Really basic question ... college library


Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
Post new topic Reply to topic   Board index » Get Into The Game: New Forum Members Start Here » General Questions




Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 8:50 pm 
Offline
PUA Forum Leader

Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:06 am
Posts: 1776
neo87 wrote:

Poet and Jack arent saying "ask" for a relationship. No one is. I doubt they're saying the convo should be "Can we have a rs?" Moreso, along the lines of "I like you, let's be exclusive."


It's the same thing, lol. you're acting out of fear of losing her, so you bring it up. There's no way around it. It's coming from a feminine place.



Even R.C. (whom I've had my disagreements with) will agree that bringing up exclusivity and "I love you" first is feminine energy and the wrong way to go.

Again, the goal of this forum is for men to remain emotionally-centered (no over-contact, no Debbie Downer texts, no corralling, fear of loss, anger, etc), and for men to remain in their masculine.

Confident, direct approaches and seduction (dominant seduction, not fucking weakly and/or ignoring a woman's orgasm needs) are masculine energy. Discussing feelings and bringing up "talks" (exclusivity) are feminine energy.





Quote:
You fail to get the simplicity of what's said and I have no idea why you find directness to include chasing, asking, over contacting, and neediness.


Because, as I've said before, feeling and relationship talk is feminine energy. A masculine man will be focused on his career.


Quote:
This is sincere to you. Being honest does not mean being needy or chasing or overly emotional.


Neo man, look at this forum, lol. I'm not trying to be a dick. This entire forum exists because so many guys have no fucking clue what they're doing. They blurt out they want to marry a girl right away, bring up relationships, right away, over-text, shower a woman with flowers and dinners on a firs date, get neurotic about a small thing the woman said, then harp on it until they're dumped, linger around potential connections to the point they creep them out, etc.

These guys can't control their emotions. Most me try to get women exclusive too soon, and repel them.

It's just science, Neo. Women do not want a man who does this, if the woman has any high-level social value at all.




Quote:
If you think that if you were honest, that MUST include begging for a relationship...thats on you. That's NOT what's being said here. What you see as people challenging you, is really people trying to help you. I see people over and over trying to get you to be comfortable with being honest and not playing all these games, but you cant fathom how un-needy honesty looks like. It MUST involve chasing...it MUST involve she loses interest...it MUST have you lose the girl.


You're not looking at the context of this forum. Every bit of advice I give is based on the countless poor dudes here who chase women away. This is not necessarily advice for people who are actually good with women.


Quote:
A sincere question, and hopefully this reaches you. Could you go to the women in your life, and drop the games and just be the same fit, dominant, multi orgasm guy that you are and keep them? Could you text a girl when you want to, and NOT blow up her phone to the point of nuisance? Could you see a chick daily and STILL be a challenge? Could you tell a girl she's your gf and she feel happy about it? If you threw the games away, what would change? And if things do change, you gotta start asking yourself why. At the end of the day, people are just telling you to be comfortable with yourself and express yourself.



You're missing the point, NEO. The guys here have no clue. None. So I'm providing a rigid frame of training.

Yes, I do all those things you mention, and my rigidity is far more flexible than you think.


Quote:
You have the 20 something gf, you have the bartenders, you have the fitness, you have the multiple orgasm sex, you have the drive...come on man...you dont need the whole game playing shit at this point. If at this point, with all that shit you still cant just BE, whats the point of all this?



Oh I can be. I'm myself, Neo. My advice is for all the guys who post here, who NEED that super rigid dominant approach to begin to train themselves out of nice-guy-pleaser. They CANT be who they are.

It doesn't work.

So they need a template to become better, to change and evolve.

Everything I do and say here is within the context of guys who need help. This may not necessarily be who I AM away from this self-help forum 100% of the time.

