Dating Advice
Laife
be all you need to succeed with women? You would think that your mom has
your best interests at heart and cares about you, but does she really?
Consider the kind of advice she gives you and decide if she is really on
your side. What is her real agenda? Why is she not telling you the TRUTH?
phy
news:j6cmc.7697$tm....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com:
Maybe she knows that you cant handle the truth!?
-phy
Solitary Soul
It's generational - what worked for your mom won't necessarily work for
your own generation. Don't count on your parents for good dating advice.
Solitary Soul -> http://users3.ev1.net/~solitarysoul/
-----------------------------------------------------
In my experience, there is no excuse for thinking positively.
- ASStagon
lm
I think you have to yell when you say that.
:-)
lm
phy
news:4iqi90lvacftk00hp...@4ax.com:
>>Maybe she knows that you cant handle the truth!?
>
> I think you have to yell when you say that.
>
>:-)
That will have to way till my manic cycle kicks in.
-phy
BDB
> It's generational - what worked for your mom won't necessarily work for
> your own generation. Don't count on your parents for good dating advice.
Don't count on women in general for dating advice. They understand
very little about what motives them to spread their legs. Even
if they do understand themselves, they assume that they are unique
and that other women must be different. Interestingly enough,
most women operate under the same misconceptions about women that
"nice guys" do.
Women haven't changed, they've always been like this. My mom is
70 and she's still like this.
If you want to get advice on how to succeed with women, get it from
guys who succeed with women.
Ms Pnoopie Pnats
ok mah mom hace manee of teh same astrologikal aspect as mah ex hubband
I reelee weesh I had someone to gibe me advice wen I was young.
It seems like I wuz stronglee discouraged frum axing fer advice because I wood
get sume nastee meen remark or dont bother me or teh beginning of a complain
fest
Watch my mental breakdown as it happens.
http://mspoopiepants.blogspot.com/
I'm posting...be very afraid.
http://www.lolfun.com/flash_0603/funky_d.cfm
Tank goodness for usenet to keep track of my major life events.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
--Mahatma Gandhi
If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad. If not, don't worry. Just forget all about it.
His Holiness
the Dalai Lama
Laife
"Ms Pnoopie Pnats" <myblowupr...@blooups.com> wrote in message
news:m80j90p7sh7u66f12...@4ax.com...
>
> It seems like I wuz stronglee discouraged frum axing fer advice because I
wood
> get sume nastee meen remark or dont bother me or teh beginning of a
complain
> fest
>
>
Ditto.
Laife
allen
"Laife" <23...@unavailable.com> wrote in message
news:j6cmc.7697$tm....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Obviously a mother is going to be biased and think that her child is
perfect. She may know deep down thats not necessarily true but she's
probably in denial because she can't accept the fact that she's raised a
"failure"
Otto Ramone
--
remove "NOSPAM" from address to reply, or wonder why your mail was returned
"Solitary Soul" <solitarys...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:l8pi905uvqsa0e4kh...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 05 May 2004 20:26:55 GMT, "Laife" <23...@unavailable.com> wrote:
>
> >If dating advice from women were effective, wouldn't dating advice from
mom
> >be all you need to succeed with women? You would think that your mom has
> >your best interests at heart and cares about you, but does she really?
> >Consider the kind of advice she gives you and decide if she is really on
> >your side. What is her real agenda? Why is she not telling you the
TRUTH?
>
> It's generational - what worked for your mom won't necessarily work for
> your own generation. Don't count on your parents for good dating advice.
When I was a kid, my mom always told me not to worry, one day girls will
want a guy like you more than anything else...and, she was right. They do.
The trouble is, the ones that do are the ones that are moms age.
Otto Ramone
--
remove "NOSPAM" from address to reply, or wonder why your mail was returned
"Ms Pnoopie Pnats" <myblowupr...@blooups.com> wrote in message
news:m80j90p7sh7u66f12...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 05 May 2004 20:26:55 GMT, "Laife" <23...@unavailable.com> wrote:
>
> >If dating advice from women were effective, wouldn't dating advice from
mom
> >be all you need to succeed with women? You would think that your mom has
> >your best interests at heart and cares about you, but does she really?
> >Consider the kind of advice she gives you and decide if she is really on
> >your side. What is her real agenda? Why is she not telling you the
TRUTH?
> >
> >
> >
>
> ok mah mom hace manee of teh same astrologikal aspect as mah ex hubband
>
> I reelee weesh I had someone to gibe me advice wen I was young.
>
> It seems like I wuz stronglee discouraged frum axing fer advice because I
wood
> get sume nastee meen remark or dont bother me or teh beginning of a
complain
> fest
>
Funny, I don't recall seeing you around the house when I was growing up, but
it sure sounds like you were there....
Otto Ramone
--
remove "NOSPAM" from address to reply, or wonder why your mail was returned
"allen" <etm...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:40999876$1...@newspeer2.tds.net...
My mom made it pretty damned clear I wasn;t living up to
expectations....hell, I'd be tons better off if she just made me feel
marginally ok about myself, nevermind perfect
>
>
Laife
"Otto Ramone" <tryin...@NOSPAMprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:OEjmc.926$pM6...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> When I was a kid, my mom always told me not to worry, one day girls will
> want a guy like you more than anything else...and, she was right. They do.
> The trouble is, the ones that do are the ones that are moms age.
ha ha that is fucked up shit.
Otto Ramone
--
remove "NOSPAM" from address to reply, or wonder why your mail was returned
"Laife" <23...@unavailable.com> wrote in message
news:j6cmc.7697$tm....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Actually, mom's advice wasn't worth a shit (see my other posts in this topic
heading), but other than the constant criticism, I don't think that was as
big an issue as it could have been....I just learned to not bother asking
her advice. I think what genuinely did my a world of shit was my dad dying
when I was 11. I missed out on all that father/son influence thing, all the
manly nuance stuff, and fatherly advice on dealing with chicks.
>
>
>
>
Laife
"Otto Ramone" <tryin...@NOSPAMprodigy.net> wrote in message
>
>
> --
> remove "NOSPAM" from address to reply, or wonder why your mail was
returned
> "Laife" <23...@unavailable.com> wrote in message
> news:j6cmc.7697$tm....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> > If dating advice from women were effective, wouldn't dating advice from
> mom
> > be all you need to succeed with women? You would think that your mom
has
> > your best interests at heart and cares about you, but does she really?
> > Consider the kind of advice she gives you and decide if she is really on
> > your side. What is her real agenda? Why is she not telling you the
> TRUTH?
>
> Actually, mom's advice wasn't worth a shit (see my other posts in this
topic
> heading), but other than the constant criticism, I don't think that was as
> big an issue as it could have been....I just learned to not bother asking
> her advice.
I rarely if ever ask my parents for advice. Nevertheless, they keep giving
it away. I told her, "SHUT UP. Your advice on anything other than cooking
(she is a chef) is worthless."
> I think what genuinely did my a world of shit was my dad dying
> when I was 11. I missed out on all that father/son influence thing, all
the
> manly nuance stuff, and fatherly advice on dealing with chicks.
I didn't like my father's advice. I told him to his face when I was in high
school, "You are a coward." He's afraid of death, he's afraid of the
neighbors. I told him, "I don't mind getting shot. I don't mind dying for
what I believe in. I rather live and die like a man than be a mouse like
you, you coward. You act like a tyrant in this house but outside you are a
gutless coward." I looked him straight in the eye when I told him this. I
am a DAREDEVIL, like to play with death, so I have little patience for
scaredy cats who try to put on pretentious macho acts around the house.
Lumushahs
Especially don't ask my parents. They never dated. They got together through an
arranged marriage.
Laife
news:yIjmc.929$NO6...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
>
topic
> heading), but other than the constant criticism, I don't think that was as
> big an issue as it could have been....I just learned to not bother asking
> her advice. I think what genuinely did my a world of shit was my dad dying
> when I was 11. I missed out on all that father/son influence thing, all
the
> manly nuance stuff, and fatherly advice on dealing with chicks.
> >
I remember I used to go picking up girls in the mall back in high school.
So this girl invites me to her place. My father listens in on the
conversation on the phone and says, "You can't take the car." I said, "I
supposed to meet this girl." He said, "I know. I don't want you going
around with girls who invite you to their place after one date."
My father was an asshole. He was unhappily married to my mom and he didn't
want his children to be happy either. I would have been better off without
him.
Laife
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <iHkmc.7798$Ih4...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com> Laife
<23...@unavailable.com> wrote:
>I remember I used to go picking up girls in the mall back in high school.
>So this girl invites me to her place. My father listens in on the
>conversation on the phone and says, "You can't take the car." I said, "I
>supposed to meet this girl." He said, "I know. I don't want you going
>around with girls who invite you to their place after one date."
>
>My father was an asshole. He was unhappily married to my mom and he didn't
>want his children to be happy either. I would have been better off without
>him.
For some parents, it is more important to their ego to maintain
dominance and obedience to the "pack leader" than it is to raise
reproductively viable offspring.
- --
http://voyager.abite.co.za/~berndj/ (f1084a555d2098411cff4cefd41d2e2a1c85d18c)
non-smoking section in a restaurant == non-peeing section in a swimming pool
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFAmfKD/FmLrNfLpjMRAtMpAJ46p7L8n/cowYA1bLRPaxjfxUNh/QCfW5Qw
tDGwYDYsuAE3exXv2dDKvIE=
=d1GL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <j6cmc.7697$tm....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com> Laife
<23...@unavailable.com> wrote:
>If dating advice from women were effective, wouldn't dating advice from mom
>be all you need to succeed with women?
If it were, it would be all you need. Dating advice from women *isn't*
effective, though, so you need more.
>You would think that your mom has your best interests at heart and
>cares about you, but does she really?
Your mom does, generally, have your best interests at heart. But she
can only act on that intent as well as she is equipped to do so. Many
mothers are not fully equipped for this task - they never learned
introspection and self-critical evaluation.
>Consider the kind of advice she gives you and decide if she is really
>on your side.
She *wants* to be on your side, but her mating instincts unfortunately
don't have a schism for distinguishing "son" from "lover". So the way
she behaves toward you is pretty much the same as it is towards lovers,
in that she will be driven to get you "whipped".
>What is her real agenda?
Her instincts want a harem of men all thinking that her kids are
possibly theirs. These instincts have a bug: they do not tag her
offspring as in need of special treatment, as being the *vehicle* of her
genes and her instincts' only chance of survival.
>Why is she not telling you the TRUTH?
Because she doesn't know it herself. She can only tell you what is
accessible to her consciousness. Her instincts are pretty well hidden
from her consciousness; that, too, is an adaptation to apply deception
strategies to lovers very effectively. (It's very easy to lie if you
believe it yourself.) The only way she can tell you the truth is if she
were to put her "emotional thinking" aside for a moment while she
analyses with her *rational* cognition what she needs to do and to tell
you to confer reproductive fitness onto her offspring (you).
The things your mother tells you to do to get a girlfriend, are probably
close to the *last* things you should do. What she tells you are the
things that make *her* feel good (emotional thinking right there) when
her lovers do them. IOW she's telling you what *she* *wants*, not what
*you* *need*. She's telling you how to be whipped, by telling you what
you need to do to achieve the *woman's* (selfish!) goals for her.
- --
http://voyager.abite.co.za/~berndj/ (f1084a555d2098411cff4cefd41d2e2a1c85d18c)
I have neither the need, the time, or the inclination to put words into your
mouth. You are perfectly capable of damaging your reputation without any help
from me. --Richard Heathfield roasts a troll in comp.lang.c
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFAmfV0/FmLrNfLpjMRAviTAJ9Cmlr98+pkj3mX/o8a82oE8utilgCfQZBU
3TP/yxEV/TygtHXtShs48SQ=
=RgVj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <j6cmc.7697$tm....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com> Laife
<23...@unavailable.com> wrote:
One more comment:
You should take what your mother tells you, and instead of *doing* those
things (tell her how you feel about her, bring her presents, allow
yourself to be vulnerable), you should use them as *bait* for catching
women. Make sure the worm never falls off the hook - the fish will swim
away with the worm (stuff that mom tells you to do) but without the hook
(you, or rather your, er, "hook").
Asking mom for dating advice should be like a vicarous "elicitation of
values" that the a.s.f crowd preach.
Hypothetical application of my theory, with a girl:
Girl: I love you.
You: I know. You're wonderful. I have feelings for you, too, but I
can't call them "love". I think it will take some time...
Subtext: ... and sex.
Girl (disappointed): Oh. I wish things were easier than they are.
Girl snuggles up to you in an attempt to make you "come (pardon the pun)
around" and realise you love her. Her hands wander. Pretty soon,
you're doing it.
You, thinking to yourself: I wish I could tell her I really do love her,
but I also know she'd lose interest in me the moment I told her.
It's the real world, unfortunately, so I'll just continue
pretending to "need more time" while secretly wishing I could give
her what she wants without poisoning the well.
Alternately, you're a PUA:
You, thinking to yourself: Stupid girls, they're all so easy. Just a
few lies and some hope that she might be able to get me whipped,
and I can get as much sex from her as I like. Hmm, I wonder if
I can leverage this into a threesome if she thinks I'm attracted
to another girl?
- --
http://voyager.abite.co.za/~berndj/ (f1084a555d2098411cff4cefd41d2e2a1c85d18c)
"IBM has more patent litigation lawyers than SCO has employees." - unknown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFAmfiL/FmLrNfLpjMRAqXxAJ9gXjJqDH6VKAj4HRnGmB80Ef2RCACgjfEq
NdQqL9yo5iSrnh6slHcyvEk=
=SWQK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
mickey
> On Wed, 05 May 2004 20:26:55 GMT, "Laife" <23...@unavailable.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If dating advice from women were effective, wouldn't dating advice from mom
>>be all you need to succeed with women? You would think that your mom has
>>your best interests at heart and cares about you, but does she really?
>>Consider the kind of advice she gives you and decide if she is really on
>>your side. What is her real agenda? Why is she not telling you the TRUTH?
>
>
> It's generational - what worked for your mom won't necessarily work for
> your own generation. Don't count on your parents for good dating advice.
>
I think its just that women have a poor idea of what works and what
doesn't. Its like asking a pizza eater on how to make a good pizza.
While I have eaten countless pizzas I couldn't make an edible one if
my life depended on it.
-M
Laife
"Bernd Jendrissek" <ber...@prism.co.za> wrote in message
news:c7csrn$n33$9...@penguin.wetton.example.org...
>
> >You would think that your mom has your best interests at heart and
> >cares about you, but does she really?
>
> Your mom does, generally, have your best interests at heart. But she
> can only act on that intent as well as she is equipped to do so. Many
> mothers are not fully equipped for this task - they never learned
> introspection and self-critical evaluation.
>
> >Consider the kind of advice she gives you and decide if she is really
> >on your side.
>
> She *wants* to be on your side, but her mating instincts unfortunately
> don't have a schism for distinguishing "son" from "lover". So the way
> she behaves toward you is pretty much the same as it is towards lovers,
> in that she will be driven to get you "whipped".
>
Pretty good insights.
Laife
Laife
>
> For some parents, it is more important to their ego to maintain
> dominance and obedience to the "pack leader" than it is to raise
> reproductively viable offspring.
>
that would be the case.
Laife
Laife
"Bernd Jendrissek" <ber...@prism.co.za> wrote in message
news:c7ctkd$n33$1...@penguin.wetton.example.org...
Bernd Jendrissek
Hash: SHA1
In article <j6cmc.7697$tm....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com> Laife
<23...@unavailable.com> wrote:
I sent, with comments, this post to my never-been-shy buddy.
Unfortunately we wrote in Afrikaans, so you'll have to squint to
distinguish my translations from the rest of the text.
Personally identifiable information censored.
My new name: The DanimalJr!
==========================
Buddy wrote:
>interessant. hang seker af hoe goed die vrouens hulleself ken, en hoe
>eerlik hulle wil wees oor hulself.
Interesting. Depends on how well the women know themselves, and how
honest they want to be about themselves.
>al wat ek kan se is dat jou approach verskil gebaseer op wat jy wil he
>van die vrou. dus obviously sal jou hele "MO" verskil wanneer jy net
>seks wil he en wanneer jy net n date wil he, en wanneer jy n verhouding
>wil he. seks is gewoonlik die maklikste want as jy dit gaan kry beteken
>dit dat die vrou in die eerste plek bereid was om dit te gee - party
>wil net he jy moet harder werk as ander om dit te kry - en party is nie
>eers bewus dat hulle bereid was om dit te gee nie. vrou met sterk
>morele waardes = no sex. die ander is meer tricky want die tweede en
>derde dates maak dan meer saak. wat vir my gewerk het was:
>self-confidence, good appearance, nice deodorant, sense of humour
>(veral as mens hulle swakker punte op n fyn humoristiese manier uitwys
>sodat hulle net slight offence neem). mens kan dan sien watter soort
>meisie sy ook is - en hoe ver mens met haar kan kom.
All I can say is that your approach differs based on what you want. So
obviously your "MO" will differ when you want just sex and when you just
want a date and when you want a relationship. Sex is usually the
easiest 'cause if you're gonna get it it means the woman was prepared to
give it in the first place - some just want you to work harder for it
than others (want) - and some are not even aware that they were prepared
to give it. Woman with strong morals = no sex. The others are trickier
'cause the 2nd and 3rd dates matter more then. What worked for me was:
self-confidence, good appearance, nice deodorant, sense of humour
(especially if you point out their flaws in a softly humourous manner so
that they take slight offence). One can then also see what kind of girl
she is - and how far one can get with her.
>mmar nou ja, sien jou saterdag 6 uur - sal lekker wees!
>
>>Kyk wat kry ek op die net:
>>
>>In article <slrnc9iud1....@news.easynews.com> BDB
>><noe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>After rebooting Windows, Solitary Soul wrote:
>>>> It's generational - what worked for your mom won't necessarily work
>>>> for your own generation. Don't count on your parents for good
>>>> dating advice.
>>>
>>>Don't count on women in general for dating advice. They understand
>>>very little about what motives them to spread their legs. Even if
>>>they do understand themselves, they assume that they are unique and
>>>that other women must be different. Interestingly enough, most women
>>>operate under the same misconceptions about women that "nice guys"
>>>do.
>>>
>>>Women haven't changed, they've always been like this. My mom is 70
>>>and she's still like this.
>>>
>>>If you want to get advice on how to succeed with women, get it from
>>>guys who succeed with women.
==========================
Bernd wrote:
>Buddy wrote:
>>Bernd wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:08:22AM +0200, Buddy wrote:
>>>> Interesting. Depends on how well the women know themselves, and how
>>>> honest they want to be about themselves.
>>>
>>>Did gaan nie oor "oneerlikheid" nie - dit is nie 'n bewustelike
>>>besluit nie. Presies, dit is 'n *on*bewustelike blindheid teenoor
>>>hulle instinkte, sodat hulle hulle nie kan raaksien nie.
It's not about "dishonesty" - it isn't a conscious choice. Indeed, it's
an *un*conscious blindness to their instincts, so the can't recognise
them.
>>ek het nie eerlikheid in die "oneerlike" konteks bedoel soos hierbo
>>nie. ek glo almal weet wie hulle is, wat hulle wil he en hoe dit uit
>>hulle gekry kan word - die dilemma is dat nie almal dit wil erken nie.
>>hulle maak hulleself dan blind vir die feite - dan word dit
>>onbewustelik.
I didn't mean honesty in the "dishonesty" context. I believe everyone
knows who they are, what they want and how to get it out of them (???) -
the dilemma is that not everyone wants to admit it. They make
themselves blind to the facts - then it becomes subconscious.
>Ek het die eerste keer gevang wat jy se. En presies daarop gereageer.
>Ja, die oneerlik-met-self faktor bestaan ook, maar dit is nie die
>grootste effek nie. Die probleem met die woorde "nie wil erken nie"
>"maak blind vir feite" "word onbewustelik" "eerlik" is dat dit
>impliseer dat daar in die eerste plek 'n bewustelike keuse was. Daar
>is nie.
I caught what you said the first time. And reacted precisely on it.
Yes, the dishonest-with-self factor also exists, but it isn't the
biggest effect. The problem with the words "don't want to admit" "make
blind to the facts" "becomes subconscious" "honest" is that it implies
that there was a conscious choice in the first place. There isn't.
>
>As mense hulleself nie *aktief* analiseer nie, sal hulle nooit weet
>nie. As hulle nooit weet nie, is daar niks om oor "oneerlik met
>hulleself" te wees nie. En as hulle nooit weet nie, is daar niks om in
>die onderbewussyn te verdryf nie. Blissful ignorance.
If people don't *actively* analyze themselves, the will never know. If
they never know, there's nothing about which to be "dishonest with
themselves". And if they never know, there's nothing to repress into
the subconscious. Blissful ignorance.
>>>> All I can say is that your approach differs based on what you want. So
>>>> obviously your "MO" will differ when you want just sex and when you just
>>>> want a date and when you want a relationship.
>>>
>>>"Dating" is hoofsaaklik 'n female-centric aktiwiteit: die
>>>onderliggende houding van "dating" is dat die vrou gepamper moet word,
>>>uitgevat word, julle eers "vriende" moet wees. Dit is alles presies
>>>soos 'n vrou se instinkte dit wil he - 'n harem van mans rondom haar
>>>wat almal dink, "Miskien is haar kind myne".
"Dating" is primarily a female-centric activity: the underlying attitude
of "dating" is that the woman must be pampered, taken out, you must
first be "friends". That's all exactly how a woman's instincts want it
- - a harem of men around her who all think, "Maybe her kid is mine".
>> kan nie se ek stem saam met die een nie. in my ervaring is dating wat
>> female-centric is gedoem tot die dood van die woord "go" - die
>> uithouvermoe van die partye dui aan hoe lank dit neem. dating wat
>> duo-centric is, maw van albei kante op beide gerig is, is n ander
>> storie. mi is die kanse dat die verhouding gaan "werk" baie beter.
Can't say I agree. IME female-centric dating is doomed to the death
from the word "go" - the stamina of the participants indicates how long
it'll take. Duo-centric dating, IOW directed at both by both, is a
different thing. IMHO the chances that the relationship will "work" are
much better.
>Definieer duo-centric. Jy bedoel male-centric sofa rugby (*) moet ook
>'n rol speel? Dan ja, maar ek is nie seker of dit ingesluit is in die
>algemene betekenis van die woord "dating" nie. Maar ag, wat weet ek
>van woorde.
Define duo-centric. You mean male-centric sofa rugby must also play a
role? Then yes, but I'm not sure if it's included in the popular
meaning of the word "dating". But what do I know about words.
>(*) Ek weet jy's 'n Bible-thumper, maar probeer asseblief om *nie* te
>dink, "Bernd dink alweer net aan seks" nie. Ek weet dit is moeilik...
(*)I know you're a Bible-thumper, but please try *not* to think, "Bernd
is just thinking of sex again". I know it's difficult...
>> btw, as dit n female centric ding is en vroue moet gepamper word, is
>> mens dan technically nie vriende nie. dis hoekom die moderne vrou eis
>> dat sy ook moet betaal aan die dinner en movies...
BTW, if it's a female centric thing and women must be pampered, then
technically you aren't friends. That's why the modern woman demands to
go dutch on the dinner and movies...
>
>Watter moderne vrou? Dit is 'n rare skepsel wat nie graag die dubbele
>standaard (man betaal vir my free night out, maar hy kry by my niks)
>uitbuit nie. As jy so een het, hou vas aan haar!
What modern woman? It's a rare creature that doesn't gladly exploit the
double standard (man pays for my free night out, but he gets nothing
from me). If you have one like that, hold on tight!
>Party faux-moderne vrouens sal natuurlik self wil betaal omdat hulle
>nie wil he die ou moet 'n houvas op hulle he nie. Maar hulle doen dit
>dan as deel van 'n power play, nie omdat hulle dubbele standaarde as 'n
>onreg beskou nie. ('n Onreg is net 'n onreg as ek aan die kort ent
>trek.)
Some faux-modern women wil naturally want to pay because they don't want
the guy to have anything on them. But they do it as part of a power
play, not because they view double standards as an injustice. (An
injustice is an injustice when I get the short end.)
>>> Moenie wat ek se miskyk nie - ek praat van ewolusie (wat ek nie dink
>>> jy kan aanvaar nie) en *instinkte*, nie die teenwoordige situasie
>>> nie.
Don't misinterpret what I say - I'm talking about evolution (which I
don't think you can accept) and *instincts*, not the present situation.
>>
>> ek aanvaar dat mens en dier aanpaas by die omgewing, biologies,
>> sielkundig, ens.
I accept that humans and animals adapt to the environment, biologically,
psychologically, etc.
>
>Maar as jy se "aanpas" bedoel jy binne 'n leeftyd. M.a.w. nee, jy kan
>nie ewolusie aanvaar as 'n basis van 'n gesprek nie. Ek hoort dan nou
>te se, "End of discussion, this will go nowhere", maar ek kan myself
>nie help nie.
But when you say "adapt" you mean within a lifetime. IOW no, you can't
accept evolution as a basis of a discussion. I should now say, "End of
discussion, this will go nowhere", but I can't help myself.
>> ek weet ook dat mens bo jou instinkte kan uitrys
I also know that one can rise above one's instincts
>
>Met behulp van net nog 'n instink: bewussyn. Ja, die bewussyn is net
>nog 'n instink, en 'n paar ander diere (bv. sjimpansees) het dit ook.
>Dit laat ons die verlede en die toekoms begryp, en laat on ook ons
>ander instinkte beheer. Maar jou keuse van woorde ("*bo* ... uitrys")
>toon aan dat jy glo dat ons fundamenteel evil is. Ek kan ook sien
>hoekom jy so glo; die kerk doen 'n goeir job om mense 'n rock-bottom
>self-esteem te gee; sulke mense is baie makliker om onderdanig te hou
>as mense wat selfstandig kan dink sonder die meme-complex (lees op oor
>memetics) konteks van 'n self-ondermynende wereldaanskouing.
By means of just another instinct: consciousness. Yes, consciousness is
just another instinct, and a few other animals (eg chimpanzees) also
have it. It allows us to conceive the past and the present, and also
allows us to control our other instincts. But your choice of words
("rise *above*") shows that you believe us to be fundamentally evil. I
can also see why you believe that; the church does a good job giving
people a rock-bottom self-esteem; such people are much easier to keep
subjugated, than people who can think independently without the meme
complex (read up on memetics) context of a self-disempowering world
view.
>> (dis mos wat oa wat ons van n dier skei).
(that's part of what separates us from animals).
>
>Ek is nie oortuig daarvan dat ons meer van ander diere verskil as wat
>die res van hulle ondermekaar verskillend is nie. As daar 'n besondere
>verskil is, is dit 'n metafisiese een, soos dat ons, bv., 'n "siel" (of
>is dit "gees"?) het en hulle nie. Maar ons spiere, bene en breins werk
>dieselfde. Party van hulle spiere is 'n bietjie meer ontwikkel, en ons
>breins is miskien 'n bietjie meer ontwikkel. So what?
I'm not convinced that we differ from other animals than they differ
among each other. If there's a significant difference, it's a
metaphysical one, like that we, for example, have a "soul" (or is it
"ghost"?) and they don't. But our muscles, bones and brains work the
same way. Some of their muscles are a little more developed, and our
brains are maybe a little more developed. So what?
>> die feit dat ons dit kan doen en nie enige van die vroulike spesies
>> hump wanneer ons lus is nie (ok party mense doen dit...) wys dat
>> instinkte gekeer word deur....wat?
The fact that we can do it and not hump any MOTFS when we feel like it
(ok some people do it...) shows that instincts can be stopped by...what?
>
>Deur nog 'n ander instink: ons bewussyn. Ander diere sal ook nie altyd
>wanneer hulle lus is, 'n wyfie hump nie. Byvoorbeeld sal 'n manlike
>skaap nie sy vrou hump as daar 'n leeu aget hom aan is nie. Hy wil
>nog, maar nog veel eerder, en meer dringend, wil hy van die leeu
>wegkom.
By another instinct: our consciousness. Other animals will also not
hump a female whenever the feel like it. For example, a male sheep will
not hump his wife when there's a lion after him. He still wants to, but
far more, and more urgently, he wants to escape the lion.
>> die moderne mens is anders as die vorige,
The modern human is different to the previous (???),
>
>Hoe?
Huh?
>> en alhoewel die vroue voel dat hulle wil kinders he, ag party van
>> hulle ander goed as belangriker (werk, casual sex, watookal).
and although women feel they want children, some of them value other
things as more important (work, casual sex, whatever).
>>
>>
>>> Dating is vir vrouens wat casual sex is vir mans. Presies wat hulle
>>> wil he, as hulle nie in die "nee, ek is nie so nie" delusion val nie.
Dating is to women what casual sex is to men. Exactly what they want,
if they don't fall into the "no, I'm not like that" delusion.
>>
>> moontlik, alhoewel ek dink dat vrouens ook daaruit gaan vir casual
>> sex deesdae. ek praat onder andere uit ervaring uit. ek dink die
>> vrouens wat wil date is die vrouens wat n gepaste troumaat soek.
>> selfde vir mans.
Possible, although I think that women also go for casual sex these days.
I'm talking etc. from experience. I think the women who want to date
are the women who are looking for a suitable spouse. Same for men.
>
>Ja, vrouens is stel net so veel belang in seks as mans. Dit verbaas my
>nie - hulle het mos omtrent 429 erogenous zones.
>
>Maar hulle is slagoffers van die seksuele rewolusie - hulle het die
>idee dat vrouens en mans "gelyk" is haak, lyn en sinker gesluk. En
>wanneer hulle 35-40 is, hulle looks besig is om te verdwyn, en hulle
>het 'n rugrat op hulle hakke, dan kom hulle agter hoe hulle verneuk is.
>*Dan* skrik hulle wakker en wonder hardop, "Why are all the men I meet
>jerks? (sob)" Die antwoord, "They can see you a mile away, and
>they're avoiding bitches like you for whom they weren't good enough
>when you still had your only negotiating instrument, your looks."
>
>(Ek weier om enigiemand se "backup plan" te wees.)
>>> > Sex is usually the easiest 'cause if you're gonna get it it means
>>> > the woman was prepared to give it in the first place - some just
>>> > want you to work harder for it than others (want) - and some are not
>>> > even aware that they were prepared to give it.
>>>
>>> Maar *almal* wil he mans (oor die algemeen, nie noodwendig
>>> spesifieke mans nie) moet probeer om dit by hulle te kry! Selfs die
>>> sweet, delikate, feminine liefkoosbare vroutjies.
But *all* want that men (in general, not necessarily specific men) must
try to get it from them! Even the sweet, delicate, feminine lovable
womenlets.
>>
>> natuurlik! party wil net n trouring he voor die seks gebeur - sodat
>> hulle
Of course! Some just want a wedding ring before the sex happens - so
>
>Ja, die slimmes.
Yes, the smart ones.
>> verseker is van n man, n inkomste, hulp, etc indien hulle pregnant
>> raak... as mans dit by hulle soek is dit n komplement vir hulle, en
>> hoe beter/mooier/sexier die man hoe groter die komplement (in die
>> algemeen).
that they're assured of a man, an income, help, etc. in case they get
pregnant... If men want it (sex) from them it's a compliment for them,
and the better/handsomer/sexier the man, the greater the compliment (in
general).
>
>En hoe groter die gevaar dat hy sy bates ("beter"/mooier/sexier) sal
>gebruik om haar te verneuk.
And the greater the danger that he will use his assets
("better"/handsomer/sexier) to cheat on her.
>>> > Woman with strong morals = no sex.
>>>
>>> Vals. Blykbaar is vrouens met sterk "morele" (ek neem aan jy bedoel
>>> eintlik *godsdienstelike*) waardes van die maklikstes om te verlei,
>>> weens al daardie "repressed sexuality" waar hulle instinktief seks
>>> wil he, maar dit deny en deny en deny totdat dit uitbars in die
>>> hande van 'n vaardige PUA (Pick Up Artist).
False. Apparently women with strong "moral" (I assume you actually mean
*religious*) values are among the easiest to seduce, due to all that
"repressed sexuality" where instinctively they want sex, but deny and
deny and deny it until it erupts in the hands of a competent PUA.
>>
>> ek stem nie saam nie.
I don't agree.
>
>Jy hoef nie, Pollyanna.
You don't have to, Pollyanna.
>> (morele waardes kom noodwendig van godsdienste af, maar dis n debat
>> op sy eie)
(moral values necessarily derive from religions, but that's a separate
debate)
>
>Nee, nie noodwendig nie.
No, not necessarily
>
>http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/morality_play.htm
>> net omdat sekere vrouens wat voorkom dat hulle sterk morele waardes
>> toegee kan mens nie die reel maak nie. ek bedoel, dink daaraan. dit
>> is die beste "brag" om te se dat jy n regte "morele" vrou
>> ge"de-flower" het - almal sal dan respek he vir jou!
Just because certain women who prevent that their strong moral values
cave in, one can't make the rule. I mean, think about it, it's the best
"brag" to say that you "de-flowered" a real "moral" woman - everyone
will then have respect for you!
>
>Regtig? Is dit dan moeiliker om 'n maagd te verlei, wat nog nie die
>harde manier geleer het van kulkunstenaars nie, as een wat so 'n
>ervaring gemaak het? Ek weet nie, miskien weet jy.
Really? Is it easier to seduce a virgin, who hasn't yet learned the
hard way about con artists, than one who's had such an experience? I
dunno, maybe you do.
>> ek dink dis ego wat leuens dryf,
I think it's ego that drives lies,
>
>Leuens word vertel want dit gee die leuenaar 'n voordeel teenoor iemand
>anders.
Lies get told when it gives the liar an advantage over someone else.
>
>Vrou: I only date men who involve themselves in their community.
>
>(some filler conversation)
>
>PUA: When I was volunteering at the fire department, blah blah...
>
>(blah blah, touch, whisper, blah, isolate, touch, kiss, f***)
>
>(next morning)
>
>Vrou: That jerk! He lied to me! Why are all men jerks?!?
>> en ons altwee weet hoe baie ego mans het,
and we both know how much ego men have,
>
>Minder as vrouens.
Less than women.
>> veral as hulle tussen mekaar praat oor hulle "conquests", "ervaring"
>> ens.
especially when the talk amongst each other about their "conquests",
"experience" etc.
>
>Ek hoor nie sulke gepraat nie. Nie in terme van "conquests" nie;
>eerder in terme van "sonde".
I don't hear talk like that. Not in terms of "conquests"; rather in
terms of "sin".
>> ek hoor wat die PUA se, en ek kyk na die realitiet ook.
I hear what the PUA say, and I also look at reality.
>
>Die PUA is *baie* eg. Hulle is 'n (groeiende!) deel van die realiteit.
>Ignore them at your peril. Maar jy sal nie vir my glo nie.
The PUA are *very* real. They are a (growing!) part of reality. Ignore
them at your peril. But you won't believe me.
>>> > die ander is meer tricky want die tweede en derde dates maak dan
>>> > meer saak.
The others are trickier 'cause the 2nd and 3rd dates matter more then.
>>>
>>> "Do not date a woman you're not already f***ing."
>>>
>>> http://www.pickupguide.com/
>>>
>>> Maar jy sal dit ignoreer en se, "Vrouens is nie almal so nie" of
>>> "Dit sal nie op X Y of Z werk nie" of "Maar dit sal jou nie regtig
>>> gelukkig maak nie".
But you'll ignore it and say, "Women aren't all like that" or "It won't
work on X Y or Z" or "But it won't really make you happy".
>>
>> faith and morals aside, glo jy dit?
Faith and morals aside, do you believe it?
>
>Glo ek wat? Ja, ek glo wat hulle se, en ek glo ook dat jy dinge soos
>die pickupguide sal ignoreer as nie-relevant.
Do I believe what? Yes, I believe what they say, and I also believe
that you will ignore things like the pickupguide as non-relevant.
>> dink jy dit gaan werk?
Do you think it'll work?
>
>Ek is seker dit sou, as ek net die balls gehad het om op te hou skuldig
>voel daaroor dat ek ook in die humanity club wil wees.
I'm sure it would, if only I had the balls to stop feeling guilty about
wanting also to be in the humanity club.
>> dit is amper die norm vandag dat as jy iemand date, jy per definisie
>> met hulle slaap - actually is dit amper die geval dat mense eers
>> saamslaap en dan besluit of hulle gaan date.
It's almost the norm today that if you date someone, you sleep with
them, per definition - actually it's almost the case that people first
sleep together and then decide if they will date.
>
>En as jy *nie* daardie moves op 'n vrou maak nie, is daar outomaties
>iets "fout" met jou. Jy't "issues" of is "gay" as jy nie
>vanselfsprekend aan haar vat en gryp nie. (Ek bedoel "harmless"
>gevattery - vat aan haar hand, streel haar skouer, ens.)
And if you *don't* make those moves on a woman, there's automatically
something "wrong" with you. You have "issues" or are "gay" if you don't
aggressively [bad xlation] touch and grab her. (I mean "harmless"
touching - touch her hand, stroke her shoulder, etc.)
>> en dan hoef hulle nie eers te date nie, net n casual "f**k" wanneer
>> hulle wil.
And then they don't even have to date, just a casual "f**k" whenever
they like.
>
>Tot hulle teen 35-40 wakker skrik en agterkom hulle is 'n leuen
>verkoop.
Until they suddenly awake at 35-40 and realise they've been sold a lie.
>>> > wat vir my gewerk het was: self-confidence,
What worked for me was: self-confidence.
>>>
>>> Definieer "self-confidence".
>>>
>>> "Self-confidence" is 'n pop-psych self-help-book neologisme met
>>> bykans geen betekenis nie. Jou "self-confidence" is my
>>> "self-delusion" en iemand anders se "sense of entitlement".
"Self-confidence" is a pop-psych sel-help-book neologism with next to no
meaning. Your "self-confidence" is my "self-delusion" and someone
else's "sense of entitlement".
>>>
>>> Confidence moet gegrond wees op 'n *daadwerklike* kundigheid, anders
>>> is dit net delusional narcissism.
Confidence must be based on an *actual* competence, otherwise it's jsut
delusional narcissism.
>>
>> duh! ek het nie een keer selfs ge-impliseer dat dit n delusion moet
>> wees, of op een gebasseer moet word nie.
Duh! I didn't even once imply that it must be a delusion, or based on
one.
>
>Presies! M.a.w. jy kan nie net "kies" om "confident" te wees nie.
>Confidence kom van 'n verwagting, gegrond op *ervaring* (nie jou
>verbeelding nie), dat dinge in 'n bepaalde gebied goed sal gaan.
Exactly! IOW you can't just "choose" to be "confident". Confidence
comes from an expectation, based on *experience* (not your imagination),
that things in a particular area will go well.
>> vrouens het die knack om te sien of jy dit fake of nie,
Women have the knack to see if you're faking it or not.
>
>Hulle sal dit net agterkom as jy 'n hopeless newbie is. En miskien nie
>eers dan nie, as hulle eerder wil glo dat dit eg is.
They'll realise it if you're a hopeless newbie. And maybe not even
then, if they'd rather believe that it's right.
>
>Wat dan van die ander pop-psych raad, "Fake it until you make it"?
What then of the other pop-psych advice, "Fake it until you make it"?
>> en al fake jy dit maar het steeds n ma'se ego kan hulle nog vir jou
>> val.
And even if you fake it but still have a ginormous ego they can still
fall for you.
>
>Ja, self-delusion is 'n meganisme om effektief te "deceive".
Yes, self-delusion is a mechanism to deceive effectively.
>
>http://www.a3.com/myself/ravenpap.htm
>> so ver as definisies, wel ek sleg daarmee. vir my, wel ek het admit
>> wie ek is, waarvan ek hou, waarin ek naturally goed is. ek het tyd
>> tussen meisies spandeer om te sien wat n mens moet doen en se wat
>> hulle laat relax, en nie irriteer nie.
As far as definitions go, well I'm bad at that. For me, well I admitted
who I am, what I like, what I'm naturally good at. I spent time amongst
girls to see what one must do and say that lets them relax, and not
irritate them.
>
>Dit is nie 'n algemene "self-confidence" nie (ek glo nie dat die woord
>ongekwalifiseerd nuttig is nie), maar confidence in:
> - jou self-kennis
> - jou vermoens in dinge waarin jy goed is
> - jou vermoe om te sosialiseer met meisies
>*Spesifieke* dinge om in "confident" te wees.
That isn't a general "self-confidence" (I don't believe the word us
useful without qualification), but confidence in:
- your self-knowledge
- your abilities in things you're good at
- your ability to socialise with girls
*Specific* things in which to be "confident".
>> met oa die inligting was dit moontlik om vrouens te approach met
>> genoegsame selfvertroue om nie n #ss van myself te maak nie, en ook n
>> conversation te voer.
With o.a. the information it was possible to approach women with enough
self-confidence to not make an #ss of myself, and to have a
conversation.
>
>Nee, nie "selfvertroue" nie, maar 'n vertroue *in jou vermoe om vrouens
>te approach*. Jy val omtrent uitmekaar uit as jy jou geloof probeer
>verduidelik; ek neem aan jy is, bv. daarin, nie so confident nie.
No, not "self-confidence", but a confidence *in your ability to approach
women*. You just about fall apart when you try to explain your faith; I
assume that you are, eg in that, not so confident.
>
>Al wat ek se is dat "confidence" nie 'n monolitiese, homogene, enkele
>ding is nie.
All I'm saying is that "confidence" isn't a monolithic, homogenous,
single thing.
>> nog n ding is dans. ek het van die staanspoor geweet dat vrouens
>> daarvan hou om te dans.
Another thing is dancing. From the start I knew that women like to
dance.
>
>Ja. Vrouens gaan mal oor dans. Onthou jy die spraak by die
>Stadtmission van daardie sexologist wat basies gese het dat meisies
>hulleself afkry ("getting off") wanneer hulle dans?
Yes, women go crazy about dancing. Remember that talk at the
Stadtmission by that sexologist who basically said that girls get
themselves off when they dance?
>
>Boonop, is dans moontlik 'n deel van 'n evolved mating dance, waar
>vrouens wil sien hoe mans dans, want dans is 'n skadelose surrogaat vir
>fisiese gevegte - dit verg dieselfde vermoens soos 'n geveg: hand-oog
>koordinasie, voorspelling van die ruimtelike rangskikking van bewegende
>voorwerpe, en spierkrag.
On top of that, dancing is possibly part of an evolved mating dance,
where women want to see how men dance, because dance is a harmless
surrogate for physical fights - it requires the same capabilities as a
fight: hand-eye coordination, prediction of the spatial arrangement of
moving objects, and strength.
>> daar is ook ander voordele daaran as man - mens kan "slow" met girls
>> en nice up and personal kom, en die musiek tot jou voordeel gebruik.
There are also other advantages if man [xlation failure] - one can
"slow" with girls and get up nice and personal, and use the music to
your advantage.
>
>Grinding on the floor, eh?
>> toe ek begin dans het was dit vir die fun, nie om vrouens op te tel
>> nie.
When I started to dance is was just for the fun, not to pick up women.
>
>Just keep telling yourself that. :)
>> maar ek het onmiddelik die potensiaal gesien. glo my of nie, my
>> dansinstrukteur het my die ander dag gese ek kon enige van die
>> meisies by die dansskool gekry het, en as ek en buddygrilf uitmaak
>> sal dit nog die geval wees. maw know what impresses and impress.
But I immediately saw the potential. Believe me or not, my dance
instructor/ess told me the other day I could get any of the girls in the
dance school, and if Buddygrilf and I broke up that will still be the
case. IOW know what impresses and impress.
>
>Ek glo dit, en dit verbaas my nie, nou dat ek vrouens uitgefigure het.
I believe it, and it doesn't surprise me, now that I've figured women
out.
>
>(Doelbewus arrogant en all-knowing gestel. :)
(Deliberately stated arrogantly and all-knowingly. :)
>>> > good appearance,
>>>
>>> Jy kan nie jou "looks" kies nie. Maar ja, jy werk met wat jy het.
You can't choose your "looks". But yes, you work with what you have.
>>
>> ja jy kan kies.
Yes you can choose.
>
>Nee, jy kan nie kies of jou neus lank of kort is, jou gelaat
>onsimmetries is, jou tande dwars of reguit staan nie.
No, you can't choose if your nose is long or short, your face
unsymmetrical, your teeth standing skew or straight.
>> haarstyl, velsorg, skeer, etc. help alle mans. appearance sluit
>> kleredrag in,
Hair style, skin care, shaving, etc. help all men. Appearance includes
clothes,
>
>"Werk met wat jy het."
"Work with what you have."
>> sowel as body language bv hoe jy staan, loop, jou dra.
As wel as body language eg. how you stand, walk, carry yourself.
>
>Al ooit gehoor van dyssemia, terloops?
Ever heard of dyssemia, BTW?
>> al my meisies het my gese een van die goed wat hulle aangetrek het
>> tot my was my postuur, kleredrag, en netjiese voorkoms.
All my grilfs told me one of the things that attracted them to me was my
posture, clothes, and neat appearance.
>
>Wanneer Buddy in 'n kamer instap, is die eerste ding wat mense sien sy
>bors. Wanner Bernd instap, daarinteen, is dit die fingers soos hy
>inkruip. Dan die kop, soos hy sekermaak daar is nie 'n leeuperd binne
>nie.
When Buddy walks into a room, the first thing people see is his chest.
When Bernd walk in, in contrast, it's the fingers as he creeps in. Then
the head, as he makes sure there isn't a leopard inside.
>>> > nice deodorant,
>>>
>>> Blykbaar is dit nog 'n snaakse een: alhoewel vrouens *bewustelik* se
>>> hulle hou van 'n goeie deodorant en *bewustelik* gewalg word deur
>>> die reuk van sweet, word hulle fannies eerder nat wanneer hulle die
>>> vars sweet van 'n dominante man ruik. As jy wil sal ek 'n reference
>>> soek.
Apparently another funny one: although women *consciously* say the like
a nice deodorant and are *consciously* put off [ECC] by the smell of
sweat, their fannies rather get wet when they smell the fresh sweat of a
dominant man. If you like I'll look for a reference.
>>
>> moenie worry oor die reference nie. BO sit hulle meer af as aan.
>> voordat hulle "f***y" kans gaan kry daarvoor se hulle brein: die ou
>> bad nie, hy sorg nie vir homself nie, hy is n cheapo want hy spandeer
>> nie aan selfs net deodarant nie...
Don't worry about the reference. BO put them off more than on. Before
their "f***y" gets a chance for it their brain says: the guy doesn't
bath, he doesn't look after himself, he's a cheapo 'cause he doesn't
even shell out for deodorant...
>
>Nee, dis reg wat jy se. Ek het net weer op 'n intellectual tangent
>gegaan. O, en dit is *vars* sweet wat hulle laat malgaan. Nie die
>vrot soort nie. (Ek weet nie hoe lank tel dit as "vars" nie.)
No, it's right what you say. I was on an intellectual tangent again.
Oh, and it's *fresh* sweat that makes them go crazy. Not the off sort.
(I don't know how long it's considered "fresh".)
>>> > sense of humour
>>>
>>> Bly liewer weg daarvan as jy nie goed is daarin nie. Andersins lag
>>> hulle *vir* jou, nie *met* jou nie. Probeer weer wanneer jy die
>>> tegniek gemeester het.
Rather stay away from that if you're not good at it. Otherwise they
laugh *at* you, not *with* you. Try again when you've mastered the
technique.
>>
>> nee. jy leer dit aan. jy gaan foute maak en gaan looks en comments
>> kry, maar dis n "art worthy to master". n goeie humorsin help BAIE.
No, you learn it. You'll make mistakes and get looks and comments, but
it's an "art worthy to master". A good sense of humous help A LOT.
>
>Ja, maar ons weet jy leer deur om te doen, en ek lees hoe om te doen.
>Albei werk, maar myne sal nie vir jou werk nie en vice versa.
Yes, but we know you learn by doing, and I read how to do. Both word,
but mine will not work for you and vice versa.
>
>'n Tekort and grappe is veel beter as slegte grappe.
A lack of jokes is much better than bad jokes.
>>> > (especially if you point out their flaws in a softly humourous
>>> > manner so that they take slight offence).
>>>
>>> Neg hit theory. Sien www.pickupguide.com Die idee is om hulle
>>> self-conscious te maak, en te dink dat jy nie deur hulle mooiheid
>>> geintimideer is nie. M.a.w. 'n uitdaging, so hulle *moet* jou net
>>> he, *nou*, om te bewys dat hulle jou ook in 'n whipped "boyfriend"
>>> kan maak.
Neg hit theory. See www.pickupguide.com The idea is to make them
self-conscious, and to think that you're not intimidated by their
beauty. IOW a challenge, so they just *must* have you, *now*, to prove
that they can make you also into a whipped "boyfriend".
>>
>> dit werk, maar mens moet versigtig wees anders kan dit hulle beledig,
>> of jy kan sit met n headcase op JOU case.
It works, but one must be careful, otherwise it can insult them, or you
can end up with a headcase on YOUR case.
>
>Jy moet dit net doen met 8, 9 en 10 uit 10 HBs (Hot Babes), en ook dan
>nie met die (min) van hulle wat nie *weet* wat hulle score is nie.
>Werk ook met deluded meisies met 'n laer telling.
You must only do it with 8, 9 and 10 out of 10 HBs (Hot Babes), and even
then not with those (few) of them who don't *know* what their score is.
Also works with deluded girls with a lower score.
>>> > One can then also see what kind of girl she is - and how far one
>>> > can get with her.
>>>
>>> Nee - hulle instinkte dryf hulle om hulle ware karakter te verhul.
>>> Die "slegtes" vermom hulleself as "goeies", en doen dit so goed dat
>>> die enigste manier om uit te vind is om dit die harde manier te
>>> leer. Al ooit gehoor van "divorce theft"? Ken jy die skeidings
>>> statistieke? Dink jy enige van daardie mans (ek sonder mans uit
>>> want dit is gewoonlik die vrouens wat 'n skeidingssaak begin, en dit
>>> is nie duidelik omdat vrouens outomaties verhoudingsgewys "superior"
>>> is tot "idiotiese" mans nie) het dit sien kom toe hulle getrou het?
>>> Nee, hulle het *almal* gedink (en jy sal dit eendag ook dink, maar
>>> ek sal hoop jy is reg) hulle het die ware Jakob gevind, 'n regtige
>>> goeie vrou.
No - their instincts drive them to conceal their true character. The
"bad ones" masquerade as "good ones", and do it so well that the only
way to find out is to learn the hard way. Ever heard of "divorce
theft"? Do you know the divorce statistics? Do you think any of those
men (I single men out because it's usually women who initiate divorces,
and it isn't clearly because women are automatically relationship-wise
"superior" to "idiotic" men) saw it coming when they got married? No,
they *all* thought (and one day you will also think it, but I will hope
you're right) they had found the Real Thing, a truly good woman.
>>
>> NEE. mens kan jouself skool deur ervaring om deur dit te sien.
NO, one can school oneself with experience to see through it.
>
>Ervaring == jy beleef dit. Dan is dit te laat.
Experience == it happens to you. Then it's too late.
>
>Ja, mens hoop maar mens is slim genoeg om deur die ervaring van andere
>te leer.
Yes, one hopes one is smart enough to learn from the experience of
others.
>> die egskeiding syfer se baie meer as wat jy hierbo tik.
The divorce numbers say much more that you write above.
>
>Ja? Wat?
>> jy neem aan die man was opsoek na n goeie vrou.
You assume the man was looking for a good woman.
>
>Wys vir my 'n man wat opsoek is na 'n slegte vrou om te trou.
Show me a man who looks for a bad woman to marry.
>> jy neem ook aan dat die mense dieselfde gebly het deur al die jare
>> van hulle verhouding.
You also assume that people stay the same through all the years of their
relationship.
>
>Waar neem ek dit aan?
Where do I assume that?
>> jy neem aan die vrou skei net om die man se geld te vat.
You assume the woman divorces just to take the man's money.
>
>Of om "op te trade" - daar's 'n "beter" man wat hulle ontmoet het.
Or to "trade up" - there's a "better" man they've met.
>> jy neem aan dat mans nie deur die vrouens se "facade" kan sien nie.
You assume that men can't see through the women's "facade".
>
>Nee, ek neem nie aan dat *geen* mans deur die facade kan sien nie.
No, I don't assume that *no* men can see through the facade.
>>> =====
>>>
>>> Eendag skrik jy wakker, jy sien die wereld vir wat dit regtig is, en
>>> jy kan nooit teruggaan nie, en die prentjie is nie mooi nie, veral
>>> as jy kyk na watter rol jy in daardie wereld noodgedwonge moet
>>> speel.
One day you suddenly awake, you see the world for what it is, and you
can never go back, and the picture isn't pretty, especially if you look
at the role you are forced to play.
>>
>> jy skrik so baie wakker ek wonder wanneer jy slaap inkry.
You awake suddenly so often I wonder when you get sleep.
>
>:)
>> wees pessimisties oor die saak en sien hoe jy nie iemand gaan kry
>> nie.
Be pessimistic about the matter and see how you won't get anyone.
>
>Ek het nie enigiemand gekry deur om optimisties te wees nie.
I didn't get anyone by being optimistic.
>> jy mag dalk sien wat die wereld is, maar jy maak jou wereld soos jy
>> dit wil he.
You might see what the world is, but you make your world the way you
want it.
>
>Empty pop-psych feel-good platitude.
>> as jy deel wil wees van die siekheid daar buite, go for it. be your
>> guest.
If you want to be part of the sickness out there, go for it. Be your
guest.
>
>Nee dankie, nog wil ek nie.
No thanks, I don't want to yet.
>> ek het ervaar, geleer, seergekry. ek het besluit om sekere dinge te
>> aanvaar en ander nie. ek het besluit om sekere gedragspatrone te
>> verander om iemand te kry, want ek wou iemand in my lewe gehad het.
I experienced, learned, hurt. I decided to accept certain things and
not others. I decided to change certain behaviours to get someone,
because I wanted someone in my life.
>
>Mooi so.
Nice.
>> ek het nie ophou probeer nie,
I didn't stop trying.
>
>Nog 'n condescending veralgemening wat baie mense maak: ek is nie
>suksesvol nie, therefore het ek opgehou probeer, of nooit begin probeer
>nie, of enigiets wat my dismiss en invalidate as net 'n whiner loser.
Another condescending generalization that many people make: I am not
successful, therefore I stopped trying, or never started trying, or
anything that dismisses and invalidates me as just a whiner loser.
>> en iemand gerky waarvaan ek hou, en wat van my hou.
And got someone whom I like, and who likes me.
>
>Mooi so.
Nice.
>> ons het albei n lys gehad waaraan ons "mate" moet voldoen, en dit
>> albei gekry. gebruik my storie as deel van jou statistiek, of gooi
>> dit weg - dis jou keuse. jy kies watter rol jy in die wereld speel.
>> niemand anders nie.
We both had a list which our "mate" has to satisfy, and we both got it.
Use my storie as part of your statistic, or throw it away - it's your
choice. You choose what role you play in the world. Nobody else.
>>
>> as die wereld jou rol gaan kies, kry ek jou jammer en verseker ek jou
>> van n onsuksesvolle, pynvolle en depressing lewe vorentoe.
If the world is going to choose your role, I pity you and assure you of
an unsuccessful, painful and depressing life ahead.
>
>Sien? Daar probeer jy nou net vir my 'n rol kies.
See? There you try to choose a role for me.
>
>"Bernd is ongelukkig omdat hy nog nooit eers aan 'n meisie gevat het
>waarvan hy hou nie" => "Bernd is of gaan wees 'n pathetic loser".
"Bernd is unhappy because he's never even touched a girl he liked" =>
"Bernd is or will be a pathetic loser".
>
>Ek is quite happy met my werk, my finansies, en 'n paar ander dinge.
>Maar ja, ek is ongelukkig oor my gebrek aan vroulike affection. En
>goed so, anders is daar geen motivering om iets daaraan te doen nie.
I'm quite happy with my work, my finances, and a few other things. But
yes, I'm unhappy over my lack of female affection. And a good thing
too, otherwise there's no motivation to do anything about it.
==========================
Buddy wrote:
>btw, die hele storie van my was nie as advice bedoel nie. my advice
>werk noodwendig vir my, want die bewys is die meisies wat ek al gehad
>het, en het. natuurlik gaan my advice gepaard met my persoonlikheid,
>want dit gekombineerd met my aksies het die huidige resultate gebring.
>so wat ek seker in n langdradige manier probeer se is dat jou
>persoonlikheid + sekere taktiek + sekere aksies = sukses, fill in your
>own idea by sukses.
BTW, the whole story wasn't meant as advice. My advice necessarily
works for me, because the proof is the grilfs that I've already had, and
have. Naturally my advice goes with my personality, 'cause combined
with my actions it brought the present results. So what I'm trying to
say in circumlocutions, is that your personality + certain tactics +
certain actions = success, fill in your own idea at success.
>
>ek dink aksies en persoonlikheid beinvloed mekaar. inteendeel,
>persoonlikheid beinvloed aksie meer as die teendeel. taktiek word
>bepaal deur kennis (ander mense s'n deur hoorse, boeke, watookal en eie
>deur ervaring). mens kan jou persoonlikheid in n meerdere of mindere,
>hang van jou eie besluit af, verander om sekere gewenste aksies
>"natuurlik" te laat gebeur. maw die aksies word dan nie fake nie, maar
>is eg. jy besluit of die verandering in persoonlikheid eg of fake is.
>en dit is nie noodwendig veranderinge in jou fundamentele persoon nie,
>maar dalk net n habit wat die gevolg was van n vorige
>persoonlikheidseienskap.
I think actions and personality influence each other. Instead [?],
personality influences actions more than the opposite. Tactics are
determined by knowledge (other people's by hearsay, books, whatever and
own through experience). One can change one's personality to a greater
or lesser degree, depends on your choice, to let certain actions happen
"naturally". IOW the actions then become not fake, but real. You
decide if the change in personality is real or fake. And it's not
necessarily changes in your fundamental person, but maybe just a habit
that's the result of a previous personality trait.
>
>so die idee is natuurlik om na die antwoord te kyk (maw die gewenste
>uitwerking), na die onveranderlikes (maw wat jy nie kan, OF nie wil
>verander nie) te kyk, en dan die veranderlikes te manipuleer op n
>manier om dan die gewenste resultaat te kry (ek bedoel hier nie
>manipuleer in die negatiewe sin nie). so, bv mens kan meer confidence
>he in watter ookal karaktereienskap wat jy het, of vermoe wat jy het en
>as mens daarop fokus sal dit amper eminate van jou soos n straal van
>een of ander lig (in die metaforiese sin). vrouens (en ek bedoel almal)
>voel aangetrokke tot n man wat die confidence uitstraal, of dit nou
>baseer is op iets egs of n leuen. ek verkies natuurlik dat dit baseer
>is op iets egs, omdat my objective is om die vrou te kry en te hou, en
>frankly vat dit te veel energie om n valsheid of leuen te lewe.
So the idea is naturally to look for the answer (IOW the desired
outcome), at the constants (IOW what you can't OR won't change), and
then to manipulate the variables in a manner to get the desired result
(disclaimer about "manipulate"). So, eg one can have more confidence is
whatever character trait that you have, or ability that you have and if
you focus on it it will almost emanate from jou like a beam from some
light (in the metaphoric sense). WOman (and I mean all) feel attracted
to a man who beams out the confidence, whether it's based on something
real or fake if the change in personality is real or a lie. Of course I
prefer that it's based on something real, because my objective is to get
the woman and keep her, and frankly it takes too much energy to live a
lie.
>
>so ja, mens kan vrouens analiseer tot jy blou is, soos wat baie mense
>doen (insluitende wat ek al gedoen het, en jy weet dit). elkeen is
>anders, maar is dieselfde. almal soek n kombinasie van eienskappe in n
>man, dieselfde eienskappe maar net in verskillende proporsies. daar is
>bewys dat vrouens na hulle pa kyk as verwysing, en die teendeel - mens
>kan met dit werk om n strategie te bepaal (ek hoop nie ek is helemal
>dieselfde as buddygrilf se pan nie, dis net scary!) :)
So yes, one can analyse women till you're blue in the face, like many
people do (including what I've done, and you know it [really?]). Each
one is different, but is the same. All of them look for a combination
of characteristics in a man, the same characteristics but just in
different proportions. There's proof that women look at their father
for reference, and the opposite - one can work with it to determine a
strategy (I hope I'm not completely the same as Buddygrilf's dad, that's
just scary!) :)
>
>hoe jonger, ja, kyk hulle min of meer na dieselfde ding. hoe ouer, ja,
>maak dit amper nie meer saak nie. maar in die ouderdomsgroep waarin ons
>rondshop is hulle meer kieskeurig, en ons ook. so as die girls wil
>hardegat speel, moet ons hulle daarvan bewus maak dat in 10 jaar die
>tafels gedraai gaan wees (!) of ons kan hulle convince dat hulle ons
>wil he. en die laasgenoemde kan gedoen word deur oa te maak asof jy
>iemand anders is, en dus wie hulle wil he, of hulle te verlei om te
>dink dat hulle vir jou wil he.
The younger, yes, they look more or less for the same thing. The older,
yes, it almost doesn't matter anymore. But in the age group in which we
shop around they are more choosy, and we are too. So if the girls want
to play tough, then we must make them aware that in 10 years the tables
will be turned (!) or we can convince them that they want us. And the
latter can be done by a.o. pretending to be someone else, and therefore
who they want, or by seducing them to make them think they want you.
>
>ek dink nie jy is loser nie, en het nog nooit nie. ek dink ook nie jy
>gaan een wees nie. ek is vol vertroue in jou en jou vermoens om n girl
>te kry. ek weet jy is gefrustreerd, en kan net se dat ek weet hoe jy
>voel. ek kan ook se dat nie al die girls daar buite is soos ons
>hieronder discuss het nie - ja ek weet jy weet dit en sal seker iets se
>soos "waar is hulle?" of "almal gevat" of waatookal. maar approach dit
>soos n oudit - as jou proefsteek (geen innuendo!) nie suksesvol is nie,
>vat n ander, en dalk n groter een en toets jou teoriee, approach, ens.
I don't think you're a loser, and never have. I also think you won't be
one. I am confident in you and your abilities to get a girl. I know
you're frustrated, and can only say that I know how you feel. I can
also say that not all the girls out there are like we discussed below
[above] - yes I know you know that and will surely say something like
"Where are they?" or "All taken" or whatever. But approach it like an
audit - if your trial poke (no innuendo!) isn't successful, take another
one, and maybe a bigger one and test your theories, approach, etc.
>
>onthou, hoe meer mense om jou is - of nee, hoe meer vrouens om jou is,
>hoe beter kans het jy om iemand te kry waarvan jy hou en wat van jou
>hou.
Remember, the more people that are around you - or no, the more women
that are around you, the better chance you have to get someone whom you
like and who likes you.
>
>o ja, en nice guys get somewhere - hulle kom in die posisie om te
>besluit of hulle die meisie wil he of nie, maar ons praat later oor
>daai een.
Oh yes, and nice guys get somewhere - they get in the position to decide
if they want the girls or not, but we'll talk later about that one.
- --
http://voyager.abite.co.za/~berndj/ (f1084a555d2098411cff4cefd41d2e2a1c85d18c)
bernd's stupid blog: http://voyager.abite.co.za/~berndj/blog.php
Bread crumb trail: 4e44b94c50b4cedd44124b816bfbac4d63de7ee8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQFAm9u6/FmLrNfLpjMRAqZRAJsEQPVbEO/XFYeTMIaG1gcVRlZkjQCfah3w
s+lL3yvhky+sNlLiDnyBk8w=
=kd8F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----