards?
> 
> .



I don't mean "Why does she feel it's wrong to be shallow?"
I mean "Why does she feel she has to be shallow to have game?"
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> I Listed Info I Specifically Took From The TAM Boards To Make A Point.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You forgot don't earn more than a man. It makes his pecker sad. 

It used to bother me when I read some stuff on this site and would argue to my detriment with them, get angry and get banned. It is futile because people who feel that way truly have issues with the female gender and no matter what I say, I will never change their mind. Instead, I just set them to ignore and my sanity is restored. 

The people in this thread are light years different than what used to be said about women and while I might disagree with many here, at least our conversations are civil and enjoyable. That wasn't always the case.


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Your example of the above is the stupid crap I never want to deal with ever, won't be attracted to it, don't want to be involved in it.


So ... dry macaroni in pockets and toothpaste in shoes doesn't rise to 'stupid crap', or should I just presume hubs really does deserve it? 

Trenton, that stuff that I described? That's the shallow end of the pool. That's nothing. People, and particularly peoples feelings aren't linear or single-threaded for that matter.

If there are truly people who accept nothing short of 100% genuine, up-front, no thought-guarding, open honesty and display of emotion at all times, I sincerely hope they find their match.

But ... if someone were to tell me that is how they operate as an individual and expect the same from a potential partner at all times ... here is what I would know for certain ... they are a liar.

Everyone self-regulates and self-moderates. Everyone has a filter, because everyone NEEDS a filter. We let some behaviors and thoughts through the filter. MOST, we do not.

Attraction and relationships are no different.

I say that without an ounce of cynicism.

M and I tried blunt honesty ... and she freaked. Falls into the category of 'be careful of what you wish for'. It doesn't work. And if you think it does? Odds are that is because your partner is being selective about what they are bluntly honest about.


----------



## Conrad

Being "authentic" has almost nothing to do with factual details.


----------



## always_alone

Conrad said:


> Being "authentic" has almost nothing to do with factual details.


It also has nothing to do with blurting out whatever random thought that passes through your mind, as so many people here seem to think.

It is about being aware of oneself and true to beliefs, principles and values. It is about treating others as equal individuals, and not as objects to be manipulated to satisfy one's selfish desire.

When we say honesty does not work, it seems to translate to honesty doesn't give me exactly what I want. That's probably true. But for me living well isn't about making everything go my way.


----------



## tacoma

Trenton?

Why are you capitalizing every word in your replies?

Your scaring me a little.


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

Trenton said:


> Stupid Crap Yes But It Is Definitely What I Meant To Do.
> 
> As For The Rest, We Disagree And Most Likely Always Disagree Unless You Get More Raw Or I Become Less Raw.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And disagreeing has no impact on our relationship ... I guess we aren't doing too badly.


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Trenton said:


> Yeah, Go Back To THe Misunderstood. It Is Presumed That Women Don't KnoW What They Want In These Specific Books So That Men Can Transform It Into What They Want And Manipulate A Woman's Desire To Be Loved In Order To Make It Work. Then It's All Deemed Ok Because It Works And Everyone Enjoys It.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's like women saying they don't like muscles. You know they love it. They know they love it, deep down. Yet, they say they don't. Then, they take offense when you say women don't really know what they want.

Attraction isn't a choice, it's a subconscious process. It really isn't shocking that women don't really know what attracts them.


----------



## diwali123

I'm not into muscles much either. For one thing if the guy has a certain physique I'm pretty sure he spends most of his life in the gym and that's pretty boring. 
I don't think guys with big muscles would be trying to attract someone like me anyway...but when I was young and hot I didn't go for the macho gym
studs. 
They tend to have the "I'm too sexy for my shirt" attitude that is a complete turn off. 
I was more attracted to guys who were in decent shape and had something interesting going on in their brains, self confidence, a sense of humor, and well groomed. 
But then I have always been attracted to unusual people.


----------



## Topical storm

diwali123 said:


> I'm not into muscles much either. For one thing if the guy has a certain physique I'm pretty sure he spends most of his life in the gym and that's pretty boring.
> I don't think guys with big muscles would be trying to attract someone like me anyway...but when I was young and hot I didn't go for the macho gym
> studs.
> They tend to have the "I'm too sexy for my shirt" attitude that is a complete turn off.
> I was more attracted to guys who were in decent shape and had something interesting going on in their brains, self confidence, a sense of humor, and well groomed.
> But then I have always been attracted to unusual people.


What type of muscles are we talking about? The Arnold schwarzenegger look or the athletic sports player look?


----------



## Topical storm

tacoma said:


> I don't mean "Why does she feel it's wrong to be shallow?"
> I mean "Why does she feel she has to be shallow to have game?"
> _Posted via Mobile Device_





tacoma said:


> I don't mean "Why does she feel it's wrong to be shallow?"
> I mean "Why does she feel she has to be shallow to have game?"
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Because she hates the word game and can never associate it with anything positive. Because in her mind "game" means inauthentic and trickery as if one is playing games. She never grew up in her hey days using the word game in relation to dating, courting so it's a foreign concept to her that the word game means the sum of all things in how it is used now. No matter how many times you tell her in today's society the word game has taken on a new meaning just like the word gay has evolved she will refuse to accept it.

Some people can't accept change no matter what. Even if it's a insignificant as a four letter word. Sad.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> Trenton?
> 
> Why are you capitalizing every word in your replies?
> 
> Your scaring me a little.


Tacoma,
Why the innuendo?
What are you implying?


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

diwali123 said:


> I'm not into muscles much either. For one thing if the guy has a certain physique I'm pretty sure he spends most of his life in the gym and that's pretty boring.
> I don't think guys with big muscles would be trying to attract someone like me anyway...but when I was young and hot I didn't go for the macho gym
> studs.
> They tend to have the "I'm too sexy for my shirt" attitude that is a complete turn off.
> I was more attracted to guys who were in decent shape and had something interesting going on in their brains, self confidence, a sense of humor, and well groomed.
> But then I have always been attracted to unusual people.


What if he had an Incredible physique and a more spectacular mind? And he loved and doted you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shadow_Nirvana

Topical storm said:


> What type of muscles are we talking about? The Arnold schwarzenegger look or the athletic sports player look?


I was talking about the latter.


----------



## tacoma

Caribbean Man said:


> Tacoma,
> Why the innuendo?
> What are you implying?


Nothing, I was just wondering if there was an implication to it like typing in all caps means excited or angry.

Thought maybe there was some new internet thing I was behind the curve on.

I see it's only happening on her mobile posts now that I'm on my PC.


----------



## Caribbean Man

To me, a woman who says that she don't like muscles is like a man saying he don't like well shaped, tight bodied ,full breasted women.
It is not normal.

I have always liked full breasts,shapely women, but my wife has small tits, even though she is shapely. Does that mean that I will leave her and run after a full breasted woman?

We learn to live and appreciate what we have. Its part of the maturing process, and we are only allowed one woman / man at a time.
If the rules were different,meaning no monogamy, who do you think would be pulling all the chicks? And what type of woman would be getting all the attention from the prime young studs?
Doesn't mean that we don't like muscled men or sexy women.It simply means that we are no longer interested in having sex with them because we are married and off the market...
At least I _hope_ so!


----------



## Caribbean Man

DaddyLongShanks said:


> What if he had an Incredible physique and a more spectacular mind? And he loved and doted you.


^^My point exactly!


----------



## Topical storm

Shadow_Nirvana said:


> I was talking about the latter.


You were right in your previous post......

But..... women on the internet and especially on this thread are all different than women in the real world. Game never works on them, they don't like men with muscles, they would never fall for any man's game. Somehow these women are different and a cut above, but yet if you were to talk to their friends or loved ones you'll probably hear a totally different story.

What women say and do are two totally different things.

Of course most women like muscles, any woman that tells you different is probably lying. It's probably the guys with the muscles don't like them or check them out so they have a pre conceived notion of what a muscled up dude looks like. He can't just be a guy with muscles, he has to have a stigma of meat head or arrogant playboy.


----------



## tacoma

I think I need to start a different "Game" thread.
(Yet another)

:rofl:

Because I keep thinking about how this started a month and three threads ago about game within relationships.

While I think game within a relationships is similar to PUA type game in some respects maybe even many, I think there's a definite twist to it when it's within a relationship that wouldn't work in a singles PU type situation & visa versa.

brighteyes turned me onto this PUA handbook a couple days ago.

I was looking through it and while much of it are things I do still do with my wife there are definitive degrees and evolutions for what will work in either situation (single or relationship).


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You forgot don't earn more than a man. It makes his pecker sad.


I don't think me earning less than my wife would make my pecker sad.
I think it would make my pecker look sad to my wife.

I myself would rather enjoy it because as it is right now I work pretty hard, it'd be nice to coast a little more.

I do think it'd change how she see's me.

Maybe that is male ego but I wouldn't chance it.



> It used to bother me when I read some stuff on this site and would argue to my detriment with them, get angry and get banned.


Did you ever get banned for arguing with me brighteyes?


----------



## tacoma

coffee4me said:


> Really? That TOTALLY explains what happened with that guy I dated.


Yeah, a lot of guys simply can't handle it.

I hear it quite a bit.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Topical storm said:


> You were right in your previous post......
> 
> But..... women on the internet and especially on this thread are all different than women in the real world. Game never works on them, they don't like men with muscles, they would never fall for any man's game. Somehow these women are different and a cut above, but yet if you were to talk to their friends or loved ones you'll probably hear a totally different story.
> 
> What women say and do are two totally different things.


Women of this thread? Hmmm, I've been pretty consistent and have said some game works on me, while others wouldn't. I have also never said muscles turn me off. In fact, if you don't have any, don't bother applying. Also, you must be **this** tall to ride this ride.


----------



## diwali123

To me, a woman who says that she don't like muscles is like a man saying he don't like well shaped, tight bodied ,full breasted women.
It is not normal."

Well I'm not normal. Never claimed to be. 
I guess it depends on what kind of body the guy has. I need to see pictures. Lol. 
I think we might be thinking if different things.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Topical storm

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Women of this thread? Hmmm, I've been pretty consistent and have said some game works on me, while others wouldn't. I have also never said muscles turn me off. In fact, if you don't have any, don't bother applying. Also, you must be **this** tall to ride this ride.


I was mostly talking in general terms, but you and created2write and possibly others have been the normal ones that I have seen so far. Lol.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> I don't think me earning less than my wife would make my pecker sad.
> I think it would make my pecker look sad to my wife.
> 
> Oh brother.
> 
> I do think it'd change how she see's me.
> 
> Uh, huh.
> 
> Maybe that is male ego but I wouldn't chance it.
> 
> Yup, ego.
> 
> Did you ever get banned for arguing with me brighteyes?
> 
> Nope. You never pissed me off the way others did.


----------



## Lyris

I like muscles. Absolutely. And there have been times in our relationship where I earned more than him and it never made one speck of difference. Maybe it would for him if it was a long-term thing, I don't know, but it definitely wouldn't for me.

I have no opinion on game really, I guess that's why I've waited until page 190 to share my Very Important Thoughts. My husband and I have been together since we were 18. I've never been gamed in the PUA way. I never did the bar scene. And if I suddenly found myself single now, I'm too old to attract it anyway.

But, the idea of men coming on too strong too quickly definitely resonates. I remember that, talking about that with friends and dealing with it a bit from guys who were interested in me even though I was attached (not married). It was generally accepted that men fall in love way more quickly and are way more intense about it than women.

Although, we were pretty young (early 20s). Maybe it changes as you get older.

Also, my husband was definitely very into me very quickly when we were 18. But that was fine, because I was/am extremely attracted to him. If I hadn't been, it would have turned me off immediately. 

Oh, and he's one of those quiet, confident introverts. Not shy exactly, but kind of brooding and dark looking. Definitely not a life-of-the-party type, like my brother is. He's intriguing. There's something special about getting someone like that interested and opening up to you. Unlike the extrovert super-charming type.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Topical storm said:


> I was mostly talking in general terms, but you and created2write and possibly others have been the normal ones that I have seen so far. Lol.


Not normal but for many years on this site I denied that "game" was of any value. In fact I fought it tooth and nail. Then I read some of it. Yes, many of the techniques are disgusting and laughable but some aren't. So in my mind, take what works for you and discard the rest.


----------



## Caribbean Man

diwali123 said:


> I guess it depends on what kind of body the guy has. *I need to see pictures. Lol. *


Haha!^^Just made me smile.
But seriously diwali, you may not like the huge bodybuilder type with tons of muscles, but surely, you don't mind having a good pair of arms and shoulder to grab on to in the shower, or hard , well defined pecs pressing against your bosom?

Women like muscles and height. They are a sign of a healthy and virility in men.
They just tend to have varying degrees of preferences , just like some men like curvy , voluptuous and some men like the 9% body fat look in women.


----------



## always_alone

Topical storm said:


> Because she hates the word game and can never associate it with anything positive. Because in her mind "game" means inauthentic and trickery as if one is playing games. She never grew up in her hey days using the word game in relation to dating, courting so it's a foreign concept to her that the word game means the sum of all things in how it is used now. No matter how many times you tell her in today's society the word game has taken on a new meaning just like the word gay has evolved she will refuse to accept it.
> 
> Some people can't accept change no matter what. Even if it's a insignificant as a four letter word. Sad.


It was good of you to try and answer for me, but I think you might have made an error or two in your recap of my perspective.

The sources of "game" were announced in the OP of this thread. The only confusion about what it means comes from those who are so determined to put a good spin on it that it basically means absolutely everything from standing up straight to cooking blueberry pancakes. If this is what you want game to be, then fine. But if game means everything you do that someone somewhere on this planet might find attractive, then we all have it and the term is pretty much meaningless.

Since the only only criteria for game is how many women (or men) you pull, what "quality" they are (and let's be clear that we are talking only about looks here), and how long we can keep them (if you are married or LTR), game is clearly about how well you can attract the attention of others. The tactics are varied; some focus on themselves, others on how to take advantage of the presumed psychology of others. The former is more benign, the latter much more malignant, but because the aim of both approaches is to become something for the express purpose of measuring up to someone else's expectations, the very starting point promotes inauthenticity.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lyris said:


> And there have been times in our relationship where I earned more than him and it never made one speck of difference. * Maybe it would for him if it was a long-term thing, I don't know, but it definitely wouldn't for me.*
> .


^^^^^^
I think this is what happens in most cases. Again these are cultural things, gender stereotypes.
Men are cultured to be a provider for his family. Earning more or less than a man does not affect women because they are not cultured that way.
Even if she earns more no problem really exist in her mind.
However in his mind, he feels inferior , not to her but to the cultural stereotype of what a man is supposed to be.
This is a lot more than his " fragile male ego."
It is comparable to a woman who cannot get pregnant. Her husband _thinks_ he understands,and does not pressure her. He does everything to show her love and appreciation, but she will still feel inferior because she feels its her duty to bear children.
It is a cultural rite of womanhood.


----------



## diwali123

Well of course but the guy doesn't have to be a gym rat or the type who wears sleeveless shirts and poses and flexes. 
My husband is tall and has good muscle tone. I love seeing him use his chain saw. Lol.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> Even if she earns more no problem really exist in her mind.
> However in his mind, he feels inferior , not to her but to the cultural stereotype of what a man is supposed to be.
> This is a lot more than his " fragile male ego."


If a man feels inferior to a woman because she earns more, how is that little more than his ego? I never understood that. Presumably it all goes in to the same account so what would it matter who earned more? It makes no sense to me.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Originally Posted by tacoma
> I don't think me earning less than my wife would make my pecker sad.
> I think it would make my pecker look sad to my wife.
> 
> Oh brother.
> 
> Oh brother what?
> Or was that just the bad pun?
> 
> I've been with the woman 15 years I know how she'd react to me making less than her.
> A large part of my wife's attraction to me is the fact that I can support our family.
> It makes her secure, safe, she likes it, it turns her on.
> 
> Trust me, money is just like sex in a marriage...
> When there's plenty of it it matters 10% when there isn't it's 90%.
> 
> Not all women are as "enlightened" as you.
> There are some "traditionalists" left out there.
> 
> 
> Did you ever get banned for arguing with me brighteyes?
> 
> Nope. You never pissed me off the way others did.
> 
> Damn...


----------



## diwali123

View attachment 2835


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Tacoma,

I am not saying there aren't traditionalists out there. We are all different and that's what makes us interesting. I can only speak for myself and I don't understand how a man making more than his wife would be an ego crusher for him. My oh brother comment was really just my exasperation at hearing it so often. Not a dig at you or your wife in any way.