_________________
Pickup coach. PM for direct, simple coaching.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 9:37 pm 
Offline
The Grand Puba
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:17 pm
Posts: 5386
Location: Los Angeles
Arch Stanton wrote:
You're not looking at the context of this forum. Every bit of advice I give is based on the countless poor dudes here who chase women away. This is not necessarily advice for people who are actually good with women.
This is a bullshit statement. There are guys here that know how to get women. You're stance has always been if a guy doesn't agree with you that means he's not getting 9's and 10's. Guys that know how to get women don't have to fall on crutches of extreme fitness or if you talk too much women will see you as less dominant. A guy that's good with women is good because he can pull them into his reality. I think Poet said it in the context of a guy being a better version of himself. This is much better advice than changing yourself in order to get a girl. If you don't want to be in a gym, you learn how to present yourself as attractive as possible. If you're a good conversationalist, you don't have to give that up and instead learn how to keep an attractive vibe when you speak. That way, you can learn how to be an attractive man and keep a strong sense of self rather than being worried that a woman will run at any of your actions. If you have a strong sense of self and who you are and at least average social intelligence, you won't make a woman run when you interact with women. Emotions aren't not a bad thing to women when you know how to express them and not have them rule you.

What you are offering guys is attract first and then adjust if you actually like her. That's what you had to do when it came to the story of how you got your girlfriend and you even admitted that you almost lost her. It's because your game is short term and that's a statement that comes directly from you.

Arch Stanton wrote:
Oh I can be. I'm myself, Neo. My advice is for all the guys who post here, who NEED that super rigid dominant approach to begin to train themselves out of nice-guy-pleaser. They CANT be who they are.
This is where you are mistaken. You don't train a guy out of being a nice-guy-pleaser. You show him how to be a nice guy that can't be taken advantage of. There is a misconception that women don't like nice guys. That isn't true. They don't like guys that can be walked over. There is no reason to try to change a man's core. You get him to understand the qualities that are attractive to women and therefore he'll have a healthy belief system when it comes to seduction and at the same time be a better version of himself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 9:49 pm 
Offline
PUA Forum Leader

Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:06 am
Posts: 1776
JackZero wrote:
This is a bullshit statement. There are guys here that know how to get women.


Right I'm talking about most of the new posters.

Quote:
You're stance has always been if a guy doesn't agree with you that means he's not getting 9's and 10's. Guys that know how to get women don't have to fall on crutches of extreme fitness


Fitness is a crutch?

It's an incredible thing for your health, and for ability to attract women (science puts the advantage at 30-40% for first night sex).




Quote:
This is much better advice than changing yourself in order to get a girl.


No, it's about evolving and improving on every level for YOURSELF. The women are just a byproduct of this.


Quote:
If you don't want to be in a gym, you learn how to present yourself as attractive as possible.



The gym is the same thing as brushing your teeth or having a shower. It's just something you have to do for your heart, for your body, to be the best possible you. I consider reading novels and non-fiction in the same category.


Quote:
If you're a good conversationalist, you don't have to give that up and instead learn how to keep an attractive vibe when you speak. That way, you can learn how to be an attractive man and keep a strong sense of self rather than being worried that a woman will run at any of your actions.


"Keeping an attractive vibe when you speak" is not specific enough, Jack. You're starting to veer into platitudes, which is your biggest weakness.

Quote:
If you have a strong sense of self and who you are and at least average social intelligence, you won't make a woman run when you interact with women.


It happens to most men, and its why this forum exists.


Quote:
You don't train a guy out of being a nice-guy-pleaser. You show him how to be a nice guy that can't be taken advantage of. There is a misconception that women don't like nice guys. That isn't true. They don't like guys that can be walked over. There is no reason to try to change a man's core. You get him to understand the qualities that are attractive to women and therefore he'll have a healthy belief system when it comes to seduction and at the same time be a better version of himself.


More platitudes and a major, major lack of specificity

Extremely attractive women will eat nice guys alive, toy with them like cats to mice.

For many men here (obese, couchers, tv guys, video game guys, who overdose on carbs) they do need to change their core, because they're not acting like men.

A "healthy belief system" sure sounds nice, but it's yet another platitude. And isn't getting him to understand "qualities that are attractive to women" the same thing as training him and changing him?

You're arguing just to argue.

All this arguing when you could be at the gym feeling good...

