Guest Post by ADBG
On the far side of the room, Jimmy dips his girl-of-the-night. Dolled-up hair so long the curls almost touch the ground, she giggles, and Jimmy sweeps her back into his arm.
Then they gyrate. Left, right, left right, each cycle getting them a little lower. Crotch on crotch, and now tongue on neck.
By the bar, Steve tips back a martini. The girl with him furls her nose and twirls her hair. Then Sean smirks, says something so softly no one can hear but this young dime in a little black dress, and she laughs, and smacks on the arm.
On the dance-floor, Michael slides past a group of wanna-be Barbies so effortlessly he must have wheels on his soles. A move or two later, he grabs one of the girls by the hands, and pulls him in, and this cave-man display elicits nothing but beaming smiles from these strong, independent women.
I go to the bar, open my mouth, and find myself talking to the hand, 1990s style I don’t get it.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
I don’t know these girls’ names. I don’t know them because they don’t know them. Somehow these 3 gentlemen, close friends for the better part of a decade flashed a little something something to random lasses at the bar, and every single one of them immediately had a nervous girl twirling her hair. IOI
But I haven’t had a date in…years?
An hour passes. Jimmy disappears with Long Curls for a while and returns with collar un-done. The reserved Steve settles with a number-close. Michael shifts between 6 different girls, all Audrey Hepburn composed, Pauline Stone dressed, and Elsie Kate happy. Michael is the first that wants to leave, at 3 AM, because he works at 7 AM.
It’s a good enough night for the guys, but I can’t force anything more than a coarse laugh when they joke around. Stone-cold sober to sojurn on a Soyuz, I offer to DD for the night, but “don’t drink and drive” is just a suggestion to these guys.
When we get back to Michael’s, Steve throws Mike’s young brother out of bed. The living room’s surround sound gets dialed up to 10, and something tells me the neighbors in this suburb do not want to hear Pitbull at 4 AM, but this thought doesn’t occur to any other guys.
For the next couple hours, Michael and his younger brother go into Dance Dance Royal Rumble Revolution. I don’t know how this game works. Mike does a move, and his brother tries to do the same. When he fails, Steve and Jimmy jump on the young guy, and wet willy, purple nurple, and Charlie horse the 15 year old until the next round starts.
It stops, at 6:30, with Michael donning a suit and heading to the bank for work, no sleep, liqueur still on his breath. Steve and Jimmy pass out, and I watch the sun rise over the Lake while finishing a NAFTA paper due in a few hours.
I don’t get it. That day, after I turn in the paper, I talk to a nice girl named Cindy on the quad. We talk about her dog, we talk about her little brother in the hospital, we talk about majoring in a STEM major. And then when I ask for a number, she calmly shakes my hand and high-tails it the other direction.
I meet a girl named Samantha in line at lunch, she forces a laugh, then turns around and says nothing.
A girl named Ashley takes a seat by me in the computer lab, her working on a sociology paper, me working on my refutation of Ricardian Equivelance, and she smiles weakly when I ask her to go out to Giordano’s, explaining she needs to “jog” and “wash her hair.”
That evening, sitting in my cubicle at UBS for my voluntary mandatory unpaid job Jimmy talks about his date for the night. He wants to know what tie to wear.
What’s going to impress a college girl? He got fired from the Home Depot after stealing $400 from the drawer: he doesn’t feel comfortable with these smart girls and figures I might have some sort of smart-guy hack to unzip the girl’s pants.
I ask him the girl’s name.
Melinda? More of a question.
I ask him to show me a picture of the girl. I need a feel for her.
It’s the Cindy girl from the Quad.
“Go red,” I say. It’s the only thing I’m seeing, so it’s the only thing I can say.
I don’t get it.
I call up one of my girl-friends, the kind who calls when she’s having boyfriend problems. She just says, it’s okay, you’ll learn, and maybe try to be more manly? Learn by example?
But I try to go over last night in my head. And I try to see all the interactions, but all my head conjures is some Gordian Knot that makes the fixed speed of light and relative simultaneity and entangled quarks and gravitational boosting seem simple by comparison.
Steve calls. He’s going out again tonight. I don’t get it. How does he still have the energy to do this? But he didn’t work today, he’s a “Free Lance Photographer,” and there was nothing to do.
One of my study-buddies calls. We’ve got a chem exam tomorrow and we both “need” to review.
But I weigh the options. If there’s something wrong with me, then I need to start fixing it right away before it becomes permanent
The study-buddy warns me I am jeopardizing my future. But Steve, Mike, and Jimmy don’t have futures, and they’re doing just fine, and they are way, way, way better at getting girls, because it’s what they DO.
My girl-friend, the one I am not sleeping with and never had a chance with, has a few words echoing in my mind. “Be More Manly.”
Something’s wrong with me, and I don’t want it to ruin my life. All I know is however much Mom says otherwise, the girls don’t want me, not even the college girls
And when I said all this to Steve that night, he just laughed.
It’s like bad breath. “Be More Manly” means something definite, just like “Brush Your Teeth” means something definite. In this case, be more manly clearly means be more brutish. But no matter how definite, advice won’t be relevant until you decide to implement it.
I suppose if you don’t give a damn about much at all, you look particularly unneedy. It would be strange if guys who didn’t give a damn about pretty much everything got all sweaty about contacting women. Part of the package.
Not time to reiterate my bassackwards experience in the old days, but for various reasons, none of them having to do with the actual issue, I looked as if I didn’t give a damn. Thing is, I did, about a number of things, but in the narrowest sense, dealing with women, I didn’t look like it. Got IOI which I didn’t figure out for twenty years. You don’t want to be in my place–trust me–but it had a certain result.
Interesting post. Yeah, it can feel like you’re someone on the outside looking in and everybody is speaking a language that you don’t understand.
“I go to the bar, open my mouth, and find myself talking to the hand, 1990s style I don’t get it.”
I accidentally did this to a chick at my dance bar. Was chatting with her, then turned to watch people on the floor (so my back was to her). I said “good-bye” and left. Kind of autistic, breaking rapport like that. She was from out of town and I didn’t want to play her game. I didn’t ask her to dance again. Other people talked with her, but she left early.
Show the hand. Perversely, it’s a good strategy with women you’re interested in if there are quite a few people in the room. Talk with a group of women briefly, then show them the hand, courteously. Backturn. Go chat up someone else. Approach the first group. Smile, hold gaze for a few secs, look away, walk past, go chat up someone else for a bit. Back to first group. Establish a little comfort. Get them talking about themselves. Sexualize however works for you. Rinse and repeat (show the hand, reapproach, build comfort, sexualize). You can do this with several sets.
I naturally do this with dancing, except that I don’t sexualize. When I dance and am looking for a new partner, I’m always looking for a partner I’ve danced least with. I typically change up partners every dance. Dancing is a type of conversation–it’s physical conversation. The man issues physical commands and the woman complies, making a statement of compliance by her movement. So, when I take a dance partner to her seat and not dancing a second dance, I’m ending the conversation–showing her the hand. I “backturn” and go find someone else. Sometimes I’ll see a partner I’ve danced with, smile at her, walk past, then go ask someone else to dance.
“Something’s wrong with me” but that’s not the real problem, i.e. that *some* thing is wrong. For example Robert Redford had a huge mole or whatever on his cheek; he had *some* thing wrong with him, but it mattered not at all.
Really well done adbg. Excellent!
I should wear my cowboy hat more often…
In all seriousness, good post.
A Definite Beta Guy,
I wish that I could summon up some kind words of encouragement for Jimmy. Because all the women are pursuing short term mating strategies, he’s gotten shelved since he is long term material.
It doesn’t get any better for Jimmy once they choose to change lanes. Short term has to be a lot more exciting than settiling down, so he’ll be very vulnerable there too.
Jimmy only wants the acceptance that his buddies are getting. Not his fault, he’s at the mercy of other people’s choices.
Men are serious minded creatures. Programmed by God and Nature to conquer, rule and have dominion over the world around them. Some men want a small little section of the world, others the whole damn ball of dirt. Same mindset, different scale. And the mind set changes boys to men, and help a drive a man toward a his goals and success. That worked well for men pulling wives when life was harder, forced people into thinking long term, and men controlled women and the culture.
However, women are girls, stuck somewhere between 9 & 16 years old ( no matter the number of her birthdays). We live in a time and place that only exacerbates that natural immaturity tendencies of women, so men today are dealing with a double dose of it. Girls just want to have fun. They want “fun” boys ( drama is fun to chicks…. doesn’t make sense but is true). Never treat a woman like an adult, always act like they are nothing put silly little girls, toys to be taken off a shelf, never to be taken serious etc. Unless they are disrespectful, then crush that shit flat. Girls go were the fun(tingles) lead them. Take your mission & life serious, never apply that seriousness to girls. Girls are toys and fun. Nothing more. Even when you elect to keep one around long term, she is your plaything.
The only serious minded man “game” ( gees that’s convoluted) that’s works in our short term culture is bad boy/ hard ass game. Which is somewhat harder to pull off then tons of fun “game” & still requires you to be fun, just a different kind of “fun”. The fun of being rebellious, thrill seeking, being conquered etc but it still has to be fun for her
A well aged Steston adds to a man’s appeal.
Young women swim in the water of the abundance mentality, surrounded by the sexual attentions of men. Even the betas, outside the aquarium with their noses pressed up to the glass, contribute to the women’s environment. If you were Jimmy, or Steve, or some other reasonably normal guy having the one single best night, in his short life, of attention from women some one special Tuesday night at the club when all cyclinders were firing and when all the womenz seemed to be eyeing him, keep in mind almost all women get a LOT harder attention from a LOT more men every single day, even when almost no cylinders are firing and it’s Tuesday morning and she didn’t have time to take a shower before class and shes scurrying with her head down and her books clasped to her chest. Every day.
When a ‘Cindy’ hits 28 and “wants to get right with God” and “used to do all this crazy stuff in college, but I’ve learned a lot about myself and I wanna do things the right way with the ‘right’ kinda guy this time”, do yourself a favor,..
…see red again.
