Here's a chuckle for you all...
Formhandle
(warning: this is some kind of female rant site)
http://www.hissyfit.com/ijsbb/forum.cgi?a=list&f=16&d=10&t=68398&n=42,1
From the info in the About link of the site, apparently the copy-writer
chick that runs the site got her webmaster husband to create it for
her. He even bought her a copy of "The Rules II"... LOL
--
jay <formh...@aol.com>
Fast Seduction 101 - http://www.fastseduction.com/
Class is now in session...
Say goodbye to trolls, newsloons, and spam.
Gain access to the moderated ASF newsgroups at:
http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/
Pimp For A Living
"Aaaaargh!
You're not gonna believe this, but remember the guy who seduced me, asked me
to marry him and then dumped me after I'd already quit my job, arranged the
wedding ceremony and started making plans to move to be with him? Well, I
went to that poetry section just now and found a poem there that he sent me
during his courtship that he claimed to have composed in honor of ME his one
and only beloved! Yes, really! Imagine my shock!
"
Ha ha ha ha ha...
PFAL
"Pimpin' them hoes since God only knows..."
Formhandle
It gets better... after a bunch more chick logic posts, she rationalizes
that SHE was probably wrong about thinking badly of HIM.
BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
"Shinypants, I think you may be right - he spoke and read French
excellently well, and probably just lifted those poems from his
old textbooks or something. I have to say, some of the atrocious
verse on that site really made me smile, for the first time in
ages . . . sometimes it seems I've done nothing but cry for the
last six months - thanks for the laughs, Speed Seduction Site!"
Yet none of them seem to comprehend that no matter how much they can't
believe this stuff and rile at it and feel weird about it, the chick
writing about this stuff is basically admitting that it WORKED on her.
And later, her rationalization for the guy isn't to lambast him anymore
for using such a poem but rather where he got it. Once she rationalized
that he must have got it from somehwere else, it made her feel better.
And it became OK.
They can't even comprehend that the poems are, indeed, kinda hokey but
are merely EXAMPLES of how to structure NLP within verses. Any guy
worth his salt in PU and seduction will not be "caught". Even if a man
is "caught" seducing ("oh no!"), if he's worth his salt as a seducer,
the response from the woman will probably not at all be negative. At
least not until he's their "ex".
Here's another one:
"oh my god....my ex has discovered the internet. fantastic."
Translation: "This stuff worked on me. Which means it will probably work
on me again but I won't admit it."
More:
"I used to have a boyfriend who would try and pull this kind of shit
with me".
I guess he was her boyfriend because he was a "nice guy".
More:
"There was a time in my life when bullshit mind games like that might
have worked on me."
Translation: "When I was young and pretty, this stuff worked on me. But
now that I'm old, fat, and wrinky, I have become a cynical bitch... and
it scares me because this stuff might still work on me."
Pimp For A Living
one. It would be interesting.
A Gilmore
> Here's why what we do & talk about will NEVER be understood by women:
> (warning: this is some kind of female rant site)
> http://www.hissyfit.com/ijsbb/forum.cgi?a=list&f=16&d=10&t=68398&n=42,1
Amazing! These women need Ray Gordons help! RAY YOU MUST SPEND ALL YOUR FREE
TIME EDUCATING THESE WOMEN!!! When you aren't trying to earn a living, post
to that site. You keep saying that women should change to want AFC guys, so
go teach them to want that. Please, it is your calling to help them, since
we are beyond your help
The preceding message was brought to you by the "Society for the prevention
of Ray related accidents".
FinaliDentity
Well, I read through that web discussion board and I have to say, they have
some good points and some bad points. The people over there who have gone
through the layguides and found things to complain about, actually hit on
some specifics that are, when taken out of context, quite problematic. And
the people over there seem to understand the distinction between using
these skills to foster a supportive relationship, as opposed to using them
to merely abuse women. What I don't understand, is why they assume (a)
anyone who has access to these skills, inherently uses them for ill, or (b)
why sex is a bad thing. I guess, if you get to have sex, that means you've
abused women. Hmm.
I guess it's just puritanical North America rearing its ugly head, yet
again.
I think the best thing would be, if someone just posted at the bottom of
their thread, "OK, maybe I agree, maybe SS is bad. But, I'm still alone.