_________________
Pickup coach. PM for direct, simple coaching.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 07, 2017 10:45 pm 
Offline
The Grand Puba
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:17 pm
Posts: 5386
Location: Los Angeles
Arch Stanton wrote:
Right I'm talking about most of the new posters.
Yes...there are guys here that know how to get women helping new posters...other than you that are giving a different path. You'll say that guys that don't agree with you don't get 9's and 10's or are "armchair warriors". These same guys that get women will ask you questions and you'll resort to vilification, challenging with pictures rather than answering the questions. It's not hard to answer a question if you know what you're talking about.
Arch Stanton wrote:
Fitness is a crutch?
Fitness is a crutch when it comes to attracting women. I'm not saying that you can be an overweight slob, but you don't have to be in the gym every day to get attractive women. I did a job in the military that required me to be in extremely good shape and I got a lot of women. When I left the military, I didn't have the need or the time for the same regiment but I still don't have a problem with getting women.
Arch Stanton wrote:
No, it's about evolving and improving on every level for YOURSELF. The women are just a byproduct of this.
You're taking my statement out of context here by leaving out the part of saying "being a better version of himself". You are telling someone that who they are is wrong and women won't like them because of it. I'm saying who they are is fine to get women and all they need is the social intelligence to get them.
Arch Stanton wrote:
The gym is the same thing as brushing your teeth or having a shower. It's just something you have to do for your heart, for your body, to be the best possible you. I consider reading novels and non-fiction in the same category.
You can jog for 20 minutes a day and that will be good for your heart. You say if you're in "extreme fitness" girls will be all over you and you'll get laid 30-40% more and you call that science. You're not talking about fitness as a byproduct when you say that's how you get women. Guys that know how to talk to women get laid more too. If a guy wants to "evolve" into a better person, he won't be a better person unless he defines what that is for himself.
Arch Stanton wrote:
"Keeping an attractive vibe when you speak" is not specific enough, Jack. You're starting to veer into platitudes, which is your biggest weakness.
Just like you not being able to answer a question when ask is your biggest weakness. How it would have been better put is, "what do you mean by an attractive vibe when you speak, Jack?" I would have answered that question by saying that you need to know how to speak to a woman by flirting with her, statements of innuendo, indirect compliments, expressing attraction over friendship, and touching a girl to increase sexual tension. If you look at my signature, I'm not claiming to be a coach...but I will answer any question that's asked of me. If you ask for detail, I'll give it to you. If you ask me why I've come to a conclusion, you'll get my answer. If you need to know any specific experience that led me to the conclusion, I'll give it. I won't get defensive and start calling people names and tell me that if they don't agree with me that it's because they don't get any women.
Arch Stanton wrote:
It happens to most men, and its why this forum exists.
That's what I strive to help a man correct. I won't tell him to throw out who he is now in order to do things to change his core. I'll tell a guy to embrace who he is now and learn how to present that.
Arch Stanton wrote:
More platitudes and a major, major lack of specificity
There is no way my statement is a platitude. There is no specific question being asked that requires specificity. It's me saying that guys need to learn about attractive qualities that women like and blend it into who they are. I don't know how I can make that statement more specific for the context of this discussion. Maybe if you have a question or ask me to go into detail with a specific question, I can help you understand that more. My entire history on this forum, when a guy asks me for more detail or clarification, I've never objected to giving it to him. If I get asked a question and I don't know the answer to it, I'll always say I don't know and maybe someone else can get them the answer.
Arch Stanton wrote:
Extremely attractive women will eat nice guys alive, toy with them like cats to mice.
I'm a nice guy and I've dated extremely attractive women. I do know that nice guys tend to get taken advantage of and that's the difference between me and you. I say keep being a nice guy but don't be a sucker. You say, you can't be a nice guy. That's teaching someone how to adapt vs. telling someone to change.
Arch Stanton wrote:
For many men here (obese, couchers, tv guys, video game guys, who overdose on carbs) they do need to change their core, because they're not acting like men.
I believe this is what you picture in your mind when you read. It's rare that a guy comes here and says "I'm and obese, chougher, tv guy who plays video games and overdoses on carbs". Just like you claim that people who disagree with you get no women.
Arch Stanton wrote:
A "healthy belief system" sure sounds nice, but it's yet another platitude. And isn't getting him to understand "qualities that are attractive to women" the same thing as training him and changing him?
Let's give you an example of a healthy belief system. You can be a nice guy as long as you're not allowing yourself to be taken advantage of. And no, understanding attractive qualities doesn't necessarily require changing your core. It's more likely to require you to take advantage of your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 12:14 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:18 pm
Posts: 2088
Arch come on dude....