ADBG,
I should have added that this is a great post but, the subject is grim. Don’t expect the comment thread to blow up. It’ll be hard to put a constructive spin on this.
Let’s examine the phrase: “Pussy is just pussy.” This is how a natural expresses his view of women during mating. He doesn’t pedestalize them. He understands intuitively that, when it comes to mating, he’s dealing with a hindbrain, not a cortex. A natural doesn’t expect to approach women and attempt to persuade them to mate using logic which would appeal to their cortex. He intuitively understands that he needs to engage women through their hindbrain.
Betas understand none of this, intuitively or otherwise. They rely mostly on the lies that the culture feeds them about what women want and about how men are expected to behave. Hence, the problems exhibited by betas as described in the OP.
Good post ADBG. 100% true and sad. Hope things work out for all the guys like Jimmy, but we know they wont unless he somehow gets to become a good looking asshole.
In prison movies, as well as movies like ” the new guy “, order number one is find the biggest, toughest guy, and just rofl-stomp him into oblivion. Obviously that cannot work in conventional societies ( cops, get kicked out of school, etc ), but one may be able to do something verbally. If one were to study funny rhetoric, weaponize it, and deploy it in an ideal situation, non hot bad boys might have a shot.
That’s what I’m doing anyway
I meant * guys that are not hot bad boys might have a shot*
Grim subject – and one I knew well in my salad days – but here is one kind of answer (on which Rollo and others have descanted previously):
http://thoughtcatalog.com/leo-steven/2014/04/dear-girls-who-are-finally-ready-to-date-nice-guys-we-dont-want-you-anymore/
I’ve had many nights like this in my 20s. I also morphed into a “Michael” when entering my 30s. And thinking back on the small victories I had in that time, I became someone I didn’t like.
The high school locker rooms always came to mind when I talked to various women. Lots of verbal posturing and careful avoidance of any topics that might be dear to me. Not the place for sharing or serious discussion of anything. Pure marketing, pure bravado. A woman in a bar will settle for nothing else (notice I didn’t say “nothing less”). Any tells of a human being behind the smirk is a death toll.
Invariably, I’d make the mistake of bringing up something that was “serious” or, at least, dear to me. Luckily, this would usually happen after a bedsheet encounter. But it happened all the same. This would be my “beta backslide.” To my buddies, it looked more like a calculated act to get a used vessel off my back. It never was.
I stopped after a few years of so-called “success” with women between 22 and 49 years of age. Because I didn’t want to “date” for the rest of my life. Because even the married 49 year old (didn’t find out till later) played the same games that the 22 year old did. Because, every other aspect of my life had quantifiable progress attached to it that I never seemed to enjoy with the ever-changing goalposts of the dating scene. Bars became nothing more than school cafeterias with worse lighting and loud music.
Expending time and money just to have those 4 minutes of validation and endorphin release back at my apartment seemed to become as much as a problem as a meth addiction (in my own extrapolation). Risk > reward. Didn’t want it. Don’t want it now. Taking in strays is a thankless job.
From The Difficulty of Gaming Women by Age Bracket:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/the-difficulty-of-gaming-women-by-age-bracket/
I should wear my cowboy hat more often…
Jimmy, cowboy hat??? Don’t you know fuzzy, top hat is standard pick-up gear?
#16 Emily says she can eat her cakes and have them too, because she didn’t eat quite as many cakes as some of the sluts she knows.
http://www.justfourguys.com/skeptical-at-first-a-girl-tries-girl-game/#comment-21466
So, now that she’s ready to be not a slut, she believes she can be some nice guy’s “not-a-slut”. Provided, of course, he’s that one special guy who’s hot but has kept himself pure “not-a-man-whore”.
Another extrapolation of my experiences is this.
If only a few years of being on the field made me feel as rotten as I did, what the hell is it going to do to a woman who has been there for far longer? Furthermore, the average college girl has already experienced what I did in my early 30s with far less caution applied.
#21 re: women’s self awareness vs “I became someone I didn’t like.” Women cycle monthly anyway, in case you hadn’t noticed …
#22
In internet vernacular, this is called the “pussy pass.”
Acting out according to your moods isn’t a “woman” thing. It’s a “child” thing.
The comments for the links at post 16 has some white knights from hell and hamsters the size of wolverines. If anyone’s in the mood to smash some Red Pill into some bastards’ faces, that’s the place to go.
#23 yes, but what I mean is that a woman is so used to her solipsistic cognitive dissonance, not least because of hormonal issues, that she is completely unfazed by being someone that she readily admits that (reasonable!) people ought to despise.
@21
Your question is not relevant.
The women collecting Alpha trophies and experiences didn’t have to work to get them. They were entitled to them by virtue of being women. They have been raised to believe in their own empowerment and to believe that they are not responsible for their actions. They don’t feel bad about things they’ve done to other people, they feel bad only about things done to them.
The lane changers feel bad only when they are put in the position of understanding that are being judged based on their past behaviors. The don’t like the accusation that they were actively involved in those choices and behaviors. They don’t like being held to account. But they don’t feel bad in the least about the experiences themselves or their own behavior.
I however can relate to everything you said @17. I didn’t like the person I had to be to get the small victory. I felt bad about my behavior. I had guilt. Now, I simply don’t care. I am not responsible for anyone’s actions, behaviors, or feelings but my own.
@Martel, been skimming through the predictable comments on that article. Isn’t it telling that so many Betas, in spite of all the indication the article illustrates, will STILL, by their own volition, be active participants in their own role in the Beta Bucks side of feminine hypergamy?
Despite all evidence proving women’s pluralistic sexual strategy, they proudly defend the interests of any woman in her Epiphany Phase, shame any man as a misogynist for making any critical observation of it and hope their defense will engender some anonymous attraction from any woman reading the thread.
That hits home. I was that guy for a while when I was young. I’d get IOIs, didn’t know how to capitalize. I was a “nice boy.” Jined up the Army, must have unleashed some testosterone. Became a complete swine, learned the Dogged Pursuit method of getting women. Chase damned hard, escalate, escalate, escalate (that’s some Rommel type shit right there, friend) and then when you get ‘em, nail ‘em to the floor. And if they’re not around, chase some other girl just the same way.
That was still a little hit or miss. A cousin who was an amazing swordsman clued me in on the secret to upping the batting average from .289 to .400, and hitting for power: don’t give a shit about whether you get her or not. You’re a lazy infielder, a slacker wide receiver. Run my ass… if she comes to you, stick up your hand and catch her, but don’t bother worrying about it either way.
In combination with my natural approach, this worked really really well, even with my then beta-ish tendency to be a nice guy and lapse into serial more-or-less monogamy. Alas, all good things come to an end and I met a reasonably good girl and got married. I still play the lazy wide receiver though, at work and home. It’s a good approach to life and keeps it fun. Frustrates the hell out of people who want Steady Eddy the Greater Beta or Grinding Lesser Alpha at the office, but I don’t give a crap. My job is to keep me happy, not them.
Worry less about them, more about you, and don’t bother trying to please anybody except yourself, and maybe your maker, is what it boils down to.
#26
I understand what you’re saying very clearly, in fact. I wasn’t trying to draw parallels, even though I framed it that way. Women get far more enjoyment from dating for far less effort. Either sex comes out of the other end with markedly different types of “rot.” You know, those treasured alpha widow “experiences” versus the deflating knowledge that AWALT. But it’s still “rot” no matter how you spin it. It erodes quality of life in ways most don’t care to measure.
@16
If any of y’all look at the Thought Catalog link I posted above, check the comments – clearly a nerve has been struck. Makes sense, that site meanders around the pop psychology spectrum a lot. Oh the womanshaming! tl;dr: “You’re not a nice guy you’re an idiot and you think because you bought a nice dinner and held the door you’re entitled to poon and you deserve to be alone forever you’re so hatefilled I hate you too and you’re just mad at an old girlfriend and she was right to dump you which she had every right to do (but you don’t) and how dare you judge a woman’s past dating life or anything about her when all you guys get away with banging everything” they judge in truly judgmental fashion. Nothing we haven’t seen before but still amusing.
Of course Rollo and Martel beat me to it whist I was typing away here…
@29
Agreed, we’re on the same page.
There will eventually come a time when a woman’s SMV will decay to the point that her necessitousness will exceed her value.
In other words, due to her fast-burn, fast-decay, SMV, and recognized or not, she will eventually need a Man more than he needs her when he enters his peak SMV phase and she’s declined (however gradually) to the Wall of her own making.
Rollo at 33,
I have to take issue. Very few women will admit or, even accept, that they are of lesser value. Between vanity and leveraging men’s desire they are absolutely certain that men should ever be beholden to them.
You did make a comment somewhere else that in the 60s, women became the prize. They fully subscribe to this notion. That has to be turned around. The benefits that can accrue to a woman from a man who is all in are substantial. More than the other way around.
@ Rollo: Exactly.
Anyhow, I’ve used your “you left them behind in your twenties” line a couple of times over there without attribution. Let me know if you mind.
But it’s a great line. I doubt you’ll ever be able to keep it to yourself.
Women have been the prize since the Rape of the Sabine Women at least, and long before that.
#29 re: parallels. Women’s feral default psychology appears to be considerably healthier for their egos. Post-Wall, the woman tends to look at her party years as a learning experience. Later, post-divorce, post-menopause, post- everything but cats, the woman looks back fondly on her early sexual life and now is happy to be treated as “just a person”. In contrast, the typical beta hates his lack of success with women, hates always being on the outside of the party to which only women and Those Guys get invitations, and even if he transitions later to become one of Those Guys then he hates himself for having to become one.
Seriously late tagging…
O.
#37
“Women’s feral default psychology appears to be considerably healthier for their egos.”
Outwardly. That’s all that seems to matter to them until it’s time to change lanes. And then, even still.
Thought Catalog is becoming quite the shit — Janet Bloomfield (Judgy Bitch) just did a nice takedown of a Bad Girl’s ode to the Nice Guy the Bad Girl is now barely willing to tolerate:
http://judgybitch.com/2014/04/22/okay-mgotw-i-get-it-now-if-this-is-the-option-id-pass-too/
More specifically, Janet is trashing Thought Catalog’s bad-girl-wants-nice-guy-now analog piece to the “Nice Guys Don’t Want You Anymore” piece cited above at @16.