So, can you help me? SS is the best I can find. If you've got better
methods, let me know 'em. I need some advice. I'm lonely, I don't get many
positive responses from women, and I used to spend lots and lots of time
learning to supplicate. (Insert long sad stories about how dating doesn't
work.) I'm attractive, I don't lack social skills, and I'm looking forward
to really treating a woman like the princess that she wants to be. WHY
DOESN'T THIS WORK? WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO REPLACE SS WITH?"
Of course, there won't be any useful advice. "Just be yourself. If it's
meant to happen, it will." Or the following gem:
>I was browsing the site along with a
>male friend who's on IM, and we just
>had the following exchange:
>
>Me: So, have you tried to seduce women
>using the "3 second rule"? [Where you
>size up a woman and take action within
>3 seconds]
>
>Him: Yeah, and it's 3 seconds I could
>have been using stroking myself.
So, he prefers masturbation, I guess.
I don't think these people recognize the horror, that many AFCs
experienced, when "stroking myself" was the ONLY possibility they could
anticipate for an ENTIRE LIFETIME. Not just the lack of sex ... that's bad
enough. But the lack of HUMAN APPROVAL, the lack of contact, the constant
second-guessing of themselves, the fear that they would be "found out" for
the secret masturbator (or client of prostitutes?) that they are. The
horror of being an AFC, well outweighs any ethical nit-picking those people
might be able to figure. If they can manage a MORE ethical way (according
to their own ethics) out of the AFC crisis, that ACTUALLY WORKS, then
frankly, I WANT TO HEAR IT.
Or, if not alone, the male's other option ... being trapped in the
typically loveless "you must pay for sex" marriages of North America, in
which she gives out reluctantly, only if he performs certain chores, such
as working 90 hour weeks, and losing entire weekends to shopping for window
treatments.
OK, my counter-rant is over. What do they suggest as a replacement to SS?
So far, nothing. Why do they so fear, that a male might actually be allowed
to have sex with them. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT??!!
And here's another point. Why are we so fascinated by that sort of stuff?
Well, maybe not "we," but certainly ME.
I mean, The Rules boards really riveted my attention, when I first was made
aware of them. That whole thing -- line after line of assumptions, that SS
is bad; and then careful nit-picking to find holes in it, making the
evidence fit the conclusions -- has some kind of morbid fascination to it.
I want to throw my hands up in despair at their after-the-fact
rationalizations, their assumptions, their puritanical "can't have me
because I'm better than you" attitudes, while at the same time I want to
involve myself in the debates over there and somehow defend myself, my
formerly downtrodden but now empowered RAFC brethren.
I think, if I had all the time in the world, I could rewrite the layguides
in more general terms, with a few more caveats, a little bit of cushioning,
and they'd actually come out sounding like something these people might
approve of. Put the proper context around negging, for example: "Now, some
beautiful women feel compelled to act nasty to people who approach them,
because they are approached so often. But deep down, she's probably lonely,
and knowing HOW to approach her such that eventually you AND SHE can enjoy
a happy time together, would really be a wonderful gift you could give her.
Unfortunately, since she's poisoned the well of discourse, you have to
fight her fire with your fire a little bit initially. One way, is to flirt
in the following manner [insert neg theory here]." And so forth. Just
inserting paragraphs like that for some of the more questionable topics
(questionable to THEM over 'dere at their forum) would probably help both
sides find some common ground.
The thing is, WHY am I so interested in doing it? Why does communicating
with these people, seem so important to me. Why would I WANT to try? They
don't sound like bad people -- a bit knee-jerk, I admit. But I'll bet they
really would love a good novel based on the "life of a modern SSer" as long
as it didn't actually have the term "speed seduction" in the title,
wouldn't they? Because they would INITIATE the interaction with sympathy
rather than hatred and suspicion. Casanova fascinates them; why does Ross
Jeffries repulse them. They respond positively to SS, but decry it as wrong
and a terrible way to treat people. Their own system -- presumably, of
expecting the men to be moonpie's, is equally terrible, but for some reason
they get to approve of one type of terrible and disapprove of another. The
hypocrisy, the inconsistency.
Here's another point. They're right about the SS poetry -- nearly all of it
is schlock. Not to say it doesn't work. One woman admits it did. What that
guy did to her with it -- got her to quit a job, plan on moving in with
him, then pull the rug out from under her -- doesn't give SSers a very good
name, does it?
Formhandle <formh...@aol.com> wrote in news:3BE369CF...@aol.com:
Rio
Remember that women are the only ones with the game in their head. They are
the only ones that are thinking that "all guys are trying to scam me out of
my pants". THEY are the ones doing the thinking here, not us.