----------



## diwali123

View attachment 2836


OMG no bro.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> If a man feels inferior to a woman because she earns more, how is that little more than his ego? I never understood that. Presumably it all goes in to the same account so what would it matter who earned more? It makes no sense to me.


It doesn't to me either but just like there are guys whose ego bugs them's about women making more than them there are women whose egos bug them about their men making less than them

I said I was good with my wife earning more and I would ****ing love it really.
I've been in relationships where "she" earned more and it was actually damn good with me.

But in this particular marriage I know that up until I can start coasting on that 401k (yeah right) I'm in a more secure place if I'm the breadwinner as far as my wife's affections go.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Tacoma,
> 
> I am not saying there aren't traditionalists out there. We are all different and that's what makes us interesting. I can only speak for myself and I don't understand how a man making more than his wife would be an ego crusher for him. My oh brother comment was really just my exasperation at hearing it so often. Not a dig at you or your wife in any way.


I didn't take it as a dig brighteyes.

I just wanted to make sure you were aware that some of us are still living in the 50's in some ways.


----------



## diwali123

View attachment 2837


I think this is more my type, but doesn't have to be as defined. I like more the swimmer or runner type body. Not into the bulk.


----------



## always_alone

TiggyBlue said:


> A woman doesn't have to be a giggling airhead in a short skirt, full face of make up and nodding in agreement with everything a man says to have 'game'. That is a very specific type of 'game' that from experience a certain type of woman plays.


Perhaps not, but it helps!

Seriously, though, women's game tends to be about sexing it up and being submissive to his dominance.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> If a man feels inferior to a woman because she earns more, how is that little more than his ego? I never understood that. Presumably it all goes in to the same account so what would it matter who earned more? It makes no sense to me.


He's not really feeling inferior to the woman, but to the male cultural stereotype.
Men are cultured to be providers for their families.

A man who thinks his penis is below average is in the smae boat as a woman who thinks her breasts are small or flat chested. They both feel a bit inferior to their gender, not specifically to their partner.

So the man who earns much less feel that he's less than a man, because she's handling the brunt of the bills. Mortgage , Groceries etc.

In our marriage, my wife and I own a business so we both have money, there's not much difference.
But there was a time when she was uncomfortable because we both had one account. She wanted her own account to spend as she see fit.
She felt inferior having to justify to me why she spent x,or y amount of money.
At first I didn't like the idea, then I decided ok , she wants her own , no problem. She's a fiercely independent woman.
So we separated the accounts and she is much happier.
Oh, and she spends quite a lot of money on me....
Its just the dynamics in our marriage.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

always_alone said:


> Perhaps not, but it helps!
> 
> Seriously, though, women's game tends to be about sexing it up and being submissive to his dominance.


A woman's game is also being confident, smart, witty and a take no prisoners kind of lady.


----------



## tacoma

Therealbrighteyes said:


> A woman's game is also being confident, smart, witty and a take no prisoners kind of lady.


A woman's game is the same as a mans from a different perspective.

Think maybe?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Caribbean Man said:


> He's not really feeling inferior to the woman, but to the male cultural stereotype.
> Men are cultured to be providers for their families.
> 
> So the man who earns much less feel that he's less than a man, because she's handling the brunt of the bills. Mortgage , Groceries etc.


I really hope that male cultural stereotype will change. It perpetuates the myth that men should be the providers/paycheck/wallet. I know many will disagree with me but I think it harms both sexes.


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> A woman's game is the same as a mans from a different perspective.
> 
> Think maybe?


YES!

Same - Same just different techniques
They both have the same objective.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

tacoma said:


> A woman's game is the same as a mans from a different perspective.
> 
> Think maybe?


Exactly. This notion that women's game is giggling and "I like what you like" is (in my experience) a small section of men who like that. Plenty of men are out there who really love a woman who speaks her mind and isn't afraid to.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I really hope that male cultural stereotype will change. It perpetuates the myth that men should be the providers/paycheck/wallet. I know many will disagree with me but I think it harms both sexes.


:iagree:

Yes, because culturally, things are changing.
Machines are doing the brunt of work and brain power is what earns the money.
The stereotypes will eventually evolve on its own, even if we don't want it too.
Such is life.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Plenty of men are out there who really love a woman who speaks her mind and isn't afraid to.


Haha..,

My kinda woman!
We will fight, but who doesn't like a good , clean fight?


----------



## TiggyBlue

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Exactly. This notion that women's game is giggling and "I like what you like" is (in my experience) a small section of men who like that. Plenty of men are out there who really love a woman who speaks her mind and isn't afraid to.


:iagree:


----------



## Created2Write

Trenton said:


> Have you had a look on the boards?
> 
> Be yourself = just trying to be different and totally over opinionated, have less friends, defend more, discount sex rank to your own biological deficit, challenge the norm only to speak an entirely different language that is most likely completely misunderstood, high five less, fem-nazi accusations, not misunderstood but completely misunderstanding, not strong just overbearing and = just plain wrong for a woman.
> 
> Meanwhile, be a woman who = appreciates her man (preferably with long hair and a size 5 shoe and hour glass figure), understands a man's perspective yet retains complete femininity, compassionate but not overly so, blushes at the right time and understands the 3 second rule and her place enough to not challenge it (because it WORKS after all), appreciates her man's needs and desires, likes to be spanked, played and toyed with so that a man can show his mettle (aka love??) because that's what all women secretly or knowingly want and = a real woman.
> 
> Funny, because for all the head nodding in agreement and barrage of varied text that is essentially saying the same thing, all I see is desire to fit in for the women and to covet an attractive woman for the men. A lack of a willingness to dare to be yourself or use sincerity to break through all the BS. Noble it is not. I think those using it can tell themselves any excuse they say fit (their own enjoyment, their own proven results) as they transform from themselves to an a$$ in an attempt to get what they want most.............CONNECTION.


This post proves my suspicion: that you don't intend to see anything good about PUA, that you're not willing to try and understand others opinions, and that your bias has completely tainted everything you've read here.


----------



## diwali123

Can we put PUA like this? 
There are men who have NO idea how to approach or attract women. They have no confidence, don't know what on earth they are doing and end up staying single or being in bad relationships. 
There's a lot in PUA that helps these guys. It's not just trickery, it's basic social skills that help men not end up being 40 year old virgins.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Nsweet

Glad someone finally sait it! 

Trenton = PUAcist.


----------



## Created2Write

Deejo said:


> So ... dry macaroni in pockets and toothpaste in shoes doesn't rise to 'stupid crap', or should I just presume hubs really does deserve it?
> 
> Trenton, that stuff that I described? That's the shallow end of the pool. That's nothing. People, and particularly peoples feelings aren't linear or single-threaded for that matter.
> 
> If there are truly people who accept nothing short of 100% genuine, up-front, no thought-guarding, open honesty and display of emotion at all times, I sincerely hope they find their match.
> 
> But ... if someone were to tell me that is how they operate as an individual and expect the same from a potential partner at all times ... here is what I would know for certain ... they are a liar.
> 
> Everyone self-regulates and self-moderates. Everyone has a filter, because everyone NEEDS a filter. We let some behaviors and thoughts through the filter. MOST, we do not.
> 
> Attraction and relationships are no different.
> 
> I say that without an ounce of cynicism.
> 
> M and I tried blunt honesty ... and she freaked. Falls into the category of 'be careful of what you wish for'. It doesn't work. And if you think it does? Odds are that is because your partner is being selective about what they are bluntly honest about.


Couldn't have said it better! 

Frankly, I would _hate_ to hear my husbands blunt, honest thoughts and feelings the moment he thinks or feels them. I know I get on his nerves sometimes. If, when he gets irritated, he were to look at me and say, "Will you shut the f-ck up already?!", even if it's something he thought in the spur of the moment, we wouldn't be married for long. 

I honestly don't believe that people here are, really, as blunt in real life as they imply.


----------



## tacoma

Nsweet said:


> Glad someone finally sait it!
> 
> Trenton = PUAcist.


Oooooooooooo....


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> It also has nothing to do with blurting out whatever random thought that passes through your mind, as so many people here seem to think.
> 
> It is about being aware of oneself and true to beliefs, principles and values. It is about treating others as equal individuals, and not as objects to be manipulated to satisfy one's selfish desire.
> 
> When we say honesty does not work, it seems to translate to honesty doesn't give me exactly what I want. That's probably true. But for me living well isn't about making everything go my way.


Again, your bias has made it next to impossible for you to see anything other than what you're determined to see. No one here has advocated being _dis_honest. What _has_ been said is that, when dealing with _attraction_ - *not relationships* - it's wise to filter what we say and what we don't, what we do and what we don't do. The intention is to build attraction. When asked a question, imo, it should be answered truthfully. But that doesn't mean we give every level of detail, ya know?

So, for example: if I were single and a guy asked me what I did for a living, I'd answer honestly: "I'm an Independent Beauty Consultant with Mary Kay". I wouldn't offer any more information than that unless he asked me. Again, the goal is attraction, not telling him my entire life story. If he asked, "What are you future goals?" I wouldn't respond with, "I want to get married and have a big house with a bunch of kids." _That's not attractive_ outside of building a relationship. Obviously, if we're building a relationship these things need to be discussed or you could end up paired with someone who's goals and dreams go in the exact opposite direction of yours. But after flirting with him in the bar and striking up conversation? The man doesn't need to know if I want to get married! It sounds so desperate and needy. Instead, I'd say, "Well, I was interested in getting a Bachelors but I'm really into my job right now so my goals are to do well in Mary Kay, build my business as much as I can, and get that car!" 

In a relationship, or when the intention has gone from just building attraction to building a potential relationship, it's a horrible idea to be dishonest or fake. HORRIBLE. Nothing kills a potential relationship more than dishonesty or pretending to be someone you're not.


----------



## Created2Write

I'm gonna make it simple: I _looooove_ men with muscles. Anything else looks puny and weak to me, and I love knowing that the man I'm with can protect me if the situation called for it. Not to mention they are soooooo sexy....especially the V shape from the shoulders down to the waist......Mmmmmmmm mmm! Nothing turns me on more than the sight of a well-built man in jeans without a shirt. I see my husband like that, and it's basically "Take me now!"

But then my husband also has a first rate mind(literally...he's a genius. He took the ASVAB once and scored so high, there wasn't a single job he couldn't do in the military...any branch), a sense of humor, a personality, game, morals, values...

Be jealous.


----------



## Created2Write

diwali123 said:


> View attachment 2835


Bleh. Too much!

I'm more of a Josh Holloway or Henry Cavil girl, myself.


----------



## Created2Write

diwali123 said:


> Can we put PUA like this?
> There are men who have NO idea how to approach or attract women. They have no confidence, don't know what on earth they are doing and end up staying single or being in bad relationships.
> There's a lot in PUA that helps these guys. It's not just trickery, it's basic social skills that help men not end up being 40 year old virgins.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree with this.


----------



## Thundarr

Created2Write said:


> Couldn't have said it better!
> 
> Frankly, I would _hate_ to hear my husbands blunt, honest thoughts and feelings the moment he thinks or feels them. I know I get on his nerves sometimes. If, when he gets irritated, he were to look at me and say, "Will you shut the f-ck up already?!", even if it's something he thought in the spur of the moment, we wouldn't be married for long.
> 
> *I honestly don't believe that people here are, really, as blunt in real life as they imply*.


The internet is full of wishful personalities. Personally I think most people who very blunt in person are missing the point anyway. Subtle bluntness goes a long way but in-your-face bluntness comes across pretty obnoxious usually. Subtle bluntness is having boundaries of how you treat others and how you let them treat you and policing those boundaries (with a *little* wiggle room for mistakes or tests). In your face bluntness screams bully and insecurity. Lots of people use bluntness as an excuse to bully others or to just be a d!ck. They are generally cowards and back away from people with substance pretty quickly. Just my thoughts


----------



## diwali123

Well you can't get smarter but you can work out. Maybe guys don't want to hear that women like things that they have no control over?


----------



## Nsweet

Trenton said:


> Uh I would have said it if anyone had asked.
> 
> Nothing anyone says here is going to change my mind because my problem is rooted in the premise as I've summarized, re-worded, and typed out plenty of times. If you don't care about the source then that's on you. Until a book is presented and touted and the source of that book is inclusive rather than presumptuous...well...duh.
> 
> I'm simply offering the alternative point of view.
> 
> Anyone with the direct opposing view is not going to agree with me or suddenly see it my way either (apparently) and also has bias towards the opposite viewpoint so saying that my stance is wrong because it is firm is rather like the pot calling the kettle black, but a girl can dream.


You don't even know what you hate! You're just grouping all PUA schools of thought and men as *ONE*. Which *ONE* is it? 

You have your hard and soft styles, you have one school of thought that says you need to get as far as you can as fast as possible, and you have another that says you need to take things slowly and get to know her and like her without having sexual touch first. You have one guy who is all about using caned material, you have another who is all about one the spot comments about her, and you have another who teaches you to go with the flow. You have guys who will continually use PUA until they are in the dirt,and you have guys who are looking for these dating skills to help them find the ONE. You have guys wo will f*ck your roomate, your friend, your sister, and your dog if you give them the chance. And you have guys who will remain faithful to you no matter how badly you treat them. There are guys practicing PUA who never have sex, and guys practicing PUA who never get let anyone close enough to hurt them. There are PUAs out there who deal with married men and teaching them how to better their marrige, and there are PUAs out there who teach single guys how to f*ck married women for the thrill of it. There are PUAs who hate women and talk about you using the B and C word, and there are softhearted PUAs who talk about women like they're all angels. 

There's many, many, many schools of thought and many, many, many different types of PUAs out there. We're not all woman hating date rapists or some fabrication of your past hurts you can blame for what happened. So which one is it? I don't want to hear what you "feel" I want to know what you think. Think Trenton, think!


----------



## Lyris

I have zero doubts that you are exactly as you present yourself here, Trenton.

And who you are is clearly awesome.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Trenton said:


> Thundarr and any others who are on me for not liking muscles and preferring honesty and a person's brain over their body can you please explain to me why kind and thoughtful can't jive with honesty? Also are you saying that I am a liar and who I say I am and what I think and believe is an internet personality rouse? Finally, does this help reinforce your viewpoint so that you can dismiss me?


Get 'em Trenton. There is no one size fits all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Can we start a Marriage Game thread? So that we can at least discuss the topic as applied in marriage, separately from how it is applied in dating/hook up culture?

I would start it but Deejo thinks I just start threads as kerfluffle bait.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



Faithful Wife said:


> Can we start a Marriage Game thread? So that we can at least discuss the topic as applied in marriage, separately from how it is applied in dating/hook up culture?
> 
> I would start it but Deejo thinks I just start threads as kerfluffle bait.


LOL. 

I encourage you to start a new thread. 

We've outgrown the debate premise where this one started.

And its had hot women, hot men, songs, Shakespeare, goat love and a pregnancy. Where else is there to go?

We can lock this one up for a while.


----------



## Deejo

Felt compelled to post this, and well, it seemed most appropriate here, based on the long running discussion we have had.

Young man that I work with is leaving. I have been his supervisor for the last year.

He's young, 28. We were talking about dating, precipitated by another coworkers circumstances whom I indicated previously, 'the right guy, wrong time' friend of mine.

So this kid says to me, "You're very different now than when we first met." 
Which was just over 3 years ago, June of 09. I had been separated since October 08. I wasn't his boss, and was just another worker bee.

And then I decided to change ... and lots of people apparently noticed, all for the better.

I took it as a compliment.


----------



## Nsweet

When you closed this thread I had a great post that was lost. Bummed me out. 

I was trying to tell Trenton about Inner Game PUA books and how the reason pick up artists seem arrested in their emotional development, and you can't find any advice beyond how to pick up women for causual sex, is because the next step beyond PUA is committment and marriage. There's a lot of good advice about to lie, cheat, and steal her heart, but only those who have risen above will write about how to take care of her once she's yours.


----------



## Deejo

Sorry about that, man.