Re: comments in link in #16. Probably the wall I feel like punching the most holes in is this one: the NiceGuy™ fallacy. Roughly speaking, what makes a nice guy a nice guy per se is that he tries to keep a lid on his sexualness BECAUSE in his life experiences and how he was raised and how he is bombarded with messages in this anti-nice-guy culture, women do not want him to be sexual. But every woman, without exception, accuses nice guys of their “ulterior motives” causing their experiences, i.e. supposedly, according to all women, it is the fact that the nice guy *failed* to properly stow his sexual intent that causes women to reject him. Nothing could be further from the truth.
@ Fred 40: I can’t find a search button there, but the Thought Catalog writer named Anne Gus is actually some pretty brilliant satire on the young feral female.
At least I hope it is. If not, holy shit we’re doomed.
@Fred Flange:
Yo, have you seen this post on TC: http://thoughtcatalog.com/leo-steven/2014/04/dear-girls-who-are-finally-ready-to-date-nice-guys-we-dont-want-you-anymore/
Whooo – and they say the Manosphere is bunk – Booyaaah!
O.
@41
I am going to disagree.
Women hate the NiceGuy™ because they are fakes. And they do exist. But the really, really hate the Nice Guys you describe because those guys have learned to control their sexuality and the displays of it. Women hate that because it means they don’t have absolute control over sex.
Although the average Nice Guy will accept an offer of sex, rare though those are, there are a very few who will refuse because they are interested in something other than just sex. Those Nice Guys have power and are dangerous, and not a fun way. So the result is all Nice Guys are shut out lest the secret of a woman’s power become well known.
Women control access to sex only because men don’t. Lack of will to control sex on the part of men is the sole source of woman’s power in the current market. Because women control sex they also have power in the realm of commitment. All because men choose to not control access to sex.
Bicycles don’t need fish. Most men don’t have access to women in any meaningful way for much their lives so most men are capable of living without them. Can the same be said of women? I doubt it. If they could why would they care about being invisible at 50 when they have all those memories?
@43
Dear Grandmaster O: I refer the honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago. * At @16.
*A stock response from “Prime Minister’s Question Time” in the British House of Commons. I love the poetry of that non-answer. Don’t ask why I know what it is.
Dread Game Report:
Mrs. Gamer is again unhaaaaappy. Understand that the last few days she had been flirting with me all the time. Possibly it was a show on the radio that did it this time. So I told her I wouldn’t take her to her Bible study. She took a hard line and I told her that I would again be looking for a gf. She’s pretty much unhinged right now–claiming that I started dancing so that I could find poon, which is false. It was initially only about the weight loss. Later I realized that I could use my dance experience for my book. I eventually realized the benefits of having options–which can augment my wife’s attraction for me and let me find someone else should the need arise (I.e., due to a sex strike, divorce, or spousal death).
@FF:
I’m a HUGE fam of Prime Minister’s Question Time! Watch it as often as I can. God, I wish we had political engagement like that over here.
I’m over at Thought Catalog right now going back and forth a bit with the readers…heck of a lotta fun!
O.
#44 In the process of attempting to prove (or disprove; I was Outcome Independent in the scientific sense of seeing whether it worked) Game, I surprised the world, including myself, when I started being more sexual towards strange women and it started working.
Martel #35, please do.
BadPainter #44, you’ll be interested in this:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/04/play-nice/
http://therationalmale.com/2013/01/09/nice-like-me/
#49 re: “Nice Guys are the real jerks.” Not all women feel that way all the time, but EVERY time a Nice Guy complains about women not properly appreciating niceness, all women feel that way.
“You know the more I pick this apart the more I have to empathize with the truly Nice Guy; his is a particularly cruel hell. The Nice Guy in this definition isn’t necessarily the Alpha in sheep’s clothing. This is the guy who, most likely, believed he was going about ‘courting’ his woman-to-be by the rules he knows were established as the sensible proper means to arriving at a woman’s intimacy.” It’s a crying shame, made more pitiable because of women’s merciless reaction.
Every day can be Tuesday, in the right frame of mind. It doesn’t matter the month, or the decade.
http://www.elle.com/life-love/sex-relationships/dating-men-in-their-sixties
@49, 50
Great articles Rollo, they both piss me off.
I enjoyed being a nice guy. I don’t like being a self serving asshole. Guess which one gets better results?
Kinda sorta O/T:
Me and some of the J4G regulars are wrecking shop over at Thought Catalog; the fun starts here: http://thoughtcatalog.com/leo-steven/2014/04/dear-girls-who-are-finally-ready-to-date-nice-guys-we-dont-want-you-anymore/
C’mon in! The Water’s just fine!
O.
Tuesday shaming.
In other news, Our Lady of Perpetual Logical Fallacies is at it again; here’s a quote:
“Go to any seduction website and one of the first claims you’ll find is that a woman knows within five minutes of meeting a man whether she wants to have sex with him.”
O: Please note that she did NOT include any actual links to all of these supposed “seduction websites”.
Fellas (and ladies – including the you-know-whos reading along!), I actually am on the mailing list of several highly successful PUA instructors – Neil “Style” Strauss and Adam Lyons among them – and I have NEVER seen ANY of them, make such claims(!).
NEVER.
Style’s never said it.
Lyons’ never said it.
There’s another cat I’m subscribed to, Tripp – he’s never said it.
I follow another cat, a Brotha PUA, on Twitter – Kenyatta Joseph. He’s never said it.
Mystery’s never said it.
Roissy’s never said it.
Rollo’s never said it.
Roosh’s never said it.
So, we have to ask our erstwhile lady interlocutor – WHO, are all these seduction websites, that makes the claims as she asserts above?
Who?
SMH…
hxxp://www.hookingupsmart.com/2014/04/22/hookinguprealities/the-curse-of-high-expectations-in-dating/#more-14607
You just cannot make this stuff up…
“Go to any seduction website and one of the first claims you’ll find is that a woman knows within five minutes of meeting a man whether she wants to have sex with him.”
I’ve never heard this either although I’m sure maybe someone has said it. I doubt any women are in the Definite Yes camp inside 5 minutes. But within 5 minutes, they generally do know Maybe or No Way. Most women can disqualify a man inside 5 minutes.
Oh – and as many of you know here, I frequently quote PUA Lingo. Go to the site and look it up for yourself, and please post the links where Vince says that Women know within five minutes of meeting you whether she wants to have sex with you.
Here’s what you WILL find, though: http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/105621/
I take the link straight from PUA Lingo, who in turn gets it straight from Mystery himself. And he’s NEVER said any such thing.
See folks, THIS is why it is often said in Game circles, that it is not wise to listen to Women in terms of giving relationship-dating advice – because nine times out of ten, they simply do not know what they are talking about.
There’s the proof upthread.
SMH…
O.
@Morpheus 56:
Oh, no doubt, it doesn’t take long for a Woman to *DQ* a Man – granted.
But that’s NOT what’s at issue here, per our erstwhile interlocutor. She is making an entirely differing claim – a claim, that has ZERO support, in terms of actual links or failing that, references.
NONE.
NO Seduction instructor that I am aware of, has made any such claim. And I’ve read, and studied, and studied with, and observed, and actually attended bootcamps, and sat in lairs, of A LOT of these guys, known and unknown.
And I’ve yet to hear ANY of them, say what this Woman claimed above.
Whew!
O.
Here’s another zinger from you know who, same “fresh” post:
“It’s actually very common for couples to get together after they’ve known one another for a while or been close friends. In fact, I’d estimate that half of all the couples I’ve known fall into this category, and it’s true of my own marriage.”
O: The interlcutor’s personal anecdote aside, we know – KNOW – that the “friend” strategy, Nice Guy(TM)ism aside, has an…
…wait for it…
EIGHTY PERCENT FAILURE RATE. This is NOT based on my personal opinion, or anyone else’s personal anecdote, but based on empirical researches on the matter. It’s right in David Buss’ book, The Evolution of Desire, revised 2004 edition (our interlocutor apparently didn’t get the memo that the book’s been revised since it first came out in 93-94, with NEW researches and evidence; the “friend” thing, is one of them).
Like I said folks, the PUA gurus were correct: as a general rule, please, don’t take your advice on this here mating thing, from the ladies. No sexist dis, it’s just a fact.
See for yourself…
O.
#59 “It’s actually very common for couples to get together after they’ve known one another for a while or been close friends.” Wait, but isn’t this Friendzone beta sleeper-cell strategy the SAME as the women-disgusting NiceGuy™ strategy?
Nice guy ulterior motives? Treating women with respect seems to be a version of masculine projection, nice guys suffer from superimposing a masculine mental scheme on their interactions with women.
Ferrum was correct, women don’t want to be treated with ‘respect’, the fact that it causes such a visceral response of discust reveals a lot.
Any creature that has an innate need to be dominated must view placating behaviour as deleterious.
I can see how the PUAs never said that a gal was won over in the first five minutes. That would negate the efficacy of what they promote. Five minutes would be long enough to pass the attraction filters. Then come the desirability filters.
Eight percent failure rate???? Maybe for men. For women, an overlooked resource.
One has to wonder what “Our Lady” is trying to tell her fans. It was a revelation to me when a girlfriend told that women’s magazines are chock full of very bad information. Having grown up with a profound respect for the written word, that was shock. Even more shocking was that they didn’t care about promulgating bad information.
Anyway, why listen to me? I have about as much luck as Werner von Braun did in his early career.
WRT close friends becoming an item and the 80% failure rate:
Presumably, there are several, possibly a dozen close-friend, congenial-colleague type of relationships over the course of some years. If success happens 20% of the time, then in half a dozen different relationships, one of them will move to being an item.
Crap. What is it with this thing?
When one is in friend/colleague relationship, the approach thing isn’t on the table. Thus, being around the woman frequently, interacting at work or in some area of common interest, the guy is showing abundance, is showing he doesn’t care.
Probably a good idea for him to be the leader in whatever it is. But the point is, he’s showing abundance and not-caring, which is supposed to make him desirable.