You're best version of yourself is a fit you...

my best version of myself? FAR MORE DEPTH AS A HUMAN BEING THAN PHYSIQUE.

I talk philosophy, act as an intellectual, dress as a stylish gentlemen, move and walk with confident body language.

You can sit here and say well I'm a big sexy fucking dude who fucks like a champ and I will say and?

I could walk circles around you intellectually, and because of that I will pull chicks that would have nothing to do with a meathead like you.

Your idea of a quality woman might be that she is a 9 or 10 but my idea of a quality woman is an intellectual, a woman that is sexual in nature, a woman that has more depth than how far her tits stick out from her sternum. A woman that is confident and independent not needy.

Now you can sit here and say I'm giving guys a rigid structure to fuck women since they are needy... and I'll say you're super fucking needy... how do I know? Your mindset, plain and simple. If I say to a girl "I like you, you're chill, let's see where this goes." and she says no I'm good... I move the fuck on. I don't invest enough in her to get all butt hurt like a little bitch. Apparently you are scared of being your authentic self because she might not be into it.

I feel if a girl isn't into my authentic self we got problems... there is no point trying to date a woman if she's not into me and who I truly am.

Of course as I already stated very straight up, I don't believe in hiding neediness I believe in eliminating it. This means going out and figuring out how to feel those voids where you need stuff from attention, to validation to intimacy to whatever else you need from them. If you are getting all you need from life you won't be needy when you're interested in more with a woman, if she says no you'll move on. If she's not into you so be it. I don't need a relationship for her, I'd like one.... I don't need a relationship with her or any other woman. I also don't care if she's just not into me as it's whatever man, there are plenty of other women out there, that is truly being abundant with women... not you hiding your neediness and acting like you get every other woman.

_________________
Just another guy from back in the day.

Blogging again living life: http://www.Scienceofnaturalgame.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 12:19 am 
Offline
PUA Forum Leader

Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:06 am
Posts: 1776
poeticlyskuac wrote:
You're best version of yourself is a fit you...

my best version of myself? FAR MORE DEPTH AS A HUMAN BEING THAN PHYSIQUE.


Men can do both. It's not an either/or.


Quote:
I talk philosophy, act as an intellectual, dress as a stylish gentlemen, move and walk with confident body language.


I'm an intellectual and work in the arts.


Quote:
You can sit here and say well I'm a big sexy fucking dude who fucks like a champ and I will say and?

I could walk circles around you intellectually, and because of that I will pull chicks that would have nothing to do with a meathead like you.


See, that's where you're wrong.

You can have the body of a meathead, and the charm of an intellectual. It just takes hard work. So while you're "charming women with talk", I'm charming them with talk and getting the 30-40% first night lay advantage with my body as well.

There's no reason we can't be both. Hell, I read novels while on the exercise bikes at the gym.

This forum is about improving in all aspects of pickup ,and thus improving yourself. And as we age (i'm 40), men's bodies turn to shit, and injuries increase. You beat this with good weight training. The benefits are numerous. And the good news for men is that age really doesn't matter in pickup, as long as you are fit.


Quote:
Your idea of a quality woman might be that she is a 9 or 10 but my idea of a quality woman is an intellectual, a woman that is sexual in nature, a woman that has more depth than how far her tits stick out from her sternum. A woman that is confident and independent not needy.


I agree. That's a hot woman!

_________________
Pickup coach. PM for direct, simple coaching.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 12:34 am 
Offline
The Grand Puba
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:17 pm
Posts: 5386
Location: Los Angeles
Arch Stanton wrote:
You can have the body of a meathead, and the charm of an intellectual. It just takes hard work. So while you're "charming women with talk", I'm charming them with talk and getting the 30-40% first night lay advantage with my body as well.
See Arch, this is why you always get questioned. You say in one post that the more you talk the less dominant a woman will see you. Now you're saying you are charming them with talk.

This whole 30-40% first night lay advantage is bullshit. Wait. I bet you're going to prove me wrong by putting a link to the study that's proven that and it will force me to admit that I'm wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 12:40 am 
Offline
PUA Forum Leader

Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:06 am
Posts: 1776
JackZero wrote:
See Arch, this is why you always get questioned. You say in one post that the more you talk the less dominant a woman will see you. Now you're saying you are charming them with talk.