As a PUA, all I know is that I know nothing about what they are thinking or
why.
As for the rest of us, there we are trying to make women feel comfortable
about doing what they already want to do - and this is how we get thanked
for it? Damn inconsiderate if you ask me. Women like the ones who posted on
that board think too much - negatively - and wreck it for all us decent
guys. Whether they are actually right in saying what they are saying, or
saying the truth - the point is, they aren't being friendly - and who wants
an unfriendly woman anyway?
On the bright side, what was that in the "rules of power"? Court attention
at all costs? :D
Formhandle <formh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3BE369CF...@aol.com...
Formhandle
> I think that we should register on their board and speak with them
> one on one. It would be interesting.
I would say ONLY if it's done either covertly or completelty blatantly.
No middle ground and no flame war material. These chicks are picking on
the most overtly corny stuff (small portions of the PLayer Guide which
have yet to be edited) and ignoring the aspects of the material that
actually works. They're joking ignorantly over 3-4 pages of a site that
contains virtually 130,000 unique documents... LOL
But I like how they associate the enjoyment of reading the site with
"morbid fascination". Some have threated to spank the site creator.
Well, they didn't use the word "spank", but it's funny how personally
they take it. But these same chicks are also they type that get
digusted at magazines like Cosmo. And they probably all read "The
Rules" so they're a certain class of chicks which have no real bearing
on any of us :-)
Phoenix
http://www.hissyfit.com/ijsbb/forum.cgi?a=list&f=16&d=10&t=68398&n=42,4#n
The link for page 4 isn't showing up on the webpage.
"Formhandle" <formh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3BE415CF...@aol.com...
a L e x
~ a L e x
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Formhandle
> lol... trying to understand "chick logic"? [hysterical laugh]
Definitely not trying to understand it. Only laugh over it. :-)
Remember guys (paraphrased from age-old advice from RJ):
-- Don't pay attention to what chicks SAY, pay attention to what they
DO.
-- Don't pay attention to what they SAY they want, pay attention to what
they RESPOND TO.
-- Elicit Values. Mirror those values back.
Pay particular attention to the stories chicks tell you (short or long)
about things that have happened to them in the past and how they reacted
to it. They will be spelling out what has seduced them in the past
which directly relates to their roadmap of how to seduce them NOW.
FinaliDentity
news:BYNE7.1373$T4.2...@nnrp.gol.com:
>
> Remember that women are the only ones with the game in their head. They
> are the only ones that are thinking that "all guys are trying to scam
> me out of my pants".
It is frustrating and sad, isn't it, how one is automatically assumed to be
a criminal simply by merit of possessing testicles. The women out there
with that attitude that "all" he wants is sex -- where did they get it? I'd
hazard to say, that very very few of them have actually had a one-night
stand with a guy who did NOT stick around, feel guilty, get coerced into
more of a relationship than that ... or who WANTED to be involved
intimately for longer periods of time. Some might have been PUAs, some
AFCs, but really, are all those warpigs out there actually getting humped
and dumped daily? I think not.
So where did this whole notion, that "all men want is sex" and that a woman
has to be "on her guard" against us charlatans COME FROM? I mean, really
... paranoia. Oooh the hypocrisy ...
Formhandle
> "Rio" wrote:
> > Remember that women are the only ones with the game in their
> > head. They are the only ones that are thinking that "all guys
> > are trying to scam me out of my pants".
>
> It is frustrating and sad, isn't it, how one is automatically
> assumed to be a criminal simply by merit of possessing testicles.
Let's flip this. Other side of the coin:
Many men get mentally raped daily by women, through being Attention
Pimped. A lot of men can't "defend" themselves agaist their time being
stripped from them by a woman who is there to get emotional satisfaction
without any reciprocation for the man. These AFC men become powerless
to defend themselves against it. And it's a lifelong rape for a those
men...
roosh
them, negs them, or challenges them, they are going to assume he knows this
material. That's going to make them feel uncomfortable around all new men.
Idiots...
--
"Formhandle" <formh...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3BE415CF...@aol.com...
Formhandle
> What's funny is that now they are super paranoid. Each time a guy
> touches them, negs them, or challenges them, they are going to
> assume he knows this material. That's going to make them feel
> uncomfortable around all new men.
My intuition tells me that's how they felt about all "new men" in the
first place. LOL
They live in a fantasy world where the men they end up with are quality
finds. Until those men are their "ex". Then they throw them in the
pile of garbage and rationalize that they had no resposibility in the
relationship, it's all the man's fault. The site is like a Rules
trainign camp. A stepping stone on the way to The Rules boards... haha
ALPHAHOT1
>Nor should it Formhandle.
>
>Remember that women are the only ones with the game in their head. They are
>the only ones that are thinking that "all guys are trying to scam me out of
>my pants". THEY are the ones doing the thinking here, not us.
>As a PUA, all I know is that I know nothing about what they are thinking or
>why.
>As for the rest of us, there we are trying to make women feel comfortable
>about doing what they already want to do -
:::::::Excellent statement. You'll often find that many chicks don't want to
take resposibility for their urges or actions, ESPECIALLY when it comes to
things like sex. Hence, you run up against this kind of psychological game
bullshit. "The bad man made me do it" makes chicks feel comfortable in acting
on their impulses, what they already want to do anyway, as you accurately said.
They just need an excuse. What this comes back to generally, is almost every
chick's inate desire to know that SHE would never sleep with the wrong man, and
certainly not for "slutty" self-indulgent reasons, for she knows deep down that
she is really the holy and pure virgin. Rational has little to do with it. The
need to remain congruent with this belief, does.
Without even getting into the fact of the hundreds of THOUSANDS of women that
have/do admit to conjuring up fantasies of violent, forced rape -- being made
to surrender to the deviant's will -- I will only say give them what they need,
an excuse. Play the bad man. Sweep them off their feet. Seduce them. Give them
the reason they seek.
>and this is how we get thanked
>for it? Damn inconsiderate if you ask me. Women like the ones who posted on
>that board think too much - negatively - and wreck it for all us decent
>guys
:::::::The first rule is that chicks do not complain for reasons... they simply
complain. Remember: chicks love to FEEL. Good or bad, it surprisingly makes
little difference. They are designed to FEEL, above all else. They are feeling
MACHINES. All the world's a soap opera and they love the melodrama of ecstasy
or tragedy.
Further, the bad guys, men, exist for the sole purpose of trying to scam them
out of their pants, and they often enjoy re-verifying that to all the rest of
womankind and all within earshot.
But
If they read it in a Fabio covered romance novel. it's good. If they read it in
a layguide, it's bad. It's chick logic. Need I really say more.
It all in the packaging. On the Net we can package things in layguides. In real
life, package it in a romance novel. They'll never be the wiser ;)
_______________________________
****************************************
It's So Fuckin Easy,
But Nothin Seems Ta Please Me
A. Rose
One Merely Needs To Know How To Talk To A
Chick In Order To Secure Seductive Results
AH1
Larry Ritzenhoff
about fastseduction.com - the more I began to sense a sexual undertone
in their reactions to it - despite the apparently violent disgust
expressed in the foreground of the communication. Do you think that
maybe secretly they were getting turned on by some of the stuff they
were reading ? On the other hand WTFDIK
FinaliDentity
> My intuition tells me that's how they felt about all "new men" in the
> first place. LOL
>
> They live in a fantasy world where the men they end up with are quality
> finds. Until those men are their "ex". Then they throw them in the
> pile of garbage and rationalize that they had no resposibility in the
> relationship, it's all the man's fault. The site is like a Rules
> trainign camp. A stepping stone on the way to The Rules boards... haha
>
Well, I been workin' on dis ...
I been t'inkin' an cogitatin' ...
and I got sumpin' ta say ...
WHY DO WE CARE? I wondered aloud, earlier in this thread or a closely
related one, why it mattered so much to me, these women's boards. When The
Rules Boards came up on this newsgroup, I kind of stressed about them. When
these boards came up, I stressed about them again. I sort of want to be
"understood," I don't want the world to think that all ASF people are
entirely Ray-like, or like some other asshole. I know they're making
blanket judgements that aren't fair about me, and I want to correct them. I
want to say, "nooo, you'll really LIKE it, you won't be UNhappy if a guy
uses these skills with a good heart." I want to EXPLAIN myself to them. For
some reason, it hurts me to feel misunderstood like that. I feel like, it
isn't fair, that everybody over there has the wrong idea about me.
But then, I realized, that's the old AFC in me speaking up. It probably got
a whiff of old-think, what with me readin' a bit on those boards, packed as
they are with AFC-think, and it sort of roused itself and said, "One last
try to bring him down from his PU high." So it told me, I had to BE
UNDERSTOOD and I had to make EVERYONE LIKE ME.
But that's nuts. There's no reason to be understood. Those women won't be
fucking me. I won't be meeting them in person ... even if I do, they're
unlikely to appeal to me ... even if they do, their UNDERSTANDING or
SYMPATHIZING with me has little to nothing to do, with whether or not they
respond to my advances by spreading their legs. They will be WILLING TO
FUCK ME regardless of how HIGH they hold me in their esteem.
This is an essential PU lesson. Don't care what other people are thinking
about you. (There it is again. Thanks newsgroup!) If they are bad-mouthing
you in an unjustified manner, and it has literally no bearing on any
logistics of your daily life, then you are free to just abandon thought
about that subject. Furthermore, even if it DOES have bearing on your daily
logistics, it might actually be to your BENEFIT to remain a bit of a thorn
in everyone's side. Be mysterious. Be misunderstood. Be excessively alpha.
Don't worry if they get ASF all wrong and have little to no clue about
their own internal workings.
I think Formhandle's point is a good one, that the women over-complain
about a guy once he dumps 'em; and over-laud him when they're still
together. It's a fantasy on BOTH ends of the break-up, before it and after
it. They aren't dealing with reality. Great point.
But, WHO CARES? It's BESIDE THE POINT of learning to think like a PUA. And
in the last few months, I've really really learned, that what mind-set you
allow yourself during the day, during the reading of the newsgroup, during
your dressing of yourself first thing in the morning, has RADICAL bearing
on the remaining periods of the day. If you're up and PU right from the
get-go, you are more congruent. It sinks in better. If on the other hand,
as I have done recently while posting to this newsgroup, you "try on" the
old AFC-think just to make a point to someone, then AFC-think sinks its way
back into your thinking.
That's right. I was trying to post something to this newsgroup recently
about how to "bear" yourself as a PUA. I was posting all about how to hold
your shoulders up, and breathe deeply, and speak with tonality, etc. It was
in another thread, can't remember what. Anyway, as a counter-point, I
wanted to describe how an AFC would hold himself. He would ... slump his
shoulders, etc. etc. Well, I noticed, that after about two paragraphs of
describing that AFC stuff, I felt REALLY DOWN. I had to go "up" my own
confidence meter again, and I COULDN'T GET THROUGH the writing of the AFC
stuff without actualy DAMAGING my own confidence. That's probably because
being in a PU mindset is new to me -- it isn't intrinsic to me just yet.
But it makes an important point. Even READING those boards can be damaging
to any newfound confidence; even TRYING TO UNDERSTAND why they hate us so
much, is a type of AFC thinking.
Don't just DECIDE to eradicate it from the operative moments of your life.
Eliminate it at all times, so that its poison doesn't seep into your life
at times that you wouldn't be aware of.
Consequently, why do we care what the board thinks about us? How many of us
are sarging those women? Well, there may be a few subtle advantages to
knowing about that board -- what the typical assumptions about SS are, what
the usual anti-logical assumptions will be, how to avoid using typical SS
mistakes that clue other people in to the fact that they will want to avoid
you (not that they should, but that they will want to) ... in other words,
how to know the enemy. Pity they're casting themselves as enemy; but that's
about the only reason to read over there. Don't lose time to explaining
chick logic, to understanding it, to adopting it or sympathizing with it;
just be you, go fix the car, then slam some babe. Do it because you know
she loves it, you know you love it, she is your giraffe, herd her over to
the proper side of the cage.
Formhandle
D, you type to much... :-)
> But then, I realized, that's the old AFC in me speaking up. It
> probably got a whiff of old-think, what with me readin' a bit on
> those boards, packed as they are with AFC-think, and it sort of
> roused itself and said, "One last try to bring him down from his
> PU high." So it told me, I had to BE UNDERSTOOD and I had to make
> EVERYONE LIKE ME.
>
> But that's nuts.
EXACTLY.
Who gives a flying fuck what a few women on some board chat about? My
original post about it was for amusement purposes only. Every now &
then I check my server logs to see who's linked to me. Occasionally, I
find a converation on some confused board worth chuckling over. I was
tempted to post the link to the Japanese bi-chick web site that linked
to the site on their message board but I think I'll just torture you all
instead by the mention of it... ;-)
I remember a quote from Bill Cosby when someone asked him to describe
what "comedy" is. He said (I think) "I don't know what comedy is, but I
know what isn't comedy - trying to be funny to EVERYONE."
So, just be secure in the knowledge that this stuff IS useful and just
because a bunch of confused hens can't decipher their own heads when the
material is presented to them, dopesn't mean jack shit. Go find chicks
you like that the stuff DOES work on. And, ultimately, even if you
don't get satisfaction from the results you get from such a lifestyle,
you'd have prepared yourself to be something you were not before: A man
who knows what he wants and knows how to get it and doesn't apologize
for his actions as a man. Which, ironically, is the kind of man pretty
much all women want. But they won't say it. Doesn't matter. They're
RESPOND to it. :-) Voila.
> This is an essential PU lesson. Don't care what other people are
> thinking about you. (There it is again. Thanks newsgroup!)
And here, in essence, is what I picked up from Montreal David. It is a
hard thing to grasp when it seems the whole struggle of this group IS to
figure out how to get into a chick's head. But that IS true. You see,
there is a difference between getting INTO her head and CARING what's in
there. The DIFFERENCE is the key. Also, just for clarification, it
doesn't mean be care*less* with what's in a chick's head, or to be a
bastard, it just means don't take it personally, don't let it get in the
way of the goal. Be the ball. Heh, just wanted to say that.
> I think Formhandle's point is a good one, that the women over-complain
> about a guy once he dumps 'em; and over-laud him when they're still
> together. It's a fantasy on BOTH ends of the break-up, before it and after
> it. They aren't dealing with reality. Great point.
Yes, and they're not dealing with it because they, like most women,
can't and won't take responsibility in their own minds for their actions
with the opposite sex. They are PASSIVE. It "just happend". Bullshit
like that. I no longer struggle with this stuff in my head. Instead, I
just go with it. AFCs paddle against the stream, even when it doesn't
make eny sense. They say "But I want to go upstream!" Well, if they
just went with the flow, they may realize what's downstream is even
better than what they THINK is upstream. It's like another version of
one-itis. I see one-itis taking a hold of people in all aspects of
life, not just in situations trying to get "that one chick". But in
this situation, for example, where you intially felt the need to be
validated by women who in all likelihood don't deserve to get the time
of day from you. In a way, it's like putting them on a pedestal and
trying to get their approval in hopes of.. what?
FinaliDentity
>
> D, you type to much... :-)
>
>
Yeah.
(sheepish grin)
But you read it and responded to it anyway.
(smug and proud expression) :^)
I note that your nose is straighter than mine. Do I have the right kind of
nose to seduce women with? What's the right way to draw a nose so that a
chick will really want to bang you?
Formhandle
Interesting thought. I know that some of them have probably become
lurkers here for at least the next few days. Perhaps initially in
that "morbid fascination" state I mentioned earlier. But perhaps,
now, as they're reading this group, they might begin to
feel that fascination turn into curiosity deep inside, especially
about the men in here. What do you think would be going on in their
heads at this moment when they read the words here? Would that
curiosity turn to sexual thoughts, thinking back to times in the past
when there was enjoyment being seduced by those mysterious, almost
anonymous men. Now, I don't know what those images would be but
they could be thinking "Who are these men.. really? Would I
recognize them in real life? If I'm getting so turned on by this
right now, what kind of things in my life am I missing out on?
Maybe these guys actually do have it together... much more so than
all the guys I've spent time with in my past."
I think we may never know what's deep inside them... ;-)
Richard Morrell
wrote:
>Here's why what we do & talk about will NEVER be understood by women:
>
>(warning: this is some kind of female rant site)
>http://www.hissyfit.com/ijsbb/forum.cgi?a=list&f=16&d=10&t=68398&n=42,1
>
It looks like a SS via email.
Read the following post from the site.
"Attraction: Instant vs Over Time"
------- BEGIN --------
Curmudgeon
posted November 01,2001 4:47:54 PM EST profile email
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever been attracted to someone you've never met?
The story: I'm using an online singles service; most of the guys who
have responded to my ad have been okay, at least by e-mail. No sparks
or anything in their messages that set my heart a'flutter.
But one guy....sent me an e-mail that had a very weird impact - I was
instantly attracted to him in a very strong way, which is pretty
strange for me. He described himself as ornery and playful and that
had quite an effect on me - I couldn't wait to respond. I don't know
if I'm just really looking forward to a date or if there's something
else. Has anyone ever met someone online and had something come out of
it (other than Altoids, I know that story very well).
------- END --------
Looks interesting...
Cheers,
Richard Morrell(richard.morrell 'at' blueyonder.co.uk)