I've Been Trolled Into Here
Puck
newsgroup I check out, and I must admit that you have me intrigued.
I want to know what makes you guys tick, aside from getting laid, of
course.
I'm female (don't listen to the stories) and I can quite categorically
tell you that honesty, vulnerability even, in a man is a serious turn on.
How do we know it's honesty? Well, some of us won't I guess, not if you
play the long game - but I'd like to think that I can spot a player a
mile off. Perhaps that's a common mistake, but any time I have ended up
in bed with a grade A, lying arsehole without an ounce of the personality
he promised, was when all I wanted was sex and, to be honest, the guy
coulda just asked--no game playing necessary. I'm not loose, I'm not
feeble, I just know what I like and when I like it I go get it.
I've had a quick look about and I'm not sure I can separate the trolls
from the genuine people in here, not from such a short stay. But I can
see young men asking for advice and I think a lot of that which is
offered, sucks.
Tell me why you bother. Is it because you don't have the natural tools
with which to get laid or is it just the game that appeals? I am
honestly intrigued.
--
Don't fear the edge.
Grab my hand and we'll jump together.
Constapro
turns you on specifically. There are always exceptions to the rules, but
we're not trying to pick up the exceptions as they are too scarce. We are
interested in working the statistics. Now I'd like to explain a couple
things that I think you misunderstand.
There is a difference between being a player and a pick up artist. A pick
up artist in no way needs to desire only sex with a woman. It's just that
men want to know how to attract women. Even if you're looking for a
relationship you have to know how to attract women, and most women aren't
forward like you claim to be.
Here's my story. I'm a 25 year old virgin. When I was younger I was very
anti-social and I lack the skills with the opposite sex that many get
comfortable with while they were much younger. As such I'm at a tremendous
disadvantage because the longer I go without learning these skills the more
behind I get. As such, learning to become a pick up artist is about me
gaining the skills that I should have gained naturally when I was younger.
And beyond just becoming adept at it, I have the desire to become excellent
at it.
I think you look at the situation incorrectly. The game exists, whether you
want to believe it does or not, so you either learn to play well, you play
on your own and you suck, or you get so frustrated that you opt to not play
at all. I had chosen the latter of these options up until recently when I
realized that I was sick of living like that and I was determined to do
whatever it took to become sexually confident.
Being a pick up artist does not mean being ingenuine. It's a method of
bettering a part of yourself that is an incredibly important social aspect
that you are neglecting.
Hope that helps.
"Puck" <M...@MischiefCentral.bom> wrote in message
news:Xns977FDD2E5...@130.88.202.229...
Puck
news:WeGdnfmBeesMjZPZ...@adelphia.com:
> I'd like to start off by telling you that nobody in here really cares
> what turns you on specifically.
If I thought you did, I would have told you, specifically. Having many
girlfriends, and the age and experience to back it up, I know what hooks
them. In general.
> There are always exceptions to the
> rules, but we're not trying to pick up the exceptions as they are too
> scarce. We are interested in working the statistics.
So, long term, men don't mind the fact that the girl is simple?
> Now I'd like to
> explain a couple things that I think you misunderstand.
>
> There is a difference between being a player and a pick up artist. A
> pick up artist in no way needs to desire only sex with a woman. It's
> just that men want to know how to attract women.
But I have encountered men who did so without trying. I know this
because they did not fit any movie stereotype you care to mention. They
did nothing but abolish stereotypes, in fact. The advice I have seen
offered here, fits the stereotypical arsehole.
> Even if you're
> looking for a relationship you have to know how to attract women, and
> most women aren't forward like you claim to be.
Not women under 30 perhaps, I'll grant you. It is very much more
difficult for younger men.
> Here's my story. I'm a 25 year old virgin. When I was younger I was
> very anti-social and I lack the skills with the opposite sex that many
> get comfortable with while they were much younger.
I think you all watch far too much TV. Men are historically very bad at
communication. The world over. You have never been all that great at
accurately gauging what a woman wants, even when she tells you, you
manage to fuck it up. Young men are especially vulnerable in the hands
of young, confident women... and the repercussions of that can scar a guy
much less than it might a woman. I think women hold less of a grudge,
but men? Men seem to take it really personally and feel a need to
perfect some kind of retaliation technique. Some call themselves
players, pick-up artists, whatever... it all amounts to having been
fucked over, rejected or neglected by a woman--or at least feeling like
you were.
> As such I'm at a
> tremendous disadvantage because the longer I go without learning these
> skills the more behind I get.
I am a strong, confident woman and I have never, not once, had any
meaningful relationship with a man who called himself very "experienced".
In fact I would almost go so far as to say the experienced guy was
somewhat more frightening than he who wasn't. Despite my outgoing
personality.
> As such, learning to become a pick up
> artist is about me gaining the skills that I should have gained
> naturally when I was younger.
I can understand that in the absence of an older brother, a good friend
or whatever, why you might need that. I get that bit.
> And beyond just becoming adept at it, I
> have the desire to become excellent at it.
So that's more than just attaining a fuck, yes? That's about the thrill
of the chase and the subsequent conquest.
> I think you look at the situation incorrectly. The game exists,
> whether you want to believe it does or not,
I know it exists. I'm not calling you liars.
> so you either learn to
> play well, you play on your own and you suck, or you get so frustrated
> that you opt to not play at all. I had chosen the latter of these
> options up until recently when I realized that I was sick of living
> like that and I was determined to do whatever it took to become
> sexually confident.
Have you really that little chance of finding a woman who could help
without being 'tricked' or 'picked up'? Christ, is there a market for
this advice? Give me your email address and I'll teach you everything I
know. Alternatively, you could pay for a prostitute (I do NOT compare
myself to one, here or anywhere) and use the time to learn by
experience...
> Being a pick up artist does not mean being ingenuine. It's a method
> of bettering a part of yourself that is an incredibly important social
> aspect that you are neglecting.
So you would admit that you had gone through this process if you found a
woman you really fell for?
> Hope that helps.
It goes a long way to gaining some understanding, Constapro, yes.
Thanks.
Kurent
girlfriend (for about a year and a half) and, thinking that I did
everything right, things went to hell. For some reason, she broke up
with me.
I'm learning what makes women (especially beautiful women) tick. I
mean, I FUCKING HAD A GIRLFRIEND FOR A YEAR AND A HALF AND AM STILL A
VIRGIN!!!! (I'm only 17)
Really, each and every guy is here for his own personal reasons.
Usually, there is some kind of larger issue that makes the guy need to
fill a seemingly unfillable void in his soul with as much women as
possible. I know (of) people who had issues with parents when they
were children (Mystery). People whose girlfirends broke up with them
and consider this part of recovery (myself) and people who no matter
what they do, just cannot seem to get anything from girls, save LJBF.
If you are wondering what makes people like us tick, talk to each of
us. There is always a reason behind someone's actions whether it is
concious or subconcious. No matter what you do, find out about someone
before you judge personality, otherwise you seem not only shallow but
ignorant as well.
~Kurent
Dane
"Puck" <M...@MischiefCentral.bom> wrote in message
news:Xns977FDD2E5...@130.88.202.229...
> newsgroup I check out, and I must admit that you have me intrigued.
I came here from misc.legal to enjoy the Parker war. :)
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Odious
"Puck" <M...@MischiefCentral.bom> wrote in message
news:Xns977FDD2E5...@130.88.202.229...
> newsgroup I check out, and I must admit that you have me intrigued.
>
> I want to know what makes you guys tick, aside from getting laid, of
> course.
>
> I'm female (don't listen to the stories) and I can quite categorically
> tell you that honesty, vulnerability even, in a man is a serious turn on.
>
Yeah and I can tell you that dog crap tastes like gumdrops... doesn't make
it true.
> How do we know it's honesty? Well, some of us won't I guess, not if you
> play the long game - but I'd like to think that I can spot a player a
> mile off. Perhaps that's a common mistake, but any time I have ended up
> in bed with a grade A, lying arsehole without an ounce of the personality
> he promised, was when all I wanted was sex and, to be honest, the guy
> coulda just asked--no game playing necessary. I'm not loose, I'm not
> feeble, I just know what I like and when I like it I go get it.
>
> I've had a quick look about and I'm not sure I can separate the trolls
> from the genuine people in here, not from such a short stay. But I can
> see young men asking for advice and I think a lot of that which is
> offered, sucks.
>
Care to give an example?
> Tell me why you bother. Is it because you don't have the natural tools
> with which to get laid or is it just the game that appeals? I am
> honestly intrigued.
>
Why bother to learn any skill???
corky
"Puck" <M...@MischiefCentral.bom> wrote in message
news:Xns977FDD2E5...@130.88.202.229...
> newsgroup I check out, and I must admit that you have me intrigued.
>
> I want to know what makes you guys tick, aside from getting laid, of
> course.
I don't date to get laid. I date to be with her. I date to see her world and
understand her life. Sometimes, I twirl her and sing Dancing Queen or Do You
Think I'm Sexy. Women are so much more sexual than men. I just want to be
with women; to be a part of her world.
My most rewarding moments are when I win over pretty women in front of guys
that look better than me. I LOVE to get a girl laughing at the gym in front
of muscle guys. They just stare as I have a hot women talking and laughing.
Their giant biceps are no help, really.
> I'm female (don't listen to the stories) and I can quite categorically
> tell you that honesty, vulnerability even, in a man is a serious turn on.
Many women are dying for this. If I date a divorced woman, I talk about
feelings and open up. Most of the women that are divorced are sick of the
man that could not feed her mind and emotions. This is perilous territory
and there is a difference between opening up and crying like a wimp.
>
> How do we know it's honesty? Well, some of us won't I guess, not if you
> play the long game - but I'd like to think that I can spot a player a
> mile off. Perhaps that's a common mistake, but any time I have ended up
> in bed with a grade A, lying arsehole without an ounce of the personality
> he promised, was when all I wanted was sex and, to be honest, the guy
> coulda just asked--no game playing necessary. I'm not loose, I'm not
> feeble, I just know what I like and when I like it I go get it.
>
> I've had a quick look about and I'm not sure I can separate the trolls
> from the genuine people in here, not from such a short stay. But I can
> see young men asking for advice and I think a lot of that which is
> offered, sucks.
Most of the advice offered here is off the cuff stuff from all sorts. That
real stuff is posted in the moderated forums and faq's.
No offense, but most women don't understand PUA techniques. What looks bad
to you, may sell like mad in practice.
>
> Tell me why you bother. Is it because you don't have the natural tools
> with which to get laid or is it just the game that appeals? I am
> honestly intrigued.
Most guys have virtually no skills to get laid. Getting a little scientific
is not a bad thing. The most important psychological part of being an adult
is intimacy. Why not study it a little?
Zea
>newsgroup I check out, and I must admit that you have me intrigued.
>I want to know what makes you guys tick, aside from getting laid, of
>course.
>I'm female (don't listen to the stories) and I can quite categorically
>tell you that honesty, vulnerability even, in a man is a serious turn on.
Acctualy many of the supposed guru's I've seen have advocated this. My
own personal 'routines' and the such are true stories from my life.
>How do we know it's honesty? Well, some of us won't I guess, not if you
>play the long game - but I'd like to think that I can spot a player a
>mile off. Perhaps that's a common mistake, but any time I have ended up
>in bed with a grade A, lying arsehole without an ounce of the personality
>he promised, was when all I wanted was sex and, to be honest, the guy
>coulda just asked--no game playing necessary. I'm not loose, I'm not
>feeble, I just know what I like and when I like it I go get it.
Ok, we from a young age, are taught that women don't like sex, which
you know as much as I do is utterly false. And you can spot a player,
I highly doubt that. I don't exactly, look like the 'player' type.
>I've had a quick look about and I'm not sure I can separate the trolls
>from the genuine people in here, not from such a short stay. But I can
>see young men asking for advice and I think a lot of that which is
>offered, sucks.
You must understand that, what you subconsiously want, and what you
acctualy want are do diffrent things. As a wise man once said,
"Attraction is not a choice." See, the way things work is logical we
all know things that we should or should not do. Like I know i
shouldn't smoke, but I still do. It's not a logical thing. Attraction
works much in the same way.
>Tell me why you bother. Is it because you don't have the natural tools
>with which to get laid or is it just the game that appeals? I am
>honestly intrigued.
Well, I personaly stumbled on this group by complete accident. I found
it to be interesting, I then decided to research this stuff to find out
why what I do works somethimes with girls I wasn't particularly
attractive, and why I'd scare off the ones I liked. Upon learning
more, I found this to be a way of self improvement. It never hurts to
improve yourself. If you'd like a more indepth version let me know.
~~
Zea
corky
> Ok, we from a young age, are taught that women don't like sex, which
> you know as much as I do is utterly false. And you can spot a player,
> I highly doubt that. I don't exactly, look like the 'player' type.
>
So true, but women are also taught not to look like sluts. The truth is
buried under tons of societal programming. So sad.
For the most part, heterosexual women yell that they don't want sex in one
way or another.
If you look on craigs list, gay people - men and women put naked pics in the
personals. Gays know what they want and are not shy about it.
Heterosexuals - men and women - are used to being so weird about what they
want. I'm glad I have learned hot to cut through that crap and see the lies.
RayGordon
There is nothing in your little speech there that ANY man couldn't
recite, and thus "attract" her by knowing, or saying.
Once most men have "game," then factors such as height, money, and
status become dominant once again.
Krus T. Olfard
130.88.202.229:
>
>> There are always exceptions to the
>> rules, but we're not trying to pick up the exceptions as they are too
>> scarce. We are interested in working the statistics.
>
> So, long term, men don't mind the fact that the girl is simple?
>
>
The above quote is an example of why you will probably not find many
people in here willing to have a serious debate or even discussion with
you.
--
Krustavus Teofilus Olfard
------------------
Everything I post is my opinion. If you don't like my opinions then
killfile me, if you have the balls.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
Twistedsapient
with a prospective suitor. Just think about all the subconcious
bodylanguage you girls chuck out without realising. Also look at all
the help articles in womens mags like "how to snare your man" etc etc
and then look at mens magazines.
There is a void in knowledge for us lads when it comes to tecniques and
the right and wrong way to deal with women. Asking for help is seen as
weak (sterotypically) and we are caused to stumble on regardless,
consistantly getting our egos knocked and ending up fruitless.
Read a book by Neil Strauss called "the game" and it will give you a
great insight into whats going on here and in many other places. If
anything it will be at least a great read.
Some people here want to snare the one, some people want to just get
their confidence up and some of us want to just want to improve what we
have already learnt naturally.
Essentially it is giving men the skills (if done correctly) to let go
of their fears to do with women and just get out there and do it. Yeah
I will agree there is alot of shit on this forum which really wont
work. This forum is a bad example of what happens when us lads get
together to discuss women etc. Trust me this shit works. I really
wouldn't be suprised if you hadn't been snared a couple of times by
some of the tecniques yourself! If you encounter someone who is
actually any good at this in real life, you wouldn't suspect a thing.
Enjoy the ride!
Zea
>recite, and thus "attract" her by knowing, or saying.
Aww, Ray, thats cute. But you do know the diffrence between just
saying something, and really and truly living what you say. And see
we're not talking about any man here. We're talking about me,
specifically. My hopes, my dreams my desires. Why did I want to get
good with women? Originally, it was so that I would have more of a
choice, but it has evolved to so much more than that. It HAS become a
way for me to self improve. From actually caring about the way I
dress, to becoming a more confident person, to loosing the fear of
meeting new people. It is, at least for me, become a way of self
improvment. You can recognize this, right? Good, I thought you could.
>Once most men have "game," then factors such as height, money, and
>status become dominant once again.
And when will this be? A year from now? 5 years from now? 10? Or even
possibly, 6 months ago, perhaps?
~~
Zea
PS
Most guys won't even take the time to fix the blinking light on a VCR
what makes you think they have the patience to learn this shit. Most
guys I know, who have inadvertenly stumbled onto this try a canned line
or two, with both body lanuage and tonality thats completely
miscalibrated, and are blown out. They then go this stuff is full of
shit, and give up. Have a nice day, Gordon.
Alex
at r...@cybersheet.com wrote on 3/8/06 4:07 AM:
> Once most men have "game," then factors such as height, money, and
> status become dominant once again.
Gordon continues to spew this line of crap like it's imminent.
Most men will NEVER have game.
johnebravo836
Puck wrote:
> Some posts from your newsgroup were recently cross posted back into a
> newsgroup I check out, and I must admit that you have me intrigued.
>
> I want to know what makes you guys tick, aside from getting laid, of
> course.
>
> I'm female (don't listen to the stories) and I can quite categorically
> tell you that honesty, vulnerability even, in a man is a serious turn on.
You should try to keep in mind two points:
(1) Most women don't know consciously what really attracts them to a
particular man. In fact, it would be unreasonable to expect them to,
since it is, by it's very nature, unconscious. Therefore, what you or
any other woman says turns her on and what in fact actually turns her on
may be two very different things. Consequently, statements like this one
about honesty and vulnerability are going to be, at best, taken with a
grain of salt by men whose experience has proven to them otherwise.
(2) The advice given in this group is intended for use with women who
are very attractive. Women who are very attractive get treated very
differently by men (and by other women, too) than average looking women,
and what interests and attracts them is not exactly the same as what
appeals to average women. So whatever may or may not be true about what
appeals to average women is irrelevant.
As to the content of your remark: It may very well be that a noticable,
occasional glimmer of vulnerability in a man who otherwise usually
appears relatively invulnerable might be a "serious turn on". But a guy
who is a pile of open vulnerabilities which he wears on his sleeve is
never, ever going to get anywhere with very attractive women.
"Nice guys finish last." -- Leo Durocher
Durocher wasn't talkin' only about baseball.
> How do we know it's honesty? Well, some of us won't I guess, not if you
> play the long game - but I'd like to think that I can spot a player a
> mile off.
I'll bet that most wealthy men would like to think that they can spot a
gold digger a mile off too. ;) Would you think most of them probably
can, or are they just flattering themselves?
> Perhaps that's a common mistake, but any time I have ended up
> in bed with a grade A, lying arsehole without an ounce of the personality
> he promised, was when all I wanted was sex and, to be honest, the guy
> coulda just asked--no game playing necessary. I'm not loose, I'm not
> feeble, I just know what I like and when I like it I go get it.
Good for you -- however, most women will not be anywhere near as
assertive as that. The more attractive the woman, the less likely she is
to see things that way. (It's not at all impossible, just increasingly
unlikely.)
> I've had a quick look about and I'm not sure I can separate the trolls
> from the genuine people in here, not from such a short stay. But I can
> see young men asking for advice and I think a lot of that which is
> offered, sucks.
Feel free to chime in with your own suggestions if you like, but be
prepared for the likelihood that your advice is not going to be taken
particularly seriously.
> Tell me why you bother.
So that we can attract the women that interest us, and so that we get
what we want out of our relationships with those women. I would think
that any sensible woman would want no less out of her own life.
Odious
"Zea" <Zea...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141788506.2...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >Some posts from your newsgroup were recently cross posted back into a
>>newsgroup I check out, and I must admit that you have me intrigued.
>>I want to know what makes you guys tick, aside from getting laid, of
>>course.
>>I'm female (don't listen to the stories) and I can quite categorically
>>tell you that honesty, vulnerability even, in a man is a serious turn on.
>
> Acctualy many of the supposed guru's I've seen have advocated this. My
> own personal 'routines' and the such are true stories from my life.
>
Well many advocate honesty, simply because it is easier than lying...
however the vunerability thing is not something I'd recomend.
>>How do we know it's honesty? Well, some of us won't I guess, not if you
>>play the long game - but I'd like to think that I can spot a player a
>>mile off. Perhaps that's a common mistake, but any time I have ended up
>>in bed with a grade A, lying arsehole without an ounce of the personality
>>he promised, was when all I wanted was sex and, to be honest, the guy
>>coulda just asked--no game playing necessary. I'm not loose, I'm not
>>feeble, I just know what I like and when I like it I go get it.
>
> Ok, we from a young age, are taught that women don't like sex, which
> you know as much as I do is utterly false. And you can spot a player,
> I highly doubt that. I don't exactly, look like the 'player' type.
>
She can spot them... then she fucks them.
Odious
"RayGordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:1141808876.1...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Wrong... you can't learn these methods, now can you gordo. You can
understand nothing about these methods more complex than the simple canned
one-liners.
> Once most men have "game," then factors such as height, money, and
> status become dominant once again.
And no matter what, you'll still be a netkook loser.
RayGordon
> >recite, and thus "attract" her by knowing, or saying.
>
> Aww, Ray, thats cute. But you do know the diffrence between just
> saying something, and really and truly living what you say.
>And see
> we're not talking about any man here. We're talking about me,
> specifically. My hopes, my dreams my desires. Why did I want to get
> good with women? Originally, it was so that I would have more of a
> choice, but it has evolved to so much more than that. It HAS become a
> way for me to self improve. From actually caring about the way I
> dress, to becoming a more confident person, to loosing the fear of
> meeting new people. It is, at least for me, become a way of self
> improvment. You can recognize this, right? Good, I thought you could.
Too bad this man didn't address my point, which was that his knowledge
of how women behave is nothing that any man can't learn, as are his
actions which are based on that knowledge. Maybe you equate fashion
and kissing up to women with self-improvement, but where would our
country be if our leaders had thought the same way?
> >Once most men have "game," then factors such as height, money, and
> >status become dominant once again.
>
> And when will this be? A year from now? 5 years from now? 10? Or even
> possibly, 6 months ago, perhaps?
It's a process that began not too long ago and which has been
intensifying. It's always been a factor, but the online "lay reports"
don't include that information a lot of the time. You can't even get
the gurus to reveal how much they earn a year (which is relevant to how
women will judge them). Gurus can use pickup lines like this:
"AFCs pay my rent."
"We have a lot in common: we both make money off of desperate rich
guys." (great for strippers)
"I teach men how to game women like you."
"Your man got his game from my website"
etc. etc. etc. The gurus' game is usually dependent on his being paid
by a bunch of sucker AFCs.
You also overlook one thing: the methods may still work for you, but
new methods based on the mainstream exposure may work even better, with
less effort.
> Zea
>
> PS
> Most guys won't even take the time to fix the blinking light on a VCR
> what makes you think they have the patience to learn this shit.
The guy who wrote the book on card-counting at blackjack thought the
same thing: a few people would cash in, but the casinos would never
catch on.
Andy Beyer thought the same thing with his speed-figure method at the
horses. He said "I thought only a few zealots would care" etc. He
admitted he was wrong, and that he underestimated human greed. A lot
more is at stake when it comes to getting laid than with getting a VCR
programmed.
>Most
> guys I know, who have inadvertenly stumbled onto this try a canned line
> or two, with both body lanuage and tonality thats completely
> miscalibrated, and are blown out. They then go this stuff is full of
> shit, and give up.
They don't "give up" at all. They still know the answer is out there,
even if it might take one or two more confirmations. The usual
progression is disbelief followed by confirmation, usually with one
more episode with a hottie in between.
The way PUAs run like hell at the notion of someone cluing their women
in on what's going down (unless the women are in on the profits) also
speaks for itself, as do the number of men who flat-out LIE about their
involvement in the "community" if the topic comes up in conversation.
Between her male relatives and AFC friends, more and more men can also
clue her in as to what is going on.
As for the men who can't make all this supposedly wonderful free
information work, perhaps the information isn't as wonderful as those
who promote it would like to believe. Usually these men hear that when
stuff doesn't work, it's because they aren't "cool guys" or don't have
looks, money or status, which is a further agreement with what I
originally said in this thread.
Twistedsapient
I believe in!!!
Who cares I'm gonna go out and get laid anyway! Want a wing man gord? I
might actually be able to get you laid?
Fuck me! Now thats a challenge! Anyone who can get gord with a woman,
no wait a minute screw a woman without any bribery or money exchanging
hands wins a prize!!!!! Not to sure what yet though!
What do you reckon gord? It's a massive challenge we have got to make
it worth their while!
Oh yeah if you decide to enter the competition and fail, you will be
sued (unsuccesfully!!!)!!!
Ha ha ha! I crack myself up sometimes!
corky
> How do we know it's honesty? Well, some of us won't I guess, not if you
> play the long game - but I'd like to think that I can spot a player a
> mile off. Perhaps that's a common mistake, but any time I have ended up
> in bed with a grade A, lying arsehole without an ounce of the personality
> he promised, was when all I wanted was sex and, to be honest, the guy
> coulda just asked--no game playing necessary. I'm not loose, I'm not
> feeble, I just know what I like and when I like it I go get it.
The first thing you need to do is start being honest with yourself. This
paragraph is full of self-deception.
How do we know honesty? We don't. Our gut is often wrong about people. I
think the real question is not who is telling the truth but who we care
about most.
Spot a player a mile off? We all like to think we have such insight.
I have a suggestion. Next time you want a good fuck, go find a nice quiet
guy and proposition him. I mean this. Go out and look for that quiet guy(the
honest guy ... the nice guy) and ask if he would like to go fuck.
This reminds me of a book review of The Game by a feminist. Even after
reading that book said something like "I wish a guy would just approach and
ask my name". No games. Women can understand the game about as well as a pig
can understand quantum physics.
On some level, I like all of your lies to yourself. I know that it just
keeps the market open for the players.
Krus T. Olfard
@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> You can't even get
> the gurus to reveal how much they earn a year (which is relevant to how
> women will judge them).
But as far as I can tell, dismissed baybee, YOU are the only person who
makes a claim to being a guru without ever providing verifiable proof
that you even know what you are talking about. The real gurus of
seduction actually learned how to seduce women before trying to teach
other men how to do it for money. YOU seem to be the only person I've
seen who tries to teach men how to seduce women for money WITHOUT EVER
first providing verifiable evidence that you actually know how to do it.
Do you get what I'm saying?
I'm saying that in my opinion you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT WOMEN AND
RELATIONSHIPS AND SEDUCTION.
Hell, you cannot even talk a woman into posing in a photo with your arm
around her. If you can't do that then why in hell would any logical
person believe that you could talk a woman out of her clothes?
Krus T. Olfard
@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>> >There is nothing in your little speech there that ANY man couldn't
I had been going to refute turdboy's points one by one but after reading
the whole spew I can only believe that this is his wet dream that he
desperately tries to make others believe is reality.
ray baybee, this post leaves me with no other choice than to believe that
you are SO FULL OF SHIT THAT YOUR SKIN MUST BE BULGING!
Better start using vitamin e skin lotion to prevent stretch marks.
Zenin
> I'm female (don't listen to the stories) and I can quite categorically
> tell you that honesty, vulnerability even, in a man is a serious turn on.
If she has to pry it out of him tooth and nail, sure. If he instead
offers it up graciously, it's all down the Lets Just Be Friends hill.
> If I thought you did, I would have told you, specifically. Having many
> girlfriends, and the age and experience to back it up, I know what hooks
> them. In general.
So you're a lesbian? I mean that question seriously as there is a
*HUGE* difference between observing and participating. If you haven't
actually pursued women yourself you don't actually have much for
relevant experience. Simply having been pursued and watched friends be
pursued does not give you much real insite on what it's like to be the
pursuer.
> So, long term, men don't mind the fact that the girl is simple?
Please, build your straw men in some other field.
> Men are historically very bad at communication. The world over.
Heh, classic response. :-)
When a man hears something his first reaction is to take it at face
value. When he says something he expect it to be taken at face value.
Men are simple like this. We don't create puzzles with our words, we
generally say what we actually mean and expect no less from the world
around us.
When a woman hears something her first reaction is to read some other
meaning into it...she assumes the speaker doesn't actually mean what
they actually say (Popeye be dammed). When she says something she
expects the listener to pickup the real message that she doesn't
actually put into her words.
Both sides suffer from a basic human condition that we all instinctively
expect everyone else to think just like we do. At a gut level we just
don't comprehend the idea that there could be any other way to think.
It's called "projection". Hell, we even project this thinking onto our
pets.
What most of this PUA work does is decode that non-literal communication
that women use, to be able to both speak it and understand it. Another
way to look at it is as an Estrogen <-> English dictionary. :-)
> You have never been all that great at accurately gauging what a woman
> wants, even when she tells you, you manage to fuck it up.
Women know exactly what they want, most always.
However, women as a rule haven't the slightest clue what they actually
*need*. They can't tell us, they don't know themselves. Asking them
only results in men getting confused and woman getting frustrated.
It does go back to communication, as you say. A woman will tell a man
what she wants and he'll "manage to fuck it up" by doing exactly what
she asked for to the letter (remember, men are literal). He did what
she said, not what she meant... How to find out what she meant? Yep,
that Estrogen <-> English dictionary. :-)
At the end of the day a man can not learn how to attract women from
women, as odd as that might seem.
-Zenin
Odious
>> >There is nothing in your little speech there that ANY man couldn't
>> >recite, and thus "attract" her by knowing, or saying.
>>
>> Aww, Ray, thats cute. But you do know the diffrence between just
>> saying something, and really and truly living what you say.
>>And see
>> we're not talking about any man here. We're talking about me,
>> specifically. My hopes, my dreams my desires. Why did I want to get
>> good with women? Originally, it was so that I would have more of a
>> choice, but it has evolved to so much more than that. It HAS become a
>> way for me to self improve. From actually caring about the way I
>> dress, to becoming a more confident person, to loosing the fear of
>> meeting new people. It is, at least for me, become a way of self
>> improvment. You can recognize this, right? Good, I thought you could.
>
> Too bad this man didn't address my point, which was that his knowledge
> of how women behave is nothing that any man can't learn,
You can't.
And you ignore the fact that most men will never bother to learn game.
> as are his
> actions which are based on that knowledge. Maybe you equate fashion
> and kissing up to women with self-improvement, but where would our
> country be if our leaders had thought the same way?
>
Ray pussy, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what percentage of the
single adult male dating population is represented by the number 170,000...
which is the total number of copies of the game that have been sold.
>
>> >Once most men have "game," then factors such as height, money, and
>> >status become dominant once again.
>>
>> And when will this be? A year from now? 5 years from now? 10? Or even
>> possibly, 6 months ago, perhaps?
>
> It's a process that began not too long ago and which has been
> intensifying.
These methods and these concepts have been in circulation for years gordo.
As I pointed out, Tom Leykis has millions of listeners, and has been doing
his thing on the radio for a decade or more. These things have already been
out there, and the game is simply the current incarnation.
The only thing that is intensifying is the rate at which you produce excuses
for why nothing you predicted has happened.
> It's always been a factor, but the online "lay reports"
> don't include that information a lot of the time. You can't even get
> the gurus to reveal how much they earn a year (which is relevant to how
> women will judge them). Gurus can use pickup lines like this:
>
> "AFCs pay my rent."
>
Whereas ray can only say, "My mommy pays my rent."
> "We have a lot in common: we both make money off of desperate rich
> guys." (great for strippers)
>
> "I teach men how to game women like you."
>
> "Your man got his game from my website"
>
> etc. etc. etc. The gurus' game is usually dependent on his being paid
> by a bunch of sucker AFCs.
>
Notice how ray has excuses for other men having sucess while he remains a
failure?
Gordo claims gurus have success with women because they have money they made
teaching guys how to be successful with women... yet the gurus I know had
success with women using their methods before they made money selling
training for guys who want to learn how to be successful with women.
Gordo will blame men's success on anything, the area they live in, their
money etc. and then he will attack the women as being sluts or office whores
or golddiggers... anything to avoid admitting that a guy might pull a hottie
using skills he learned from some guru.
> You also overlook one thing: the methods may still work for you, but
> new methods based on the mainstream exposure may work even better, with
> less effort.
So then you should have no trouble at all using your new methods to get a
picture of you and a woman?
>
>> Zea
>>
>> PS
>> Most guys won't even take the time to fix the blinking light on a VCR
>> what makes you think they have the patience to learn this shit.
>
> The guy who wrote the book on card-counting at blackjack thought the
> same thing: a few people would cash in, but the casinos would never
> catch on.
>
> Andy Beyer thought the same thing with his speed-figure method at the
> horses. He said "I thought only a few zealots would care" etc. He
> admitted he was wrong, and that he underestimated human greed. A lot
> more is at stake when it comes to getting laid than with getting a VCR
> programmed.
>
>
And yet you still fail to understand that seduction, not being a zero sum
game or a math equation, is nothing like card counting or running race
stats.
>>Most
>> guys I know, who have inadvertenly stumbled onto this try a canned line
>> or two, with both body lanuage and tonality thats completely
>> miscalibrated, and are blown out. They then go this stuff is full of
>> shit, and give up.
>
> They don't "give up" at all. They still know the answer is out there,
> even if it might take one or two more confirmations.
Most men who hear about these methods will never bother to even start to try
to learn them. Most will simply not be interested enough to follow up on it
at all... of the minority that is left and is interested, most will check
out stuff out of novel curiosity and leave after the novelty wears off... of
those left you'll find those who have a real drive an interest in learning
this stuff. But by the time you even reach those who are truly interested,
you're already down to a small percentage of the original number.
> The usual
> progression is disbelief followed by confirmation, usually with one
> more episode with a hottie in between.
>
And on what do you base that claim?
> The way PUAs run like hell at the notion of someone cluing their women
> in on what's going down (unless the women are in on the profits) also
> speaks for itself, as do the number of men who flat-out LIE about their
> involvement in the "community" if the topic comes up in conversation.
Isn't if odd that gordo goes from saying guys in the community get laid
because they can claim membership in the community, then turns around and
says guys in the community run from those associations?
> Between her male relatives and AFC friends, more and more men can also
> clue her in as to what is going on.
>
> As for the men who can't make all this supposedly wonderful free
> information work, perhaps the information isn't as wonderful as those
> who promote it would like to believe.
Says the guy trying to sell his shitty advice for 10 grand.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.short/msg/7ecd86991824e4f6?dmode=source&hl=en
________________________________________________________
From: Outfoxing The Foxes <outfoxinngthefo...@juno.com>
Subject: Question For Jet
Date: 1999/06/25
Message-ID: <19990625.044859.-29603...@juno.com>#1/1
" I post here to SELL BOOKS! "
________________________________________________________
>Usually these men hear that when
> stuff doesn't work, it's because they aren't "cool guys" or don't have
> looks, money or status, which is a further agreement with what I
> originally said in this thread.
If that's what usually happens, then surely you can quote an example...
Zea
Odious wrote:
>
> Well many advocate honesty, simply because it is easier than lying...
> however the vunerability thing is not something I'd recomend.
Well they way I look at it is, honesty brings respect, and lieing
confuses things. Why lie to get in a girls pants when the truth works
just as well, and doesn't leave any he lied to me to get me to sleep
with him messy emotions? That's my take on it.
And as far as vunerablity goes, I'm not talking about being a
bluthering stream of emotion, I'm talking about showing a little bit.
The reason goes, with out a vunerablity you seem more out of her
league. Like when I display vunerablity, it's always done in a
calculated manner that desgined to win her over. For example, I like
chick flicks. Do I believe that thier true? Fuck no, but I still enjoy
them. The thing is when that comes up somehow in conversation, it
becomes endearing. Bassically, the way I look at it, don't
automatically blurt out a vunerablity or sensitivity, but if it comes
up in conversation don't hide it, let one slip out. One or two is
endearing, more than that and you're a pussy. The ones I let go in
conversation are, rthat I like chick flicks, and that when I was
younger I was unpopular. The thing is there are DHV's built into it.
the chick flicks: unaffected by socoety, almost a nonvisual peacock.
The unpopular when i was a child: inteligent, humor, and confidence.
If you'd like, I can detail them for you and show you how I percievve
they work both as DHV's and showing a slight vunerablity/sensitivity
simaltanieously.
> She can spot them... then she fucks them.
hahaha So true, I should have had a witty responce but my brain was
off.
~~
Zea (PS, I'm too lazy to throw this through a spell check despite the
fact that I know it runs rampant with spelling errors.)
johnebravo836
corky wrote:
[snip]
> I have a suggestion. Next time you want a good fuck, go find a nice quiet
> guy and proposition him. I mean this. Go out and look for that quiet guy(the
> honest guy ... the nice guy) and ask if he would like to go fuck.
This is an interesting suggestion. Of course, the original poster is not
going to actually try this out, but I think it might be illuminating for
her to consider *why* she really doesn't feel like trying this little
experiment.
corky
"johnebravo836" <johneb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47b1f2F...@individual.net...
I have considered this. We all have, in this NG. :) I just don't like that
guys who study PUA are portrayed like disfunctional loser that needed some
crutch. Some people are naturals, like 3%. Other guys just had the rule of
odds get them laid and married. I like having control and knowing the
reasons. Thanks ASF!
I remember a seminar from one of the foremost sales trainers in the world.
He yelled that there was one thing that defined a great people person - to
be IN CONTROL. We don't ask ourselves why we like this.
This is a paradoxical concept of human nature:
If you SAY you want control, everyone will balk and become defensive.
If you just TAKE control, people will LOVE you for it. We love people to
take control - as long as it does not hurt our little egos.
Zenin
> Odious wrote:
>> Well many advocate honesty, simply because it is easier than lying...
>> however the vunerability thing is not something I'd recomend.
>
> Well they way I look at it is, honesty brings respect,
buzzzz
Oh, how I wish this were true when it comes to woman, but it just ain't
so. I used to think it was...but I have since learned that in real life
it doesn't work this way.
It does work this way with men...but with woman, generally the more
honest you are with them the *less* they will respect (or trust) you.
It's incredibly stupid, but it's also nearly universal.
> Like when I display vunerablity, it's always done in a calculated manner
> that desgined to win her over.
Which, of course, is lying. "Based on a true story" is *not* a true
story. So much for the honesty game. :-)
-Zenin
Zea
> Which, of course, is lying. "Based on a true story" is *not* a true
> story. So much for the honesty game. :-)
Haha I guess you got me there.
~~
Zea
Lori Koonce
> It does work this way with men...but with woman, generally the more
> honest you are with them the *less* they will respect (or trust) you.
> It's incredibly stupid, but it's also nearly universal.
Zenin
Could that have anything with the quality of women your trying to fuck?
I'm female, and almost all my female friends would have to disagree
with you.
I'm in the middle of a relationship with a man who is honest to the
point of being almost brutal about it. And not only do I respect him,
I do whatever he wants sexually whenever he wants.
And that is what all you guys want.....
Lori
Lori Koonce
> It does work this way with men...but with woman, generally the more
> honest you are with them the *less* they will respect (or trust) you.
> It's incredibly stupid, but it's also nearly universal.
Zenin
Alex
Koonce at purple...@excite.com wrote on 3/14/06 8:16 PM:
> I'm in the middle of a relationship with a man who is honest to the
> point of being almost brutal about it. And not only do I respect him,
> I do whatever he wants sexually whenever he wants.
>
> And that is what all you guys want.....
Re-read these two paragraphs and tell me what you'd tell a friend who said
this to you.
Lori Koonce
Well considering that me and most of my friends are on the Sub end of
an D/s relationship, I'd not tell her a thing....
But, if it was a normal relationship, I'd tell her if she dosen't want
that kind of honesty to RUN FOR THE HILLS.
Lori
Alex
Koonce at purple...@excite.com wrote on 3/16/06 10:41 PM:
The word you used that set off my alarms was "brutal"-- about his honesty.
Being almost brutal about anything can be a double-edged sword, even in a
D/s relationship.
By the way, why did you capitalize "sub" but leave the "s" in D/s small?
Lori Koonce
> >>> I'm in the middle of a relationship with a man who is honest to the
> >>> point of being almost brutal about it. And not only do I respect him,
> >>> I do whatever he wants sexually whenever he wants.
> >>>
> >>> And that is what all you guys want.....
> >>
> >> Re-read these two paragraphs and tell me what you'd tell a friend who said
> >> this to you.
> >
> > Well considering that me and most of my friends are on the Sub end of
> > an D/s relationship, I'd not tell her a thing....
> >
> > But, if it was a normal relationship, I'd tell her if she dosen't want
> > that kind of honesty to RUN FOR THE HILLS.
> >
>
> The word you used that set off my alarms was "brutal"-- about his honesty.
> Being almost brutal about anything can be a double-edged sword, even in a
> D/s relationship.
That is true. But for my money, I'd rather be hurt by honesty, which
gives me room to improve myself and my attitudes about stuff. Sugar
coating stuff sometimes makes it dificult for another to understand
exactaly what you are trying to say.
>
> By the way, why did you capitalize "sub" but leave the "s" in D/s small?
Good question. I think I had more than my fair share of coffee when I
wrote that, so I wasn't clearly thinking.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Lori
Zenin
Very interesting word choices here.
"almost brutal about it"; Sounds like he is actually throwing up a form
of shield by making it a painful experience for you to pull out honesty,
openness from him. He is phycologically spanking you for your
indiscretion. *That* is what you are rewarding with respect, not the
"honesty". And since you now respect him you "do whatever he wants
sexually whenever he wants."
Your self-image is 180 degrees out of sync with your actual personality,
but that is ok; It is the same for most all (attractive) women.
From start to finish you aren't exceptional, you are typical. So sorry.
-Zenin
Sister Morphine
66.250.146.182:
> Puck <M...@MischiefCentral.bom> wrote in news:Xns977FF0ED41C78kissmyass@
> 130.88.202.229:
>
>>
>>> There are always exceptions to the
>>> rules, but we're not trying to pick up the exceptions as they are too
>>> scarce. We are interested in working the statistics.
>>
>> So, long term, men don't mind the fact that the girl is simple?
>>
>>
>
> The above quote is an example of why you will probably not find many
> people in here willing to have a serious debate or even discussion with
> you.
I see plenty of people who at least wanted to give me their side of the
story. Isn't that what debate is about, Krus? There isn't a post here I
have not read and digested in an 'acquiring knowledge' kind of a way. So
it's all cool.
--
La scorsa notte ho sognato
Che qualcuno mi amava
Nessuna speranza - nessun male
Solo un altro falso allarme
Sister Morphine
news:1141811649....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
> Puck essentially women have the upperhand when it comes to a meeting
> with a prospective suitor. Just think about all the subconcious
> bodylanguage you girls chuck out without realising.
I'm not with you, Twisted. Why does our subconscious body language give us
the upper hand?
> Also look at all
> the help articles in womens mags like "how to snare your man" etc etc
> and then look at mens magazines.
Hmm. There are lots of similar articles in 'men's mags', I've read a few
myself. Apart from the middle-shelf mags, just look where the porn market
is aimed. Having yourself down as being on an unequal footing, through lack
of information, is a terrible excuse.
> Essentially it is giving men the skills (if done correctly) to let go
> of their fears to do with women and just get out there and do it.
I think you're confusing skill with confidence. What I find sad (sad in a
frowny way not sad as in tragic) is that you feel you need the skills to
give you the confidence in the first place.
> This forum is a bad example of what happens when us lads get
> together to discuss women etc.
So is it exclusively for men who want to get women? No advice for gay
guys, or women wanting the same confidence? The NG name implies no
discrimination against gender or sexual orientation.
> Trust me this shit works. I really
> wouldn't be suprised if you hadn't been snared a couple of times by
> some of the tecniques yourself! If you encounter someone who is
> actually any good at this in real life, you wouldn't suspect a thing.
Well, if I have, the only skill he had was standing some place looking
good. And there's not much skill in that... is there?
>Enjoy the ride.
You too.
Sister Morphine
> "Puck" <M...@MischiefCentral.bom> wrote in message
> news:Xns977FDD2E5...@130.88.202.229...
>> Some posts from your newsgroup were recently cross posted back into a
>> newsgroup I check out, and I must admit that you have me intrigued.
>>
>> I want to know what makes you guys tick, aside from getting laid, of
>> course.
>
> world and understand her life. Sometimes, I twirl her and sing Dancing
> Queen or Do You Think I'm Sexy. Women are so much more sexual than
> men. I just want to be with women; to be a part of her world.
On a strictly temporary basis?
> My most rewarding moments are when I win over pretty women in front of
> guys that look better than me. I LOVE to get a girl laughing at the
> gym in front of muscle guys.
Most of them are worth a laugh, with or without your help.
>> How do we know it's honesty? Well, some of us won't I guess, not if
>> you play the long game - but I'd like to think that I can spot a
>> player a mile off. Perhaps that's a common mistake, but any time I
>> have ended up in bed with a grade A, lying arsehole without an ounce
>> of the personality he promised, was when all I wanted was sex and, to
>> be honest, the guy coulda just asked--no game playing necessary. I'm
>> not loose, I'm not feeble, I just know what I like and when I like it
>> I go get it.
>>
>> I've had a quick look about and I'm not sure I can separate the
>> trolls from the genuine people in here, not from such a short stay.
>> But I can see young men asking for advice and I think a lot of that
>> which is offered, sucks.
>
> Most of the advice offered here is off the cuff stuff from all sorts.
> That real stuff is posted in the moderated forums and faq's.
> No offense, but most women don't understand PUA techniques.
So no 'get your coat, you've pulled' lines then.
> Most guys have virtually no skills to get laid. Getting a little
> scientific is not a bad thing. The most important psychological part
> of being an adult is intimacy. Why not study it a little?
That's true I guess.
Sister Morphine
> Ok, we from a young age, are taught that women don't like sex,
By whom?
> which
> you know as much as I do is utterly false. And you can spot a player,
> I highly doubt that. I don't exactly, look like the 'player' type.
Heh. You think we imagine you all wear shirts open to your belly button,
swinging a medallion from your neck and waving around a set of keys to
the hired sports car outside the club?
>>I've had a quick look about and I'm not sure I can separate the trolls
>>from the genuine people in here, not from such a short stay. But I can
>>see young men asking for advice and I think a lot of that which is
>>offered, sucks.
>
> You must understand that, what you subconsiously want, and what you
> acctualy want are do diffrent things.
I am 34, not 14.
> As a wise man once said,
> "Attraction is not a choice." See, the way things work is logical we
> all know things that we should or should not do. Like I know i
> shouldn't smoke, but I still do. It's not a logical thing. Attraction
> works much in the same way.
Cigarettes are a strong, physical addiction. Attraction, in the way I
think you mean, is accidental, surely?
> If you'd like a more indepth version let me know.
Was that a line?
Zach's Fine Liquer's and Discount Embalming Services
>"Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote in news:Xns9780F9B3BC68hotstuff@
>66.250.146.182:
>
>> Puck <M...@MischiefCentral.bom> wrote in news:Xns977FF0ED41C78kissmyass@
>> 130.88.202.229:
>>
>>>
>>>> There are always exceptions to the
>>>> rules, but we're not trying to pick up the exceptions as they are too
>>>> scarce. We are interested in working the statistics.
>>>
>>> So, long term, men don't mind the fact that the girl is simple?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The above quote is an example of why you will probably not find many
>> people in here willing to have a serious debate or even discussion with
>> you.
>
>I see plenty of people who at least wanted to give me their side of the
>story. Isn't that what debate is about, Krus? There isn't a post here I
>have not read and digested in an 'acquiring knowledge' kind of a way. So
>it's all cool.
Except you've led Puck in here. That's not cool.
Sister Morphine
> <snipped>
>> It does work this way with men...but with woman, generally the
>> more honest you are with them the *less* they will respect (or
>> trust) you. It's incredibly stupid, but it's also nearly
>> universal.
>
> Zenin
>
> Could that have anything with the quality of women your trying to
> fuck?
>
> I'm female, and almost all my female friends would have to disagree
> with you.
It's no use. They don't believe us. Far be it from us to have minds of our
own.
> I'm in the middle of a relationship with a man who is honest to the
> point of being almost brutal about it. And not only do I respect him,
> I do whatever he wants sexually whenever he wants.
>
> And that is what all you guys want.....
Cooking skills and a distant appreciation of football helps. Every guy
loves explaining the offside rule and it's always amusing when they get out
the salt and pepper pots.
> Lori
Sister Morphine
> Puck wrote:
>> Some posts from your newsgroup were recently cross posted back into a
>> newsgroup I check out, and I must admit that you have me intrigued.
>>
>> I want to know what makes you guys tick, aside from getting laid, of
>> course.
>>
>> categorically tell you that honesty, vulnerability even, in a man is
>> a serious turn on.
>
>
> (1) Most women don't know consciously what really attracts them to a
> particular man. In fact, it would be unreasonable to expect them to,
Not least because it is a constantly evolving entity.
> As to the content of your remark: It may very well be that a
> noticable, occasional glimmer of vulnerability in a man who otherwise
> usually appears relatively invulnerable might be a "serious turn on".
> But a guy who is a pile of open vulnerabilities which he wears on his
> sleeve is never, ever going to get anywhere with very attractive
> women.
So we don't know who or what we want and need men who know exactly who
and what they want to tell us. I see.
> I'll bet that most wealthy men would like to think that they can spot
> a gold digger a mile off too. ;)
The ugly ones with small dicks, sure.
> Would you think most of them probably
> can, or are they just flattering themselves?
Some men, like some women, are deluded. But not all.
>> I've had a quick look about and I'm not sure I can separate the
>> trolls from the genuine people in here, not from such a short stay.
>> But I can see young men asking for advice and I think a lot of that
>> which is offered, sucks.
>
> Feel free to chime in with your own suggestions if you like, but be
> prepared for the likelihood that your advice is not going to be taken
> particularly seriously.
I'm always prepared for that eventuality.
Zea
>>"Zea" <ZeaO...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Ok, we from a young age, are taught that women don't like sex,
>By whom?
Our mothers, society, literature. If this in't true, why are there so
many guys out there absolutely convinced that women don't like sex?
>> which
>> you know as much as I do is utterly false. And you can spot a player,
>> I highly doubt that. I don't exactly, look like the 'player' type.
>Heh. You think we imagine you all wear shirts open to your belly button,
>swinging a medallion from your neck and waving around a set of keys to
>the hired sports car outside the club?
Fine then, what make I ask do you think I look like, and how would you
spot me?
>>>I've had a quick look about and I'm not sure I can separate the trolls
>>>from the genuine people in here, not from such a short stay. But I can
>>>see young men asking for advice and I think a lot of that which is
>>>offered, sucks.
>> You must understand that, what you subconsiously want, and what you
>> acctualy want are do diffrent things.
>I am 34, not 14.
Age has nothing to do with this. Attraction is an an emotinal
responce, and logic and emotions are vastly different. Logic makes
sence oftentimes emotion does not. What we think we want and what we
truley want ARE different. I can spout off a list of qualities that I
'need' in a person, and you can look at a couple of my previous
girlfriends that had very few of those characteristics, yet I still
found them to be utterly enthralling.
> As a wise man once said,
> "Attraction is not a choice." See, the way things work is logical we
> all know things that we should or should not do. Like I know i
> shouldn't smoke, but I still do. It's not a logical thing. Attraction
> works much in the same way.
>Cigarettes are a strong, physical addiction. Attraction, in the way I
>think you mean, is accidental, surely?
No not really. What I mean is if you're attracted to someone, een if
you know it's logicaly wrong and bad for you to do, you'll still hae a
desire to be with that person.
> If you'd like a more indepth version let me know.
>Was that a line?
Hahaha. No, that was an actual offer. And if you so choose, it still
stands, if not, so be it. It seems that you are looking for "lines"
everywhere if you thought that was a line. But it's ok. What I
suggest, is that you look at some of these things with an open mind,
and the reasons behind why they work.
~~
Zea
Sister Morphine
> This reminds me of a book review of The Game by a feminist. Even after
> reading that book said something like "I wish a guy would just
> approach and ask my name". No games. Women can understand the game
> about as well as a pig can understand quantum physics.
Or perhaps as well as you can understand that just because it doesn't have
a penis, does not mean it doesn't have a brain. Ours is not the gender
where the two are notably synonymous.
Sister Morphine
<squ...@swallow.gulp> wrote in
news:377322dce7hnai7dpeaan92iuivk0u180u@GetLost:
What's wrong with Puck?
Zenin
> "Zea" <Zea...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Ok, we from a young age, are taught that women don't like sex,
>
> By whom?
Our parents, teachers, the media, society, all of it.
But mostly by women. It's not at all true...but then so is %99.9 of the
words that come out of a woman's mouth. Women as a rule show what they
mean and say something completely opposite (IOW they outright lie), all
as a test to see if a guy is gullible enough to believe their bullshit.
Even worse...women intrinsically believe everyone else does the same
thing. The result is that it doesn't matter how honest a guy is, women
just won't believe him. Women ignore the words (thinking they are
bullshit just as they'd say) and instead "listen" to body language and
tone...which, since the guy isn't trying to speak with them, simply
isn't valid...but they believe it anyway.
If women want better "communication", "openness", and "honesty", they
need to start *with themselves* as they as a rule are responsible for
the lion's share of any communication problem.
It's perfectly fine to ask a woman what she wants and needs, likes and
dislikes...just don't be dumb enough to believe her answers.
>snip<
>> You must understand that, what you subconsiously want, and what you
>> acctualy want are do diffrent things.
>
> I am 34, not 14.
Which just makes it all the more true.
Maybe by 50 you'll have figured it out...but even that's unlikely. To
be sure however, late 20s to late 30s are when a woman is most confused
about this. Largely because, as you demonstrate here, a woman in their
30s feels they've somehow lived long enough that they should have all
this down already...they feel they "should" so badly that they assume it
as fact while dismissing out of hand (overwhelming) evidence to
contrary.
Most woman however, will never figure it out before they die.
Neither of course, will most men...which is why the world is filled with
betas.
>> As a wise man once said, "Attraction is not a choice." See, the way
>> things work is logical we all know things that we should or should not
>> do. Like I know i shouldn't smoke, but I still do. It's not a logical
>> thing. Attraction works much in the same way.
>
> Cigarettes are a strong, physical addiction. Attraction, in the way I
> think you mean, is accidental, surely?
Attraction is only accidental when a guy hasn't yet figured out how
broken women's attraction reflex fundamentally is.
>> If you'd like a more indepth version let me know.
>
> Was that a line?
For that to have been a line you'd have to have been attractive...which
at 34 and chatting on a Usenet group just isn't all that likely. Sorry
hon.
-Zenin
Zenin
>snip<
>> The word you used that set off my alarms was "brutal"-- about his
>> honesty. Being almost brutal about anything can be a double-edged sword,
>> even in a D/s relationship.
>
> That is true. But for my money, I'd rather be hurt by honesty, which gives
> me room to improve myself and my attitudes about stuff. Sugar coating
> stuff sometimes makes it dificult for another to understand exactaly what
> you are trying to say.
Thanks for making it clear that you consider body language and tone to
be "truth" and the words themselves to be meaningless or outright lies.
Lori, you still appear far more typical then special.
What women need to learn is that just because they operate this way does
not mean men are so deceptive. When we say something, we mean it. When
we don't say something, we don't mean it. The complete opposite of
women. Similarly men need to learn that just because they are direct
and honest with their words does not mean women are.
To simplify:
Men:
Speaks with words, doesn't think about body language or tone.
Listens to the words, ignores body language and tone.
Women:
Speaks with body language and tone, lies with words.
Listens to body langauge and tone, ignores the words (because they
"are lies")
-Zenin
Sister Morphine
>>> Ok, we from a young age, are taught that women don't like sex,
>
>>By whom?
>
> Our mothers, society, literature. If this in't true, why are there so
> many guys out there absolutely convinced that women don't like sex?
Because a) they're stupid b) they haven't spent much time in the real
world c) they've been trying to work the local Catholic girls school...
You were brought up being told women don't like sex? Or were you brought
up to think sex is wrong? There's a world of difference.
>>> which
>>> you know as much as I do is utterly false. And you can spot a
player,
>>> I highly doubt that. I don't exactly, look like the 'player' type.
>
>>Heh. You think we imagine you all wear shirts open to your belly
button,
>>swinging a medallion from your neck and waving around a set of keys to
>>the hired sports car outside the club?
>
> Fine then, what make I ask do you think I look like,
I have no idea what you look like. It seems a common theme throughout
your group, though, that many of you aren't what might be considered
classically handsome.
> and how would you spot me?
Any man who walked up to a woman in a bar and started a conversation that
wasn't slurred out between burps and trips to "the shitter" would arouse
my suspicion.
Get to them first, that's my motto.
>>> You must understand that, what you subconsiously want, and what you
>>> acctualy want are do diffrent things.
>
>>I am 34, not 14.
> Age has nothing to do with this. Attraction is an an emotinal
> responce, and logic and emotions are vastly different. Logic makes
> sence oftentimes emotion does not.
I think emotion makes sense more often than it does not. You're saying
most emotions are irrational. That is fundamentally wrong. Unless
you're barking, of course.
> What we think we want and what we truley want ARE different.
How can you possibly know that? What research is this based on?
> I can spout off a list of qualities that I
> 'need' in a person, and you can look at a couple of my previous
> girlfriends that had very few of those characteristics, yet I still
> found them to be utterly enthralling.
This is what I meant by the accidental. I like guys with dark hair, dark
eyes, tall... but give me a guy who meets none of those criteria but can
move me in many other ways and I am going to feel an attraction. That's
not my subconscious in sudden discovery mode - that's my conscious mind
in sudden discovery mode. I am learning about other things I like
through new experiences and qualities in people. The only thing we are
born knowing we want, is life and to live we need food, so we eat. The
blank notepad that is our mind at birth, gets written on from there on
in.
>> As a wise man once said,
>> "Attraction is not a choice." See, the way things work is logical we
>> all know things that we should or should not do. Like I know i
>> shouldn't smoke, but I still do. It's not a logical thing. Attraction
>> works much in the same way.
>
>>Cigarettes are a strong, physical addiction. Attraction, in the way I
>>think you mean, is accidental, surely?
>
> No not really. What I mean is if you're attracted to someone, een if
> you know it's logicaly wrong and bad for you to do, you'll still hae a
> desire to be with that person.
Yes, I agree, that can happen - but it can still be accidental. I doubt
all woman who end up with tossers tell themselves that tonight, they're
going to get dressed up, go out and pull a man who's going to knock seven
bells of shit out of them for the rest of their life.
>> If you'd like a more indepth version let me know.
>
>>Was that a line?
>
> Hahaha. No, that was an actual offer.
I know. I was pullin' yer leg.
> And if you so choose, it still
> stands, if not, so be it. It seems that you are looking for "lines"
> everywhere if you thought that was a line. But it's ok. What I
> suggest, is that you look at some of these things with an open mind,
> and the reasons behind why they work.
Based on what you've said here, I'm not sure the in-depth version would
be any more worth reading than your shallow version.
Sister Morphine
Ouch. Now that was mean. Really though, you don't have to feel
defensive. Well, OK, maybe you do a bit. But don't. It's really
unattractive.
And don't apologise either. I am nothing to look at, it's true, in fact
coming here is my life's only fulfilling outlet - but I'm secure with
that if you are.
Daedalus
<S&M...@hotFEmail.com> wrote:
>"Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote in news:Xns9780F9B3BC68hotstuff@
>66.250.146.182:
>
>> Puck <M...@MischiefCentral.bom> wrote in news:Xns977FF0ED41C78kissmyass@
>> 130.88.202.229:
>>
>>>
>>>> There are always exceptions to the
>>>> rules, but we're not trying to pick up the exceptions as they are too
>>>> scarce. We are interested in working the statistics.
>>>
>>> So, long term, men don't mind the fact that the girl is simple?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The above quote is an example of why you will probably not find many
>> people in here willing to have a serious debate or even discussion with
>> you.
>
>I see plenty of people who at least wanted to give me their side of the
>story. Isn't that what debate is about, Krus? There isn't a post here I
>have not read and digested in an 'acquiring knowledge' kind of a way. So
>it's all cool.
You trolls better get out of soc.men before you gets *SLAM*ed!!!
Jade
Zach's Fine Liquer's and Discount Embalming Services
PULEEZE! I'm going to hurl! Now run along back to the uk froups *P*
afore your red sneaks are covered in vomit.
;)
Sister Morphine
news:pjc322lqjr2jsuk88...@4ax.com:
I find there's nothing like a good slamming now and then. Bring it on,
sister.
tedt
>world c) they've been trying to work the local Catholic girls school...
... you've obviously never "worked" the local Catholic girls school.
>You were brought up being told women don't like sex? Or were you brought
>up to think sex is wrong? There's a world of difference.
's not really 'bout that. Society has, in general and for substantial
time, suggested
that women are sexually passive and that it is the man's role to be the
aggressor.
This obviously puts the impetus on the man and the power of rejection
with the woman.
Moreover, it is suggested that the woman will be less interested in
intercourse than
the man. Which is true; it's a function of testosterone (you have
testosterone, too -- it
regulates your sexual impulses). This dynamic of qualifying your sexual
value to a
woman is also why male on female rape is a big deal and female on male
rape is
tossed aside; Men are supposed to always be "up" for it.
Oh, and keep in mind that many in this forum, though not myself, grew
up as and
before the feminist movements of the 60s took hold. and yeah, there is
that Catholic guilt.
>I have no idea what you look like. It seems a common theme throughout
>your group, though, that many of you aren't what might be considered
>classically handsome.
First off, what does that have to do with being "a player"? It seems
merely an attempt
to lash out (though mildly). Frankly, handsome guys play many more
games than those
who consider themselves average or unattractive. I should know: despite
your
unfounded inference, I happen to be an attractive, successful, and
physically healthy
guy. What I Do have trouble with, though, is my interest in
gamesmanship of a sort.
Not something I'm proud of, but it is there and it makes such
"relationships" more
interesting for a time.
>Any man who walked up to a woman in a bar and started a conversation that
>wasn't slurred out between burps and trips to "the shitter" would arouse
>my suspicion.
Hence the "game" these guys are playing... which is also why they would
alleviate that
suspicion. On another note, this is just a sad outlook. It seems as
though you've
internalized far too much of the "idiot-male" cultural prejudices. I'm
talking about the
same dynamic which you see played out on american tv in the Simpsons,
Family Guy,
Everybody Loves Raymond,Really, ... just about any sit-com (cartoon or
otherwise) on
involving a father figure. Really, "slurred out between burps and trips
to 'the shitter'"?
This is plain insulting. And I can't help but think of a middle-school
dance with girls
to one side, guys to another, both too insecure to do what they came
there to do in the
first place: be social.
>Get to them first, that's my motto.
I don't mean to be insulting but I find that I am not at all attracted
to girls who approach me,
largely because they don't know what they are doing. Also, they make
little attempt to veil
why they "opened me", and it wasn't because they were interested in a
real dialogue.
Finally, they tend to not be physically attractive, though this is not
always the case.
Anyways, the approach is very rarely from a place of real confidence.
>I think emotion makes sense more often than it does not. You're saying
>most emotions are irrational. That is fundamentally wrong. Unless
>you're barking, of course.
I'm not going to address Sister Morphine's precursing argument. I will,
however, say that
emotions are, by definition, irrational. More precisely, they are
irrespective of so-called
"rational tendencies". I still wouldn't call attraction an emotion;
lust has more to do
with yourself than with the other person, and while I can trigger lust
I am more interested
in generating attraction. Attraction is rather a synthesis of varied
chemical states which
impact the emotion and reasoning faculties of a person, though are not
solely within
their domain. And if you want proof of this you need only look to any
primatologic research.
Or get off the pill (you'll likely be less interested in your mate;
hint: it's because of his smell).
>That's not my subconscious in sudden discovery mode - that's my conscious mind
>in sudden discovery mode. I am learning about other things I like
>through new experiences and qualities in people.
Really, the line between these "states" is overstated; much of your
reaction is often
considered a reaction of the sub-conscious -- or what did you think it
did while you
are awake?
>Yes, I agree, that can happen - but it can still be accidental. I doubt
>all woman who end up with tossers tell themselves that tonight, they're
>going to get dressed up, go out and pull a man who's going to knock seven
>bells of shit out of them for the rest of their life.
I'd argue against monogamy in general, though not from a moral/social
perspective...
from a social dynamics perspective. On another note, when I was younger
I had
a rule of thumb (really an appropriate phrase as seduction can be a
mental slavery
of sorts): any woman in a club within an hour and a half of closing is
there
because she desires to be fucked. Watch it happen some night -- the
dawning
realization that there is no one to go home to. I had to know this
because I lived
in the downtown of a major city and passed through a club/bar scene
which
existed blocks from my house; Women get predatorial when they are
desperate --
cougars is the term, I think -- and it made the walk an interesting one
which
I was soon disgusted with... they wanted me to be that "man who's going
to
knock seven bells of shit out of them" though just for the night.
>Based on what you've said here, I'm not sure the in-depth version would
>be any more worth reading than your shallow version.
I think that you would be surprised as to the depth and worth of a real
study of seduction. It sounds to me as though you have never been so
privileged,
Zenin
>> Puck essentially women have the upperhand when it comes to a meeting with
>> a prospective suitor. Just think about all the subconcious bodylanguage
>> you girls chuck out without realising.
>
> I'm not with you, Twisted. Why does our subconscious body language give
> us the upper hand?
For women it isn't all that subconscious...infact, it's well
practiced/rehearsed most of the time.
For men...it is partly subconscious...but largely it's just flat out
invalid and thus pointless to "read".
>> Essentially it is giving men the skills (if done correctly) to let go of
>> their fears to do with women and just get out there and do it.
>
> I think you're confusing skill with confidence. What I find sad (sad in a
> frowny way not sad as in tragic) is that you feel you need the skills to
> give you the confidence in the first place.
Would you expect a person to be "confident" riding a bike if they've no
idea how to ride a bike? Confident being a dance lead without any
training in dance?
Of course not. What you're asking for is illogical (no surprise there).
You are asking men to have confidence in something that they know they
have no skill in, then trying to act all superior by claiming that
following a logical path of first obtaining said skill is "sad".
Aren't you a piece of work.
>> This forum is a bad example of what happens when us lads get together to
>> discuss women etc.
>
> So is it exclusively for men who want to get women? No advice for gay
> guys, or women wanting the same confidence? The NG name implies no
> discrimination against gender or sexual orientation.
Advice for women is easy to give (although hard for a woman to follow).
It is simply to do the logical thing in any given situation. To be
honest with your *words* and not simply your actions (I know that's a
hard one for you women, as you love telling the truth with your body
language while at the same time spitting out complete lies with your
mouth).
Advice to gay men is more interesting. If you're looking for someone
"manly", follow the above. If you're looking for someone
"girly/flaming", stick around this all the insanity that applies to
women equally applies to men who act like women. That includes the
illogical thinking, the love for drama, all of it.
>> Trust me this shit works. I really wouldn't be suprised if you hadn't
>> been snared a couple of times by some of the tecniques yourself! If you
>> encounter someone who is actually any good at this in real life, you
>> wouldn't suspect a thing.
>
> Well, if I have, the only skill he had was standing some place looking
> good. And there's not much skill in that... is there?
Or perhaps you're a dog and he just didn't think it was worth his time
to approach you. Bug good job trying to reframe it to make yourself
feel better/more confident.
-Zenin
Jay Kaner
>> I don't date to get laid.
So what do you do when you just wanna get laid?
Lori Koonce
<snipped>own.
>
> > I'm in the middle of a relationship with a man who is honest to the
> > point of being almost brutal about it. And not only do I respect him,
> > I do whatever he wants sexually whenever he wants.
> >
> > And that is what all you guys want.....
>
> Cooking skills and a distant appreciation of football helps. Every guy
> loves explaining the offside rule and it's always amusing when they get out
> the salt and pepper pots.
Does the fact that I don't need to have offsides 'splained, and that I
acutally know what a mandoline is count?
*L*
Lori
Lori Koonce
<snipped>own.
>
> > I'm in the middle of a relationship with a man who is honest to the
> > point of being almost brutal about it. And not only do I respect him,
> > I do whatever he wants sexually whenever he wants.
> >
> > And that is what all you guys want.....
>
> Cooking skills and a distant appreciation of football helps. Every guy
> loves explaining the offside rule and it's always amusing when they get out
> the salt and pepper pots.
Does the fact that I don't need to have offsides 'splained, and that I
tedt
should reference "Zea" instead.
Zenin
> Ouch. Now that was mean. Really though, you don't have to feel
> defensive. Well, OK, maybe you do a bit. But don't. It's really
> unattractive.
I look to groups like this to get real, to cut through the PC bullshit
and figure out what really makes the world go 'round. Not to pick up
women.
That said...I used to be dumbfounded when I'd meet women in person (at
conventions, etc) that "knew" me from Usenet forums (not this one, but
I'm no lighter elsewhere) and would have a huge crush on me. I would
think, "I'm a huge ass online...how the hell do you have a crush on me?"
Having found this group I now have a very clear idea about why that was
always the case. To that end I'm not nearly so friendly in person now
either...with the expected (but still completely illogical) result that
all women I run into now are much friendlier to and interested in me.
It's irrational, it's illogical, hell it's completely stupid. But
that's the reality of women. Go figure. :-/
> And don't apologise either.
Don't you worry, this group has cured me of apologizing to a woman for
anything, ever. *Especially* if I'm wrong.
-Zenin
tedt
>and what they want to tell us. I see.
... actually, yes.
Perhaps not the "tell us" bit as strongly as I can assume you'd have
suggested, but it is certain that women are attracted to this form of
security. Why? Everyone is insecure -- it's nice to believe in some
things as stable or constant (think religion, politics, finances... all
those things which underlay social dynamics and are consequently taboo
-- they're too intimate and vulnerable). Men are often looked to to
fill this role. Don't worry, we're just as insecure as you -- but we're
not allowed to show it because that would make society as a whole feel
more vulnerable.
>The ugly ones with small dicks, sure.
Again with the nasty comments. What fuels this aggression but
insecurity?
Lori Koonce
Zenin
Why is it that every guy thinks he knows "exactally" women think and
why they act the way they do?
I mean if that's truly the case, why do we need forums like this one.
If we are as simple as you claim, the seducing us should be the easiest
thing in the world for a guy to do. Just prove to her that you
understand her 'real' needs and feelings, and there you go.
I have a feeling that most guys don't get laid because of attitudes
like yours. Humans in general are complex creatures, and no two are
exactally alike. When you treat anyone, women included, as a
stereotype, you usually don't get too far with them.
Get to know women as individuals, and you'll go far.
Sister Morphine
> In alt.seduction.fast Sister Morphine <S&M...@hotfemail.com> wrote:
>> "Twistedsapient" <stevej...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Puck essentially women have the upperhand when it comes to a meeting
>>> with a prospective suitor. Just think about all the subconcious
>>> bodylanguage you girls chuck out without realising.
>>
>> I'm not with you, Twisted. Why does our subconscious body language
>> give us the upper hand?
>
> For women it isn't all that subconscious...infact, it's well
> practiced/rehearsed most of the time.
>
> For men...it is partly subconscious...but largely it's just flat
> out invalid and thus pointless to "read".
Why are you telling me? It's your fellow poster who seems to lack the
lessons you're meant to be giving.
>>> Essentially it is giving men the skills (if done correctly) to let
>>> go of their fears to do with women and just get out there and do it.
>>
>> I think you're confusing skill with confidence. What I find sad (sad
>> in a frowny way not sad as in tragic) is that you feel you need the
>> skills to give you the confidence in the first place.
>
> Would you expect a person to be "confident" riding a bike if
> they've no idea how to ride a bike?
No. But I've seen plenty of kids 'have the confidence' (look up the
context if you're unsure) to pick up a bike, fall off, graze a knee or
two, get back on, fall off some more... well, you get the picture. Yes,
it's experience. You can teach me all the skills you want, in theory,
but they mean fuck all until I get on the bike.
> Of course not. What you're asking for is illogical (no surprise
> there). You are asking men to have confidence in something that
> they know they have no skill in,
Yet so many of you just get on the damn bike and ride it anyway. How do
you imagine men who 'get' women without any so-called 'technique' do it?
> then trying to act all superior
> by claiming that following a logical path of first obtaining said
> skill is "sad".
I claim zero superiority. And that's your problem, isn't it? The fact
that I can counter argue you until you leave this thread because you are
all out of arguments. I am nothing and no one, yet I seem to be pissing
you right off.
>
> Aren't you a piece of work.
Well, as pieces of work go, yes.
J. Merrick
Don't listen to this one. I've seen a pic of her and she's a hotty!!
Too bad she's not as dumb as the others that fall for our pick up
techniques.
J. Merrick
Zenin
> I think emotion makes sense more often than it does not. You're saying
> most emotions are irrational. That is fundamentally wrong. Unless you're
> barking, of course.
Most male emotions have logical underpinnings.
Most female emotions have completely irrational underpinnings.
Thus why women have the upperhand.
>> What we think we want and what we truley want ARE different.
>
> How can you possibly know that? What research is this based on?
You're asking what research exists to show the sky is blue.
> This is what I meant by the accidental. I like guys with dark hair, dark
> eyes, tall... but give me a guy who meets none of those criteria but can
> move me in many other ways and I am going to feel an attraction. That's
> not my subconscious in sudden discovery mode - that's my conscious mind in
> sudden discovery mode. I am learning about other things I like through
> new experiences and qualities in people.
Keep telling yourself that hun, we'll keep playing ya like a fiddle. :-)
> The only thing we are born knowing we want, is life and to live we need
> food, so we eat. The blank notepad that is our mind at birth, gets
> written on from there on in.
Ah, if only this was true we'd find quite a bit more variety in the
world.
But it isn't, so we don't. Yes, yes, every person is a unique
soul...but the fact is some %90+ of us is identical, including our
minds, our desires, etc.
>snip<
> Yes, I agree, that can happen - but it can still be accidental. I doubt
> all woman who end up with tossers tell themselves that tonight, they're
> going to get dressed up, go out and pull a man who's going to knock seven
> bells of shit out of them for the rest of their life.
The point is that simply because something isn't logical and isn't
"planned" by one of the two people, doesn't mean it is "accidental".
If the "tosser" knows what he's doing, he *is* planning on attracting a
hot woman. If the tosser knows what he's doing, if he has the right
skills, it really doesn't much matter what the woman was planning on.
In otherwords just because it's not *her* intention does not mean there
is no intention to be found in the equation.
-Zenin
tedt
suggest?
And oh, corky -- I would disagree with your assertion that women cannot
understand "the game"; it's just that understanding and action are very
different things. After all, I understand how a film or piece of
literature manipulates my emotional state, but that understanding
rarely overcomes the power and pleasure of experiencing that emotional
state. Also, straight approaches often work.
Or at least those with straight-forward intentions. For instance:
The other day I took a catnap (accidentally) while at a bookstore and
awoke shortly thereafter next to an attractive girl. I said something
to the effect of "You know, I usually like to know the name of the
woman I wake up next to" and woke up to her again the following
morning. She knew what was going on. In fact, I believe it was the
slightly humorous but very straight-forward tone which "caught" her.
Sister Morphine
> In alt.seduction.fast Sister Morphine <S&M...@hotfemail.com> wrote:
> >snip<
>> Ouch. Now that was mean. Really though, you don't have to feel
>> defensive. Well, OK, maybe you do a bit. But don't. It's really
>> unattractive.
>
> I look to groups like this to get real, to cut through the PC
> bullshit and figure out what really makes the world go 'round.
> Not to pick up women.
Why don't you get out into the real world to figure out how the real
world works?
> That said...I used to be dumbfounded when I'd meet women in person
> (at conventions, etc) that "knew" me from Usenet forums (not this
> one, but I'm no lighter elsewhere) and would have a huge crush on
> me.
Your deligate badge read 'Zenin'?
> I would think, "I'm a huge ass online...how the hell do you
> have a crush on me?"
Well, at a wild stab in the dark, I'd say it's because women with
slightly more intelligence than the average tree stump appreciate a) a
guy who is literate and b) one who doesn't act like the proverbial
doormat. However, that said, rest assured a crush (despite my personal
magnitude) won't be coming your way because, to be honest, you do seem
the arse you think you are.
Zach's Fine Liquer's and Discount Embalming Services
Paula is a hottie?
/blank stare
BWAHAWAHAWAHAWAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good one ;)
Jay Kaner
"tedt" <TTet...@gmail.com> wrote
:
> The other day I took a catnap (accidentally) while at a bookstore and
> awoke shortly thereafter next to an attractive girl. I said something
> to the effect of "You know, I usually like to know the name of the
> woman I wake up next to" and woke up to her again the following
> morning.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha fuck off.
Zach's Fine Liquer's and Discount Embalming Services
You're blonde aren't you honey ;)
Zach's Fine Liquer's and Discount Embalming Services
Go out for a pass blondee...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Good Fetch!
Sister Morphine
@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
That's not a snide comment. I was making a point using derogatory
observations. If you need the point explaining, here goes.
Yes - some rich men will be able to spot a gold digger a mile off -
especially if they are ugly with small dicks, i.e. there are fewer
reasons why a 6ft, ddg bitch-on-heat would be snapping at their heels.
Are you with me?
> What fuels this aggression but
> insecurity?
>
>
--
Sister Morphine
win.ntli.net:
> "corky" <s02...@admiral.umsl.edu> wrote
>
>>> I don't date to get laid.
>
> So what do you do when you just wanna get laid?
He puts on a clown hat and barks.
tedt
jay, you have me at a loss. What did you mean by this?
tedt
aggravation?
megalomaniac
> Would you expect a person to be "confident" riding a bike if they've no
> idea how to ride a bike? Confident being a dance lead without any
> training in dance?
Some men don't have to learn to ride a bike. It just comes naturally.
> Of course not. What you're asking for is illogical (no surprise there).
> You are asking men to have confidence in something that they know they
> have no skill in,
Speak for yourself, you lame shit.
megalomaniac
Someone named "corky" most likely has to pay for it.
megalomaniac
>Sister Morphine wrote:
>>>"Zea" <ZeaO...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> Ok, we from a young age, are taught that women don't like sex,
>
>>By whom?
>
>Our mothers, society, literature. If this in't true, why are there so
>many guys out there absolutely convinced that women don't like sex?
Because they SUCK at it. Maybe the women you're with don't like it
because of you?
megalomaniac
> Don't you worry, this group has cured me of apologizing to a woman for
> anything, ever. *Especially* if I'm wrong.
>
You'll never get laid.
tedt
rich man are gold-diggers, provided that they show any interest in
him... it seems they'd have to learn of the size of his appendage only
after "snapping at [his] heels". I'd prefer to disagree, largely
because I am much more aroused by those I know on more profound levels
than their appearances; I'd have to believe that an ugly guy with a
small dick can get most girls at a club given the proper
attitude/approach/behavior -- even without being rich.
...and all women (and men) are gold-diggers of a degree.
Jay Kaner
"tedt" <TTet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143069676.7...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> If this was cross-posting I'd understand your comment, but frankly,
> jay, you have me at a loss. What did you mean by this?
Which bit? The "Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"
or the "fuck off"?
The "Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha" was for the world class
'nodding off in a fucking bookshop and then getting laid' bullshit.
The "fuck off" was for the world class 'nodding off in a fucking bookshop
and then getting laid' bullshit. HTH.
megalomaniac
<S&M...@hotFEmail.com> wrote:
>Zach's Fine Liquer's and Discount Embalming Services
><squ...@swallow.gulp> wrote in
>news:377322dce7hnai7dpeaan92iuivk0u180u@GetLost:
>
>> Sister Morphine whined:
>>
>>>"Krus T. Olfard" <bra...@odor.com> wrote in
>>>news:Xns9780F9B3BC68hotstuff@ 66.250.146.182:
>>>
>>>> Puck <M...@MischiefCentral.bom> wrote in
>>>> news:Xns977FF0ED41C78kissmyass@ 130.88.202.229:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are always exceptions to the
>>>>>> rules, but we're not trying to pick up the exceptions as they are
>>>>>> too scarce. We are interested in working the statistics.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, long term, men don't mind the fact that the girl is simple?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above quote is an example of why you will probably not find many
>>>> people in here willing to have a serious debate or even discussion
>>>> with you.
>>>
>>>I see plenty of people who at least wanted to give me their side of
>>>the story. Isn't that what debate is about, Krus? There isn't a post
>>>here I have not read and digested in an 'acquiring knowledge' kind of
>>>a way. So it's all cool.
>>
>> Except you've led Puck in here. That's not cool.
>
>What's wrong with Puck?
She seems ok to me.
Towse
> In alt.seduction.fast Sister Morphine <S&M...@hotfemail.com> wrote:
> >snip<
>>>What we think we want and what we truley want ARE different.
>>
>>How can you possibly know that? What research is this based on?
>
>
> You're asking what research exists to show the sky is blue.
The sky isn't blue; it just looks that way to the human eye when certain
conditions are met. Blue sky is an illusion caused by Rayleigh
scattering. Physics. The Tyndall effect.
Did you know that on Mars the daytime sky is red and the sunsets are blue?
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://www.internet-resources.com/writers>
Jay Kaner
"Sister Morphine" <S&M...@hotFEmail.com> wrote
> "tedt" <TTet...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Again with the nasty comments.
>
> If you need the point explaining
Best to take it as a given that he does. .
Sister Morphine
>>Because a) they're stupid b) they haven't spent much time in the real
>>world c) they've been trying to work the local Catholic girls
>>school...
>
> ... you've obviously never "worked" the local Catholic girls school.
>
>>You were brought up being told women don't like sex? Or were you
>>brought up to think sex is wrong? There's a world of difference.
>
> 's not really 'bout that. Society has, in general and for substantial
> time, suggested
> that women are sexually passive and that it is the man's role to be
> the aggressor.
Not in my lifetime or social/educational circle.
> This obviously puts the impetus on the man and the power of rejection
> with the woman.
> Moreover, it is suggested that the woman will be less interested in
> intercourse than
> the man. Which is true;
If that's the case it is slightly more than 'suggested'. We cannot feed
on suggestion alone - it's as good as taking other people's word for
stuff. We need to judge by our own experiences - and even then we can
only say something is "true" for us.
> it's a function of testosterone (you have
> testosterone, too -- it
> regulates your sexual impulses). This dynamic of qualifying your
> sexual value to a
> woman is also why male on female rape is a big deal and female on male
> rape is
> tossed aside;
That's an old argument, but a good and very valid one. Men are lesser
citizens, it seems, when it comes to crime in general, never mind rape.
I don't want equality for the sexes, we aren't equal and we never will
be, but I would like for the laws and authorities who govern us, to treat
us equally. That's my ideal.
> Men are supposed to always be "up" for it.
> Oh, and keep in mind that many in this forum, though not myself, grew
> up as and
> before the feminist movements of the 60s took hold. and yeah, there is
> that Catholic guilt.
I know there's hang ups, T. On both sides.
>>I have no idea what you look like. It seems a common theme throughout
>>your group, though, that many of you aren't what might be considered
>>classically handsome.
>
> First off, what does that have to do with being "a player"?
I felt that was specifically what he was getting at.
> It seems
> merely an attempt
> to lash out (though mildly).
> Frankly, handsome guys play many more
> games than those
> who consider themselves average or unattractive. I should know:
> despite your
> unfounded inference, I happen to be an attractive, successful, and
> physically healthy
> guy.
Well according to your peer Z, the very fact that you bother to post at
all, in a newsgroup, limits your "attractiveness" to a joke.
> What I Do have trouble with, though, is my interest in
> gamesmanship of a sort.
> Not something I'm proud of, but it is there and it makes such
> "relationships" more
> interesting for a time.
No one asked if you were proud of it. I believe my initial query was why
the group existed and what men got out of it. I know the answer now and
can make my own judgements and, this time around, they're not based on
ignorance.
>>Any man who walked up to a woman in a bar and started a conversation
>>that wasn't slurred out between burps and trips to "the shitter" would
>>arouse my suspicion.
>
> Hence the "game" these guys are playing... which is also why they
> would alleviate that
> suspicion. On another note, this is just a sad outlook. It seems as
> though you've
> internalized far too much of the "idiot-male" cultural prejudices.
All I am giving is as good (well, let's be honest, it's generally better)
as I get.
> I'm
> talking about the
> same dynamic which you see played out on american tv in the Simpsons,
> Family Guy,
> Everybody Loves Raymond,Really,
I know one out of the three.
> ... just about any sit-com (cartoon or
> otherwise) on
> involving a father figure. Really,
Father Ted?
> "slurred out between burps and
> trips to 'the shitter'"?
> This is plain insulting.
Oh lighten up. It was a joke. What's a girl gotta do around here to get
you guys to take life just a *teensy* bit less seriously?
> And I can't help but think of a middle-school
> dance with girls
> to one side, guys to another, both too insecure to do what they came
> there to do in the
> first place: be social.
Swirl in the middle, alone. Try it some time. It's fucking liberating.
>>Get to them first, that's my motto.
>
> I don't mean to be insulting but I find that I am not at all attracted
> to girls who approach me,
I don't care if you like me - why would I be insulted?
Post a picture of me and call me a cunt - I might consider it.
Actually, don't.
>>I think emotion makes sense more often than it does not. You're
>>saying most emotions are irrational. That is fundamentally wrong.
>>Unless you're barking, of course.
>
> I'm not going to address Sister Morphine's precursing argument.
Apology accepted.
> I think that you would be surprised as to the depth and worth of a
> real study of seduction.
Trust me. I would not.
Jay Kaner
"megalomaniac" <m...@lomaniac.com> wrote in message
news:ndn322l85mfdthj1q...@4ax.com...
"corkys" gonna be pissed if he wastes his money just 'talking' to her.
megalomaniac
>>So we don't know who or what we want and need men who know exactly who
>>and what they want to tell us. I see.
>
>... actually, yes.
>
>Perhaps not the "tell us" bit as strongly as I can assume you'd have
>suggested, but it is certain that women are attracted to this form of
>security. Why? Everyone is insecure -- it's nice to believe in some
>things as stable or constant (think religion, politics, finances... all
>those things which underlay social dynamics and are consequently taboo
>-- they're too intimate and vulnerable). Men are often looked to to
>fill this role. Don't worry, we're just as insecure as you -- but we're
>not allowed to show it because that would make society as a whole feel
>more vulnerable.
>
>>The ugly ones with small dicks, sure.
>
>Again with the nasty comments. What fuels this aggression but
>insecurity?
Ted, I think she makes a valid point. If you're an ugly guy (not
necessarily short with a small dick), and you have bucks, and hot
women want you, what do you think they think of the women? Most ugly
guys that can get hot girls are usually very wealthy, and not stupid.
megalomaniac
>by that reasoning all women who come within a mile of an unattractive
>rich man are gold-diggers,
They are.
Andrew Lloyd Webber
He's not fucking wrong, ted.
megalomaniac
wrote:
>You trolls better get out of soc.men before you gets *SLAM*ed!!!
>
Yeah, fuck off you trolls!
Zenin
That of course, is the conventional wisdom.
It's also completely wrong (logical, but wrong nonetheless).
But thanks for playing. :-)
-Zenin
megalomaniac
But that's all "corky" wants, the fucking wanker.
tedt
help. ; )
Jay Kaner
Yeah, but afterwards he'll fucking kick himself
Jay Kaner
Yeah, before you get *SLAM*ed!!!
Jay Kaner
> Still don't get it. Would you care to repeat? Maybe smaller words would
> help. ; )
Hahaha fuk off. That any better?
megalomaniac
>
>"megalomaniac" <m...@lomaniac.com> wrote in message
>news:u2p322hns5iqd1dga...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 23:50:09 GMT, "Jay Kaner" <ski...@will.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"megalomaniac" <m...@lomaniac.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ndn322l85mfdthj1q...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:45:33 GMT, "Jay Kaner" <ski...@will.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"corky" <s02...@admiral.umsl.edu> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't date to get laid.
>>>>>
>>>>>So what do you do when you just wanna get laid?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Someone named "corky" most likely has to pay for it.
>>>
>>>"corkys" gonna be pissed if he wastes his money just 'talking' to her.
>>>
>>
>> But that's all "corky" wants, the fucking wanker.
>
>Yeah, but afterwards he'll fucking kick himself
>
Guys who just want to talk deserve to get kicked. Hopefully he can
reach his teeth.
megalomaniac
I think I know a bit more than you when it comes to getting laid. I
have no technique. I'm just one charming motherfucker.
Jay Kaner
He'll be 'champagne corky' when he finally gets laid...