If you spent more time at the gym, and less time arguing semantics with me, you'd feel better about yourself.

I always say "use shocking, charming honesty". That's dominant and congruent with my beliefs.


Quote:
This whole 30-40% first night lay advantage is bullshit. Wait. I bet you're going to prove me wrong by putting a link to the study that's proven that and it will force me to admit that I'm wrong.


http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Lift- ... elNum=8069


The researchers, who are associated with UCLA's Center for Behavior, Evolution and Culture, say that their findings on muscularity are consistent with research findings on the secondary sexual characteristics of other animals, such as the attention-getting tail feathers of male peacocks


had not only had more sexual partners than their less burly peers, but theywere twice as likely to have had brief flings or one-night stands with women.


It's just science.

Being fit attracts more women. You can argue about it Jack, in your chair, or you can hit the gym and join the club. ;)

_________________
Pickup coach. PM for direct, simple coaching.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 12:53 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:18 pm
Posts: 2088
Arch Stanton wrote:
poeticlyskuac wrote:
You're best version of yourself is a fit you...

my best version of myself? FAR MORE DEPTH AS A HUMAN BEING THAN PHYSIQUE.


Men can do both. It's not an either/or.


Quote:
I talk philosophy, act as an intellectual, dress as a stylish gentlemen, move and walk with confident body language.


I'm an intellectual and work in the arts.


Quote:
You can sit here and say well I'm a big sexy fucking dude who fucks like a champ and I will say and?

I could walk circles around you intellectually, and because of that I will pull chicks that would have nothing to do with a meathead like you.


See, that's where you're wrong.

You can have the body of a meathead, and the charm of an intellectual. It just takes hard work. So while you're "charming women with talk", I'm charming them with talk and getting the 30-40% first night lay advantage with my body as well.

There's no reason we can't be both. Hell, I read novels while on the exercise bikes at the gym.

This forum is about improving in all aspects of pickup ,and thus improving yourself. And as we age (i'm 40), men's bodies turn to shit, and injuries increase. You beat this with good weight training. The benefits are numerous. And the good news for men is that age really doesn't matter in pickup, as long as you are fit.


Quote:
Your idea of a quality woman might be that she is a 9 or 10 but my idea of a quality woman is an intellectual, a woman that is sexual in nature, a woman that has more depth than how far her tits stick out from her sternum. A woman that is confident and independent not needy.


I agree. That's a hot woman!



I don't read novels bro.... that's where your missing it. I read philosophy, I read psychology, I read studies, the last book I read that was story orientated was Siddartha over 10 years ago. Which isn't a book that's actually story related... it's lesson related.

I can talk to a psychology major and know more about the current state of studies than therapists. I know more about the nonverbal study of courtship than most would put the time into.

This is where you're wrong as soon as I see "novel" I'm like you're not an intellectual, you're not an academic like me.... you don't have 50 audio books on your phone, you don't have 50 other books on your phone, you don't have 300 books in your bedroom.

Cool you know a lot about art and I bow down to you on it... while I love art I'm more into graffiti art as you'd see by the paintings on my wall. I'm not at all knowledgeable on it. I know somethings about photography which fortunately translate over some.

Again, when you do tons for yourself and you need nothing from anyone else from validation to attention to anything else, you wont be needy, if you give yourself love you'll be able to say shit how it is and NOT be feminine... you don't use passive statements to get things done.

The thing is you're correct that most of the time the girl is going to ask for a relationship first but and a big as fucking BUT opening the topic of a relationship isn't what makes you needy, being needy is what makes you fucking needy and that will come out in so many ways it's not even funny... from you hiding how you feel to being indirectly controlling to doing things to keep her to focusing on doing things to not lose her and instead of simply doing the right things to keep her.

_________________
Just another guy from back in the day.

Blogging again living life: http://www.Scienceofnaturalgame.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:09 am 
Offline
PUA Forum Leader

Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:06 am
Posts: 1776
poeticlyskuac wrote:

I don't read novels bro.... that's where your missing it. I read philosophy, I read psychology, I read studies, the last book I read that was story orientated was Siddartha over 10 years ago. Which isn't a book that's actually story related... it's lesson related.


That classifies as non-fiction, which I stated.

You really should get into some of the best novels, as that's where the sharpest writing is.