#55, Actually, I restated that line (from the movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High) quite differently:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/06/27/filibuster/
I’d post this over at the Hen House, but I’m not one of the 7 commenters on her approved list.
And while we’re at it, I got a laugh from this one too:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2014/04/11/politics-and-feminism/divorce-in-america-who-really-wants-out-and-why/
Yet the following graph’s stats are from 2000.
I guess she blew right past this little gem at Vox’s:
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/04/better-off-out.html
Funny that Giggles is still milking a dead cow. She must be out of Cosmo top ten lists to c&p for the HuffPo if she’s rehashing this:
Well fucking ‘eh, if it happened for her and hubby in 1984 (after the carousel slowed down) it must be true in 2014.
What she doesn’t like to be reminded of is this study:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/file-under-science-love-at-first-same-night-lay/
How do I know all this? Because I’ve been waiting for 3 years for Giggles to address it:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/23/wait-for-it/#comment-655
Reheat.
I call up one of my girl-friends, the kind who calls when she’s having boyfriend problems. She just says, it’s okay, you’ll learn, and maybe try to be more manly? Learn by example?
I’m sure this has been mentioned elsewhere in the ‘sphere, but maybe try your hand at indifference. In my experience, few things get a girl’s juices flowing faster than the thought that a straight male isn’t attracted to her.
I have no idea why this is so, but I’ve had it work personally.
Case study #1, whom we’ll call “A”, was a former co-worker. Classic slut. Mid 20’s, adequate facial features, and huge, ginormous rack. Not a bad ass, either. Tiny little thing, maybe 5’2″ – 5’3″. Threw herself at any guy who walked by; I personally saw this girl engage in more acts of sexual harassment than the cast of Mad Men.
Aside from an academic appreciation for the magnificent rackage, I wasn’t interested. At. All. Not so much because A was a slut, but because Sumo don’t hook up with co-workers. That’s just a bad idea.
In any case, her ego couldn’t handle the fact that I didn’t react. She upped her strategy – I had the aforementioned magnificent rackage thrust in my face so often, I was tempted to stuff a dollar in her waistband. It got to the point where you could almost hear her cream her panties whenever I walked into the room.
Case study #2, whom we’ll “M”, was also a co-worker, and my boss, which meant the “no hooking up with co-workers” policy got ramped up a few thousand notches. M was 4 years older than me, and a fairly attractive woman – kept herself in decent shape, took care of her hair and skin and so on. M was (at the time) a pretty decent friend, and not a slut by any definition of the term.
M had a couple of bad break-ups during the time I knew her, and tried to use me a beta-sympathizer to tell her that she was wonderful and desirable, et cetera. Didn’t happen; I gave honest, albeit blunt, opinions instead. I didn’t compliment her needlessly (although I would tell that she looked good is she actually, y’know, looked good), but she still threw IOI’s at me like an old lady throwing bread at pigeons in the park.
It got to the point where almost every conversation we had involved her slipping in some sort of variation on “what if we were dating?”, followed by nervous laughter, the “Oh, I was just kidding” follow up, and another nearly audible Creaming of The Panties.
Granted, the Indifference Strategy might be more of a long-term play, but it works.
@ Rollo
“You’ll often see this played out when women insert casual filibusters into conversation about having a boyfriend (boyfriend disclaimer) with guys who’ve too blatantly telegraphed their over-interest in becoming intimate with her. ”
I actually tried this. A woman I was chatting with at a bar mentioned her bf early, but I challenged her on it and she DQ’d him and indicated that she was open to a new bf. She was very submissive, paid her own way, offered several hugs which I accepted unenthusiastically. I was facing toward the bar, leaning back casually in my chair and she was leaning into me, facing me with her upper body and mirroring me with her lower body. So, her mention was more of a shit-test. I don’t think that we should assume that merely mentioning a boyfriend indicates non-interest. It may be a shit-test.
“Something’s wrong with me” No, it’s not you. There’s something wrong with women. Definitely, women. “I just don’t get it.” No, the problem is not nice men not getting it. The problem, definitely, is women not getting it.
One Monday almost 2000 years ago, the Man was hungry (Mark 11:12). He had a busy day, and just wanted a little something from Ms Figtree. She had plenty of time to put out (Numbers 17:8) something, make Him a sandwich, whatever, but she thought she could get by just looking good. Not what He wanted; He wasn’t happy. She was mortified at having failed Him. By Tuesday she was dead, embarrassed to death.
This is what women don’t get: women ought to be mortified. All of the time, women ought to be mortified for having failed nice men so miserably. Literally at least 99.9% of women ought to be so embarrassed right now that they could die from shame.
#69
jf, ya think maybe your wife picks up on your contempt and hatred for womankind? Would not surprise anyone familiar with human beings that she responds to you with coldness and disrespect as a result. It’s sorta hard to be lovey-dovey toward someone who hates you and your kind.
#70
“It’s sorta hard to be lovey-dovey toward someone who hates you and your kind.”
Just wanted to leave this here, ironically.
#70 No, cart-before-horse reasoning is even less amusing than head-in-sand.
That “five minutes” quote is real. I heard it, only, on Married With Children. Women are laughable.
#72
Horse-before-cart then, jf? Sure. What would you say about a woman who constantly bitches about her husband to strangers on the Internet?
Exactly.
So maybe instead of constantly bitching about your wife to anyone and everyone, you should spend some quality time with her. Putting the horse in its proper place, as it were.
#55
That female charlatan is obviously making stuff up yet again. Having said that, I’ve heard a similar piece of “wisdom” from common women. Their claim was that all women are capable and willing to rule out the possibility of sexual relations with a particular man after 5 minutes of interaction.
@Bud 74:
Hello Bud! And welcome to our humble abode. We haven’t had the chance to become more formally acquainted, so please allow me this opportunity to do so.
I’ve seen a previous comment of yours, and I responded to it; perhaps you’ve seen it? If not, it’s not hard to find, and if you have and decided not to respond, hey, that’s OK too, though it does raise a few questions for me.
Which brings us to the current conversation, and your issues with Mr. JF12 – in short, what’s your beef with him? I get that you may find his complaints about his wife grating; to be frank, I find your needling of him, outta nowhere, equally as grating. But, you see, the difference between you and me, is that when I come across folk I find to be grating, I usually just tune them out, and move on to something a bit more interesting to me. After all, no one is forcing me to read whomever it is that grates on my nerves, right?
So…why don’t/can’t you, do likewise – and simply move on?Why the need to make a Congressional case out of it?
Now, I get your query, because, I do think it’s a legit one. While I don’t personally know Mr. JF12, please allow me to speculate a bit about him and his situation; he is more thanwelcome to speak on his behalf to confirm or deny what I have said here.
See, I think J4G is one of the relatively few places anywhere, online or off, where Men can come and be heard, in their own voices, about things that are important in their lives. The general society doesn’t allow for that, in the main. The default position out there is, that whatever problems crop up in a Man’s life, especially as it pertains tothe relationship arena, it is solely his fault, fullstop.
Now, it may indeed be possible that what you assert about Mr. JF12 is true – that he hates his wife and that accounts for the behavior he bemoans in this space. Fair enough.
But, consider the alternative: what if she’s just a bitchy,. entitled shrew – then what? Sure, you could respond by saying that he should just leave her, and on many levels I wouldn’t disagree; but, you see, for me at least, I would be coming at that particular conclusion from the pespective of a Man who is not nor has ever been married; I don”t know about you, but I would think such a detail would matter greatly in these kinds of things. Maybe Mr. JF12 simply just can’t pack it in and call it a day – it may prove too disruptive and costly for him to do so. Maybe he might incur too many fiduciary, social and legal costs for just getting rid of the shrew. Or maybe he doesn’t want to ditch for the simple reason, that he actually loves the battleaxe.
Who knows?
Here’s what I do know:
1. That, so long as I have anything to do with J4G, Men like Mr. JF12, have my golden engraved invitation to vent their spleens about their wives to their hearts’ content – because I can and I said so, but also because, as I’ve noted above, they have precious few other places – if any – to go anyplace else; and
2. I do not like the manner in which you have “introduced” yourself in this forum. I have no problem in the least with disagreement – J4G exists in part to be a forum where disagreements can be aired and hashed out – but it’s something about the way you go about it, that rubs me the wrong way.
So, here’s what I’m gonna do, Bud:
I’m going to ask YOU, what is your problem? I mean, is it just with Mr. JF12 – or is it with the broader issue of J4G itself – or is it with the Manosphere – or…what?
Let’s put Mr. JF12 on the side for a moment. This is about you, and me, now.
Let’s talk. If you’re serious.
Your move…
O.
#76 “he actually loves the battleaxe” No longer IN love, to be sure, but bound by vows and love as such.
“I think J4G is one of the relatively few places anywhere, online or off, where Men can come and be heard, in their own voices, about things that are important in their lives.” It is a great place because it encourages feedback too, even of the Bud kind. Otherwise it’d be like howling at the Moon. I should take the opportunity here for too-often venting. There is a sweet spot of activity for a bubbling mudpot: too little venting and it is dull, too much venting and it slings its mud and stench too widely.
#77 oops “the opportunity here to APOLOGIZE for too-often” etc
Raz the Research Catfish said that she was compiling responses to, what she termed, were male “triggers.” So perhaps “Bud” trolling for more research purposes; these trigger-posts are very specific but also generalizable. I don’t think “Bud” arrived to educate anyone or enhance the general morality, though goodness knows we could use some decency, morals and oatmeal cookies. And clean socks. I think the people posting here are probably not wearing clean, matched socks. Someone needs to set this place straight.
Or Bud’s just a troll. It really doesn’t matter who “he” is if he’s ignored.
#79 re: cookies and socks. I have to reach way back into someone else’s memory, my wife’s father’s grandfather’s, from nearly a century ago. The way I heard it discussed, said grandfather was, mid century, fondly reminiscing about when his wife USED TO keep some cornbread leftover from breakfast in the still-warm cast iron oven and redeye gravy in the still-warm pot on the stove on top of that oven, so that when he came in the house for a midmorning break then he could fix *himself* a little snack. Keep in mind he was fondly remembering her laziness as exhibiting her care for him. Now (he was quoted as complaining, then), she wouldn’t let him fix himself such a snack; he’d have to wait for lunch even if he was starving.
During that discussion, my father-in-law, with a hole in his sock, brought up that women used to darn socks. His wife said “We still darn socks. Darn socks!” as though she were speaking to the socks. The women thought it was very funny.
“His wife said “We still darn socks. Darn socks!” as though she were speaking to the socks. The women thought it was very funny.”
Most socks today are incredibly low in quality in general. One gets what one pays for (in theory, they’re all from China so there’s little choice). Just this morning I tried to darn a pair of my husband’s socks and ended up throwing them away. The material is too cheap, uber-thin and doesn’t grab well.
Dance Game Update:
I was dancing with an intermediate experienced dancer at a studio doing West Coast Swing (WCS). I led her in a series of advanced moves–Telemark to a Drop (a Ballroom move–waltz & foxtrot), a Rollout (WCS), a Rollback (WCS), and finally a Dropping Lean (WCS). She didn’t follow it well since she is intermediate level and isn’t an intuitive dancer or knowledgable about ballroom dancing. However, she was interested in learning it, so we worked on it a bit. She did the Telemark Drop just fine since all she had to do was not resist (submit to) what I was doing, so there was some success and she really enjoyed the Drop. In the Drop, the woman is trusting the man to not let her fall and is relying on his strength. It takes a lot of submission for a woman to do that move. This woman indeed had some Last Minute Resistance to the Drop, but I navigated past it with minimal force and there was a successful conclusion to the Drop.
The Rollout and Rollback are done without connection and the woman has to know what she’s generally doing. I had to do a bit of guiding of my partner to manoeuver her back to where I wanted her. It’s not terribly difficult, but I hadn’t thought about the moves much from the point of view of the woman and they weren’t the main focus anyway–really just a couple of transitions as far as the dance went.
So, my partner did the Dropping Lean just fine once we navigated into it. We practiced the moves again and the dance ended. She is a Shy Girl ™ and she was mooning at me and beaming as I walked her back to her seat. My partner thanked me profusely and said how she was looking forward to dancing with me more in the future. Very special coming from a Shy Girl ™. Lots of IOI’s. Even experienced women dancers can be affected by Dance Game–especially when a man is instructing them. See the analysis below for more info about the generation of tingles.
Analysis:
The Telemark uses rotation by the woman to execute successfully. She spins a lot and rotates under the man’s lead at the conclusion until he lowers her and her back is horizontal with one leg under her supporting her. The man typically supports about one-third of her weight with one arm, so she feels his strength.
From a woman’s perspective, the Rollout coming from just after a Drop must seem like a Backturn after an exciting convo–an abrupt break in rapport. Then the man catches her side at a certain point of rolling out and gently tugs on her side waist to start the Rollback–women usually dread being disconnected from their partners and not being able to see their partners. Being sent away by a Rollout would be very disconcerting. The lead in the Rollback is an abrupt transition from dread back to brief rapport with a direction change back towards the man.
The Dropping Lean connects the man and the woman using gravity and the support of the man’s right arm and right shoulder. The woman leans against the man’s right shoulder. The man circles the woman’s upper body with his right arm passing under her right breast with his hand resting on the lower left side of her tummy. The right arm is there to prevent the woman from rolling off of the man’s shoulder and injuring herself. This move requires trust from the woman that 1) he won’t drop her and 2) he isn’t creepy. She has to feel that he is strong enough to support her and comfortable with his hand touching her tummy, which is sensitive and an erogenous zone. (Yeah, I know that this is tame stuff compared with groins grinding in some freestyle dances, but expectations and contrast play into it. If a woman expects being touched in advance and it is common in the dance, that is less stimulating than being touched in an erogenous zone when that touch is rare.) The woman is lowered a bit in the leaning position by the man bending his legs and quickly brought to vertical by the man straightening his legs, then spun away and her hand is caught by the man’s right hand.
Emotionally, the woman will feel very vulnerable throughout all this and that she is dominated by the man. It will feel like riding a roller coaster, to some extent, with her safety resting on the strength of the man. It produces a lot of tingles.
Yeah, that last comment was pretty spergy. Sorry about that.
“If you want a hot breakfast then you can set your cornflakes on fire!” is another classic exhibition of a woman’s exulting in being a useless wench.
#84: Just this morning, I had to set my husband’s corn flakes on fire. Just kidding.
Really, women say this kind of shit? I must be out of the loop as the daughter of immigrants….I do feel really good about myself reading this stuff though. Probably better than I should. One has to start digging and crawl all the way under the sewer line, is would seem, to get under that bar.
#85 Yes, many women say many such things. But I can’t tell such a joke the same way twice. I think I first heard it, from my wife, as she hearing her sister’s mother-in-law saying to her husband “The only way you’re getting a hot breakfast from me this morning is if I set your cornflakes on fire.” But her sister claims her mother-in-law was telling the girls at some henparty, the women including my wife and the sister, about some other woman saying it.
Helluva great post, ADBG.
Re the Thought Catalog “I’m Ready for NiceGuys” and the response “We Niceguys Don’t want you anymore”:
What I find interesting is something that Roosh, Rollo and others have been noticing for quite a while now. Women who pursue the “Bad Boys in the 20s then settle down for Niceguy at 30 or so” strategy no longer engage in any pretense about it. It’s all out in the open now. Men no longer have any excuse for wifing up a slut; because the sluts are coming right out and admitting their sluttery and essentially saying Whatchugonnadoaboutit, Chump?”
More and more women are coming right out and saying that this is their strategy; because they know there will be chumps there to wife them up when they’re done. Isabel Chalmers will get a niceguy provider to wife her up whenever she wants.
Funny this thread does get juxtaposed with the pro Friend Zone strategy elsewhere…
Yeah, this is obviously a ficitionalization, with a whole cast of different characters thrown in from different life periods. The actual truth…sounds a lot worse than the actual story!
Jimmy, Michael, and Steve were all guys I met at a wedding not too long ago. They weren’t college guys, but several years out of education and on the road to whatever they were “supposed” to do. Two things stuck out to me:
1. Their complete ease with women
2. Their total lack of life’s accomplishment
They were the Groom’s Men, and knew the Groom for all their formative years. While guys like me stuck it out in dull Soc 101 these guys were skipping left and right, quitting jobs on a whim, and just hitting on women.
Obviously they didn’t go anywhere (career-wise), but this sort of male camradery and focus on pick-up served as their Silicon Valley of getting girls. Friends are you greatest influence, etc….
After reading that TC article and the subsequent comments and the deluge of shaming language in every form, it seems one thing stands out above all. Women, at least young women, don’t understand the concept of truth. Their interpretation is ” the truth is whatever the hell I say it is”. It’s moral relativism on a socially grand scale. There is no right or wrong, no truth or lies, just whatever the individual with the most power says goes. And women know they hold all the power during these years.
Although it does this guy’s heart some good to see men putting entitlement princesses, white knights, and the like in their place, it makes me depressed that no matter what is said or how it is said, the majority of women don’t care. The ” as long as I get mine” mindset is so prevalent and damaging. Not to mention contagious…
@adbg I thought you portraits of Jimmy, Steve, and Michael were all spot on, I think I know them — as friends! And it is true that despite lack of real accomplishment or depth they seem to skate by while others with more to offer are overlooked. I could speculate it is because they have less scruples or something, which allows them to engage in behavior a nice guy may not. And to watch them seem to “win” as a result must be pretty difficult. I see a similar vein in women, some of the most cutthroat and callous seem to end up “winning” in the smp/mmp as well. But maybe just short term in both cases? Not to bring up mr. Charlie Sheen’s shennagins, is that winning? I hope I can manage a pass through Chicago at some point to meet you in person and cheers to you and finding your one at long last! (You did say in another thread you are engaged, no?) May you enjoy deep and true happiness!
#89 yes. Moral relativism, Eve’s contribution to ethics, characterizes women’s approach to truth. Perhaps the largest gap between the genders regarding justice and equity and truth is shown in their summary judgments of women’s sexual price discrimination.
Funny this thread does get juxtaposed with the pro Friend Zone strategy elsewhere…
Ha. You bet.
I read that post, and the “success stories” cited. Obsidian somewhere already pointed to the failure rate on these types of relationships/marriages where marriage occurs after many years of being “friends”, and then supposed attraction and romantic love blossoming out of nowhere at some point in time. I’m sure the point in time coincides nicely with the Phases that Rollo describes a woman goes through.
I won’t pretend to be able to give hard percentages, but no doubt some non-trivial amount of them basically amount to a woman finally settling for her long-time beta orbiter….Jenny Erikson anyone?
From the female POV and the imperative to eventually secure stability and provisioning, it certainly makes sense to advocate for and have in her back pocket the fallback position of the long-term male “friend” who one day she wakes up and has an ephiphany how he is attractive despite apparently not noticing that for years and years.
From a male POV, it is a shitty strategy because of the investment of time, resources, and mental energy, and frustration. From the male POV, either you find her attractive or you don’t. Either she passes the attraction floor filter or she doesn’t. If she doesn’t, then being platonic friends is a possibility. If you are attracted though, being “friends” is going to be an exercise in frustration. Whatever benefits that “friendship” provides will be exceeded by the mental costs of being around someone you find attractive that you cannot have in that way. What’s the point? This is something I think most women don’t grok in their calculus of male-female “friendships”.
As a pathway or one way to get the romantic/sexual relationship, sure it can work. And playing the Lotto can also work as a way to get wealthy. For a man, the best path remains to quickly subcommunicate and even directly communicate sexual/romantic interest and make her make a choice. Don’t put yourself in the position to be “friendzoned”. Either something is there attraction wise, or you move on, and go to the next girl. There is too much at risk, and too little time to waste time and energy cultivating a “friendship” with a woman in the hopes that attraction may develop at some undefinable point in the future.
Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. I have one platonic female friend who ironically developed out of a hookup in college. I was actually moments from basically having sex with her the same night we met, but stopped because it was the wrong thing to do. I’m not proud of it, but I did have a girlfriend at the time. It was a LDR, and hours earlier we had a Richter scale cataclysmic argument. To say I was pissed and steaming was an understatement, so when I went out that night, I probably wasn’t thinking clearly. Anyways, we later became “friends”. The truth is we were playing with fire a bit. Looking back on it now, knowing what I know now, I’m fairly certain she continued to hang out with me because she did in fact want me to make it physical with her. She actually was a really cool chick, tons of fun, great sense of humor so I enjoyed being around her. She was a bit on the chunky side, but had a pretty face, and there is something almost intrinsically attractive about a 20 year old (I was 27 at the time). Over the years, she gained a ton of weight to the point where any attraction I had was gone, so it has been fairly easy from my POV to be platonic friends, and we are still friends to this day.
“Either something is there attraction wise, or you move on, and go to the next girl. There is too much at risk, and too little time to waste time and energy cultivating a “friendship” with a woman in the hopes that attraction may develop at some undefinable point in the future.”
+1,000,000
Attraction is either there, or it isn’t. She either is attracted to you, or she isn’t. Attraction can’t be created from whole cloth. If attraction isn’t there from the beginning, it’s not going to be there the longer you hang around. Your presence isn’t going to make you attractive to her if you aren’t already attractive to her. If anything, your continuing to hang around her will only creep her out.
We all know this because we’ve all been with women who were attracted to us; and with women who weren’t. We’ve all seen how immediately responsive women are when they are attracted to us. And we’ve all seen how unresponsive women are when not attracted. We’ve all seen that for a woman, once a man is on the friendship ladder, he can never, ever, ever move over to the sex ladder.
Female to male attraction exists on a spectrum, sure; but she’s either attracted to you enough to respond to you and pursue it, or she isn’t. If she isn’t responding favorably to measured escalation or expressions of interest, then she’s not sufficiently attracted to you to try to make something happen.
@ Deti I would say that is true, a woman feels attraction or not. She may be able to “talk herself into it” but it will not be the same as if she felt it spontaneously. There are exceptions but I have seen it happen only once or twice.
And then again, I have known women who purposely choose an asexual relationship because they just don’t like sex. They are usually seen paired up with the “is he or isn’t he?” guy who may not want to have sex either (with her, at least.)
The world is a complex place.
@Morpheus
From the male POV, either you find her attractive or you don’t. Either she passes the attraction floor filter or she doesn’t. If she doesn’t, then being platonic friends is a possibility. If you are attracted though, being “friends” is going to be an exercise in frustration. Whatever benefits that “friendship” provides will be exceeded by the mental costs of being around someone you find attractive that you cannot have in that way. What’s the point?
What if both find each other equally attractive, but are married? Can’t there be some chemistry and remain friends? Maybe something might happen to the spouses about the same time and romance is possible. Options. And benefits from a platonic friendship. Chores exchanged for sammiches, maybe. Or being dancing buddies. Or hiking buddies. Or biking buddies.
What if the friends end up at a party? I considered party games like grabass/tit and decided that those games aren’t in a man’s interest. The woman gets tingles/drama and the man gets no happy resolution. But platonic friendship with about equal chemistry–can that be win/win? Surely.
@deti
“We’ve all seen that for a woman, once a man is on the friendship ladder, he can never, ever, ever move over to the sex ladder.”
My fling is a black swan.
@ Bloom:
“a woman feels attraction or not. She may be able to “talk herself into it” but it will not be the same as if she felt it spontaneously.”
What she actually “talks herself into” isn’t attraction. She talks herself into a relationship with someone she’s not attracted to. She rationalizes the relationship/marriage by concluding the relationship with the particular man she’s not attracted to but is marrying is somehow in her interest (and really, it usually benefit her very much). He can support her. He can support her children. He can give her status. He can give her a “respectable” life; show that she’s “redeemed” herself.
No matter what “it” is, note that it is always about what he will give her and do for her; not about what she will give him or do for him.
#96 ” I considered party games like grabass/tit and decided that those games aren’t in a man’s interest. The woman gets tingles/drama and the man gets no happy resolution.” Correct. This is also why “Married couples should most days just make out on the couch for a few hours, like before they got married, in order to “keep on courting”” is merely servicing the feminine imperative.
Deti, it’s not so much that it’s all out in the open now as much as it is that women are comfortable with it being out in the open.
Why would they be comfortable? Because a majority of guys voluntarily accept it as normal and endorse the strategy. That’s the degree of sexless desperation inherent in these guys and women know this – that even when the strategy is laid bare, and women openly state it IS their strategy, these guys will still endorse it. They want to be cuckolds before they become cuckolds.
The (ex)husband in Saving the Best seems genuinely shocked by his wife’s party years sexual appetites, but he’s really just the end result of a guy who bought into what Aunt Giggles is selling, ‘friends first, then (convenient) providership monogamy will replace genuine attraction’.
Anyone familiar with her past and subsequent pairing with her Beta retroactive cuckold husband wont be surprised, but I think someone ought to ask her if she’s now changed her position on whether attraction isn’t a choice. If she has, I’d like to know what her husband thinks about it.
@Rollo:
“Deti, it’s not so much that it’s all out in the open now as much as it is that women are comfortable with it being out in the open.
Why would they be comfortable? Because a majority of guys voluntarily accept it as normal and endorse the strategy. That’s the degree of sexless desperation inherent in these guys and women know this – that even when the strategy is laid bare, and women openly state it IS their strategy, these guys will still endorse it. They want to be cuckolds before they become cuckolds.”
O: TL;DR – The Thirst, Is Real…
O.
@Deti:
“What she actually “talks herself into” isn’t attraction. She talks herself into a relationship with someone she’s not attracted to. She rationalizes the relationship/marriage by concluding the relationship with the particular man she’s not attracted to but is marrying is somehow in her interest (and really, it usually benefit her very much). He can support her. He can support her children. He can give her status. He can give her a “respectable” life; show that she’s “redeemed” herself.
No matter what “it” is, note that it is always about what he will give her and do for her; not about what she will give him or do for him.”
O: Boom!–again!
O.
#96 It doesn’t have to be her talking herself into it; he can talk her into it …
Men have easy low-hurdle feeling-immediate-attraction thresholds, such that above the threshold what matters most is her attitude i.e. femininity, niceness, etc. A woman almost has to go out of her way to avoid being sufficiently physically unattractive, because there are so many way to turn on men. In contrast, symplectically, women have easy low barriers to feeling immediate disattraction, because there are so many ways to turn off women. And even above that threshold, the man is still probably going to get shot down after five minutes. But attraction can build. Check out Liz’s description.
http://www.justfourguys.com/skeptical-at-first-a-girl-tries-girl-game/#comment-21927
I didn’t want to clog up her comment with “Me too!”, but, “Me too!” “He was very interesting though, and very persistent. Soon enough, he looked damned good. Within a few weeks he was the most attractive man I’d ever seen, without a doubt, why on earth hadn’t I noticed this before?” This was my strategy, too.
You cannot negotiate genuine desire.
http://therationalmale.com/2011/08/25/the-desire-dynamic/
Negotiated desire only ever leads to obligated compliance. This is what Beta men and necessitous women refuse to confront for themselves – that this negotiation actually takes place in their own psyches before it’s rationalized with a prospective, undesired partner.
On some level of consciousness, a woman has this internal conversation about negotiating and compromising the need for genuine physical desire the Alpha Fucks side of her hypergamy demands and the providership and security the Beta Bucks side of her hypergamy demands. Once that compromise is reached internally, then the admonitions of “friends can turn into great pairings (if not lovers)” are ratinalized.
Men must also have this internal conversation in order to believe the same necessitous lie in order to finally pair with a woman in the long term. He must also believe that negotiated desire can be as good as genuine, organic desire in order to move into monogamy with such a woman.
What’s entertaining about this whole internal dialog about negotiated desire is that women need external validation to really accept it. Aunt Giggles’ blog is dedicated to force-fitting Betas into this acceptance while simultaneously affirming women’s cognitive dissonance about the negotiation.
In truth, Giggles’ arch nemesis isn’t the Red Pill or the proponents of Game, it’s the women Deti described; women who are comfortable in unapologetically putting their hypergamy and dualistic sexual strategy on the table for men and women to see.
@jf12,Rollo
Let’s suppose that a woman knows a man from some serious social setting, like church or work. He is reserved and neurotic. She find him to be unattractive. Then they go to a party and he has a few drinks and becomes a totally different person–he tells funny stories, he sexualized, he engages women, etc. Booze removes his inhibitions and the female hindbrain recalculates his SMV and it moves into the attraction zone.
@Morpheus 92:
““Either something is there attraction wise, or you move on, and go to the next girl. There is too much at risk, and too little time to waste time and energy cultivating a “friendship” with a woman in the hopes that attraction may develop at some undefinable point in the future.””
O: Indeed – but, from the female POV, this makes perfect sense, for all the reasons you and others in the forum have made clear.
Oh, and since we’re discussing Our Lady of Perpetual Fallacies, I offer the following exchange:
Isabella: “I do not understand the M/F friend zone thing, I think it is a myth on the male side. I have tried to have platonic relationships with males but inevitable they always try to initiate sex or sexual innuendo.YMMV but I have never been able to pull that off successfully, Here is what I read that backs my experience up”: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201304/can-men-and-women-be-just-friends
Our Lady of Perpetual Logical Fallacies: “That’s funny – the guy who wrote that PT article is a “red pill” manosphere type.”
*Facepalm*
O.
@Rollo 103:
“What’s entertaining about this whole internal dialog about negotiated desire is that women need external validation to really accept it. Aunt Giggles’ blog is dedicated to force-fitting Betas into this acceptance while simultaneously affirming women’s cognitive dissonance about the negotiation.”
O: KA-BOOOOOOM!!!!!
“In truth, Giggles’ arch nemesis isn’t the Red Pill or the proponents of Game, it’s the women Deti described; women who are comfortable in unapologetically putting their hypergamy and dualistic sexual strategy on the table for men and women to see.”
O: Rollo, you’re hurtin’ em Maaaaaaan…
O.
@TheAsdGamer:
“@jf12,Rollo
Let’s suppose that a woman knows a man from some serious social setting, like church or work. He is reserved and neurotic. She find him to be unattractive. Then they go to a party and he has a few drinks and becomes a totally different person–he tells funny stories, he sexualized, he engages women, etc. Booze removes his inhibitions and the female hindbrain recalculates his SMV and it moves into the attraction zone.:
O: Dead it. Even if it could be done, it is simply NOT worth the time or resources or effort (and trust, the effort WILL be formidable!) to pull it off in the end.
Cut your losses, and keep it movin’.
You must kill you Mother, your Father, the Buddha, and your Inner AFC…
O.
In truth, Giggles’ arch nemesis isn’t the Red Pill or the proponents of Game, it’s the women Deti described; women who are comfortable in unapologetically putting their hypergamy and dualistic sexual strategy on the table for men and women to see.
It is quite fascinating to stand in the same room with someone along with a giant elephant that is making a ton of noise and crapping in the room, and have someone say over and over and over again, “There is NO elephant”, it does not exist, you aren’t seeing what you are seeing. I haven’t figured out and probably never will if it is just stupidity, outright deceit, or a level of cognitive dissonance so potentially crippling that the elephant literally cannot be seen.
@ jf 12, #101:
What you’re talking about there is not him “talking her into” attraction. What you’re describing occurs where there is some attraction from her to him; and the man has either
1. capitalized on it and caused that seed of attraction to germinate and grow; or
2. Sat back, done nothing, and not fucked it up, such that she’s now “noticed” him.
Either way, what did NOT happen was him talking her into anything. And, it’s not creating attraction out of whole cloth; it’s not creating attraction where there was no attraction before. It’s a low level of attraction from her to him, simply coming to fruition because he either (1) cultivated it; or (2) managed not to kill it.
This last situation is not uncommon, I think — where a guy stumbles backwards into a relationship with a girl who likes him and is at least a little attracted to him. And it happens not because he was particularly attractive, or because he did anything to help it along. Instead, what happened was that he just didn’t do anything to destroy that little bit of attraction she had for him. And that inaction on his part was all it took to get past the hurdle. It’s a major reason why a big part of what’s taught around here is for men simply to stop the beta behaviors; stop running anti-game.
#103 “Investing smart” is always sold, as a product, to consumers with the promise of information asymmetry, predicated on obtaining intelligence in the classified sense. “Sign up for our newletters and we’ll let you in on secrets (wink wink nudge nudge) to smart investing.”
Let’s suppose that a woman knows a man from some serious social setting, like church or work. He is reserved and neurotic. She find him to be unattractive. Then they go to a party and he has a few drinks and becomes a totally different person–he tells funny stories, he sexualized, he engages women, etc. Booze removes his inhibitions and the female hindbrain recalculates his SMV and it moves into the attraction zone.
This could work in reverse as well which points to the danger on primarily relying on attraction that is context and situationally dependent.
Our Lady of Perpetual Logical Fallacies: “That’s funny – the guy who wrote that PT article is a “red pill” manosphere type.”
*Facepalm*
LOL, for sure. But there really isn’t stopping making up complete crap on the fly when you will simply delete any comment or ban any commenter that calls that made up crap to the carpet. The beauty of ruling your own kingdom is you can say and do whatever you want no matter how absurd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Hearts_(Alice%27s_Adventures_in_Wonderland)
#109 “caused that seed of attraction to germinate and grow” Reminds me of an old churchian joke, I’ll probably tell it wrong.
A farmer was proudly showing off his fine crop of corn to a visiting preacher, telling him about how he had to get up early every day and work hard for months on end, tilling planting, hoeing, etc. and how all that would make a fine work-ethic sermon. The preacher primly quoted 1 Cor 3:7 “So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.” The farmer replies “Yeah, but you should have seen this field when God had it by Himself!”
http://www.thesource4ym.com/talks/thanksgiving.aspx
“It is quite fascinating to stand in the same room with someone along with a giant elephant that is making a ton of noise and crapping in the room, and have someone say over and over and over again, “There is NO elephant”, it does not exist, you aren’t seeing what you are seeing. ”
It certainly is.
http://www.justfourguys.com/do-not-adjust-your-set/#more-1853
@Morpheus:
“I read that post, and the “success stories” cited. Obsidian somewhere already pointed to the failure rate on these types of relationships/marriages where marriage occurs after many years of being “friends”, and then supposed attraction and romantic love blossoming out of nowhere at some point in time. I’m sure the point in time coincides nicely with the Phases that Rollo describes a woman goes through.”
O: Indeed – but it must be specified, that what I was referring to, wasn’t the “end goal” of marriage or a relationship; I was talking about the viability of the strategy to GET a Man into a relationship itself! On that score, it has, again quoting directly from David Buss himself, an EIGHTY PERCENT FAILURE RATE.
Only ONE IN FIVE Men, who try their hand at the “friendship” strategy, will succeed. 1. In. 5. Oh, and that’s NOT including the massive costs – recall the Psychology Today article I quoted above – you know, the one where Our Lady of Perpetual Logical Fallacies says is written by a “Red Pill Guy(TM)” – the Men bear in the pursuit of the Friendship Strategy, namely time and resources (one reason why Women, like our friend, ahem, loves the friend thing is because they know that their male buds can and will pickup the tabs for any outings – what’s not to like?).
Science says, that for most Men, most of the time, it will be a wasted effort.
Now – on the other hand – IF a Man wishes to pursue lady friends for other reasons, or, if he is in possession of a suite of traits and the like that makes it possible for hi to convertsaid lady friends into increased and enhanced mating opportunities, either directly or indirectly, then that’s another horse of a different color – by all means, go for it!
But, if a Man is thinking, that “letting a friendship naturally develop” with a Woman is going to have any hint of getting him the panties…
…I’ve got some really great beachfront property for real cheap up in Brooklyn somewhere…
O.
“In truth, Giggles’ arch nemesis isn’t the Red Pill or the proponents of Game, it’s the women Deti described; women who are comfortable in unapologetically putting their hypergamy and dualistic sexual strategy on the table for men and women to see.”
/sarc on
Silly Rollo. Don’tcha know that that’s an infinitesimally small number of women who do that? Most Women Are Not Like That.
sarc off/
So the Mark Manson strategy then?
Translation: 1 in 5 Betas
are desperate enoughhave the perseverance to wait outhis ONEitisthe same woman from her late adolescence, through her party years, learns fromfuckingdating “the wrong type of guys” and comes to the ‘epiphany’ that the perfect guy has been there for her all along and she appreciates the equity of his relational investment in her.I’d say a 20% success rate is outstanding considering the circumstance.
Translation: 1 in 5 Betas are desperate enough have the perseverance to wait out his ONEitis the same woman from her late adolescence, through her party years, learns from fucking dating “the wrong type of guys” and comes to the ‘epiphany’ that the perfect guy has been there for her all along and she appreciates the equity of his relational investment in her.
I’d say a 20% success rate is outstanding considering the circumstance.
And of those 20% “successes” what percentage of those eventually end up in a “I’m not haaaapy frivorce” and associated potential financial rape and loss of custody?
Regarding these “successes”, there is a term in economics called the Winners’ Curse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winner's_curse
The winner’s curse is a phenomenon that may occur in common value auctions with incomplete information. In short, the winner’s curse says that in such an auction, the winner will tend to overpay. The winner may overpay or be “cursed” in one of two ways: 1) the winning bid exceeds the value of the auctioned asset such that the winner is worse off in absolute terms; or 2) the value of the asset is less than the bidder anticipated, so the bidder may still have a net gain but will be worse off than anticipated.
@deti
“managed not to kill it.
This last situation is not uncommon, I think — where a guy stumbles backwards into a relationship with a girl who likes him and is at least a little attracted to him. And it happens not because he was particularly attractive, or because he did anything to help it along. Instead, what happened was that he just didn’t do anything to destroy that little bit of attraction she had for him. And that inaction on his part was all it took to get past the hurdle. It’s a major reason why a big part of what’s taught around here is for men simply to stop the beta behaviors; stop running anti-game.”
I think that you’ve said something important there. My fling occurred near the tail end of my PUA phase. I didn’t screw things up by being nice, nice, nice. We were casual friends and never seriously considered any possibility of a hookup–after all, she was engaged. One day I got a wild hair…her hindbrain computer whirled and chugged out a result where none had been before, maybe. Otoh, it’s hard to fathom that she never considered the possibility before I instigated. Low-level attraction, maybe, to begin with. Very low. I never saw any IOI’s from her–but I wasn’t looking, either. She didn’t seem to pay much attention to me.
Bloom,
Thank you for your thoughts. I am indeed engaged. One thing I wished to address:
When I was younger? Painful. These days? Not so much. These guys have a certain skill that they have developed, at the cost of personal development and career achievement. Their skills are not unique to them, and can be replicated: Apollo has stolen their fire and brought it to the common man. The common man merely needs to stoke the flames.
I would potentially disagree. The fire may have been stolen, but it needs far more that some stoking for someone of average to below experience in building said fire. The men that can do it well have a ton of real world experience and practice in order for them to tweak interactions. In other words, they have the ability to start friction fires like Cody Lundeen on consistent basises.
I applaud their efforts. Unfortunately, due to poor resources, lack of patience, or a myriad of other reasons, the normal guy will need a Bic lighter to have much success. Granted, YMMV
#117 Is the “post-masculine” Mark Manson strategy to go for the friendzone close?
http://markmanson.net/a-new-masculinity
Why? Oh, why?
#16 the inevitable follow-up
http://thoughtcatalog.com/alannah-ryan/2014/04/dear-nice-guys-who-are-apparently-at-the-end-of-their-rope-you-actually-arent-that-nice/
“I was looking for someone I could share my life with, not my bed with.”
I have a question for everyone here.
When I see an entitled princess a young woman in her 20’s or 30’s, I get a visual of her with some guy’s tube steak in her mouth and her eyes dotted. This makes them all very unappealing.
Do you other guys also get this visual whenever you see a young woman?
@jf12
Yeah, a beta schlub supports her in a sexless marriage. Oh, boy, sign me up now!
Purpose of marriage: “The two shall become one flesh.” It’s sex, all you entitled princesses.
“For instance, a recent study found that men with misogynistic beliefs ” [who ascribe traditional domestic chores to women].
Manson is such a White Knight. Strategy?
#126 “I’m looking for a real man, one who will share my life, and my student loan payments, and my credit card problems.”
@Rollo 117
Id be interested to see a detailed break down of what you disagree with Mark Manson on. While I certainly have my beefs with his advice, I believe he does add a lot useful perspective that isn’t seen so often from other sources.
On a personal level, I didn’t lose my virginity until I embraced a hybrid of Manson and Allen Roger Currie. Granted, I don’t believe that “Vulnerability” generates attraction like Manson professes, but I’ve seen first hand that practicing it forces you to become tougher: instead of “fake it til you make it” it’s “tempered by fire.”
I’ve also found it easier to do more approaches than when using a more performance oriented (eg Mystery method) methodology. When I was focusing on “saying the right lines to win over the woman”, I found that I would often be paralyzed on the spot when someone really hot walked by and I couldn’t think of “the rright thing” to say. Now, I focus on “saying and acting on my true desires” in any given moment, and the moments of paralysis are few and far between. As an added bonus, the interactions are vastly less stressful as well.
Granted my results are not impressive – very few guys would be jealous of my closing ratio right now. Nonetheless, my results are objectively and starkly better than when I tried to employ more traditional PUA approaches.
Apparently that gash from thought catalog thinks a man needs to take endless amount of bullshit with a smile on his face to actually be a nice guy. The concept that a nice guy can be used up by shitty chicks and no longer tolerate bad behavior discreet at him is beyond the capacity of many women to understand
More thoughtcatalog! Meet the new Jenny Erikson, same as the old, except with stronger hands.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/megan-socks/2014/04/divorcing-your-best-friend-and-husband-is-one-of-the-most-difficult-things-youll-go-through/
Megan is also going the Eat Pray Love experience, except hers is more like Eat Eat Eat no-Pray no-Love. Every day is Tuesday for her, provided it’s Buffet Tuesday.
#132 Megan’s beta helped her move her stuff into her place down the street, and helped her shop for new decorations. She valued his advice. Not joking.
@ ton
“beyond the capacity of many women to understand”
Aren’t most women Entitled Princesses ™? Men’s problems are soooo beneath them.
@jf12
It’s the FI matrix.
#130
Mark Manson is one disgusting piece of work. He regularly comments on HUS and attacks various male bloggers in nasty ways. Need I say more? Have nothing to do with him and his “advice”.
#124
In other words, AFBB. Why does that not surprise me?
#125
Yeah, that’s a realistic visual. Most of these women had rancid alpha thug sperm shot onto their bodies and into their various orifices. They have also given blowjobs to unwashed, smelly alpha louts after getting drunk with them. Some of them also give rimjobs to various alpha thugs (Walsh actually recounted such a story on her blog). This is the reality of the current situation.
@ HH
Wait is MegaMan (now known as MM) Mark Manson?
Well that is disappointing, though not altogether surprising. He definitely has taken a major shift towards more white knightish language and identification with the feminine imperative with each re-brand of his site.
With that being said, your criticism here largely amounts to an ad hominem, and does not provide any specific criticisms or rebuttals to the logic of his proposed solutions. I do believe that is possible to learn valuable lessons from distasteful people. Roosh comes to mind – I personally dislike Roosh, and disagree with many of the tenets that he preaches.
Regardless of my personal opinion of him, I must acknowledge that he is an excellent writer. I believe that he does as well (or at least almost as well) with women as he claims to (at least in terms of getting access to sex. I am skeptical as to his ability to maintain a healthy relationship, but that is another subject entirely). And certainly, even I would agree that there are many valuable lessons to be learned from his pick up advice.
I am curious about the specific criticisms of Mark Manson’s proposed methodology. I would summarize these three points to be the main, distinguishing tenets of his approach to hitting on women:
1) Women are attracted to men who are less needy than they are. He defines non-needy as being more invested his own opinion of himself than in the woman’s opinion of himself. Further more, women are turned on by direct, unapologetic attempts at sexual escalation.
2) Rejection is a valuable tool to weed out women who are not compatible with you. When a woman rejects you, view it as a time saving event rather than as a failure (which isn’t to say that you don’t analyze and learn from it, but you do not feel bad about it).
3) The best way to leverage non-neediness and rejection is to act authentically in accordance to your desires (he uses term “vulnerability”). While this sounds similar to the advice “just be yourself.” the subtle distinction is that you push yourself out of your comfort zone. “Just be yourself,” as proposed by the mainstream, admonishes men to take the path of least resistance. By practicing “vulnerability,” in the broader sense that he intends (I will admit that he does not do an adequate job explaining what he means here), you are seeking to discover the behaviors that you truly desire to act on, but are afraid to…and then act on them.
In other words, the classical PUA approach to hitting on an extremely attractive woman you see, for instance, sitting on the metro, would be to avoid letting her see you checking her out. Then you would take a seat next to her, find a pretense to start a seemingly innocent conversation, and wait until you’re sure you’ve won her over, and then reveal your interest and try to escalate.
The Mark Manson approach would be dependent on what you truly feel in the moment…and that involves in some cases digging deeper than whatever rationalization you’re telling yourself. If you are, in fact, fascinated by her scarf, by all means strike up a conversation about that first. But if you are mainly interested in just having sex with her, then there is no need to beat around the bush: you can walk directly up to her, directly acknowledge your desire, and make no pretenses, or apologies, about the fact that you are hitting on/flirting with her.
We all know that the former can definitely work, but I’ve come to believe that the latter method also works (particularly reinforced from losing my virginity off of an initial metro approach that resulted in a 30 second number close). The latter is personally my preference, as I am lazy, and do not feel like jumping through the hoops of pretending not to be interested and attempting to calculate the “correct” moment to start showing my interest.
Instead, I prefer to just immediately put my desires on the line and force her to either signal interest or reject me as early as possible. This saves my time, which is particularly relevant for metro approaches as I may only get one minute max with someone depending on where her stop is (or how close we are to mine). If I can get a rejection in ten seconds from the college aged cutie in the front row, that gives me the opportunity to go hit on the latin hottie that just got on the train.
#138
Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. I can’t be bothered to find out. On HUS they both sound exactly the same, shitting all over men and kissing women’s butts. There’s no tangible difference between them. They are worse than feminists, because feminists at least don’t normally pretend to serve any male interests. They are as bad as tradcon misandrists like Bennett.
#139
“Ad hominem” my ass. “The logic of his proposed solutions”? What logic?. He’s a misandrist charlatan, the evidence is all there. Look up the HUS articles where Aunt Giggles quotes him. He’s trying to build a market for himself by pandering to bitter single carousel riders, and he does that by constantly shitting on the entire Manosphere while at the same time kinda sorta distancing himself from older feminist media hacks like Marcotte whose “advice” is now entirely demonstrated to be useless for women who don’t want to end up as spinsters. He baselessly accuses PUA bloggers of being criminals, i.e. advocates of rape and physical abuse, and I’m pretty sure he promotes their silencing, either through censorship or online attacks i.e. publishing the real identities of “misogynists hiding behind online anonymity”.
I have no proof for the latter. But again, I’m pretty sure that’s what he actually believes. And for me, that’s enough. I can’t be bothered to look for evidence. And you know what? I don’t care how bad does that sound. I just don’t give a damn about them, because one thing I’ve learned is that these people, the enemies of the ‘sphere, are all the same and completely predictable. All of them. They preach and believe the same nonsense. There can be no reconciliation with them. I’m tired of them, and I’m not alone. Don’t waste time on them. Have nothing to do with them.
@141
I can understand that – why invest time, money, and effort into the work of someone who goes out of their way to bash your community? At the same time though, I don’t find that persuasive enough for me to stop promoting his book.
While I can certainly agree that the posts on his site have been devolving into a sort of “cart before the horse,” “just be awesome and then you’ll be awesome bro” kind of non-advice, his book contributes something valuable to game that is hard to find elsewhere. While I’ve not been really been searching at this point, the only other book I’ve seen that touches on the same kind of themes is Mode One.
#142
Again, I know almost nothing about him. I don’t read his website. I’ve read some statements of his quoted on HUS, and that was enough to convince me he isn’t worth my time and attention. I don’t want to hear more from him, thank you very much.
Every day is Tuesday somewhere.
Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
WRT “friends”going to relationship status: Include colleagues at work or other venues.
Frankly, there is no “work” or “investment”. It either happens or it doesn’t. You have to be there. Your employer expects it. Ditto her. Or the activity in which you are both involved means you’re both there at the same time, sometimes, and sometimes have to work together.
There’s no investment, no additional time.
No IOI? So what? You didn’t buy so much as a cup of coffee.
All of which might, looking like abundance, be a Good Thing.
You get IOI, you move. You don’t, nothing ventured and otehr parts of you life/week may be paying off anyway.
It’s Tuesday again. I feel some selected song lyrics celebrating a bad boy are in order. “Underneath It All”
And behind your dark glasses you’re
You’re something else
You know some real bad tricks
And when it’s really bad
I guess it’s not that bad
There’s an underside to you
Aside from your temper
And somehow I’m full of forgiveness
I guess it’s meant to be
You want to love me
Underneath it all
I’ve been surfing on-line greater than 3 hours lately,
yet I by no means discovered any attention-grabbing article like yours.
It is beautiful worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all site owners and
bloggers made good content as you probably did, the web will be a lot more helpful than ever before.
If you haven’t bought marijuana seeds nevertheless, you are able
to check my seed go shopping out for an extensive collection of top quality seed.
I have read so many posts on the topic of the blogger lovers however this article is truly a fastidious
piece of writing, keep it up.
Excellent site. Plenty of useful information here. I am sending it to several pals ans also sharing in delicious.
And of course, thank you in your sweat!
http://thehoodup.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=113098&start=1550
Kennyata is humiliated by gang members and thugs from all over America. Kenny has no game, thinks white people are animals, and brags about fucking 16-year-old girls.
Oh, and nsfw.