The guy I spoke to today actually forwarded me an e-book called "Models: A Comprehensive Guide to Attracting Women" written by Mark Manson

It most certainly isn't your average PUA book. In fact he basically declares pickup is dead. I thought of Wiserforit's and Trenton's posts when I read the following:



> At best, PUA theory acts as a placebo effect to get men out there and
> taking action. At worst, it deludes them into thinking they’re
> controlling entire social systems that they have no real control over,
> and lobotomizes their ability to empathize and connect with others
> in the process.
> And women sense this. They’re not dumb. It’s why most PUA
> theory doesn’t work in the long-run. You may be talking about
> astrology charts, but they know you’re hitting on them. The answer
> isn’t finding new ways to mislead women into thinking you’re high
> status and confident.
> The answer is to be high status and confident. And it doesn’t require
> being rich or being successful. It requires a new mindset, and from
> that mindset will flow new and attractive behaviors.
> Because there is a way to behave in a high status fashion while still
> showing your desire to women. There is a way to unravel the
> conundrum, the investment paradox. You can chase without being
> desperate. You can pursue without being creepy. You can show
> interest without appearing needy. And you don’t ever have to
> pretend you’re something that you’re not.


----------



## Nsweet

Right on!

I still have to write back a guy on another web site who asked me directly to help him out. He's your typical "nice guy" who can't figure out what he's doing wrong to chase away women, and he doesn't want to trick them into liking him. I'm thinking about telling him to stop trying to be so direct and just enjoy being himself in the company of women for a while. 

How nice guys really don't get that the direct apporach works for the jerks, and most PUAs are just d!cks to women but they get away with it because they're charming. And that nice guys do better with making lots of female friends and turning the closest ones into relationships in time, or having one to two close female friends who won't f*ck you but will help you meet women. 

The biggest disappointment in learning PUA for me was that I failed to realize you want to attract women to you by being the type of friend they would want to have first. If you can be fun and resist trying to have sex with them up front like every other bonheaded guy out there, they'll see you as different - Which can be good or bad depending on your masculinity around them. Women love men who aren't needy "girlfriends", and wanna bang their male friends who are always there when needed but still manage to stay a challenge. 

What do you think?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Deejo said:


> Sorry about that, man.
> 
> The guy I spoke to today actually forwarded me an e-book called "Models: A Comprehensive Guide to Attracting Women" written by Mark Manson
> 
> It most certainly isn't your average PUA book. In fact he basically declares pickup is dead. I thought of Wiserforit's and Trenton's posts when I read the following:


Haven't read that one, but it sounds interesting.

That excerpt is very much in line with my experience. When I first started pushing myself out of my shell, I was no doubt awkward. At that time, there are certain things you memorize just to get out of a conversational jam. I certainly wasn't authentic... but I needed that experience. I needed it to build familiarity, to conquer fear and nervousness, and BE confident.

I don't care who you are, you're not confident doing things you've never done. You may be determined, you may be positive, but there is always doubt and some apprehension of some kind at the start of any new thing.

I view pickup as a kickstarter. The most important parts aren't even about pickup techniques... its the parts concerning motivation that are most meaningful to me. To do something different. Something outside the comfort zone of many guys.

"If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten."

I view it all in a similar vein to what people tell to married couples whose marriages are stable but have grown cold: fake it till you make it. But eventually you become what you are emulating. To become anything, you have to start thinking you ARE that thing... and along the way you might even take it overboard. The next thing you know, everything clicks. Mind and reality meet. You now see the difference between chasing and desperation, showing interest and being needy. And you've become what you sought.

That mindset has served me well throughout my life, from career success, to athletic success, to success in the dating world.

I got to my position at work not by being the smartest or most talented, but by acting with authority and taking care of my group. By acting the part of the boss without being bossy, before ever being the boss.

Its all mental.


----------



## tacoma

Trenton said:


> With a Google search it looks as though the author runs a blog titled "Post Masculine". If I didn't have to go to work I'd probably be reading all day.


Apparently I've been there as it's coming up as a clicked link in a Google search.

I have no recollection of this blog.


----------



## Tall Average Guy

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I don't care who you are, you're not confident doing things you've never done. You may be determined, you may be positive, but there is always doubt and some apprehension of some kind at the start of any new thing.


I find it fascinating that people doubt this. None of us knew how to walk or talk out of the womb. we learned, with a whole lot of bumbling whiling doing so. Sure, some picked up pretty quickly because they have a natural talent, but most of us figured it out after more than a couple of stumbles and a whole lot of practice.

Why can that not apply to other things as well?


----------



## Nsweet

Ok Trenton, if YOU know so much then why don't you tells us HOW EVERYTHING WORKS.

You're clearly the expert on this, despite never picking up a single book or spending any time reading about this besides the points and opinions from other know nothing married women on here. 

So why don't you tell us. Create your own thread and call it "Trenton Explains It All!" and you teach men and women how to attract lovers based off of your winning system.


----------



## Faithful Wife

You can read it all on my blog when it is ready, Nsweet. I'll let you know.


----------



## Faithful Wife

(Trenton will clearly be one of my contributing authors. Her peen is bigger than mine).


----------



## Topical storm

always_alone said:


> It was good of you to try and answer for me, but I think you might have made an error or two in your recap of my perspective.
> 
> The sources of "game" were announced in the OP of this thread. The only confusion about what it means comes from those who are so determined to put a good spin on it that it basically means absolutely everything from standing up straight to cooking blueberry pancakes. If this is what you want game to be, then fine. But if game means everything you do that someone somewhere on this planet might find attractive, then we all have it and the term is pretty much meaningless.
> 
> Since the only only criteria for game is how many women (or men) you pull, what "quality" they are (and let's be clear that we are talking only about looks here), and how long we can keep them (if you are married or LTR), game is clearly about how well you can attract the attention of others. The tactics are varied; some focus on themselves, others on how to take advantage of the presumed psychology of others. The former is more benign, the latter much more malignant, but because the aim of both approaches is to become something for the express purpose of measuring up to someone else's expectations, the very starting point promotes inauthenticity.


A source of game was announced by the OP but that was not THE source. Those are only the sources that you would like to link to it because in your mind game means trickery or deceit, because you are not used to using the modernized word of game.

Who are you to determine what word is meaningless or not, just because you don't like the word? It's not about what I want the word game to be, it's just that's the word that most people use when trying to gain favor or attraction. There was no confusion on what the word meant. You did not know what it meant, hence you asking "Is this game?...Is that game?...How is that game? You and a few other women were confused because you didn't know the context of how the word is used in a modern setting.

Now, if you knew what the word game meant and didn't like it, then you were engaging in intellectual dishonesty and wasted 100 pages worth arguing back and forth with others, about the meaning of game. Either you're lying about you knew what the word game meant and didn't like it or you didn't know the context in the modern era, which one is it?

But game is not all about tactics. Some people are naturally funny, witty, intelligent, outgoing, talkative, good looking, mysterious, and one that is being themselves can pull in women and thus no tactic is occured at all. Your problem is that you only think game is PUA which guys have whiteboard set ups that diagram football plays to engage in conversations with females. This is only one part of game. If you think game's starting point promotes inauthenticity then men engaging women into small talk or conversation is inauthentic itself, therefore we should conclude by your standards that men talking to women is trickery and deceit. 

You never used the word game when you were young, that's why it's causing much more confusion on your part because in the better part of your youth the phrase "game" never really entered your psyche. Your understanding only comes from this thread, to what people have told you. You never were engulfed by practice, just in theory that's why there's so much confusion on your part and not on many others.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> There are better ways and resources to use in order to learn.


Please enlighten.


----------



## tacoma

Faithful Wife said:


> (Trenton will clearly be one of my contributing authors. Her peen is bigger than mine).


Technically it's just thicker.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Good point, Tacoma! But I can admit when I have peen envy. Thicker is clearly better.


----------



## Nsweet

tacoma said:


> Technically it's just thicker.


That's what *he* said:rofl:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Trenton said:


> There are better ways and resources to use in order to learn.



But who determines which resource is best for their own personal use?


----------



## Faithful Wife

The one with the biggest peen, of course. Duh!


----------



## DaddyLongShanks

Nsweet said:


> That's what *he* said:rofl:


Well if both are the same length and one is clearly THICKER than the other, then it is also BIGGER due to volume.

So the bigger one gets to speak and determine the course.


----------



## tacoma

Faithful Wife said:


> The one with the biggest peen, of course. Duh!


Then I've been doing it right!!

I think..

:scratchhead:


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Trenton said:


> There are better ways and resources to use in order to learn.


Better than practicing?


----------



## Nsweet

Caribbean Man said:


> But who determines which resource is best for their own personal use?


Double blind study of course!
Commitment and changing myself - YouTube
Sorry I couldn't find the full clip. The other chicken wire dummy says "Is heaven missing and angel? Cause you got nice cans".


----------



## Nsweet

Trenton said:


> Really N'Sweet? What's with all the animosity? Let's work it out and then move back to this topic.
> 
> Are you sure you disagree with me as much as you think you do?


Let me put it to you like this, when you come into here and dump all over people's belief systems, however flawed they might be, you only serve to create friction and get yourself seen as a b!tch. 

However, if you were agree with PUA at least 75% in here and stop dumping all over what supporters have to say with what you believe. You could interject with how it would work even better given a few examples and you would be more likely to persuade them to see things your way and get along better. 

That it how game works btw. It's like the 180 rules, you stop criticizing and find something to get along with and you'll eventually come to angreement. 

And you and I do see alike in many ways on here, I'm not arguing about respecting women and not being manipulative. I just want you to read a book, any book, before you come in here and speak with authority on the subject. If you want I can download a few on my new comp and send you some tonight.


----------



## tacoma

Someone here turned me onto this Postmasculine blog/site.
(Might even have been this thread "game" is everywhere lately)

Postmasculine - A Rational Self Help Site for Men

It's pretty good and more along the lines of what I've said I see game as.

Still doesn't really get into the game in a relationship gig though.


----------



## Wiserforit

Deejo said:


> The answer isn’t finding new ways to mislead women into thinking you’re high status and confident. The answer is to be high status and confident.


I had quit reading the thread because manipulation is probably what I loathe in people more than anything else. Obviously you cannot wade into a thread with fans of manipulation and expect to find it rewarding.

But yes obviously this is the core disagreement many of us have with PUA bunk - the difference between deception and being real. 

You asked me how I had come to read the PUA literature. I had an old college room-mate who always had trouble with women despite being a pretty funny guy, decent looking, and not a bad athlete. 

After he got divorced he called me up and wanted to try out the mountain man life I had been into since we had parted in college. I don't drink but I play guitar and had a band for a long time. I had gotten tired of the bar band scene by then and was playing alone in restaurant-type settings, with earlier hours so I would be done by 9pm, and from there I acted as his designated driver. 

I'd be talking to a group of women, and he would pull me aside and tell me that I was "doing it wrong", which I thought pretty strange because I just answer questions people ask me. And he was full of all this gibberish I now recognize as PUA lingo. I wasn't even interested in dating at that time because I had a very clear idea about exactly what I wanted, from all the expeditions I had been doing overseas. I was just babysitting him on his bar-hopping PUA ventures. 

At the time I was doing a lot of reading on manipulation. When we got home from one gig he handed me the book The Game and said I needed to read that to understand what he was telling me about "demonstrating value" that night. I had an amazing run of request songs out of that pack of girls so they had me over at their table when I was done playing, and I was apparently trying too hard by just answering questions honestly. I wasn't even interested in picking any of them up. 

I was pretty amazed that all of the tactics in The Game were straight out of the books I was reading on how people with personality disorders manipulate others through emotionally abusive means. 

We argued about it and he said no, no - I just hadn't read enough. He then produced a large box with more books and a huge pile of print-outs from PUA/Game websites. The more I read the clearer it was how right my initial impression had been.

I ended up having to evict the guy because he was a manipulative prick in general, not just with women. So it was pretty obvious to me in retrospect why a manipulative prick would find such favor in the PUA literature.

But you know - it didn't work. The "neg theory" stuff I saw him doing in particular just pissed the girls off. He was a cab driver and that just didn't pull women the way being a doctor or a lawyer does. 

In the 30 years it had been since I met him, I had gone on to a decent career, and learned a lot of new talents whereas he had not even finished his degree and did what Mystery recommends in that book - hanging out in bars four nights a week, practicing deception.

Despite being a cab driver he dressed up in three-piece suits and I was always in jeans and a t-shirt. People would ask me if I was his bodyguard. So we actually played along with that theme some of the time. The irony was pretty funny because he had nothing to his name other than the clothes. He had declared bankruptcy from accumulating credit card debt buying those suits, shoes, wines, and such. 

I still get calls occasionally from bill collectors. Apparently he has about $10K in hospital bills. No matter how much "Game" this guy practiced from all this literature, the fact is just being a responsible adult and being a person of accomplishment will earn you the respect of other people, including women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Hey, I saw her on my fave show....Ru Paul's Drag Race!


----------



## always_alone

Nsweet said:


> I just want you to read a book, any book, before you come in here and speak with authority on the subject. If you want I can download a few on my new comp and send you some tonight.


I know you weren't addressing me directly, but I decided I really ought to look more closely at a book. Maybe I need to be getting me some game after all?

Anyway, here's what I found:


> Before we move forward with the book, I must ask for three things: Courage. Commitment. Change. Your commitment to follow through and your courage to change will directly reflect your success. The old ways weren't working, so now it's time to change ...


Changes include:
- master your emotions
- never let the person know you are interested
-answer the phone on the first ring and always be the one to end the conversation
-never grovel, never pursue, 
- do not get attached to quickly

Sound familiar? 

This is girl game from Power of the ***** by Kara King. Oh, and she wraps all of her advice in the same hate-filled language that you see in other PUA literature. (Calling men stupid, e.g.)

Un-freaking-believable.


----------



## Nsweet

It sounds familiar because it's the same how to advise from emotional manipulators who attract victims like cultist recruiters.

This was origionally written for men, but the advise goes for women as well.
Abusive Women, Cults, Brainwashing and Deprogramming, Part I | A Shrink for Men
Abusive Women, Cults, Brainwashing and Deprogramming, Part II | A Shrink for Men


----------



## Faithful Wife

Nsweet....yes....she knows it is the same. That was her point.

(is this thing on....?)


----------



## Nsweet

Faithful Wife said:


> Nsweet....yes....she knows it is the same. That was her point.
> 
> (is this thing on....?)


That's what I was saying. 

Look at the articles I posted, there's phases to it.


----------



## Created2Write

> Because there is a way to behave in a high status fashion while still
> showing your desire to women. There is a way to unravel the
> conundrum, the investment paradox. You can chase without being
> desperate. You can pursue without being creepy. You can show
> interest without appearing needy. And you don’t ever have to
> pretend you’re something that you’re not.


LOVE this. LOVE it.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Haven't read that one, but it sounds interesting.
> 
> That excerpt is very much in line with my experience. When I first started pushing myself out of my shell, I was no doubt awkward. At that time, there are certain things you memorize just to get out of a conversational jam. I certainly wasn't authentic... but I needed that experience. I needed it to build familiarity, to conquer fear and nervousness, and BE confident.
> 
> I don't care who you are, you're not confident doing things you've never done. You may be determined, you may be positive, but there is always doubt and some apprehension of some kind at the start of any new thing.
> 
> I view pickup as a kickstarter. The most important parts aren't even about pickup techniques... its the parts concerning motivation that are most meaningful to me. To do something different. Something outside the comfort zone of many guys.
> 
> "If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten."
> 
> I view it all in a similar vein to what people tell to married couples whose marriages are stable but have grown cold: fake it till you make it. But eventually you become what you are emulating. To become anything, you have to start thinking you ARE that thing... and along the way you might even take it overboard. The next thing you know, everything clicks. Mind and reality meet. You now see the difference between chasing and desperation, showing interest and being needy. And you've become what you sought.
> 
> That mindset has served me well throughout my life, from career success, to athletic success, to success in the dating world.
> 
> I got to my position at work not by being the smartest or most talented, but by acting with authority and taking care of my group. By acting the part of the boss without being bossy, before ever being the boss.
> 
> Its all mental.


Right. To make an entirely different example, in my Mary Kay team, we're encouraged to write out a list of ten good qualities and characteristics we already have, and then ten more we want to have...and we speak these things out loud twice everyday, as if we already have all twenty. So, right now I'm not good at selling the products naturally. It feels awkward to me. However, everyday I say, "I know our products and sell them with confidence". And it works! I made my first sale today, with promise to sell even more in the near future! And now I feel like going and selling more! That one success has built my confidence, and I'm starting to believe that I _can_ succeed at this business. 

I see PUA as a similar thing; you have the basic foundation to help get you out of your shell and make it to your first success, whether that's just talking to a female stranger, or getting her to flirt with you, or whatever. Once that first success hits, things automatically become more natural, and you become more comfortable. It's less intimidating.