Quote:
This is where you're wrong as soon as I see "novel" I'm like you're not an intellectual, you're not an academic like me.... you don't have 50 audio books on your phone, you don't have 50 other books on your phone, you don't have 300 books in your bedroom.



So Pulitzer Prize winning novelists aren't intellectuals?

I do believe you have all that.

_________________
Pickup coach. PM for direct, simple coaching.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:11 am 
Offline
The Grand Puba
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:17 pm
Posts: 5386
Location: Los Angeles
Arch Stanton wrote:
If you spent more time at the gym, and less time arguing semantics with me, you'd feel better about yourself.
This is what I mean. Someone asks you a question and you go to vilification. You're not clear with your message.
Arch Stanton wrote:
I always say "use shocking, charming honesty". That's dominant and congruent with my beliefs.
No, you always say "use shocking honesty" (the forums search function is great). The terms charming are what have been used to dismantle your claims...now you're trying to say you've always said it. And now you're using "congruent with my beliefs" after I've been saying a healthy belief system.

Just imagine if I were to say "use shocking honesty", you would be all over me for not being specific.
Arch Stanton wrote:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Lift- ... elNum=8069


The researchers, who are associated with UCLA's Center for Behavior, Evolution and Culture, say that their findings on muscularity are consistent with research findings on the secondary sexual characteristics of other animals, such as the attention-getting tail feathers of male peacocks


had not only had more sexual partners than their less burly peers, but theywere twice as likely to have had brief flings or one-night stands with women.


It's just science.

Being fit attracts more women. You can argue about it Jack, in your chair, or you can hit the gym and join the club.
Or I can take you to school. What the researchers also don't tell you is how many of these guys actually approach women. Guys that approach women tend to be more confident guys and of course it's going to be a numbers game because of it. They're not saying that if you approach a specific woman, you have a 30-40% chance of having sex with that specific woman that night. So take the average guy and the fit guy and leave the unfit guys out...what you read from that article doesn't account for that fact, does it? Even the article says they lumped the more fit guys into one category and average to less than average into a different category. That gives the fit guys an unfair advantage when number crunching (it's like saying we've lumped piss and red wine in a study against white wine...which group do you think will have positive results?). If they lumped the average guys and fit guys into the same category, would the number go up or down? I work with data like this for a living and what you are reading is something called p-hacking. It's done by academics to come to write papers in order to get prestige. You'll notice that they don't come to a conclusion. They specifically use the word "suggest". That basically means that they are guessing that this could be one of many possible conclusions to the data. Science is great, but you have to understand how published science works.


Last edited by JackZero on Mon May 08, 2017 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:21 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:18 pm
Posts: 2088
TBH I feel novels are a waste of time. I've got better things to do than read fiction... I love learning it's one of my biggest passions.

Yeah I suppose you can be an intellectual as a fiction writer but a reader of fictions is more often than not an intellectual. They are someone the equivalent of tv watcher for books.

Are you going to try and convince me 50 shades of grey is for intellectuals? Are you going to try and convince me that harry potter is for intellectuals? both are novels with gigantic followings. I loved Sidney Sheldon as a kid, great writer, by no means do I feel I was an intellectual after reading him.

I also love poetry as you can tell by the name and have been published on occasion, does that make me a great writer and intellectual? NA, it makes me an ok writer who got a few sparks out there.

I don't consider 90% of writers intellectuals... you bringing up a pulitzer prize winner is like say but in a way I'm right because these top 1% are intellectuals... that's just not the truth. Yeah a writer may be an intellectual that doesn't make a reader of a novel and intellectual.

_________________
Just another guy from back in the day.

Blogging again living life: http://www.Scienceofnaturalgame.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 8:14 am 
Offline
Ask a mod for a custom title
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:53 pm
Posts: 5112
Location: Romania
Arch Stanton wrote:
Even R.C. (whom I've had my disagreements with) will agree that bringing up exclusivity and "I love you" first is feminine energy and the wrong way to go.


I've always advised guys to let their girls bring up the exclusivity/first I love you, but I've never said it was feminine.

On top of that I also said that a relationship should evolve naturally, and by the time the exclusivity talk happens, it's a mere formality because you're already a couple. In that regard it really doesn't matter who brings it up, but when relating to the general forum visitor who gets trigger happy after 2 weeks, because he wants to seal the deal as soon as possible so she doesn't run off with someone else, then yeah, it's applicable advice, because his action stems out of fear.

