Girl Problems? Ask

[DYNAMICS]

@ Civirules

Just for fun today at work i started attacking like Borat, you know that crude journalist from Kazakhstan. i talk about how women are treated in my country, and how we cage them..ect, i was very basic. Man you should have seen the women in the supermarket they were laughing all over the place and the men we laughing to. I thought the females where going to slap me, but wow, they seem to enjoy it. I can get away with attacking like a foreigner because I was born not in the U.K…and I’m dark skinned.

Your right if you loosen up and act more humorous people really warm to you. i use borat as a example because he's the most recent male idiot to threaten feminism...i don't know… women just seem to like being made fun off in that context.

Civrules care to explain?

 

[Rossiya]

The people probably didn't see any threat in you, and you were being bubbly and happy (happy enough to do Borat) and, from what I have found, people are always going to warm to bubbly and happy people.

 

[Civrules]

Civrules care to explain?

"We are instantly attracted to those who are more fluid than we are" - Robert Greene.

You can make fun of anyone as much as you want, but if they don't interpret that as a threat (as the above poster said), you'll just have a great time because if it is not hostile, it is funny as hell.

Good choice in character!
I'm foreign too so I can get away with that. I make fun of foreigners and I did impersonate Borat once with "GREAT SUCCESS!"

Nice, nice...

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I guess a common answer is that it does get easier for guys to get married to women in their late 20's, early 30's. Same with women. It has been said here before. In their late 20's they calm down and start to settle down.

But in the earlier years it hasn't always been that easy because the focus to settle down wasn't there.

But this all can be knocked down to a science and the perspective of possibility increases dramatically.

Or you can look at certain situations as a blur and wonder, "what just happened there???"

This is what I used to think. I used to think that women eventually started realizing that all their games amounted to nothing, by the time they reached age 30 or so, and become interested in settling down. However, once they decide to settle down, it's not because they have suddenly become better women. It's because they want "security" (money) and are afraid that if they continue to play up too much drama, no man would ever be able to stand her long enough to marry her. So they suppress these games. But make no mistake about it. This husband will be a business venture, not a love affair. Once the deal is closed, she goes back to her old self. We've already mentioned how women never stop testing men, even years into marriage. Well, this is no different. But they are very keen on putting their best foot forward in the beginning.

Whether they realize they're doing this or not, it's happening.

This is why I think it was easier for men in the past. Women knew that they had nothing without a man and were always eager to please. This is why you hardly ever hear of women complaining about their status in society in ancient times, even though their treatment seems horrible by comparison. Whenever women stood up to men, it was enough to write plays about it.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Yeah, I would agree but still the previous condition does affect people. That's why these things bother people still.

Do I care?

As I mentioned earlier I consider these all more of pseudo-problems, mental sets which start to define the whole behaviour of this person and leads person perceiving wrong kind of things about their relationship. Quite many don't even know what kind of relationship they really want, both women and men.

Someone already mentioned that these are more of guidelines and small insights that people should keep in mind when dating women. But when it comes to invidual women and women under example different culture/subculture the game might be totally different. And if you have mental set that defines them being some kind of predators themselves you might lose the game itself. Some women are extremely fragile when it comes to these things, they just act like some men to be players. The only advantage women have over men is that they are prepared for relationships for all their life while guys usually concentrate into other issues more. But even this trend is about to change. Men have the advantage that if they have courage to ask women out, they don't really lose anything by doing that. In fact it just makes them have more courage and gives advantage while dating other women.

We might love the women but the women even more love the game itself.
Little bit like with men and football.

I recognize that exceptions may exist, but you do a poor job of explaining why things are the way they have been described in this thread. Again, the overwhelming vast bulk of the human experience, when it comes to relationships in the West, is as Civrules mentioned, and I have concurred. We are not the only ones realizing this. I have heard these exact same complaints, almost to the letter, from nearly every man I've ever spoken to on the issue. Where have you been?

I even know one guy, who was the biggest "player" in his time. He is now long since married with 2 kids. He agrees with everything we've been discussing and says that he hated playing the game, even though he was very good at it. (In fact, he became a "player" because one girl scorned him in the worst way.) Like you, he recognizes that rare exceptional people exist, and that one should keep an open mind about the possibility that one may run into someone like that. Be that as it may, his wife STILL tries to test his dominance all the time, but he knows how to handle himself.

Just become "some" people are the exceptions to these rules doesn't make them untrue. I consider this a cop-out on your part.

 

[Gelion]

Civrules first I want to say that you are the man. Thanks a lot for putting things right. You always know the true picture, but it takes some thinking to "get it" and act it. I think you made the right choice and I'm on my way to follow you. Once again thanks and

I have a question that was not yet discussed. You're almost always attracted to more than one girl - to some more, to some less. You always set priorities. So I've been wondering what one should do and what should be the "pattern of behaviour" towards girls you are not currently devoting your attention to? Especially if your "goal" and your "potential goal" are in the same room or organisation?
I think I already know the answer, but I'll ask. I'd like to know if its wrong to flirt with someone if your "goal" is kinda close to you (physically), but at the same time you are not that close (emotionaly). I kinda want to keep most of my options open and be smart about it. I know its a skill males master all their lives ( ) but some beginner info would be really appreciated.

 

[Civrules]

Civrules first I want to say that you are the man. Thanks a lot for putting things right. You always know the true picture, but it takes some thinking to "get it" and act it. I think you made the right choice and I'm on my way to follow you. Once again thanks and

I have a question that was not yet discussed. You're almost always attracted to more than one girl - to some more, to some less. You always set priorities. So I've been wondering what one should do and what should be the "pattern of behaviour" towards girls you are not currently devoting your attention to? Especially if your "goal" and your "potential goal" are in the same room or organisation?
I think I already know the answer, but I'll ask. I'd like to know if its wrong to flirt with someone if your "goal" is kinda close to you (physically), but at the same time you are not that close (emotionaly). I kinda want to keep most of my options open and be smart about it. I know its a skill males master all their lives ( ) but some beginner info would be really appreciated.

Thanks, and I'll say that it is a good question.

I've a question for you too though. Since you asked this, what exactly are your concerns regarding it? I know that at times there are more than one or two people you like.
By saying that you want to keep your options open, are you concerned that if you show more affection for one person, the other will start acting weird?

Don't let the situation or the girls control you (in terms of their presence). You do what you feel is right. Girls are competitive. If you show one more interest, the other will sometimes start competing with her. It can get vicious. But I don’t know how they feel about you so I can’t guarantee how they will respond.
So just be a man and don’t hide the fact that you want to talk or interact with one girl more than the other. The number one thing is to be laid back.
Don’t show that you are restricting yourself in how you are in front of them because that’s a turn-off…

And plus, social proof makes you more attractive to the girl who doesn't know you very well. So talking to other girls will get her curious about you.

 

[C~G]

Do I care?

Probably not since you aren't interested about enlargening the theory about these things. You still seem to think that there's either game or no game, which is coup-out from your part.
Everything is a game.

I recognize that exceptions may exist, but you do a poor job of explaining why things are the way they have been described in this thread. Again, the overwhelming vast bulk of the human experience, when it comes to relationships in the West, is as Civrules mentioned, and I have concurred. We are not the only ones realizing this. I have heard these exact same complaints, almost to the letter, from nearly every man I've ever spoken to on the issue. Where have you been?

Complaints about what?
That they don't know how to play the game?

In fact looking back I don't do that poor job explaining why these things should be taken only as guidelines.

And then there's still the logical fallacy part how on earth men can change their behaviour while women cannot if everything is based into biology?
There are biological factors involved which are then reinforced or rewired by the cultural standards.
Thinking that all the women are the same is saying that all the men are obsessed with female breasts. Example I'm not.
Women play the game too, I believe it's false analogy to say that only men dance to impress women. When it comes to humans, according to my theory it's both sexes that try to show their qualities and gain advantage over their fellows, not only just men.

Like you, he recognizes that rare exceptional people exist, and that one should keep an open mind about the possibility that one may run into someone like that. Be that as it may, his wife STILL tries to test his dominance all the time, but he knows how to handle himself.

Of course she does. But what I'm saying is that it is simply stupidity to say that between women there aren't differences.

Just become "some" people are the exceptions to these rules doesn't make them untrue. I consider this a cop-out on your part.

Really?
Do you know how scientific theories get falsified?
But let's move on since I believe every women is exception to the general rule one way or another and that's what game is all about. You adjust it regarding the enviroment and the woman in question.

IMHO only thing each man should have if they want to get along with women is acknowledge that they play game with the other party which exists with or without their own consent and won't happen without effort. Men also should develop methods to bring up their confidence or at least be able to show it, and one good thing to have are goals in life which shows that the men are progressing into some direction. These are the traits that women look for, or am I wrong?
Rest of the things are in many cases such that men cannot change, like their appearance greatly. Each men should find just some advantage that they have over other men, it might be good looks, brains, social skills etc. And you have yourself a comparative advantage in that particular market with that particular good you are offering.

But here's the catch. Some women don't understand that they are playing the game either and are as desperate to get partner. They will put down hopes for the perfect partner if there isn't hope for such. And this is problematic since as you improve your qualities to impress women you might very much find women that are interested about you because they are desperate. Now...who's turn is to play the game then?

Tables are turned, you see?

Personally I don't even understand about what parts you exactly disagree with me since I criticized how following the guidelines to the letter will lead into pathway of false strategies. Some of these advices are only good for particular type of men, all men shouldn't turn themselves into like that since they don't such qualities that match the prototype that is used for the theory.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Don’t show that you are restricting yourself in how you are in front of them because that’s a turn-off…

And plus, social proof makes you more attractive to the girl who doesn't know you very well. So talking to other girls will get her curious about you.

I think this is well crafted advice.

A big mistake many guys make is to think in terms of the girl. Girls don't think in the same fashion as guys. If a guy is seeing many chicks, it will only make each one want him more (or at the very least, not disuade them from seeing him), whereas if a a guy knew that a chick was seeing many other guys, he is likely to resent it and move on. Women seem to think counterintuitively.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

And then there's still the logical fallacy part how on earth men can change their behaviour while women cannot if everything is based into biology?

I don't know if women behave this way because they can, or because they can't help it. I don't really care either. My suspicion is that they have no incentive to act differently. If you look at human civilization, we have overcome many biological traits that would be counterproductive to an ordered society. Men are supposed to be naturally aggressive and violent, because of testosterone, but such features are only tolerated under limited circumstances. Likewise, I don't see why we shouldn't expect women to overcome their hormonal proclivities for a better society. But of course, we don't expect any better.

Women play the game too, I believe it's false analogy to say that only men dance to impress women. When it comes to humans, according to my theory it's both sexes that try to show their qualities and gain advantage over their fellows, not only just men.

The difference is that men only do it because they have no choice, whereas women insist on the game.

But let's move on since I believe every women is exception to the general rule one way or another and that's what game is all about. You adjust it regarding the enviroment and the woman in question.

That's a contradiction. If everything is an exception to the rule, then there are no rules.

Rest of the things are in many cases such that men cannot change, like their appearance greatly. Each men should find just some advantage that they have over other men, it might be good looks, brains, social skills etc. And you have yourself a comparative advantage in that particular market with that particular good you are offering.

Actually, women don't care about a man's appearance as much as men care about a woman's appearance. So it isn't necessary for a man to do much about his. I disagree that as a man, you have to find some competitive advantage. Women aren't sizing up each individual man based on his individualistic merits. If that were true, I would have no complaints because I would know that a woman selected me for my own qualities, and I would be proud of them. Instead, women seem to use all the worst ways of judging men, such as "social proofing" ("if he's liked by others, I should like him"), apperances of confidence (What does confidence have to do with your qualities? I know plenty of dumbasses who are very confident.) and other factors that have little to do with what a person really is. If women were really sizing up a man based on qualities that really mattered, negative compliments would never work. In fact, they should be guaranteed to fail because one would think that you would not befriend anyone that put you down. Instead, a well placed "neg" can make a huge difference in attraction.

So as a man, increasing your inate quality only helps you out personally, but does nothing for your love life.

Personally I don't even understand about what parts you exactly disagree with me since I criticized how following the guidelines to the letter will lead into pathway of false strategies. Some of these advices are only good for particular type of men, all men shouldn't turn themselves into like that since they don't such qualities that match the prototype that is used for the theory.

You seem bent on excusing everyone as exceptions to the rule. That doesn't do anyone any good. If everything is an exception to every rule, then there are no rules. This discussion wouldn't be possible if its generalizations weren't true. Even if there were exceptions, I don't want to play the odds. If 95% of the time, it works the way we've been saying, I'll go with that. If it happens that I hit the 5% that don't work that way, I'll consider it a pleasant surprise.

 

[C~G]

The difference is that men only do it because they have no choice, whereas women insist on the game.

Isn't this the same thing?
Both want to find "perfect" partner so they have the game to get to know and test whether this is true.
Or are you saying that men don't test the partners? That is the way to end up into relationship that doesn't last. If you like that way, go on.
The problem rises when either men or women think they don't have to play the game but end up being desperate about finding any partner. I believe this happens with older women who see they don't have anymore any kind of compartive advantage over younger fresher meat.
Young nice fellows have the problems of being "dull". The least what they can show is confidence and learn to discuss with women without appearing too friendish in other words, flirt.
But if there are lots of men available it does come to the point that men should show they are "good at something" and I believe it needs to be more than just being good in the game flirt wise.

That's a contradiction. If everything is an exception to the rule, then there are no rules.

These are theoretical rules.
Let me rephrase that.
The rules are more of like "perfect color red" while each game (situation, man, woman) is different by the shade of that color.

Actually, women don't care about a man's appearance as much as men care about a woman's appearance. So it isn't necessary for a man to do much about his. I disagree that as a man, you have to find some competitive advantage. Women aren't sizing up each individual man based on his individualistic merits.If that were true, I would have no complaints because I would know that a woman selected me for my own qualities, and I would be proud of them. Instead, women seem to use all the worst ways of judging men, such as "social proofing"

Really?
What is the basis of that notion?
I never said the compartive advantages need to be "real". They can example exist based into certain social hierarchy inside example high school. And some women love good looking men always over bad looking men.

When it comes to myself I have no complaints at all. Only thing I'm saying people shouldn't do blanket statements about humans way of choosing partner. It's much more complicated issue than based into simple "player theory". If such things happen blankly, they happen in specific situations.

Also I believe the game changes during the progress of relationship and trying to use the same rules for dating and then for serious relationship can really leave you bewildered.

So as a man, increasing your inate quality only helps you out personally, but does nothing for your love life.

The game in the long run isn't about the form which is talked about here, but more about the content and the depth of personality. If you want to go skinny dipping from one short relationship to another then the form is more important just like the hot looking women might satisfy you for moment but you don't necessarily find them to be wife material and fit for you in the long run.

This is the marathon, not a sprint.

 

[Shigga]

Civrules, nice going so far.
I followed the thread and I agree with most things you said. I could start to argue from my professional PoV, but I rather choose my personal experience to stress this:

In everything you do, be yourself. This is perhaps the hardest part of all in human contact. You ought to feel like the things you do. Avoid doing things by facing the girl and consciously thinking "Aha, she challenges me now so I will make a joke".
Women tend to surpass men in their empathic abilities (well, the majority does). She will discover you are wearing a mask, hiding your true self, and this will gradually wipe out every chance you might have had. Worse, if you really can form a relationship, you will be forced to wear that mask 24/7. Constantly not being yourself makes yourself and your relationships sick, and eventually both of you will break apart.
Also, you will loose the ability of being spontaneous and you run the risk of tensing and loosing your lean-back mentality.

Keeping that mentality comes right behind being yourself. Because this state of mind will let you accept whatever outcome there will be. It enables you to be relaxed, bc you do not expect anything. Neither something of her, nor a certain outcome. When you are relaxed, she will relax. With both relaxed, you will have a nice time with each other, and all other things will develop by themselves- or not.

Now for the even bigger drawback. Being yourself is a matter of practice, like a training a muscle. In order to achieve practice, you can only ACT like you're being yourself in the beginning, with the risk of being discovered by the other. This is what usually happens in "first crashes". We unconsciously know that risk and that is another reason, apart from the lack of experience, why ppl tend to get nervous on the first couple of times they are dating.
At least it tends to hurt less with every crash you make. And the reward is usually a lot more gratifying than the amount of pain experienced

 

[Civrules]

Civrules, nice going so far.
I followed the thread and I agree with most things you said. I could start to argue from my professional PoV, but I rather choose my personal experience to stress this:

In everything you do, be yourself. This is perhaps the hardest part of all in human contact. You ought to feel like the things you do. Avoid doing things by facing the girl and consciously thinking "Aha, she challenges me now so I will make a joke".
Women tend to surpass men in their empathic abilities (well, the majority does). She will discover you are wearing a mask, hiding your true self, and this will gradually wipe out every chance you might have had. Worse, if you really can form a relationship, you will be forced to wear that mask 24/7. Constantly not being yourself makes yourself and your relationships sick, and eventually both of you will break apart.
Also, you will loose the ability of being spontaneous and you run the risk of tensing and loosing your lean-back mentality.

Keeping that mentality comes right behind being yourself. Because this state of mind will let you accept whatever outcome there will be. It enables you to be relaxed, bc you do not expect anything. Neither something of her, nor a certain outcome. When you are relaxed, she will relax. With both relaxed, you will have a nice time with each other, and all other things will develop by themselves- or not.

Now for the even bigger drawback. Being yourself is a matter of practice, like a training a muscle. In order to achieve practice, you can only ACT like you're being yourself in the beginning, with the risk of being discovered by the other. This is what usually happens in "first crashes". We unconsciously know that risk and that is another reason, apart from the lack of experience, why ppl tend to get nervous on the first couple of times they are dating.
At least it tends to hurt less with every crash you make. And the reward is usually a lot more gratifying than the amount of pain experienced

Not only that, but if you are not yourself, you might get little satisfaction when attracting the opposite sex. Because it will just not be you.

It all comes with getting rid of any insecurity. If you had no insecurities to begin with, it is hard to not be yourself, because you will go with the flow no matter what happens, and that is the natural thing to do. That's the "outgoingness" part of it all.

This is very important:
Before you start applying any of these methods, read books on inner-game and self-esteem. It will be a great disaster to not have your inner-game on when applying some of what I've passed on...
Now THAT is what makes you look insecure, and this also makes you risk ruining the view other people have of you.
Having a strong inner view of yourself before you go on to any of these is a must because
a) if you do something exactly as I've passed on and you come back to say that it doesn't work, you'll leave with a bad taste in your mouth never wanting to try it again because it "does not work."
b) it will lower your self-esteem even more because trying something that you thought was a silver bullet ends up not working. So you think there is something fundamentally wrong with you.

So it all comes down to this:
First get your self-esteem in order by reading books and trying NEW things.
Try something new every day.

If you are afraid of doing something, do it. Don't take huge leaps in the beginning because taking the small first steps is what gets you somewhere. But if you are sure you can take the big leaps with confidence, by all means, do it. (For example you are alone and there is a group of girls standing talking to each other, and you approach them. For some that may be a huge leap.)

I don't know if you've caught on yet but this is more than just attracting girls. It also has a lot to do with being more confident about every other thing you do in life.

 

[Civrules]

It's a funny thing to point out:
Exactly one year ago, Thanksgiving break, I was so infatuated and in lust tha I lost at least 15 hours of sleep in less than a week.
I was pretty much not all there upstairs.

Things change a lot though. 180 degrees. Now that I look back... oh my...

I guess it takes something like this to change a person.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Isn't this the same thing?
Both want to find "perfect" partner so they have the game to get to know and test whether this is true.

No. It is only women that are interested in all the drama. Men are generally disinterested in drama.

Or are you saying that men don't test the partners? That is the way to end up into relationship that doesn't last. If you like that way, go on.

No, men don't test their women because men generally are not interested in the hassle. A man's perspective is that a woman should appeal to him, or not. Men are generally more decisive than women, and are not constantly second-guessing everything. Women are the ones that are always overthinking everything, and overanalyzing every situation far beyond its need.

The problem rises when either men or women think they don't have to play the game but end up being desperate about finding any partner. I believe this happens with older women who see they don't have anymore any kind of compartive advantage over younger fresher meat.

You are far too concerned over women's problems, when it is men we are discussing. Are you male or female? At this point, I can't tell which.

Young nice fellows have the problems of being "dull". The least what they can show is confidence and learn to discuss with women without appearing too friendish in other words, flirt.

Yes, we've discussed that. It's about the only thing we can agree on.

But if there are lots of men available it does come to the point that men should show they are "good at something" and I believe it needs to be more than just being good in the game flirt wise.

And just what are those other things? Don't be so vague.

These are theoretical rules.
Let me rephrase that.
The rules are more of like "perfect color red" while each game (situation, man, woman) is different by the shade of that color.

I recognize that these are guidelines, and that every situation involves interpretation, but they are true and should be followed. You seem to constantly suggest there's more to it than this, but you never say what. You're vague. Some come out and say what you mean.

Really?
What is the basis of that notion?
I never said the compartive advantages need to be "real". They can example exist based into certain social hierarchy inside example high school. And some women love good looking men always over bad looking men.

These guidelines are based on several gurus from the seduction school who field tested their ideas after years of trial. It is based on hundreds, perhaps thousands, of encounters. All of them came to the same conclusions, even though they worked independently. If that's not scientific validity, I don't know what is. It is also consistent with my observation, and that of most men.

And you're vague again.

When it comes to myself I have no complaints at all. Only thing I'm saying people shouldn't do blanket statements about humans way of choosing partner. It's much more complicated issue than based into simple "player theory". If such things happen blankly, they happen in specific situations.

More complicated? Do tell, without being vague.

Also I believe the game changes during the progress of relationship and trying to use the same rules for dating and then for serious relationship can really leave you bewildered.

I believe that the tests of dominance continue throughout life. The exact kinds of tests may change, but their purpose is the same.

The game in the long run isn't about the form which is talked about here, but more about the content and the depth of personality. If you want to go skinny dipping from one short relationship to another then the form is more important just like the hot looking women might satisfy you for moment but you don't necessarily find them to be wife material and fit for you in the long run.

This is the marathon, not a sprint.

I believe you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[C~G]

Nanocyborgasm.

Yes I'm being vague since the theory in question is vague. Which was my whole point if you missed it.
All we can do is accept such thing as "confidence is important" within it which we did, rest mostly depends about the relevant factors which I mentioned earlier.

You are far too concerned over women's problems, when it is men we are discussing. Are you male or female? At this point, I can't tell which.

Sounds like bit of personal attack to me.
I was indeed partly talking about how women approach this game which is exactly the problem with the theory since it only appears to acknowledge the male side of things, which I said earlier leads into logical fallacy how men can change their mental state and how they approach the game while women will always do the same thing no matter what.
It's kind of important understand the women side of things and their problems before you do any kind of "women do this and want this"-statements.

Let's use an analogy that we both believe into "Jesus" but one of us takes things written in Bible literally (you) while I say they are only fables and depend from the context how they should be taken. But apparently for you my denial of all these things being literal word of God makes you belive that I don't believe into Jesus itself in the same process. But of course your belief about my belief doesn't concern my, since my game is working.

These kind of guides aren't any more scientific studies than those "good life books". For rich people certain things might work example but for poor it leads only to disaster.
I'm rather sure the game is different depending if you're nerdy type or sporty jocky.

The core of the theory is right but some basic principles of it are based, as said into logical fallacy. I could go on how our perceptions about our biological factors regarding the issue are mostly culturally structured but I think I pass since I have more important things to do than really try to convince someone about as trivial as this especially if one resorts to the level of personal attacks.

I believe you have no idea what you're talking about.

Well thank you.

Since I don't believe blindly all the aspects of these theories? Oh, there's book by experts that says how prayer has helped numerous people miraculously. I think I start praying then. It can't be wrong since they are gurus and have proved this in certain circumstances hundreds or thousands of times. Maybe it depends of people involved more than the rules are given?

But your main point seems to be that I'm vague, possibly a woman and don't know anything about the issue. Therefore I think we are through this.
If you want to answer, go ahead. I'm out of here.

 

[Civrules]

Actually, women don't care about a man's appearance as much as men care about a woman's appearance. So it isn't necessary for a man to do much about his. I disagree that as a man, you have to find some competitive advantage. Women aren't sizing up each individual man based on his individualistic merits. If that were true, I would have no complaints because I would know that a woman selected me for my own qualities, and I would be proud of them. Instead, women seem to use all the worst ways of judging men, such as "social proofing"

Really?
What is the basis of that notion?
I never said the compartive advantages need to be "real". They can example exist based into certain social hierarchy inside example high school. And some women love good looking men always over bad looking men.

When it comes to myself I have no complaints at all. Only thing I'm saying people shouldn't do blanket statements about humans way of choosing partner. It's much more complicated issue than based into simple "player theory". If such things happen blankly, they happen in specific situations.

Nonononono,

I have to disagree with you 110% here, C~G. With all due respect.
This is not a notion. This is a hard fact. It's like trying to disprove the importance of choosing the best mate to ensure survivability for the species.

Someone is not going to choose someone else just for any reason. That's what your statement is saying. There is a reason for EVERYTHING. No matter how small. Even every shift you make in the chair you are sitting in. There is a reason. Think about it and notice the details.

"And some women love good looking men always over bad looking men."

What does that mean? Can you tell me how that is important from an evolutionary point of view?

Unlike your statement, which offers little or no proof, I can provide piles and truckloads of proof in what I'm about to say. It all boils down to survivability.

There is new scientific research that says guys who are very hungry tend to find more attractive girls who are not as thin (but not that overweight either).
This may seem obvious, but most people don't think of that. Why is this true? Because someone who looks to be in a better condition than ourselves means that they must indeed be better off, which means higher survivability!

Duh!

Girls DO find guys who are muscular to be more attractive. Girls are not attracted to good looking guys because of their facial structure.

So why muscular guys? Do I really need to go into detail? C'mon, you can take a stab at it.

But even with what I have said, having muscles does not close the deal! You can be skinny or fat and still get the girls. It all depends on your character. If you exhibit an Alpha Male character, girls will follow you (no matter if you are muscular or fat).

Think again: Why? Someone who is Alpha Male has a lot of followers. He is "his own man." Alpha Males tend to have a lot of influence. Girls rationalize this subconsciously and before you know it, they ARE attracted! At this point, it DOES NOT matter how the guy looks, or what his physique is because he is already a leader and therefore this trait alone means much greater survivability.

This is not a mere "player theory." "Players" don't just sit around and talk to each other about patterns they have found. This comes also from scientific research. Open up to the big picture of things. Why would a girl be attracted to a guy who just looks good?

I don't mean to sound condescending to you at all, but my proof as well as Nano's proof (perhaps) comes from experience AND reading a lot of books about psychology, evolution, and from these Gurus.

It seems that guys find it hard to believe that their looks truly do not matter much at all if they have their game down.


As hard as you can, when you go out, seperate a guy's character from his look and observe why people are or are not attracted to him.


I'm even starting to doubt whether you read the multiple posts I've put in this thread saying what the differences are between what men are attracted to and what women are attracted to.



If you read something I say and you don't agree with it, say so. Because I don't feel like repeating myself 348 times trying to prove something. Instead the mere fact of knowing that you disagree with something tells me that you at least read it.

 

[C~G]

OK this is final time I answer so better listen.
I think in general it's better you give girl advice in this thread rather than change into theory about attraction thread.

This is not a notion. This is a hard fact. It's like trying to disprove the importance of choosing the best mate to ensure survivability for the species.

What?
That is exactly what I'm been trying to tell it, but it's the approach to the problem I'm against since it contains as said clear logical fallacies.

You know when the problem rises? When there are multiple "alpha-males" present of course.
If we all men learn those aspects of the game, we end up being "beta-males" since the confidence level of all of us is the same. So only thing left would be how long we can keep up the game itself, eventually making the game more important than the actual act of finding the perfect partner. What kind of evolutionary process it does serve to change man that doesn't have required qualities to example reproduce etc. to alpha-male?
So if everything is based into evolution then there must be reason to it if we do so...and if we can do so, it means women can do it also so they cannot possibly just follow evolutionary process while men can pretend to be "alpha-males".

Get it?

By starting to playing the game the way "it's based into biology of humans" is just false since we are changing our behaviour as men regarding the confidence factor pretending to be alpha-males which would lead women difficulties to choose their partner since all they can see is the confidence. And if we all have same level of confidence, the rules of the game must change and other factor come into being rather than just mere of being "alpha-male".

All I'm saying is that there are problems in this theory as trying to impose it as fact regarding every issue beyond the idea of being confident which probably really is number one issue for women. But how important compared to other values...that is the real question.

Someone is not going to choose someone else just for any reason. That's what your statement is saying. There is a reason for EVERYTHING. No matter how small. Even every shift you make in the chair you are sitting in. There is a reason. Think about it and notice the details.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm great advocate of that theory.

"And some women love good looking men always over bad looking men."

What does that mean? Can you tell me how that is important from an evolutionary point of view?

Example good looking men are considered to be more healthy. There are studies of it around how certain looking men are considered to be fancied more and this might even change during the women periods so saying blankly that women don't care about looks is false. Of course we could state they don't care as much as men but that doesn't really tell that much either from evolutionary point of view, now does it?
In general I believe there are more to the issue regarding our own identity and the qualities we would like to have ourselves but I don't currently want to dig deeper since acquiring proof of that currently is quite difficult.

Also I'm sure that since it has been brought up earlier good looking men might be more socially acceptable to date so they are given higher points by women. Does it really serve any purpose by evolution? No. Do fake breasts serve any other purpose than use your natural instincts for their own advantage?

Unlike your statement, which offers little or no proof, I can provide piles and truckloads of proof in what I'm about to say. It all boils down to survivability.

These are open to debate.
If you think I haven't read any books or studies about this issue...and since I have myself used the methods on my own, saying that I don't offer any proof is mainly because it seems the studies made are based into false premises. In the future we might see something else and we know more. Unfortunately the situation in society and culture changes also which might chance also the habits of choosing partner quite significantly.

There is new scientific research that says guys who are very hungry tend to find more attractive girls who are not as thin (but not that overweight either).
This may seem obvious, but most people don't think of that. Why is this true? Because someone who looks to be in a better condition than ourselves means that they must indeed be better off, which means higher survivability!

And I don't disagree.
But see bolded.
You use the word "tend", which isnt' same as "always true".
This is what I'm talking about. That there are numerous traits, habits and quirks that determine eventually which partner we choose whether we are men or women. Denying this is going against the wave of evolution itself.

Girls DO find guys who are muscular to be more attractive. Girls are not attracted to good looking guys because of their facial structure.

I'm sorry but they can be attracted by facial structure also.

So why muscular guys? Do I really need to go into detail? C'mon, you can take a stab at it.

It's one the advantages some guys have over other guys, yes.

But even with what I have said, having muscles does not close the deal! You can be skinny or fat and still get the girls. It all depends on your character. If you exhibit an Alpha Male character, girls will follow you (no matter if you are muscular or fat).

That is the prime principle, but everything else is as you said about "the character" which consists all the qualitities men have or appear to have, which are socially accepted qualities for "perfect mate". And then there are personal preferences and psychological factors such as resembling one's father etc.

Think again: Why? Someone who is Alpha Male has a lot of followers. He is "his own man." Alpha Males tend to have a lot of influence. Girls rationalize this subconsciously and before you know it, they ARE attracted! At this point, it DOES NOT matter how the guy looks, or what his physique is because he is already a leader and therefore this trait alone means much greater survivability.

This is false notion when there are more than one alpha male present and I believe women don't necessarily choose the man with the highest confidence, they might find such men tempting but not necessarily worth the shot. Women don't necessarily like either that man sleeps around with high confidence.

This is not a mere "player theory." "Players" don't just sit around and talk to each other about patterns they have found.

It does sound like one which I have read about years ago probably before you. (Not sure of your age so...)

This comes also from scientific research. Open up to the big picture of things. Why would a girl be attracted to a guy who just looks good?

As said it is just one of the qualities. I'm not saying that it's the only reason to pick a partner, but it's one of them.

I don't mean to sound condescending to you at all, but my proof as well as Nano's proof (perhaps) comes from experience AND reading a lot of books about psychology, evolution, and from these Gurus.

Same here.
And please leave the gurus out of this, since this sounds like secret cult that has secret key to the secret knowledge that will make life of all people great.

It seems that guys find it hard to believe that their looks truly do not matter much at all if they have their game down.

I have known it doesn't matter as much as how much women's looks matter to guys.
But it does have meaning. I believe currently more than ever.

As hard as you can, when you go out, seperate a guy's character from his look and observe why people are or are not attracted to him.

It depends what you mean by "character". If you mean how man carries himself I agree, otherwise not.

I'm even starting to doubt whether you read the multiple posts I've put in this thread saying what the differences are between what men are attracted to and what women are attracted to.

Are you claiming to be guru on the issue now? Can I use you as legitimate source now?

If you read something I say and you don't agree with it, say so. Because I don't feel like repeating myself 348 times trying to prove something. Instead the mere fact of knowing that you disagree with something tells me that you at least read it.

It's indeed little bit mystery about some things what you disagree with me.
All I said that this isn't any groundbreaking holistic theory that explains it all. And I have explained that I see the confidence factor important but it fails down since it has wrong premises when it comes to the complexity of human nature (especially women) and the very survivalbility and evolution with which you try explain ALL the points in theory being FACTS.

EDIT: And I suggest reading about game theory if we really consider this whole thing as "game".
The theory of alpha-male sounds like checkers while the reality is more like chess combined with rolling the dice.

 

[Civrules]

Oh please, we want a discussion. Don’t get resentful just because people are disagreeing with you. Quitting isn’t an option. I love this discussion.

What?
That is exactly what I'm been trying to tell it, but it's the approach to the problem I'm against since it contains as said clear logical fallacies.

You know when the problem rises? When there are multiple "alpha-males" present of course.
If we all men learn those aspects of the game, we end up being "beta-males" since the confidence level of all of us is the same. So only thing left would be how long we can keep up the game itself, eventually making the game more important than the actual act of finding the perfect partner. What kind of evolutionary process it does serve to change man that doesn't have required qualities to example reproduce etc. to alpha-male?
So if everything is based into evolution then there must be reason to it if we do so...and if we can do so, it means women can do it also so they cannot possibly just follow evolutionary process while men can pretend to be "alpha-males".

Get it?

By starting to playing the game the way "it's based into biology of humans" is just false since we are changing our behaviour as men regarding the confidence factor pretending to be alpha-males which would lead women difficulties to choose their partner since all they can see is the confidence. And if we all have same level of confidence, the rules of the game must change and other factor come into being rather than just mere of being "alpha-male".

All I'm saying is that there are problems in this theory as trying to impose it as fact regarding every issue beyond the idea of being confident which probably really is number one issue for women. But how important compared to other values...that is the real question.

This is an interesting point you bring about. However I disagree.
Why do I disagree?

You said the dreaded word: “IF.”
Please look at the margins. Isn’t it appealing to learn how to be successful with women? Yes. Isn’t it appealing to know how to make more money? Yes. How many categories are in a book store, for example? Now consider that each category in a book store has a lot of followers that couldn’t possibly care less for what other categories have to say.
Having said that, people will recognize that they may have difficulty with women, but most will NEVER do anything about it!
There will always be a VERY distinguishable line between those who “get it” and those who do not. It boils down to people’s interests. You can say “if” all you want to try to prove a hypothetical point, but that just isn’t good enough.
Your argument is so weak that you automatically use the word “if,” instead of “when,” because you just KNOW what you are saying will NEVER happen.

Example good looking men are considered to be more healthy. There are studies of it around how certain looking men are considered to be fancied more and this might even change during the women periods so saying blankly that women don't care about looks is false. Of course we could state they don't care as much as men but that doesn't really tell that much either from evolutionary point of view, now does it?
In general I believe there are more to the issue regarding our own identity and the qualities we would like to have ourselves but I don't currently want to dig deeper since acquiring proof of that currently is quite difficult.

Also I'm sure that since it has been brought up earlier good looking men might be more socially acceptable to date so they are given higher points by women. Does it really serve any purpose by evolution? No. Do fake breasts serve any other purpose than use your natural instincts for their own advantage?

Ok, fair enough. I know there are studies which suggest that better looking people are perceived as being healthier. No argument there.
And yes we can state that they don’t care about looks as much as we do. And you are mistaken. It speaks volumes because a good and attractive character will always overwrite good looks. Always. Have you seen a guy with good looks who is generally alone and no one gives him any attention? (Oh, I have many times.) But do you wonder why?
On the other hand, have you ever seen an ugly guy going out with a very attractive girl? Yep! Like I said in my previous post, take the ugly guy’s character and imagine where he’d be if he didn’t have an attractive character.
He would be exactly where you want me to believe most unattractive guys are. At a huge disadvantage. Sorry, that just isn’t true. The fact that you say that you could dig deeper kind of makes your credibility shrink.

And why did you have to shoot yourself in the foot by starting the “fake breast” argument? We ALL know that guys are clearly more automatically attracted to a woman’s looks and physique.

And I don't disagree.
But see bolded.
You use the word "tend", which isnt' same as "always true".
This is what I'm talking about. That there are numerous traits, habits and quirks that determine eventually which partner we choose whether we are men or women. Denying this is going against the wave of evolution itself.

I can relate to how Nanocyborgasm felt earlier in this thread. So I’ll just keep pounding away saying that an exception does not render ALL of this untrue.
There are exceptions in everything.
Offering a little exception to the rule and immediately saying, “OH! That’s the silver bullet!” is quite a lame argument. Really.

I'm sorry but they can be attracted by facial structure also.

Ok, you are right. I actually let myself go a little too far in saying that they are not attracted to that because I assumed anyone who has read my previous posts in this thread would weight and consider what I truly believe instead of taking the first extreme example I offer and use it as an argument against me.
So I shall rephrase what I said:
Girls are not attracted to looks nearly as much as they are attracted to a plethora of other characteristics.

This is false notion when there are more than one alpha male present and I believe women don't necessarily choose the man with the highest confidence, they might find such men tempting but not necessarily worth the shot. Women don't necessarily like either that man sleeps around with high confidence.

When alpha males are involved, the girl is not the chooser in their minds. The first one that makes the move is the chooser. Girls, like guys, can be attracted to more than one person. The one that makes the first move usually wins. Have you ever been attracted to more than one girl?
What happened in that situation?
I don’t understand your argument of “more than one alpha males in a situation.” Aren’t there more than one highly attractive girls in certain situations also?
If there are, which do you think I’ll choose? The attractive girl who is boring or the attractive girl who is outgoing and fun? (Ooh, now we start getting into people’s characters having an impact on attraction, no?)

Same here.
And please leave the gurus out of this, since this sounds like secret cult that has secret key to the secret knowledge that will make life of all people great.

Why would I leave the gurus out of it?
They don’t offer more proof than you are comfortable with, now do they?

Why do you think the gurus are successful?

Are you claiming to be guru on the issue now? Can I use you as legitimate source now?

Ooooh, now you are just trying to push my buttons, aren’t ya?
Don’t be so manipulative. And don’t try to inspire hatred in someone else for your own advantage.

Read my previous posts and you will very clearly see that I’ve said quite a few times that:
a) This is NOT my religion
b) I am merely passing this information on from other sources

This once again leads me to believe that you have not read my previous posts. At least not all of them.
And if you have, you are very clearly trying to incite something personal by stating something you know isn’t the case.

Wow, stay away from there.

And again I will say this:
I am not forcing this down anybody’s throat.
If you like it and if it works for you, great. If not. Great. I couldn’t care less.

The thing is that I’ve followed it and I sure as hell won’t revert back to my previous mindset.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Nanocyborgasm.

Yes I'm being vague since the theory in question is vague. Which was my whole point if you missed it.

It is only vague to you. No one else involved in this thread regards it as a mystery but you. At this point, I don't know if you're just incredibly dense, or refuse to accept the conclusions herein. I'm guessing it's a combination of both. You seem to want to make excuses for everything, but you don't present anything contrary. And this goes for all you responses, not just to me. Everything with you is like a big "maybe."

I was indeed partly talking about how women approach this game which is exactly the problem with the theory since it only appears to acknowledge the male side of things, which I said earlier leads into logical fallacy how men can change their mental state and how they approach the game while women will always do the same thing no matter what.
It's kind of important understand the women side of things and their problems before you do any kind of "women do this and want this"-statements.

As I said, their problems are not what's up for discussion. If I wanted to make a thread about girls having boy problems, I'd make that thread. But this is a thread about guys having problems with girls. Seeing as how you missed my point twice already, I don't think you've understood the entire thread, much less what I or Civrules have been saying individually.

Let's use an analogy that we both believe into "Jesus" ...

You picked the wrong analogy, pal.

These kind of guides aren't any more scientific studies than those "good life books". For rich people certain things might work example but for poor it leads only to disaster.
I'm rather sure the game is different depending if you're nerdy type or sporty jocky.

That just demonstrates willful ignorance on your part. These theories have been field tested by hundreds of encounters by many seduction experts, and have been validated by men everywhere, including myself. I have used them and was stunned by its power. If this is not scientific validity, I don't know what is.

No, the game doesn't change depending on your social circle, because everyone is human.