----------



## Nsweet

Oh honey, tell me you did't get involved with Mary Kay. Oh no no no.


----------



## Created2Write

Oh yes, yes, yes.


----------



## Nsweet

Honey, you do not know what you're in for!

Let me just a few things about it before you invest too heavily and end up in debt and blaming yourself for a flawed system. 

Aside from being a money marketing "pyramid scheme", and I use the term in quotes lightly. It is legal on a technicality, that you can make money off of the products you sale, but the whole MM plan is designed to fail. The only thing that makes companies like Mary Kay and Amway legal and alive today is that you can scratch out a few dollars from moving product alone, but that's not how you make money with this plan. 

In order to make money you have to manage teams with MK and recruit sellers who buy into the company through you and receive product to sale. On the surface it looks like a hell of a deal, I mean who wouldn't want to work from home or door to door seeling makeup. But there are several problems with this that enevetable lead to a 99% failure in these companies over time. The leading cause of which is the flawed company to begin with. You have to keep seeling a certain amount of product per month or having your *DANGEROUS WORD* "downgrade" keep moving product for you. Sooner or later the market saturates with sellers and you force your downgrade to keep moving out of the area to find more buyers or replace them when they drop out.

The reason Mark Kay fails it's pink ladies, yet continues to thrive as a company is two fold. First they as *SOO GOOD * at pumping up their sellers with motivational speaking and convincing them it's easy to make money, or if you fail it's all your fault. Many of these companies actually make more money off of their brainwashing how to books and seminars where you pay money to have a face man jump around and pump you up to keep selling and books that say the same things you'll find about equally impressive selling methods else where. The other thing about that is you pay Mary Kay no matter what. You want in the company you have to buy your way in and you want out you already bough boxes of make up you can no longer sale. So they make tons of dough despite having an almost complete failure rate of 88% starting out leading up to 99%. There's no danger here of the company crashing though, which means no one is going to jail for a legal crime.

I'm not trying ot make you feel bad about this or tell you what you're doing is wrong. If if makes you happy then go for it, but you need to be aware that the system is stacked against you to begin with.... just do a google search on how pyramid schemes work and how multilevel marketing companies work. If tou sell to ten people who sell to ten people, and so on and so fourth.... You're going to run out of people in your state alone very shortly and then people on the planet by the 10th level. The only way you're going to make money on this and be successful is if you opt out before you lose everything. 

Check this out and sleep on what I've told you. I've seen gunho women fail miserably and lose thousands on these easy money companies including my mother, aunt, and ex wife TWICE.
Penn & Teller: ********! - Easy Money - YouTube


----------



## Faithful Wife




----------



## Faithful Wife

Dang it! I can't get my image to show up!

Anyway...it is a woman eating popcorn....


----------



## Created2Write

Firstly Nsweet, the "hon" in your post is incredibly patronizing. It makes me sound like I need pity or sympathy, as if I'm too stupid to make a decision without thinking about it first. I appreciate the concern, but I believe in the company. I have known many women who've been in the company, and they made a lot of money doing so. My mother in law worked up to getting her car. A friend of hers in on her like fourth pink Cadillac. I'm not putting myself into debt, thank you, and no one on my team has pressured me to do so. I know exactly what I can and can not afford, and I have made sure not to spend more than my husband and I are comfortable with. I have overwhelming support from my Sales Director and the other women on my team, I get to decide how often I want to work and how I want to run my business, which is incredibly convenient now that I have a baby on the way, and I absolutely believe 100% in empowering women's lives. 

Is the company perfect? Of course not. Are there things I wish could be better? Of course. But no company is perfect. And I would much rather work for a company that believes in empowering women, and giving them a chance to earn money without having to put their family second. Plus, I absolutely LOVE their products, and now I get them at half price. 

A lot of people hate Mary Kay, and that's their choice. But I don't need anyone else to tell me that I've made some horrible decision(especially a man...I mean, wtf? It's not like you've been a consultant...). If I find that I don't like what I'm doing, then I'll only use it for personal use and I'm STILL saving money. I don't have to spend hardly any money to keep my status as a Consultant and keep my discount, so I'm really not out anything at all.

Edit to add: there, actually, are three ways to make money with Mary Kay: selling the product(and you can make thousands of dollars this way, even without recruiting anyone), reorders(since it's a consumable product, women will continue to reorder what they've run out of) and team building. The amount of money you make recruiting women isn't actually very much until you get into DIQ. In the beginning, you make much more money selling the product than you do recruiting people. 

Also, you don't have to sell any minimum amount of product at all. There are no quotas to meet. There is no minimum number of parties you have to host, no minimum amount of facials you have to set up, and there's no minimum amount of ladies you have to recruit. Every single woman involved with Mary Kay can do as much or as little as she feels like doing. Also, we don't go door to door. At least, my team actively discourages that. So, as long as you order like $200 bucks a year in product, you keep your title of Beauty Consultant and your discount. I could order three times that just for myself, so...yeah. No issue there. 

Also, since we run our own business we get to right off things like our gas, our mortgage/rent, our utilities, our clothes(and by this I mean our MK attire), any business trips we go on etc. in taxes. Why? Because we're building our business out of our own home. Also, it makes no sense for this to be a pyramid scheme based solely on how the recruiting and commissions work. My Sales Director could recruit 100 ladies onto her team. If they don't succeed at selling the product, she doesn't get any commission off of their sales. And that commission isn't much, btw. It's only 13% at the very, very most. 13% over twenty or thirty women adds up, but only if those women succeed at selling the product. 

To be an active consultant, they have to purchase $200 of product wholesale every month. 13% of $200 is only $26 every month. Not very much, is it? The only way they make the big bucks and get their pink commission checks is if they help their recruits succeed at selling the product. THAT is why they have such amazing empowering seminars, THAT is why they give away free product and other amazing prizes(like Swarovski crystal rings and necklaces and cars and plasma televisions and china sets and free trips that cost thousands of dollars) when you do really well in the company. 

Sure, the better you do at selling the product and recruiting others to join your team, the higher you go in the company. But that principle(do better at your job, make more money, get more promotions) applies to EVERY job in the world. Mary Kay just happens to have a different business model. And if their failure rate really was as low as you say, my mother in law would not have made it to Sales Director and gotten her car. 

Amway, however, I agree is bad news. I had a friend who got into it and the ONLY way he made money was by recruiting others. But in Mary Kay, we don't have to recruit anyone if we don't want to, and we STILL can make thousands of dollars selling the product, hosting parties, and filling reorders.

But thanks anyway.


----------



## Created2Write

Also, if you quit Mary Kay you can either send back your inventory and get 90% of what you paid for it, or you can keep the inventory and still sell it. And since you're not replacing it, you make 100% profit on it. You bought the product, you absolutely can sell it, even if you quit the company.


----------



## Deejo

So now we can add multi-level-marketing to the roster of AWESOME STUFF the gaming thread has ...

I know what it needs next, an animal that totally has mad game.

The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger (original narration by Randall) - YouTube


----------



## Created2Write

Also, could you post any research or studies made that proves that Mary Kay is 88% unsuccessful? If not, you need to stop acting like you know what you're talking about...cause you don't.


----------



## Created2Write

Sorry Deejo. I won't derail that with my pink bubble any longer.


----------



## always_alone

tacoma said:


> Someone here turned me onto this Postmasculine blog/site.
> (Might even have been this thread "game" is everywhere lately)
> 
> Postmasculine - A Rational Self Help Site for Men
> 
> It's pretty good and more along the lines of what I've said I see game as.
> 
> Still doesn't really get into the game in a relationship gig though.


I only read a little bit, but the post-game does seem saner than game. I liked the take down of evolutionary psychology and the 10-pt ranking system. 

Now that a man has said it, maybe others will start seeing the reason in it?


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> I only read a little bit, but the post-game does seem saner than game. I liked the take down of evolutionary psychology and the 10-pt ranking system.
> 
> Now that a man has said it, maybe others will start seeing the reason in it?


Gotta admit, I really like the kid's style.


----------



## tacoma

Trenton said:


> Quoted for truth.


Would you know it if you saw it?


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



always_alone said:


> I only read a little bit, but the post-game does seem saner than game. I liked the take down of evolutionary psychology and the 10-pt ranking system.
> 
> Now that a man has said it, maybe others will start seeing the reason in it?


But ... we've been saying it, here in this thread.


----------



## Nsweet

Created2wright,

Ok First off, I call women and little girls honey, sweetie, sugar, baby without thinking about it because I was raised in the deep south. I don't know why I do it and I hate myself for saying it at times. It may not be appropriate 90% of the times, but I do it without thinking about it, not to patrionize or hit on anyone. 

Second, I'm trying to warn you about the dangers of multilevel marketing. Without putting the product in the way, which does not matter to the business model it could be a great product or a horrible one, these prize pyramid schemes as they're often called end up losing people money. It may not be you or it may not have been they few successful people you knew, but anywhere from 70% at the lowest end to 99% at the highest (if the company's owners get busted by the feds like a number of them did in the 90's) of people will quit the company with some losses.

Here are a list of websites from investment websites to MLM watch dogs. 

Mary Kay Preys on Women - Forbes
Pink Truth » Myth of MLM Income Opportunity: 99% Lose Money in MLM

The money behind Herbalife, Mary Kay and others - Jan. 9, 2013

Watch this guy's videos!
Don't Fall For Multi Level Marketing - YouTube

And that's all I'm going to say about MLMs and Mary Kay. You're on your own, but don't say I didn't try to warn you if you get in too deep.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> But ... we've been saying it, here in this thread.


Ummmmm. Well you did start this thread with a clear dismissal of the more ludicrous and misogynist aspects of game, I'll give you that. And you and some others others have been consistent about this.

But throughout there has been an undercurrent of bs evolutionary psychology of how women are programmed to behave that supposedly explains why game is so successful. And any efforts to argue against it has been met with utter disbelief. "But it's science/human nature, it must be true!"

And the ranking system seems to be taken as the fundamental law of attraction. Challenging it would goes over about as well as suggesting that Newton's laws don't always apply.

Oh wait.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Trenton said:


> Really or just kidding?
> 
> Don't want to waste my opinions on feed for the roosters.


Not at all kidding.

Your position is down to a rejection on the basis of the credibility of the source. But who is more qualified to say such a thing than someone who regularly picks up women? You don't have to like the person or think they're a nice guy. The only relevant question of a source is "is he qualified to make these statements".

See, imo, saying you have problems with the source is more of a rationalization. You're seeking an excuse to dismiss what someone says based on emotional, or moral outrage - disgust at the content creator rather than an argument against the meat of the content (I say "meat" because the offputting colorful language is just worthless wrapper).

I can think of no one more qualified to tell other men what attracts women than a man who goes out regularly and attracts many women. In my view, that is even more valuable than asking a given woman what she wants. She doesn't go out picking up women. Even the sum of the experiences of her close friends (those close enough to give enough detail) is likely to pale in comparison to a good PUA. Besides that, she has an interest in NOT giving away the keys to her castle so just any Tom, **** or Harry can come along and fake their way into her heart.

An alternative of surveying women would be similarly useless. Women say unhelpful things like "be yourself" and they often rely heavily on happenstance meeting. If "be yourself" was a useful answer, there wouldn't be a market for pickup books in the first place, and chance meetings are rare.

PUAs lay out a wide range of principles that apply to attraction, many of which are not common sense. Some are even counter intuitive. They've field tested these principles. They have concrete examples of how such things go, and they have reasonable explanations of why they work. A guy can take them and test them himself.

I see nothing wrong with anyone wanting to be more attractive to the opposite sex. There's another angle that isn't being talked about much, and that is that the women aren't the only creatures in the sea. A guy has to outcompete other guys for the attention. If it had been originally framed as a way to differentiate yourself from other men, I think you and the others so opposed would be singing an entirely different tune.

So again I ask you: if reading books written by men who are very successful in building attraction with many women and integrating the principles discussed into oneself with practice is not the best means of becoming more attractive to women, what is?


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Not at all kidding.
> 
> Your position is down to a rejection on the basis of the credibility of the source. But who is more qualified to say such a thing than someone who regularly picks up women? You don't have to like the person or think they're a nice guy. The only relevant question of a source is "is he qualified to make these statements".
> 
> See, imo, saying you have problems with the source is more of a rationalization. You're seeking an excuse to dismiss what someone says based on emotional, or moral outrage - disgust at the content creator rather than an argument against the meat of the content (I say "meat" because the offputting colorful language is just worthless wrapper).
> 
> I can think of no one more qualified to tell other men what attracts women than a man who goes out regularly and attracts many women. In my view, that is even more valuable than asking a given woman what she wants. She doesn't go out picking up women. Even the sum of the experiences of her close friends (those close enough to give enough detail) is likely to pale in comparison to a good PUA. Besides that, she has an interest in NOT giving away the keys to her castle so just any Tom, **** or Harry can come along and fake their way into her heart.
> 
> An alternative of surveying women would be similarly useless. Women say unhelpful things like "be yourself" and they often rely heavily on happenstance meeting. If "be yourself" was a useful answer, there wouldn't be a market for pickup books in the first place, and chance meetings are rare.
> 
> PUAs lay out a wide range of principles that apply to attraction, many of which are not common sense. Some are even counter intuitive. They've field tested these principles. They have concrete examples of how such things go, and they have reasonable explanations of why they work. A guy can take them and test them himself.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with anyone wanting to be more attractive to the opposite sex. There's another angle that isn't being talked about much, and that is that the women aren't the only creatures in the sea. A guy has to outcompete other guys for the attention. If it had been originally framed as a way to differentiate yourself from other men, I think you and the others so opposed would be singing an entirely different tune.
> 
> So again I ask you: if reading books written by men who are very successful in building attraction with many women and integrating the principles discussed into oneself with practice is not the best means of becoming more attractive to women, what is?


:iagree:

Finally.

I agree fully with your post.
Dismissing a piece of work because its source does not meet a person's own moral standard is like saying: 
" I'm Muslim and Muslims don't deal with Infidels."
Infidels being anyone who is non Muslim.

Also some dismiss game theory because they say it lumps all women into an " offensive" false categorization.
In their opinion, women are pictured as mindless, powerless species unable to resist the male sexual prowess.
Nothing could be further from the truth. 
The authors of the material/ book have absolutely no way of knowing exactly what attracts every , single female ,or how they would respond to verbal stimuli , they basically use the same method advertisers ,manufacturers and retailers of consumer products, including feminine products, use to market their business, generalizations.

I'm certain many females on this thread may have wondered sometimes how come a pair of jeans, just bought in the store, fit so well, as if it was custom tailored for them. The answer is simple,
Random sampling, aka , generalizations. Some manufacturers even design their jeans with a particular cut designed for a certain demographic. 
So that there are Brazilian cuts and Euro cuts, but still the assumptions are based on massive generalizations.

And therin lies the rebuttal to yet another fallacy of some who are opposed.
The fallacy that those who read these book and adopt some of the techniques are less than authentic in their approach to women and relationships.
The PUA and game handbooks does not guarantee success every single time. Anyone using it would have to have a measure of authenticity in his approach to it because everyone interprets information differently.
In other words, give ten men a detailed handbook, written by a woman about what she [ the author ] wants in bed during lovemaking , and all ten men would process what she wants, differently.
And if all ten were to have a one to one session with her, their individual approaches to the making love to her would differ.
Therin lies their authenticity.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Wiserforit said:


> I had quit reading the thread because manipulation is probably what I loathe in people more than anything else. Obviously you cannot wade into a thread with fans of manipulation and expect to find it rewarding.
> 
> But yes obviously this is the core disagreement many of us have with PUA bunk - the difference between deception and being real.
> 
> You asked me how I had come to read the PUA literature. I had an old college room-mate who always had trouble with women despite being a pretty funny guy, decent looking, and not a bad athlete.
> 
> After he got divorced he called me up and wanted to try out the mountain man life I had been into since we had parted in college. I don't drink but I play guitar and had a band for a long time. I had gotten tired of the bar band scene by then and was playing alone in restaurant-type settings, with earlier hours so I would be done by 9pm, and from there I acted as his designated driver.
> 
> I'd be talking to a group of women, and he would pull me aside and tell me that I was "doing it wrong", which I thought pretty strange because I just answer questions people ask me. And he was full of all this gibberish I now recognize as PUA lingo. I wasn't even interested in dating at that time because I had a very clear idea about exactly what I wanted, from all the expeditions I had been doing overseas. I was just babysitting him on his bar-hopping PUA ventures.
> 
> At the time I was doing a lot of reading on manipulation. When we got home from one gig he handed me the book The Game and said I needed to read that to understand what he was telling me about "demonstrating value" that night. I had an amazing run of request songs out of that pack of girls so they had me over at their table when I was done playing, and I was apparently trying too hard by just *answering questions honestly.* *I wasn't even interested in picking any of them up. *
> 
> I was pretty amazed that all of the tactics in The Game were straight out of the books I was reading on how people with personality disorders manipulate others through emotionally abusive means.
> 
> We argued about it and he said no, no - I just hadn't read enough. He then produced a large box with more books and a huge pile of print-outs from PUA/Game websites. The more I read the clearer it was how right my initial impression had been.
> 
> I ended up having to evict the guy because he was a manipulative prick in general, not just with women. So it was pretty obvious to me in retrospect why a manipulative prick would find such favor in the PUA literature.
> 
> But you know - it didn't work. The "neg theory" stuff I saw him doing in particular just pissed the girls off. *He was a cab driver and that just didn't pull women the way being a doctor or a lawyer does. *
> 
> In the 30 years it had been since I met him, *I had gone on to a decent career, and learned a lot of new talents* whereas he had not even finished his degree and did what Mystery recommends in that book - hanging out in bars four nights a week, practicing deception.
> 
> Despite being a cab driver he dressed up in three-piece suits and I was always in jeans and a t-shirt. People would ask me if I was his bodyguard. So we actually played along with that theme some of the time. The irony was pretty funny because he had nothing to his name other than the clothes. He had declared bankruptcy from accumulating credit card debt buying those suits, shoes, wines, and such.
> 
> I still get calls occasionally from bill collectors. Apparently he has about $10K in hospital bills. No matter how much "Game" this guy practiced from all this literature, the fact is just being a responsible adult and being a person of accomplishment will earn you the respect of other people, including women.


I call bullsh!t. The bold above would never be said by anyone who has read virtually anything in PUA literature.

Honest answers (to the point of being mildy ****y and blunt); Not looking like you're interested in picking them up; this is straight, fundemental pickup.

Being an all flash no cash bum with no personal ambition? That's not game.

Your friend was a loser. If a person were a car, pickup is polishing and detailing. It can't paint the car or give it wheels.

You also don't need to go out 4 nights a week. The point being made is that you need to go out often enough that you're extremely confortable with the environment and interacting with people. More than getting as much interactive practice as possible, you start knowing the staff at various places by name. You know the regulars. Knowing people is one element of status.

When I'm out, which is only a few times a month now, people know me. The bartenders know what I usually drink. They know what I do for a living. They ask about my kids even. I ask about their lives. I've connected with all of these people. Since I talk to everyone everywhere I go, I have friends everywhere I go. 

The baristas at starbucks know my name and what I always order. But not only that, I get a ton of additional information by maintaining these connections. From something as simple as a band or special event coming into town that I didn't know about, to opportunities for my business that I can follow up.

That has some allure... a form of pre-selection: "everyone seems to really like this guy". As I've said many times now, PUA is really only a narrowly defined extension of making friends and influencing people.

To call it manipulative is to say I'm being manipulative when I get to know my customers on a personal level - knowing their family life and their interests etc. I want to build a closer rapport with them. I want to know them better. I want them to know me better. I'm not a business. I'm a person. They are not a customer, they are a person. Is it manipulative to WANT to build close relationships with people on the basis that doing so also strengthens your business ties and drives new leads? 

If so, every good business is manipulative in your view. Its nonsense. This is just living in a social world.

Engage people in the way they want to be engaged. This is PUA. This is business. This is just social life.


----------



## Racer

The “Dis” or “Neg” is there to invoke a defensive “I’ll prove you wrong” attitude in a woman. It is so she’ll continue to talk to you instead of blowing you off. It raises her emotional state, and emotional investment. 197 pages so far.... 

So much for this PUA stuff doesn’t work. Works fine.


----------



## Faithful Wife

"But who is more qualified to say such a thing than someone who regularly picks up women?"

Which is exactly why my blog will be a great read!


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> Right. To make an entirely different example, in my Mary Kay team, we're encouraged to write out a list of ten good qualities and characteristics we already have, and then ten more we want to have...and we speak these things out loud twice everyday, as if we already have all twenty. So, right now I'm not good at selling the products naturally. It feels awkward to me. However, everyday I say, "I know our products and sell them with confidence". And it works! I made my first sale today, with promise to sell even more in the near future! And now I feel like going and selling more! That one success has built my confidence, and I'm starting to believe that I _can_ succeed at this business.
> 
> I see PUA as a similar thing; you have the basic foundation to help get you out of your shell and make it to your first success, whether that's just talking to a female stranger, or getting her to flirt with you, or whatever. Once that first success hits, things automatically become more natural, and you become more comfortable. It's less intimidating.


Very similar. Daily mantras are all about working with human psychology for the better. Someone who's inner voice is negative will find a way to fail. Negativity is self-fulfilling. I used to have a routine to psych myself up or as I called it "amp" myself that I would go through before going out... or entering what I considered a socially intimidating situation (ie presentations to clients in my own business, or to VPs in the company I work for, or giving a speech at a wedding).

I had always done this before playing football and never realized it. Get your game face on. You are a bada$$ and are going to dominate.

I'm not gonna get into my little pre-game routine that I ran that got me in the right frame of mind  , but as pointless as it sounds... it works. Repeat something often enough and you'll believe it.

Doubt yourself and you'll fail. What you visualize yourself as being, you will likey become.


----------



## Created2Write

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Very similar. Daily mantras are all about working with human psychology for the better. Someone who's inner voice is negative will find a way to fail. Negativity is self-fulfilling. I used to have a routine to psych myself up or as I called it "amp" myself that I would go through before going out... or entering what I considered a socially intimidating situation (ie presentations to clients in my own business, or to VPs in the company I work for, or giving a speech at a wedding).
> 
> I had always done this before playing football and never realized it. Get your game face on. You are a bada$$ and are going to dominate.
> 
> I'm not gonna get into my little pre-game routine that I ran that got me in the right frame of mind  , but as pointless as it sounds... it works. Repeat something often enough and you'll believe it.
> 
> Doubt yourself and you'll fail. What you visualize yourself as being, you will likey become.


I totally agree.


----------



## always_alone

Racer said:


> The “Dis” or “Neg” is there to invoke a defensive “I’ll prove you wrong” attitude in a woman. It is so she’ll continue to talk to you instead of blowing you off. It raises her emotional state, and emotional investment. 197 pages so far....
> 
> So much for this PUA stuff doesn’t work. Works fine.


Please, let's not confuse "talking to" with "being picked up". Through the course of my life, I've talked to many, many, many men that I did not sleep with, would not sleep with, would not date, indeed would not do any more than engage in some simple conversation.

I always giggle to myself when PUAers count getting a response from a women in their success rates. No doubt it helps them to inflate their numbers and feel good about their talents, but there is zero way to say that PUA had anything to do with it. I've talked to plenty of people with no game at all, just because it seemed like the thing to do at the time.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Please, let's not confuse "talking to" with "being picked up". Through the course of my life, I've talked to many, many, many men that I did not sleep with, would not sleep with, would not date, indeed would not do any more than engage in some simple conversation.
> 
> I always giggle to myself when PUAers count getting a response from a women in their success rates. No doubt it helps them to inflate their numbers and feel good about their talents, but there is zero way to say that PUA had anything to do with it. I've talked to plenty of people with no game at all, just because it seemed like the thing to do at the time.


Perhaps less giggling and more common sense would help you. The guy getting blown off isn't taking her home. The guy that keeps her interested in talking to him still has a chance to. That means the latter guy is ALWAYS going to have a higher success rate than the former. You're so intent on bashing PUAs that you're seemingly oblivious to the obvious.

Whether you measure by conversations that went well, getting numbers, dates or sex on the first night... yes, the things professed by PUAs do a have positive influence on the outcome. I've gone out and done it enough to know. I didn't just get better looking as I aged. It works on all different kinds of women, with the only commonality between those I've picked up being good looks and below the age of 35. I'm telling you it works, I've done all I can to prove that it works by posting my stories, posting pics and most importantly, relating the difference in my success with women before reading any of this stuff versus after reading and practicing it extensively. The difference is night and day. Why do you still insist on denying me? Do you think I'm lying to you?

Negging works *exactly* as intended. It takes her off balance, it drops her guard against those trying to "get" her, and you've changed the dynamic from being one of the man trying to show something to the woman to the woman trying to show something to the man. You may think you're above this, but you're not. No one is. Its just human nature to want to defend something about yourself. Women who get complimented ALL THE TIME don't even know how to react. Done right, its tremendously effective and can be turned into an ongoing source of humor. Done wrong, its just insulting. Its the insecure women who are least receptive to negging.

Its not a matter of going "ok ok... now I just have to neg her". Its not planned, its *aware*. Its fluid. I'm always eyeing things to pick on, tease or jump on and have fun with. I'm paying attention to the details. Its always on and when you become truly conversationally aware and comfortable your natural wit takes over.

I thought we had established that it works 100 pages ago. *sigh*


----------



## Faithful Wife

We are so close...clearly we must make this thread get to 200 pages, no?

Dvls, straight up question for you...do you think that women want sex?

Like for instance, do you think that if in a club full of men and women, for some reason none of the men were allowed to talk to the women first (maybe an experiment of some kind), would any of the women end up going home with a man anyway? Say the women could talk to the men first and from there everything was the same. But that first contact and even eye contact had to come from the women.

Would men still get laid if the first contact was expected to be done by women?

Anyone else is free to answer as well.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Whether you measure by conversations that went well, getting numbers, dates or sex on the first night... yes, the things professed by PUAs do a have positive influence on the outcome.
> 
> I've gone out and done it enough to know. I didn't just get better looking as I aged.


No way is conversation a successful measure of PUA. If I contribute to an anonymous Internet forum, chat with the homeless dude hanging out on the corner, or exchange a witticism or two with random stranger in the elevator, I am just being social. Believe it or not, sometimes women are friendly. It's not reasonable to count all of it as swooning at your new found charms.

Getting a (real!) number, date, or sex may be better measures, but it still could just be the numbers game. If you hit on every girl in the room, no doubt you'll capture more responses than if you don't talk to any. You'll certainly be able to sift out all of the ones who are desperate for male attention that way. Is that success? I guess it depends on what you are looking for.

You may not be better looking as you age, but hopefully you are maturing. And that in itself is attractive. Isn't it at least possible that has something to do with it?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> We are so close...clearly we must make this thread get to 200 pages, no?
> 
> Dvls, straight up question for you...do you think that women want sex?
> 
> Like for instance, do you think that if in a club full of men and women, for some reason none of the men were allowed to talk to the women first (maybe an experiment of some kind), would any of the women end up going home with a man anyway? Say the women could talk to the men first and from there everything was the same. But that first contact and even eye contact had to come from the women.
> 
> Would men still get laid if the first contact was expected to be done by women?
> 
> Anyone else is free to answer as well.


The answer is yes.
Women do want sex ,but because of social constructs / rules of engagement , men usually approach first . But that's exactly why PUA works.
Its like a method to cut through all the " red tape."
lol, sometimes based on the woman's mood there isn't much " red tape.'
It has happened to me a few times when I was single...


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> We are so close...clearly we must make this thread get to 200 pages, no?


This is my (not so) secret goal. We're so close now, that if I have to, I'll break up my last thought into one word posts.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Nsweet said:


> Check this out and sleep on what I've told you. I've seen gunho women fail miserably and lose thousands on these easy money companies including my mother, aunt, and ex wife TWICE.
> Penn & Teller: Bull****! - Easy Money - YouTube


I've seen people lose money and I've seen my own mother make money. There is a legitimate market for their product and a rep can make money off sales alone. In fact, this is the majority of their people. A MK recruiter does not receive money if someone they recruited is not making sales. They receive a kick back from corporate on a percentage of the sales of the person they recruited. In essence, a bonus for driving new sales.

Sales and not the marketing structure's abuse of hopeful reps own money, are the driving force behind Mary Kay and the reason its still going strong and has never faced legal action as a pyramid scheme.

I would advise people toward a more traditional career, but Mary Kay fits some people's circumstances.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Perhaps less giggling and more common sense would help you. The guy getting blown off isn't taking her home. The guy that keeps her interested in talking to him still has a chance to.


"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of 18" - Albert Einstein

That's what you think. I am interested in talking to a wide variety of people that I have zero interest in dating or sleeping with. Ever. No matter how often we talk.



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I thought we had established that it works 100 pages ago. *sigh*


Yes, men have agreed that it works for them. Women have agreed that some of it might work on them. I'm just quibbling over what counts as "works", as I think the measures are extremely poor. For one, it is all anecdotal. For two, there is zero attempt to control for intervening variables. And for three, some of the success markers are just laughable. ("oooh, I had a good conversation.")


----------



## Faithful Wife

I have an ebook called "Make Him Beg to be Your Boyfriend in 6 Simple Steps". It is written by a guy who is writing for women who are dating guys who are not that into them. It is mostly crap, but some of it is extremely amusing, and some is at least somewhat interesting.

Anyway I am sharing a bit of it here, because it is basically sort of like "how to game a PUA guy into making you his girlfriend". Here is a little portion of it...which sounds exactly like some of the stuff in PUA material...how appropriate!

1. You have to “shoot down” or override the unconscious objections he has to seeing you as “girlfriend material.” (He had previously in the book already written about those "unconscious objections").

2. You have to make him chase and EARN you. You have to “paint a picture” for him of what it’s going to be like to be your boyfriend. 

3. You have to make him feel like you don’t need him and he’s going to lose you if he doesn’t take action. 

4. You have to make him feel like it’s HIS IDEA for you to become an official “couple.”

(end quote)

And then...there is a whole entire section on negging, too.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> No way is conversation a successful measure of PUA. If I contribute to an anonymous Internet forum, chat with the homeless dude hanging out on the corner, or exchange a witticism or two with random stranger in the elevator, I am just being social. Believe it or not, sometimes women are friendly. It's not reasonable to count all of it as swooning at your new found charms.


Yes, it is. It all depends on what you're wanting to measure exactly. I agree that an internet forum doesn't count.

REAL LIFE conversations do count, because if someone has social anxiety or fear of talking to women, and pickup helps them engage and carry on these conversations in a fun, interesting and enjoyable way, then pickup has definitely been successful. This guy is better off than he was before.

This is how I started. I wasn't totally socially inept, but I simply could not start conversations with women. I had no idea what to say. My goals were small. Following what I had read, I started talking. I had a various number of canned stories and prepared things to say to bail me out of nervousness. Things I was very comfortable talking about that would come off natural. Pickup was a roughly drawn road map to what I should be doing. In the beginning, I measured my success only by the number of girls I had good interesting conversations with - conversations that I kept interesting and fun and which had potential. Then I measured by phone numbers and dates. Then I measured by sex.

After all of that... I'm done measuring. All along the way I found it easier and easier to pick someone up. 



always_alone said:


> Getting a (real!) number, date, or sex may be better measures, but it still could just be the numbers game. If you hit on every girl in the room, no doubt you'll capture more responses than if you don't talk to any. You'll certainly be able to sift out all of the ones who are desperate for male attention that way. Is that success? I guess it depends on what you are looking for.


Even when I was learning and becoming more aware, it wasn't a numbers game. I kept mental note of my conversion rates. It was all about the specific target at that time. 2 numbers from the 10 I was interested in and pursued was just a simple 20% success rate. Improvement meant going from 20 to 50. 50 to 75. It was like that earlier too... when I was just measuring "good approaches". The only difference being that what amounts to a good approach is a little subjective - my definition was: did I manage the conversation, keep her interested, end it myself, and did it feel like there might be potential for more there.

As I became more and more aware, focusing on single targets made evaluating success more difficult. I didn't necessarily have a single target anymore. Every woman I found attractive was targeted at once, even though I still had one or two I was most interested in. I became more of a social butterfly. I didn't really worry about conversation rates, or volume anymore. I had developed such that I was just having fun and most of the time I left with the girl I wanted, or at least got her number.

To the credit of women, I never received a false number.



always_alone said:


> You may not be better looking as you age, but hopefully you are maturing. And that in itself is attractive. Isn't it at least possible that has something to do with it?


Not likely. In fact, some would argue I was more mature in college than I am now. lol When I was in college I was all about doing everything right. Now, I don't really care. I'm having fun and I don't take anything as seriously as I did. Before reading and practicing pickup, I could NEVER have negged someone or made a blunt sexual comment. I wouldn't have had the balls. I walked on eggshells with women. I didn't talk unless I had a distinct reason to. I was smart, friendly, successful and unknown... invisible. Even if the chemistry was perfect I didn't know how to close for sex.

I remember one particular girl I was really interested in that perfectly demonstrates my former self. I was super happy that she chose me over one of my friends who was also interested in her. But everything was in her hands... I was just clueless and hopeful... sex, relationship... whatever I didn't care. I thought she was great.

So at the end of the night she sneaks me into the girls dorm and we're making out when she oddly stops and says something like "I really like you. Is this gonna make it weird for us? Are we still going to be friends tomorrow?"

Now, being clueless, I backed off. I took the nice guy route of (total paraphrase... I don't remember of thing of what I actually said) "I think we'll be fine, but this friendship is important to me. Its cool if you're not comfortable, we won't do anything... we'll just lay in bed and talk. I don't want you to feel pressured or anything."

Result: We talked. It was nice. We didn't have sex. She wasn't in bed when I woke up. Other girls in the dorm kept poking their heads in the room all morning while I was half-asleep. I thought I was hot sh*t. I left her a note saying I had a great time and would call her later. I left. I called later. No answer. I called again. No answer.

I never heard from her again. Today, I know the correct answer is to assure her and be assertive. She is responsible for what she wants. I am responsible for what I want... and what I wanted, was sex with her at that moment. Instead, I ducked out, assumed she didn't want to when all she wanted was reassurance. Awhile later, I found out from another friend that she felt kind of rejected and had even wondered what was wrong with me, or that I wasn't that attracted to her.

All I had to do was reassure and confidently continue on and I wouldn't gotten laid and probably dated that girl. That last check she make while we were making out was one last obstacle she wanted me to overcome... to know that I really really wanted her. I didn't recognize that the check was really a "will you date me too?" I chose to protect the "friendship" and not have sex... which was the same as saying "I don't want to date you."

I was unaware. Thought I was doing the right thing. Being the guy I understood women to want. I was very very wrong. In fact, my ideas of what women wanted back then turned out to be almost all wrong. At best those things are long term wants... but they don't drive attraction at all.


----------



## Thundarr

So much of this PUA lit is stuff that many of us learned the hard way when we were young so I don't see how it can be discredited as a whole. Of course you'd lose a long term relationship pretty quick if things didn't change a little. Things like trying too hard too please or impress were quick disasters and yet just rolling with the punches worked pretty darn well.

These didn't start out as game or acting or pretending. It was just easy to observe that when I really didn't care if I got shot down or when I wasn't killing myself to keep be nice or polite that I did pretty well. So yea some guys learn this and other things and decide to write it all down for guys who don't know yet or who would never know because of their demeanor. And similar concepts works for women. FW listed a few pretty smart things for a woman trying to land a guy to do or be. Whether we call some or all of this stuff just a game doesn't matter. It's cause and effect with improved chance of success with the oposite sex.

Of course, "Pick Up Artist" literature and "Keep a girl" literature are not exactly the same thing.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of 18" - Albert Einstein
> 
> That's what you think. I am interested in talking to a wide variety of people that I have zero interest in dating or sleeping with. Ever. No matter how often we talk.


That's a retreat. You know I'm right. The guy getting blown off in conversation isn't going home with the woman - you know this. The guy who keeps her interest in conversation has a chance to. However small that chance, its still larger than the guy who didn't know how to break through being blown off. You're just being obstinate now.



always_alone said:


> "
> Yes, men have agreed that it works for them. Women have agreed that some of it might work on them. I'm just quibbling over what counts as "works", as I think the measures are extremely poor. For one, it is all anecdotal. For two, there is zero attempt to control for intervening variables. And for three, some of the success markers are just laughable. ("oooh, I had a good conversation.")


If you only knew how much it means to some guys to have a good conversation with a girl he doesn't know but is attracted to. You sound really, really cold. That was one of my markers when I started so you're laughing at me. Thanks!

You just totally avoided what I put the MOST emphasis on in determining whether this stuff works. Stop and address it specifically:

Why, if not for the study and practice of PUA completely reinventing my way of engaging socially, am I dramatically more successful with women today than I was when I was 15 years younger? The women are in the same age range give or take. I'm not as good looking as I was then. By all means, ask me questions... maybe you'll discover something I can write a book about and make millions on.

The dramatic change to my social life as a result of PUA is the only dramatic change I've made. And I have dramatically different outcomes with women.

Younger me basically got the girls that picked me, without my having to do anything... and thats it. I rarely asked anyone out, and it was almost never positive. Older me gets the women I go after the vast majority of the time... and they are significantly higher quality than the one's I waited on to show interest in me first.

I do the picking now and I go get what I want. I might not always be able to get someone to sleep with me that night, but I haven't failed to get her phone number when I've sought it in a very long time.

Sorry Always, but yeah, good conversations matter. A conversation at a bar that ends with her getting up and walking away annoyed is a failure. A conversation that stays distant and unengaging is a failure. Eventually all of those conversations were good. Eventually I knew what to say in the dead air or when I was getting blown off. Successful there, I had the confidence to take it farther and farther.

Starting many conversations is the beginning of building the comfort necessary to be successful engaging in more attraction building and sexually overt ways. Conversational success is a measure of progression. If you can't keep her attention, it goes without saying you're not going to sleep with her. Baby steps.

I don't even bother much with a measure of my success today when I go out. I know it works. I'm not even thinking about pickup or game anymore. I'm aware now.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> We are so close...clearly we must make this thread get to 200 pages, no?
> 
> Dvls, straight up question for you...do you think that women want sex?
> 
> Like for instance, do you think that if in a club full of men and women, for some reason none of the men were allowed to talk to the women first (maybe an experiment of some kind), would any of the women end up going home with a man anyway? Say the women could talk to the men first and from there everything was the same. But that first contact and even eye contact had to come from the women.
> 
> Would men still get laid if the first contact was expected to be done by women?
> 
> Anyone else is free to answer as well.


lol you've asked me this question before.

IMO, women want sex as much as men do, if not moreso. If you asked me many years ago though, I'd have said that women were all frigid. lol

Yes, some men would still get laid.

I've gotten the "eyes" and gone home with that girl before. As a strategy for single males in general... I'd say its a loser. In my personal experience, the women who make the first move on me - as in, they already noticed me, are not as attractive as the women who have not noticed me.

I'm interested in making someone I want notice me, not waiting for someone else to pick me and getting whatever that happens to be.


----------



## Thundarr

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That's a retreat. You know I'm right. The guy getting blown off in conversation isn't going home with the woman - you know this. The guy who keeps her interest in conversation has a chance to. However small that chance, its still larger than the guy who didn't know how to break through being blown off. You're just being obstinate now.
> 
> 
> 
> If you only knew how much it means to some guys to have a good conversation with a girl he doesn't know but is attracted to. You sound really, really cold. That was one of my markers when I started so you're laughing at me. Thanks!
> 
> You just totally avoided what I put the MOST emphasis on in determining whether this stuff works. Stop and address it specifically:
> 
> Why, if not for the study and practice of PUA completely reinventing my way of engaging socially, am I dramatically more successful with women today than I was when I was 15 years younger? The women are in the same age range give or take. I'm not as good looking as I was then. By all means, ask me questions... maybe you'll discover something I can write a book about and make millions on.
> 
> The dramatic change to my social life as a result of PUA is the only dramatic change I've made. And I have dramatically different outcomes with women.
> 
> Younger me basically got the girls that picked me, without my having to do anything... and thats it. I rarely asked anyone out, and it was almost never positive. Older me gets the women I go after the vast majority of the time... and they are significantly higher quality than the one's I waited on to show interest in me first.
> 
> I do the picking now and I go get what I want. I might not always be able to get someone to sleep with me that night, but I haven't failed to get her phone number when I've sought it in a very long time.
> 
> Sorry Always, but yeah, good conversations matter. A conversation at a bar that ends with her getting up and walking away annoyed is a failure. A conversation that stays distant and unengaging is a failure. Eventually all of those conversations were good. Eventually I knew what to say in the dead air or when I was getting blown off. Successful there, I had the confidence to take it farther and farther.
> 
> Starting many conversations is the beginning of building the comfort necessary to be successful engaging in more attraction building and sexually overt ways. Conversational success is a measure of progression. If you can't keep her attention, it goes without saying you're not going to sleep with her. Baby steps.
> 
> I don't even bother much with a measure of my success today when I go out. I know it works. I'm not even thinking about pickup or game anymore. I'm aware now.


Makes perfect sense. I don't think I'll ever be single again but you better believe I'd be approaching women, striking out some, approaching women, striking out less, etc until it was all second nature. I MIGHT even read a book for kicks. Dating is like anything else. It takes time, practice, education, and work. No pain no gain as they say. 

Rest assured 45 year old me with just a little practice would take away a girl from 25 year old me. That's how it's supposed to be. We learn. And it wouldn't be a game. It would be reality of life.


----------



## Nsweet

Come on, two more pages.

Papa wants to see this baby hit two-hundred!:smthumbup:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls said:"In my personal experience, the women who make the first move on me - as in, they already noticed me, are not as attractive as the women who have not noticed me.

I'm interested in making someone I want notice me, not waiting for someone else to pick me and getting whatever that happens to be." (end quote)

So why don't you think the girls you "game" think the same way as you do?

Nsweet said: "Papa wants to see this baby hit two-hundred!"

Ugh...dude, I've been dating and f*cking guys longer than you have been alive. Calling yourself "papa" is just gross.


----------



## RandomDude

> Dvls said:"In my personal experience, the women who make the first move on me - as in, they already noticed me, are not as attractive as the women who have not noticed me.


Ha! I'm the same way! Though nowadays I just pick up whoever I consider "f--kable" lol


----------



## Deejo

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Now, I don't really care. I'm having fun and I don't take anything as seriously as I did. Before reading and practicing pickup, I could NEVER have negged someone or made a blunt sexual comment. I wouldn't have had the balls. I walked on eggshells with women. I didn't talk unless I had a distinct reason to. I was smart, friendly, successful and unknown... invisible.


I have a friend on my wedding video that stated, "Deejo is the best guy that nobody knows."

Totally relate to your entire post, including the college piece.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> You just totally avoided what I put the MOST emphasis on in determining whether this stuff works. Stop and address it specifically:
> 
> Why, if not for the study and practice of PUA completely reinventing my way of engaging socially, am I dramatically more successful with women today than I was when I was 15 years younger? The women are in the same age range give or take. I'm not as good looking as I was then. By all means, ask me questions... maybe you'll discover something I can write a book about and make millions on.


I did address your question specifically. You just chose to ignore it, and call me names instead. (Negging? Nah, couldn't be. Or maybe it's just that much of a habit?)

I suggested that possibly you were more mature now. You rejected that because you think you were more mature then. Okay. Seems unlikely, and there's a huge difference between "doing everything right" and being mature, but maybe that doesn't apply to you?

Don't know. But I would still say that who you are now likely at least appears more mature to your target age group. And women often find maturity attractive.

You also have more resources to impress with, and that helps a lot with girls who are looking for someone with resources.

You are probably spending more time enjoying yourself (instead of sulking in he corner) in places where women are actively seeking male attention.

You are also playing he numbers game, and so have increased success rate, even if you haven't increased odds.

I might have more explanations still, but will have to think on it ...


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> 4. You have to make him feel like it’s HIS IDEA for you to become an official “couple.”


Most important! Never let him know he is being gamed, lest he start worrying that he isn't in-charge and dominant.

And never let him think you've noticed him, or you won't be demonstrating high value. Remember that he's always most interested in what he thinks he can't get.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I have a friend on my wedding video that stated, "Deejo is the best guy that nobody knows."
> 
> Totally relate to your entire post, including the college piece.


I can totally relate to being overlooked too. And I faced some of the same choices as you and Dvls have talked about her.

I could've gone the game route, made myself up, donned some killer clothes, learned how to flirt, flip my hair, bat my eyelashes, and toss out negs. I can even see how it might've "worked" for me.

Really, I guess it comes down to what you're looking for and what makes you happy.


----------



## Deejo

always_alone said:


> Really, I guess it comes down to what you're looking for and what makes you happy.


200 pages later and I'm wishing we were able to have a better context from the outset.

Although in looking back, I pretty much did specify what I was calling game as it related to me.

No bars, no approaches to take women home. Plenty of approaches for no other reason than getting comfortable with approaching and conversation.

No cheesy lines. No scripts. No lies.

All me. I just decided to put MORE me out there, as well as exploring what being 'me' is really about.

I don't mean for that to sound all cerebral. Quite honestly, I wish I had done this work 20 years ago.

Now see, that's the funny thing about being happy. If you think you're happy, you aren't going to see any reason to change or take a risk, or make yourself uncomfortable.

Now? I'm more me. More settled. More wise. More happy.

If you were to describe to me twenty years ago, the man I am now, the younger me wouldn't believe you.

If I could have a talk with that 27 year old, I'd have an awful lot to say to him. Most of what he thought 'worked' for him ... didn't. Didn't serve him at all.

I recognize that the majority of this thread has been about women. How women behave, respond, reciprocate, reject.
And of the women posting to it, it seems their concern has also been for women. The women with whom the men that have shared their stories interacted. 

I'm glad I've had the experiences I've had. Learned a lot. About myself, about women, and about partnering.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo...if your marriage to your wife had been satisfactory...if there had been good sex and good partnering...do you think you ever would have still looked into any of these types of books or information?


----------



## Nsweet

Deejo, I think you need to head a "This is how...." thread about this on the men's club forums. 

You and others like myself with experience need to get the information out there that PUA and "Game Tactics" won't work in your favor for a meaningful relationship or marriage. But there are a few things you need to know about relationships, women, and yourself before you go out there.

And then we'll give examples about how acting like a deuche will only help you so far and that if you ask any married woman here what made her fall in love with her husband it was that she could talk to him about anything ,and that he didn't get pushy with her for sex or run game on her from the start. 

Just a thought.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> But that's exactly why PUA works.
> Its like a method to cut through all the " red tape."


I dunno. Ever since I read some excerpts from the girl game literature, I've been wondering how it is that two people who are reading hate-filled books telling them to never show interest, neg, make them chase you, etc., I've been wondering how it is that men and women ever get around to talking to each other. 

Maybe only one of them can be gaming at a time? 

At any rate, it seems like it would add to the red tape, rather than cut through it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Alone...the reason it works anyway is because, hey! Surprise! Men and women by nature's design, want to meet and mate. They will do this with or without games. We couldn't stop ourselves from it even if we tried. To me, that seems to be the part that some people don't quite acknowledge.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> Alone...the reason it works anyway is because, hey! Surprise! Men and women by nature's design, want to meet and mate. They will do this with or without games. We couldn't stop ourselves from it even if we tried. To me, that seems to be the part that some people don't quite acknowledge.


And to an extent ,you are right. 
However , the part you are missing out is social constructivism and mores.

There are social rules that dictate exactly how, and who we have sex with.
That's why its considered " not normal or moral " for a 50 yr old man to have sex with a 17 year old woman.
That's why its considered " not normal or moral " for a 50 yr old woman th have sex with a 17 year old man.
In both of the above examples, both sexes are biologically wired to do exactly what is considered " not normal."

Hence the social constructs that regulates sexual activity between the sexes and then,the evolution of " game."


----------



## Faithful Wife

And normally the 17 y/o will have no attraction for the 50 y/o. I have no idea why you would say we are biologically wired to do that? I'm not going to argue that one because it is just silly. Boys and girls love boys and girls, not old farts.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> And normally the 17 y/o will have no attraction for the 50 y/o. I have no idea why you would say we are biologically wired to do that? I'm not going to argue that one because it is just silly. Boys and girls love boys and girls, not old farts.


....but old farts are sexually attracted to 17 yr old boys and girls.
Yes?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Not all of them, contrary to a few of the guys around here. Sorry, I do not see any evidence of what you are talking about at all. The average age difference between married couples is about 4 years. I guess if you want to argue that this is somehow NOT what nature is compelling these 100 billion people to do, go right ahead! It doesn't hold any water with me.

Attraction is not the same thing as mate and merge. We can view someone attractive and not necessarily want to merge with them or mate with them.

To argue against this seems silly, my dear.

Of course there are some couples with a huge age difference...love can conquer that distance.

But it is not the norm by a long stretch.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> I recognize that the majority of this thread has been about women. How women behave, respond, reciprocate, reject.
> And of the women posting to it, it seems their concern has also been for women. The women with whom the men that have shared their stories interacted.


I can see why you might read it this way, but I don't think it's because women's concern is only with the gamees. From the outset, the women (and men!) who criticized PUA acknowledged that the goals of self-discovery and confidence building were admirable and worthwhile. It was the sources and the methods that were being questioned, not the need or end goals. 

And when someone tells you how you would/will/do respond and what you are/want/think based on pop psych and the categories of drunk adolescents in nightclubs.... well, all I can say is can we really be surprised that challenging these theories/assumptions dominated this discussion?

From the outset, I think the critics were simply trying to suggest that there may be better methods to achieve the desired goals. I have to say that even after 200 pages of explanation, I'm still surprised that you managed to extract anything of value from the gaming literature. 

Granted, I don't seem to be able to stomach more than a chapter or two of either boy game or girl game books -- so maybe I just need more determination to find those nuggets. But some of the approaches and "truths" discussed here do much more to set off my creep alarm than they do to disarm it. And I most definitely do not want to adopt any of the girl game garbage that I've looked at recently.

I'm glad that you and the others are happier, more confident, and having a good time. Personally, I think I'll stick with one of the other zillion paths to self-discovery and confidence building.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Alone...the reason it works anyway is because, hey! Surprise! Men and women by nature's design, want to meet and mate. They will do this with or without games. We couldn't stop ourselves from it even if we tried. To me, that seems to be the part that some people don't quite acknowledge.


Yes! :iagree:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Faithful Wife said:


> *Of course there are some couples with a huge age difference...love can conquer that distance.
> 
> But it is not the norm by a long stretch.*


 And this^^right there ,is my argument.
It is not the norm because of _social mores._ 

It cannot be argued that older men are sexually attracted to much younger women at the peak of their fertile years.

It also cannot be argued that older women are sexually attracted to young men with harder more virile bodies.

However ,because of _social mores_ , sexual activity between these age gaps are discouraged, in the same way women and men who are within " normal" age ranges who want sex from each other must first go through some sort of " social dance" before having sex.
Not that this dance is actually needed , it is done as a method of having control over selection, security, and nurturing of potential offspring.

So the whole " game " and PUA stuff evolved, despite 
_social mores_ ,as a way to speed up the
" dance " and increase the pool of potential dating / mating partners.
In any event, like you said earlier,
Both men and women _want_ to have sex.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Pickup and Game Never Ever Works ... Ever*



Faithful Wife said:


> Deejo...if your marriage to your wife had been satisfactory...if there had been good sex and good partnering...do you think you ever would have still looked into any of these types of books or information?


Definitely not.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> Definitely not.


And this^^^reinforces exactly why game and PUA has evolved into what it has. And I say evolved , because despite the protestations, it has always existed in one form or another.
The playing field is never level.
There are all different type of dynamics at work.
Life throws a lot of curve balls , dating and sex is no exception.
If you cannot maneuver, you will loose, everytime.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls said:"In my personal experience, the women who make the first move on me - as in, they already noticed me, are not as attractive as the women who have not noticed me.
> 
> I'm interested in making someone I want notice me, not waiting for someone else to pick me and getting whatever that happens to be." (end quote)
> 
> So why don't you think the girls you "game" think the same way as you do?


I'm sure they do. That's the game. Less than half of the women I've approached give me much positive feedback initially. They didn't notice me so they're on guard and probably not interested in me. Just guessing at the numbers, but probably something like 60% are are neutral (meaning they are being friendly but aren't engaging the conversation, they aren't interested). 30% engage with interest and the last 10% are downright hostile. The other side of the coin, which I've heard from women, is that they don't like to approach and the guy they're eyeing can't seem to get a clue. 

What I've learned is that while its a lock if she shows interest first, you can still build interest if she doesn't. Most of the time I can stoke something. At the very least, she'll want to talk to me more rather than blow me off, simply because I'm fun/interesting to talk to. Thus, I'm still in the game. I'm generally not interested in low hanging fruit. I enjoy this process. On the other hand, I've heard women say that they know within seconds of meeting someone whether they'd ever sleep with him (not that they will, but that they would if everything else is right). So I figure I must be getting by that barrier on looks and everything afterwards is a matter of getting past defenses, having fun and building up desire to actually do it. Its like there's like a "I'd have sex with him", and then a "I want to have sex with him". 

I don't know why any of it works. I throw out guesses as to why just like everyone else. But I do know that I regularly overcome disinterest. I think I posted before about a girl who straight up told me that when I first approached her she wasn't interested in me at all because I was bald/shaved head and that was out of her comfort zone.

I was already filtered out, but I worked my way back in. When we dated, she'd take any opportunity to rub my head... and she'd say "I love your head".

See, it doesn't make sense. So I conclude that women don't really know what they want. Some need convincing. The feature she initially rejected me on became a feature she liked. Why? Because I broke through her disinterest and she ended up liking ME. Afterwards, she liked everything about me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I feel like telling a recent story since my last post kinda hit a little bit on barriers that women put up.

A lot of women seem to put up a ton of barriers seemingly as a way to make a guy prove himself... or maybe they're really not interested initially... I don't know. But these are the most fun imo. I'm recently single again (because the girl I was seeing and I just had totally uncooperative schedules... rarely got to see each other), and now I'm talking to a girl who's playing very hard to get. She's really witty and pretty much shot me down, but I had fun with it and one of her friends gave me her number (unrequested) - I think her friend was into me. We've been texting for days now and I still haven't been able to get a date. She teases everything I say and shoots down all my angles. The typical... "You probably think you're charming don't you?" lol I Often play with flipping it around... like "Yeah, you can't wait to talk to me" or "stop throwing yourself at me, I'm not that kinda guy" and getting her to step into jokes and her generally responding that "never gonna happen guy" and "keep dreaming", "you wish!" etc ... but she keeps talking... often she STARTS conversations.

The other day we were texting and she talked about how she hated that so many guys text c*ck pics. I said "yeah right, before long you'll be demanding I send naked pics too." She said "As if!! Ew!!" ... so I've been sending her alternative c*ck pics randomly for a couple days now. A rooster. A sexually suggestive banana dessert. A gun being c*cked etc. So then she said, "you think you're funny... but you're just too afraid to send your real one because you know I'll laugh." She sent me back a teeny tiny penis pic and I said "I think there's something wrong with that person's belly button." She laughed, and I joked about her belly button fetish and mentioned that I have a little dot, birthmark right in the middle of my belly button. She said it was weird and told me to send pic. I said I'd trade. Belly button for belly button. So she sent me this really hot belly pic, and I sent her a pic of another micropenis I found on the net... "HEY! You tricked me! I sent you my real belly, unfair!" So I said "See, I told you you'd be demanding nude pics of me." That's the game.

Its been a fun little wrestling match where she reminds me regularly that she's stubborn and I'm not gonna get her and tells me I'm not charming, I'm not her type etc etc. But she shoots me good morning texts every morning and is always asking me what I'm doing. 

Lead her into some mild sexting last night. I'll get the date soon enough. IMO, this part is the most fun.

Now see, its easy to recognize that she's now playing the game too. But early on, AFC wouldn't have gotten past her cold shoulder. She might not have liked me at all early on... or even when I started texting her... but I have no doubt she likes me now.


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> I've heard women say that they know within seconds of meeting someone whether they'd ever sleep with him (not that they will, but that they would if everything else is right).


That me lol


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I did address your question specifically. You just chose to ignore it, and call me names instead. (Negging? Nah, couldn't be. Or maybe it's just that much of a habit?)


I called you names? I think I said you seemed cold, but I'm pretty sure I didn't call you names.



always_alone said:


> I suggested that possibly you were more mature now. You rejected that because you think you were more mature then. Okay. Seems unlikely, and there's a huge difference between "doing everything right" and being mature, but maybe that doesn't apply to you?


This is what you said that I was responding to.



always_alone said:


> I'm just quibbling over what counts as "works", as I think the measures are extremely poor. For one, it is all anecdotal. For two, there is zero attempt to control for intervening variables.


My proof of it working is the difference betwen what I get and what I used to get. You dismiss this as evidence, and assume I was more mature or there was some other factor. You still dismiss it now, even though I tell you I was more mature then.

If you doubt it, tell me what you consider a proper measure of maturity and I'll give you a comparison of then and now.

IMO, the best way to measure what works, is by taking the same dude, and seeing how he does before and how he does after. I have zero doubt that the latter will be more successful, even if he never masters everything... simply being more aware and being more motivated and confident as a result of practicing what he's read, and internalizing core concepts like outcome independence, will likely improve his chances.




always_alone said:


> Don't know. But I would still say that who you are now likely at least appears more mature to your target age group. And women often find maturity attractive.
> 
> You also have more resources to impress with, and that helps a lot with girls who are looking for someone with resources.
> 
> You are probably spending more time enjoying yourself (instead of sulking in he corner) in places where women are actively seeking male attention.
> 
> You are also playing he numbers game, and so have increased success rate, even if you haven't increased odds.
> 
> I might have more explanations still, but will have to think on it ...


I've mentioned resources before. That's fair. However, I'd prefer to think that women respond to game than to think women are shallow.

I never sulked in the corner. I just rarely approached and wasn't the talkative guy. I sat, participated a little with friends, and watched everyone else. Anyone who knew me would say I was perfectly happy... just quiet. The girls I did approach weren't very responsive, and often talking to the one that was eyeing me didn't pan out (that NEVER happens today).

Please explain the numbers game you speak of. When I hear numbers game, I hear "hit on as many girls as possible and you might get one." That's not what I did when I was learning and determining if any of this helps. If I hit on 100 girls and went home with 1... then my success rate was 1%. That's not a numbers game. My goal was never just to make sure I go home with a girl. My goal was to get the one I want. The one I'm talking to. And yes, my success rate improved dramatically. Even if I didn't get laid, I got the phone number I wanted, I got the date with the girl I wanted.

Those are successes. But no matter how you measure it, I do better now than I did once upon a time. I had positive conversations, I got the number I wanted, I got the date I wanted, and I got laid... all more often. How else does one measure success?


----------



## Deejo

Oh and have we mentioned that 'game' isn't always about sex?

Did folks miss that part?

When I decide to engage a woman at the market in a conversation about avocados and fresh salsa ... I'm not trying to get her in the sack. I'm trying to see if I can make avocados and salsa interesting enough for an exchange and a smile. 

If avocados can lead to sex, well, I guess that's ok too.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> It also cannot be argued that older women are sexually attracted to young men with harder more virile bodies.


Oh, I can argue this one. I didn't go for 17 yr-olds even when I was 17 --and younger. I surely would not start now. 

The younger set may have hard bodies, but that stuff is dime-a-dozen. 

And even though men do seem to think someone half their age is a grand plan, there are at least a few out there that wouldn't find it worth their while.


----------



## Created2Write

Caribbean Man said:


> And to an extent ,you are right.
> However , the part you are missing out is social constructivism and mores.
> 
> *There are social rules that dictate exactly how, and who we have sex with.
> That's why its considered " not normal or moral " for a 50 yr old man to have sex with a 17 year old woman.
> That's why its considered " not normal or moral " for a 50 yr old woman th have sex with a 17 year old man.
> In both of the above examples, both sexes are biologically wired to do exactly what is considered " not normal."*
> 
> Hence the social constructs that regulates sexual activity between the sexes and then,the evolution of " game."


Precisely. The only way "nature" will lead us in our pursuits of finding someone to mate with is if the societal rules regarding male and female interactions suddenly disappear. Because, not only are there rules regarding male and female sexuality, but there are also conversational rules and expectations, personality rules and expectations, rules regarding what is considered rude and unacceptable and weird in social gatherings. 

THAT is where game can help. It can help people understand those rules and expectations, and how to use them to your benefit.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Not all of them, contrary to a few of the guys around here. Sorry, I do not see any evidence of what you are talking about at all. The average age difference between married couples is about 4 years. I guess if you want to argue that this is somehow NOT what nature is compelling these 100 billion people to do, go right ahead! It doesn't hold any water with me.
> 
> Attraction is not the same thing as mate and merge. We can view someone attractive and not necessarily want to merge with them or mate with them.
> 
> To argue against this seems silly, my dear.
> 
> Of course there are some couples with a huge age difference...love can conquer that distance.
> 
> But it is not the norm by a long stretch.


But attraction _can_ lead to sexual desire between an older man and younger woman, or older woman and a younger man. Not all "old farts", as you put it, are ugly, balding and creepy looking. Some older men are very dashing and incredibly attractive. I've mentioned my husband's uncle many times. If I were single and didn't know him, and he were to approach me in a bar, I'd be interested. Maybe I'm abnormal, but he is incredibly attractive, and attractiveness is kind of the crux of whether or not a man and woman have a successful relationship.


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> A lot of women seem to put up a ton of barriers seemingly as a way to make a guy prove himself... or maybe they're really not interested initially... I don't know.


Errr, the "ton of barriers" is what's written in all the girl game books.

"Erect a ton of barriers because men love the chase and will gladly leap over all of them. The more barriers, the better! The more you can make him leap, the more he will feel like the successful hunter when he finally "captures" you. What better way to gratify his ego, while wrapping him around your little finger? 

To help ensure he doesn't get distracted by another woman while you're reeling him in, remind him occasionally how sexy you are. A friendly hello, a flash of skin, just enough to tantalize him. Not too much, though, as if you start to appear needy, you will be immediately dismissed as 'low-hanging fruit'"

Huh. Maybe there is something to this game play after all ...

But still too many rules for me.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Not all of them, contrary to a few of the guys around here. Sorry, I do not see any evidence of what you are talking about at all. The average age difference between married couples is about 4 years. I guess if you want to argue that this is somehow NOT what nature is compelling these 100 billion people to do, go right ahead! It doesn't hold any water with me.
> 
> Attraction is not the same thing as mate and merge. We can view someone attractive and not necessarily want to merge with them or mate with them.
> 
> To argue against this seems silly, my dear.
> 
> Of course there are some couples with a huge age difference...love can conquer that distance.
> 
> But it is not the norm by a long stretch.


This a cultural norm, not a biological norm. Once upon a time, it was very common for recently established men in their late 20s to take on teenage brides.

Our culture also groups people by age. We're largely isolated to our age group for most of our lives. While 4 years is the overall average, its no surprise that the age gaps increase as people age. It just doesn't matter much provided two people are phsyically, intellectually, and emotionally well matched.

In my case, the women I receive the most sexual interest from are either the older sexually aggressive cougar types, or in their early 20s. I actually don't attract many women my age. Its obvious enough that I've given it thought before. I theorize that its the result of recent divorce or bad relationships... hence their being single at my age; and these women haven't reached the same sexual awakening (for lack of a better term) or liberation that the cougars have.

Most of the attention I get comes from low 20-somethings. I'd have a much harder time finding someone within 4 years of my age. But let me tell you, the 20-something year old guys that are my natural competition according to your line of thought... they don't stand a chance. Its really really obvious.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Errr, the "ton of barriers" is what's written in all the girl game books.
> 
> "Erect a ton of barriers because men love the chase and will gladly leap over all of them. The more barriers, the better! The more you can make him leap, the more he will feel like the successful hunter when he finally "captures" you. What better way to gratify his ego, while wrapping him around your little finger?
> 
> To help ensure he doesn't get distracted by another woman while you're reeling him in, remind him occasionally how sexy you are. A friendly hello, a flash of skin, just enough to tantalize him. Not too much, though, as if you start to appear needy, you will be immediately dismissed as 'low-hanging fruit'"
> 
> Huh. Maybe there is something to this game play after all ...
> 
> But still too many rules for me.



Works for me.  Do you think she's not enjoying this play? I advance, she retreats. I retreat, she advances. Push pull. Its a dance. Its a process of seeing that someone measures up imo - that they can engage you in every way you want to be engaged, while remaining strong and independent. A good partner imo. I love this dance.

In the same manner my chase has to avoid being needy. Showing interest without selling out. Not walking on eggshells trying to say the right things to get the right outcome. That's weak. This was a revelation to me: the less I gave a sh*t about saying the right thing and being nice, the more attracted to me women were. The novice might think this means that one should be an a$$hole, but not really. A$$hole is the opposite extreme. I sit in the middle... which I think is a healthy place to be.

The rules were there before they were written. They don't exist as a result of being written. Its just how it is.

I've said before that if I had a window into your relationships, I could probably point out the same psychological games. And where something is missing, you're probably not happy, and don't even know why or even recognize the disatisfaction... its just, off... and you can't put your finger on it.

We're all human.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I've been wondering how it is that men and women ever get around to talking to each other.
> 
> Maybe only one of them can be gaming at a time?


I had that EXACT same thought - how the hell do men and women meet like this? This seems so inefficient! Why can't I just say "I want to date you" and you actually respond with "I want to date you too"? Why is the success rate of asking for a phone number from a random girl with no prior conversation or "noticing you" so low? Does a guy get hotter because you had a conversation first? I mean c'mon... obviously we want to talk and get to know you, isn't a number a chance to do that? Its not like giving out a number is an invitation to bed. Yet, this cold attempt is always less successful than engaging her in conversation, building rapport and then getting the number. 

Why is this? It really is inefficient right? Why can't we exchange numbers in passing and then see if there is chemistry later? At least then, you know where you stand relative to her physical requirements right off the bat. We could of course... but no, it just doesn't work that way. It evokes the "stranger just asked for my number" automatic no response. Once in a while you get one, but I'm telling you, without building some rapport... the success rate is pretty sad. Its not like I get better looking later. Women are skittish. There are so many women I've seen in passing that I'd like to have met, but there was no opportunity for conversation... I'd only have enough time to get a number. This just doesn't work. You get a "I'm sorry, I don't give my number out to people I don't know". But you know me after an hour conversation at a bar? lol Nuts... but it is what it is.

I understand a lot of things, but I still don't understand why I never fail to get a number after some conversation, but my rate plummets below 20% without that conversation. I feel like the same girl that turns me down if I ask for her number out of the blue, still thinks I'm hot and would give me her number after a little conversation. Its nuts. What do you think i'm going to do with your number!!

lol  :banghead:


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I'm totally lost on this thread and keep checking back hoping someone will post a summary on the points. 
200 pages!


----------



## Nsweet

You guys want to know the weirdest thing I seen attract women lately? 

It's gardening!

I started a semi-organic (sans Miracle Grow) garden plot months ago, and took charge of watering for others who can't in time and growing all the flowers around the border. I have had more women hit on me when I've been out there watering, weeding, and taking care of my plants than I think I ever have at once. Which is weird, because most of the time I feel like a p*ssy for doing all of this. It must be that all the children flock to me and I let them help out, either that or under my care I can grow big beautiful plants in months.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Nsweet said:


> You guys want to know the weirdest thing I seen attract women lately?
> 
> It's gardening!
> 
> I started a semi-organic (sans Miracle Grow) garden plot months ago, and took charge of watering for others who can't in time and growing all the flowers around the border. I have had more women hit on me when I've been out there watering, weeding, and taking care of my plants than I think I ever have at once. Which is weird, because most of the time I feel like a p*ssy for doing all of this. It must be that all the children flock to me and I let them help out, either that or under my care I can grow big beautiful plants in months.


OMG that's so funny,I was just b*tching last night about how much I hate working on the yard and gardening.I said I'd rather see a hot sweaty guy doing all the work for me while I sipped sweet tea on the porch


----------



## Nsweet

ScarletBegonias said:


> OMG that's so funny,I was just b*tching last night about how much I hate working on the yard and gardening. I said I'd rather see a hot sweaty guy doing all the work for me while I sipped sweet tea on the porch


See, that goes along with what I've been saying about women all these years. They love it when a man will do the things they b!tch about doing themselves, like cooking, cleaning, laundry, gardening, and changing diapers. Oh yeah, if you can do a few chores and give her the night off.... She'll love you more often


----------



## southern wife

ScarletBegonias said:


> OMG that's so funny,I was just b*tching last night about how much I hate working on the yard and gardening.I said I'd rather see a hot sweaty guy doing all the work for me while I sipped sweet tea on the porch


OMG yes!!! Any day of the week! :smthumbup:


----------



## Deejo

Quick summary?

A number guys talking about how using game made them more engaging to, and successful with women.

A number of women positing their belief that game is based on contrived, dishonest, manipulation, and will only work on women of low quality.

Discussion about what game really is ... and then positing that none of the guys who claimed to study and use game were actually using game.

Distinction between classic pickup-artist game and the newer, gentler concept of 'Inner Game', basically being a better man rather than trying to look like a better man to trick women into the sack. 

So where does that leave us?

A number of posters insisting that there are distinct social dynamics that can enhance attraction between a man and a woman, and they believe this because they have done it.

A number of posters that believe it's crap and wanting no part of it, ever.

Pretty much where we started 200 pages ago. 

Still feel it's been a great discussion and debate overall.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Nsweet said:


> You guys want to know the weirdest thing I seen attract women lately?
> 
> It's gardening!
> 
> I started a semi-organic (sans Miracle Grow) garden plot months ago, and took charge of watering for others who can't in time and growing all the flowers around the border. I have had more women hit on me when I've been out there watering, weeding, and taking care of my plants than I think I ever have at once. Which is weird, because most of the time I feel like a p*ssy for doing all of this. It must be that all the children flock to me and I let them help out, either that or under my care I can grow big beautiful plants in months.


lol

I raise you no shirt, a cowboy hat, and a rough pair of jeans... jeans, not shorts... trust me. Pretty sure I had neighbors that wanted to jump me when I was in the garden or doing lawn work.

I've always thought that women are more attracted to a man who takes care of things. Its why they love the single guy at the park playing with his dog. He's taking care of it. He's responsible. He's reliable. Decent looking becomes good looking.

And he has no shirt. RAWWWRRR. :rofl:


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Nsweet said:


> See, that goes along with what I've been saying about women all these years. They love it when a man will do the things they b!tch about doing themselves, like cooking, cleaning, laundry, gardening, and changing diapers. Oh yeah, if you can do a few chores and give her the night off.... She'll love you more often


Yes and no. Doing the physical stuff I think they find sexy. Doing the laundry or other chore spontaneously isn't sexy. Its just plain courteous.

Doing the chores in hope of rewards will land you in a very bad place.

Better to just pull your own weight, do what you see needs to be done freely without being asked, and just listen to her b*tch about the rest. Most of the time, they just need to b*tch I think. lol At least, that's what they supposedly do on Venus.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

hey now! I prefer constructive seething over b*tching

the sexiest things SO can do for me is insist on cleaning up after Ive cooked,wash my wood floors on his hands and knees,and come in to help me put clothes away and remake the bed. HAWT!!!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls said: "Most of the attention I get comes from low 20-somethings. I'd have a much harder time finding someone within 4 years of my age. But let me tell you, the 20-something year old guys that are my natural competition according to your line of thought... they don't stand a chance. Its really really obvious."

Oh...except the 20 somethings that are 6'3" and SR9's right? You forgot to mention that part.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I was at a swanky bar this weekend with a single friend of mine. We were hit on by all types of guys of all ages. The guys who are less attractive who are using "game" are the ones WE considered to be low hanging fruit.


----------



## ocotillo

Nsweet said:


> You guys want to know the weirdest thing I seen attract women lately?
> 
> It's gardening!


LOL -- My namesake (Ocotillo = _Fouquieria splendens_) is a reference to both an interest and a certain expertise in desert plants. 

The ratio of men to women is about one to three respectively, so simply from a numbers perspective, a single male gardener is going to interact with more women than he otherwise would. --I don't suppose it hurts that men in the business (Nursery owners, etc.) tend to be landscaper types with arms like telephone poles either...


----------



## TiggyBlue

Game or no game instinct attraction wins for me every time, for me that happens in seconds of seeing a guy.


----------



## Created2Write

I don't get where this hostility comes from. So you're not attracted to men who use game. Big freaking deal. You think men who use game are less attractive. That's really awesome for you and the other men who don't use game. It doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of other women who _are_ attracted to many game qualities. The concept and principles make sense to me. 

As a more traditional girl, I like knowing that there are men who are confident enough to approach _me_ and initiate conversation; men who don't have to know me for a week before they're comfortable teasing me; men who aren't intimidated by my personality; men who are confident enough to make me laugh within minutes of meeting me; men who don't question their entire existence just because one woman rejects them; men who don't wear their emotions on their sleeve because it makes them look so desperate. These are things that I find highly attractive. I don't respond well to flattery right off the bat. It's fake. I prefer to be teased, to laugh at jokes, to be flirted with. 

Anyway, I don't see why certain people continue to be so offended by this. If it doesn't suit you, it doesn't suit you. There are other men for you to be attracted to.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls said: "Most of the attention I get comes from low 20-somethings. I'd have a much harder time finding someone within 4 years of my age. But let me tell you, the 20-something year old guys that are my natural competition according to your line of thought... they don't stand a chance. Its really really obvious."
> 
> Oh...except the 20 somethings that are 6'3" and SR9's right? You forgot to mention that part.


Depends on the guy. If you're just talking looks and a vanilla personality, I'll own him. I've done just that. Tall guy, college baseball player's build. I basically walked up, started a conversation with HIM about the Braves (he had a Braves hat on) he jumped on talking about his team, and I'd say this or that to the girl just to keep her involved. Gradually I made more and more comments to her and got her to talk. His conversation was pretty lame, and mine was witty. Before long, the girl and I had some chemistry going and he just went away. Had he gotten pissy he probably could have kicked my ass if it came to it. He was a waiter and college drop out.

Oooo sexy. How's that bod workin' for ya bro?

Its one of my many reasons to think looks don't mean as much to women.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

TiggyBlue said:


> Game or no game instinct attraction wins for me every time, for me that happens in seconds of seeing a guy.


Surely you're not going to sleep with a guy you just met right?

Its not that simple. You're willing to sleep with him... but he probably still has a good amount of work to do before you actually WILL sleep with him.

Can he just walk up and say "Hey, wanna go to my place?" Probably not - regardless of how good he looks.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I was at a swanky bar this weekend with a single friend of mine. We were hit on by all types of guys of all ages. The guys who are less attractive who are using "game" are the ones WE considered to be low hanging fruit.


If you recognized "using game", then they had poor game.

Wow, guy with poor game is low hanging fruit. We agree! :smthumbup:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dvls...regardless of anything I may have said to give you any other idea, I am very clear on what game is, how it is used, why it is used, when it is being used on me, when it is working and when it isn't, who has it and who doesn't. I get it. You think I'm just an old married lady who doesn't know much about dating. That is simply because I haven't shared as much about myself as you have.

They used perfectly good game. They just weren't hot. Simple as that.

My statement has nothing to do with YOU, so I am not sure why you seem to doubt it or whatever? I can have my opinions about gaming and being gamed, right? Or do you really think you are the only one here who has any experience in life?


----------



## TiggyBlue

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Surely you're not going to sleep with a guy you just met right?
> 
> Its not that simple. You're willing to sleep with him... but he probably still has a good amount of work to do before you actually WILL sleep with him.
> 
> Can he just walk up and say "Hey, wanna go to my place?" Probably not - regardless of how good he looks.


No I never have slept with a stranger, only if I've known him awhile or a friend knows them have I considered sleeping with them (make sure they aren't a cheater).
That's why I said game or no game, no amount of game or talking has ever made me more attracted to a guy I wasn't instantly attracted to, but a guy who is pushy definitely has made me lose attraction hence why game helps some people.


----------



## RandomDude

:scratchhead:

202 pages... I thought it was locked, was it reopened? Are we still on the same thing? lol

Anyways, my philosophy: Just be cool, calm, collected and be yourself and pretty much that's all the game you need. So, what are we arguing about now? I'm lost =/


----------



## Faithful Wife

Maybe since Deejo was the 200th page first poster, and he then nicely recapped the thread for us...he can bury the horse and close the thread again. Just a thought.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Nsweet said:


> You guys want to know the weirdest thing I seen attract women lately?
> 
> It's gardening!


Man you're late!

I've been doing that with my wife for years..

I even posted about it on a thread in the " Long term success in marriage " section last year. That thread was entitled something like 
" ...Fun things couples can do together that don't cost a penny.." or something like that.

Myself and another poster were the only ones that mentioned gardening.
My wife loves it and I like it because I love doing things with my hands.


----------



## Caribbean Man

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Surely you're not going to sleep with a guy you just met right?
> 
> *Its not that simple. You're willing to sleep with him... but he probably still has a good amount of work to do before you actually WILL sleep with him.*
> 
> Can he just walk up and say "Hey, wanna go to my place?" Probably not - regardless of how good he looks.


Social^^^mores like I mentioned earlier today.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Dvls...regardless of anything I may have said to give you any other idea, I am very clear on what game is, how it is used, why it is used, when it is being used on me, when it is working and when it isn't, who has it and who doesn't. I get it. You think I'm just an old married lady who doesn't know much about dating. That is simply because I haven't shared as much about myself as you have.
> 
> They used perfectly good game. They just weren't hot. Simple as that.
> 
> My statement has nothing to do with YOU, so I am not sure why you seem to doubt it or whatever? I can have my opinions about gaming and being gamed, right? Or do you really think you are the only one here who has any experience in life?


I took you to mean that a guy using pickup techniques is low hanging fruit. Which means I'm low hanging fruit does it not?

What does their not being hot have to do with game at all? Yes, game isn't going to take ugly dude and turn him into Don Juan. Its marginal. But even hot guy is going to get less (not just quantity) than he otherwise would or even should, if he has no game.

Did I say I doubted you? Have I said you can't have opinions? Am I not allowed to comment on them?

If you can point out the player, then his game is poor. Bottom line. Unattractive man might go up a notch with some charm, but apparently not enough notches for you. Thats fine... totally consistent with what I've said in this thread.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I agree... we've beaten this horse to a bloody pulp.


----------



## Created2Write

This thread has lost its game.


----------



## Deejo

I was waiting for Faithful Wife to open up the Long Term Game thread ...

I feel played.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Deejo said:


> I was waiting for Faithful Wife to open up the Long Term Game thread ...
> 
> I feel played.


:iagree:

I thought about opening one myself ,but I honestly think she would do a much better job than I.


----------



## COguy

I take the realism approach to "game." It was summarized quite nicely somewhere on the internet, Deejo might have been the one to share it with me, but it resonated nicely with my own thoughts on the matter.

If you want to have interesting interactions with people, without having to be fake or authentic, become an interesting person.

Don't focus on going to the bar 5 times a week, go actually do interesting stuff. I was surprised at how much game I apparently had after my divorce. I didn't have any secret, I just had a lot of really cool hobbies that I enjoyed doing, and I think it made me an interesting person to be around.

If you're an interesting person, you don't have to have a plan to make that come out. If you're not an interesting person, you need to become one, because no one wants to get in a relationship with someone who is boring.

What I had to learn was how to just sack up and be bold. If I wanted to kiss a girl, I went in for the kiss. If I wanted to ask a girl out, I said, "We would have a great time going out, let's meet up on Tuesday." When I wanted to have sex, I didn't ask permission, I initiated.

The best part about what I learned, is that it transitions very well throughout the life cycle of a relationship. Being interesting and being bold are just as important in marriage as they are before the first date. And what is great is that by being bold, I am more likely to get what I want, and by being interesting, I am having a lot of fun.


----------



## Caribbean Man

So,
After many pages of discussion,
The question is not _if_ game works by _why_.
And the answer is simple.

It works because we're all human beings that supposedly have evolved from animals.
We are basically mammals that have developed our cognitive ability to the point where we can rationalize our behaviours and fool ourselves into thinking that we are _not_ mammals..

Animals, especially those in the wild have mating rituals, so do we.
Game is simply our twist on these same mating rituals.
Our cognitive abilities and constructs like marriage, religion, ethics and morals has simply made it a bit more complex, but overall enjoyable.

Anyone who has ever seen dogs mate from beginning to end would notice that it actually takes a while.
In fact, when a female dog is ready or " in heat" , her selection process could last for days before she actually "agrees ', and begins to mate with a male. During that period that male and many others perform all sorts of
" rituals", including fighting off contenders, pissing and leaving their " marks" and even licking her genitalia to impress her. Some may even try to mate with her against her " consent" but are rejected. Finally she makes a choice , gives ONE male a signal, he mounts her and the actual mating begins.

Game works,
Doesn't matter what form it takes,
Doesn't matter what culture,
Doesn't matter what language,

It works.
It works because we are humans , part of the animal kingdom, and an integral part of the mating selection process in mammals, is game.
And it also works_ because_ all mammals (including humans) share neuroanatomical structures ,such as the amygdala and neurochemical pathways in the limbic system that are important for feelings / emotions.

Outside of that, there are arranged marriages, high priced escorts, Lt. Commander Data , artificial intelligence and of course,mail order brides.


----------