But whether you're bringing the exclusivity talk our of fear or not bringing it out of fear, is irrelevant. You're still being guided by fear and that's what will attribute meaning to the action itself, making it and you unattractive.

Personally, I've always had women bring the 'what are we' talks up, and I tend to agree with poet when he says they fall in love easier. I also had maybe 1-2 exceptions where I said the first I love you, but by the time I wanted to say it, the connection between us evolved to the point where it was blatantly obvious she felt the same.

The point is, as long as it's mutually warranted, it really doesn't matter who takes the first step. But that's not the advice you give to a guy that, like most men, suffers from severe wishful thinking. And if you're consistently finding yourself in that spot then obviously there's a problem.

_________________
I know my place. It's me on top of the world.

My in depth texting & dating guide.

There's no such thing as shit-tests.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 08, 2017 1:03 pm 
Offline
King Among Mortals
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:36 pm
Posts: 7288
Location: United States
This is a long way from a silly note in a fucking library.

The OP doesn't even have the sack to try.

_________________
In the hands of the right man, a woman is a 100 different women, limited only by imagination and his willingness to make her feel safe and lead her.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 09, 2017 1:57 am 
Offline
Ask a mod for a custom title

Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:32 am
Posts: 3623
Quote:
It's the same thing, lol. you're acting out of fear of losing her, so you bring it up. There's no way around it. It's coming from a feminine place.


Why is every motive for an action, always so extremely needy? This is what I mean Arch....its like you assume a needy motive for everything. Look, if I tell a chick she's my gf...its not some long drawn out conversation about feelings and I love yous and crying and whatever else you may assume. Feelings dont need to be discussed, because why would they? We've been getting to know each other for some time. I already know how she views relationships...I already know we share the same boundaries, I already know where we stand on things. It's not some drawn out thing. The same energy I'll tell a chick she looks hot with, I'll tell her she's my girl.

The same energy, a hiring manager tells you that you got the job, thats they way I'll tell a chick. Ive been screening her and she passed. She meets MY criteria. I dont need to tell her, hey stop sleeping with those other guys because when we get to the point of bf/gf, she should have already stopped that shit a long time ago. I dont need to tell her, hey dont go to the bars everynight and get drunk anymore, because I wont date a chick like that seriously in the first place. "You have the job." Its not some surprise, she's been applying for the position for months.

Quote:
Again, the goal of this forum is for men to remain emotionally-centered (no over-contact, no Debbie Downer texts, no corralling, fear of loss, anger, etc), and for men to remain in their masculine.

Confident, direct approaches and seduction (dominant seduction, not fucking weakly and/or ignoring a woman's orgasm needs) are masculine energy. Discussing feelings and bringing up "talks" (exclusivity) are feminine energy.


Again, I have no idea where you get that not playing games = debbie downer texts and over contact? Thats why I say it sounds like you believe that if you dropped the games, you'd over contact and go needy. Thats what it sounds like. I'm honest with chicks throughout, dont play games. No chick can accuse me of overcontact, debbie downer texts, trying to get her to do ANYTHING, or acting afraid to lose her.

As to the rest, about you providing "rigid training", I wanted to beleive that was the reason, but Jack debunked that and it doesnt make sense. If you get that honesty doesnt mean damn near stalking a chick, why not just say "you can be honest, but most guys are going to fuck that up" way way before all this debate. You act like what we're saying doesnt work ever, except with 5's and then days later you're saying you know it works, you're just providing a rigid structure for guys?

Even if you just want to go to the far left to help newbies, you really want to get them banging hot chicks but via playing games for 1 day, 2 days, and months onwards? It sounds like Mystery Method, where you pretend to be someone else for pussy, which leads guys down a scary path. And I'll say even MM advises you drop the games past a certain point in dating. Heck, MM even says to work on yourself to the point where you dont need to play games at all. And yes, I'm talking about MM as the lowest form of teaching...not something to be admired. What you're saying has been be shockingly honest at the beginning, play games afterwards but act dominant. No talk of dropping the games. So its MM with a direct approach and scarier because the games continue. At least thats what Ive taken from it, may be wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: