How do you explain when guys do everything wrong but still get the girl?

[zekko]

But my idea of being natural ruffles many men's egos that are invested in their LTR game.

So, I get sh*t for that.

No, you get sh*t because you condescendingly insult and dismiss anyone who does not agree with your anti-relationship philosophy as being beta, gay, a woman, or buying into a woman's frame.

You're saying that this is a "men's forum", therefore no one should suggest that being in a relationship might be okay. Of course, most men would like to be in a relationship at some point in their lives. But most men are beta provider supplicators, so again, they don't "count". See how convenient that is?

I have no problem with your plate spinning lifestyle, I've done it myself. I would suggest most men at least give it a try. But at this point in my life I choose to be in a relationship, for reasons of my own. And pardon me if I don't think that automatically makes me a pvssy, or any less of a man.

 

[zekko]

While everyone is different, we are all more similar than we are different. For example, it's fair to say that the majority of men want to **** Scarlett Johannsson right? There might be a few weirdos out there that don't find her attractive, but the majority of men do.

Men supposedly respond to the same thing, but what happens when some guy posts a picture of their idea of an HB9 or 10 here? Other guys fall all over themselves to point out how she's a 5, not that hot, or not their type. So there IS a lot of variation between individuals.

I like Scarjo, but there are a lot of guys who wonder what the fuss is about.

What attracts men is generally pretty simple. What attracts women is a little more complicated. They can be attracted to any number of different male traits, looks, status, behavior, strength, etc. So you would expect there to be even more variation with the individual.

Hardcore PUA types want to say that women are only attracted to men who won't commit. But Rollo, a highly respected red piller, always said that women don't want a man who cheats, they want a man who could cheat. On other words, a man with options.

I'm all for men being men, and men being masculine. I just don't believe being masculine requires you to be an @sshole. There's plenty of variety within masculine behavior that can be attractive to women.

 

[TheFixer14]

Men supposedly respond to the same thing, but what happens when some guy posts a picture of their idea of an HB9 or 10 here? Other guys fall all over themselves to point out how she's a 5, not that hot, or not their type. So there IS a lot of variation between individuals.

I like Scarjo, but there are a lot of guys who wonder what the fuss is about.

What attracts men is generally pretty simple. What attracts women is a little more complicated. They can be attracted to any number of different male traits, looks, status, behavior, strength, etc. So you would expect there to be even more variation with the individual.

Hardcore PUA types want to say that women are only attracted to men who won't commit. But Rollo, a highly respected red piller, always said that women don't want a man who cheats, they want a man who could cheat. On other words, a man with options.

I'm all for men being men, and men being masculine. I just don't believe being masculine requires you to be an @sshole. There's plenty of variety within masculine behavior that can be attractive to women.

I agree with most of what you said. But the whole someone posting a pic of a woman that they think is hot and someone saying "nah" is more of a matter of taste which usually comes from a unique trait.

I don't think women are as complex as guys make them out to be. I honestly believe that guys are more complex than women are. To attract a woman you need to get to her emotions. If you can do that then you could say whatever you want and she's yours.

All feminine women respond to a man engaging their emotions. But one might want a guy who doesn't need them at all. One might want a guy who will put a ring on it. That's where things get different. You can do something that will get a woman's attraction. But knowing what she wants completely is a different story as not all women just like guys want the same thing. Like how some guys on here want to spin plates and others want a relationship.

I agree that being masculine doesn't require you to be an @sshole and I hate how some people think this way.

 

[Dingo]

Because like I've been saying for months now....there ARE NO RULES....just individuals.

- The "rules" and the "techniques" never and will never get the girl.

- It's the individual that gets the girl.

- That individual has ups and downs, highs and lows, good points and bad points.

It's why I continue to RAIL against the keyboard warrior, bullshyt, one-dimensional, women are all X and will all do Y theories on here. It's all bullshyt.

In real life, there is no Alpha or Beta. You have guys who have characteristics of both depending on the given day or the given circumstances. To succeed in anything in life, sometimes you have to Alpha and sometimes you have to be Beta. NOBODY is either or.

This.... Everybody is different. Simple formulas don't work but understanding the female mind will help you Improvise, Adapt and Overcome.

 

[zekko]

I don't think women are as complex as guys make them out to be. I honestly believe that guys are more complex than women are.

This may be splitting hairs, but I think there is a difference between attraction and filters.

Guys are mainly attracted to looks, and that's about it. That's why I say that attraction is simpler for men. We like T&A and a pretty face. Beyond that is when the filters kick in. A guy may or may not care how promiscuous the girl is, or what career she has. He may want her to be smart, fun, or a snappy conversationalist. But those things only come into effect once the guy is physically attracted to her. Once he is physically attracted, the screening process begins.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

No, you get sh*t because you condescendingly insult and dismiss anyone who does not agree with your anti-relationship philosophy as being beta, gay, a woman, or buying into a woman's frame.

You're saying that this is a "men's forum", therefore no one should suggest that being in a relationship might be okay. Of course, most men would like to be in a relationship at some point in their lives. But most men are beta provider supplicators, so again, they don't "count". See how convenient that is?

I have no problem with your plate spinning lifestyle, I've done it myself. I would suggest most men at least give it a try. But at this point in my life I choose to be in a relationship, for reasons of my own. And pardon me if I don't think that automatically makes me a pvssy, or any less of a man.

It doesn't you probably found it saved you time and energy to deal with one who is happy to meet your needs.

 

[BeTheChange]

It doesn't you probably found it saved you time and energy to deal with one who is happy to meet your needs.

None of us are actually saying "relationships = pvssified men". Zekko simply likes to simplify arguments to the point of caricature. He does this all the time.

As far as I'm aware, PK's central message is simply to do what benefits you. His Obama example is pretty good. Marriage is wonderful if your career relies on a certain image. Would Obama be POTUS if he were ostentatiously spinning plates? Doubtful. If an LTR is beneficial, then great. But the reality is that most men enter and operate in an LTR in a manner which is not to their own benefit. They cut off their balls in order to gain the perception of (false) happiness and security.

From what I understand Deesade's message is pretty similar on this topic. That most men enter LTR due to laziness and a scarcity mentality.

 

[zekko]

From what I understand Deesade's message is pretty similar on this topic. That most men enter LTR due to laziness and a scarcity mentality.

If that is the case, then I have misunderstood. But IIRC, his position is that if you are in a relationship, then you have bought into the woman's frame. I believe I am in a relationship for my own reasons, under my own frame.

I am familiar with the "laziness or fearfulness" argument. Fearfulness would imply I am afraid of losing her, which certainly is not the case. Women are replaceable. You can't replace an individual, but you can get a new girl with her own unique attributes. I know I can always go out and get another girl.

Laziness might come closer, but I still think it misses the mark. I do like having the LTR so I don't have to go out and find new women to feed the beast. But I like this because (as mrgoodstuff pointed out) this frees up my time and energy to focus on what I consider more important things. I'm not making women a priority. And of course, many in the manosphere (who usually tell you not make women a priority) want to say it is not "alpha" to be in a LTR. But that is judging what is "alpha" strictly under the context of women, which I think is a mistake.

Now, I don't believe in the whole "alpha" thing to begin with. I believe alphas are the top men, and women want the top men. Alpha is a position. I think "masculine" is a better description of desirable behaviors in males. But that's a separate argument. In the manosphere, if you're not "alpha", you're a "beta", which is a supplicating provider doormat white knight type. "Beta" is a dirty word.

The other reason I like the LTR is because at this point in my life, I find most people to be annoying. So why do I want to go out and meet new ones all the time? I don't. This isn't a matter of "comfort zone" either, because I pushed myself out of my comfort zone when I was younger to prove I could do it. Now, at my age, it is simply a matter of choosing the lifestyle I want to live, after having sampled a number of different ones.

 

[BeTheChange]

If that is the case, then I have misunderstood. But IIRC, his position is that if you are in a relationship, then you have bought into the woman's frame. I believe I am in a relationship for my own reasons, under my own frame.

I am familiar with the "laziness or fearfulness" argument. Fearfulness would imply I am afraid of losing her, which certainly is not the case. Women are replaceable. You can't replace an individual, but you can get a new girl with her own unique attributes. I know I can always go out and get another girl.

Laziness might come closer, but I still think it misses the mark. I do like having the LTR so I don't have to go out and find new women to feed the beast. But I like this because (as mrgoodstuff pointed out) this frees up my time and energy to focus on what I consider more important things. I'm not making women a priority. And of course, many in the manosphere (who usually tell you not make women a priority) want to say it is not "alpha" to be in a LTR. But that is judging what is "alpha" strictly under the context of women, which I think is a mistake.

Now, I don't believe in the whole "alpha" thing to begin with. I believe alphas are the top men, and women want the top men. Alpha is a position. I think "masculine" is a better description of desirable behaviors in males. But that's a separate argument. In the manosphere, if you're not "alpha", you're a "beta", which is a supplicating provider doormat white knight type. "Beta" is a dirty word.

The other reason I like the LTR is because at this point in my life, I find most people to be annoying. So why do I want to go out and meet new ones all the time? I don't. This isn't a matter of "comfort zone" either, because I pushed myself out of my comfort zone when I was younger to prove I could do it. Now, at my age, it is simply a matter of choosing the lifestyle I want to live, after having sampled a number of different ones.

What part of "most men" and "do what benefits you" don't you understand exactly?

 

[RangerMIke]

1. You can not hide anything from women. They always know exactly how you feel about them. They always know when you want them. The key to success with chicks is to make sure she believes that you do not NEED her. The minute she thinks you need her it is only a matter of time before you lose her, or she turns into a nagging shrew. You keep your frame by making sure she knows that you have options with other women.

2. All women are the same, they are attracted to the same male strength qualities. Depending on her upbringing and social conditioning her values might be different, but if she thinks she can get away with something, she will go with her nature (emotions) then rationalize her behavior.

3. Women are emotional, trying to rationalize female behavior is a waste of time, PERIOD. They are a leaf blowing in the emotional wind. When the wind stops... they are where they are.... until the wind kicks up again. If you want to get good with women, then you have to learn how to engage her emotions, then you can use your male strength qualities to take her where you want her to go. If she lands in a relationship with a weak man... as soon as another dude comes along that knows how to engage her, the emotional wind kicks up, and she will be fvcking him.

4. You can not get any woman you want. Nothing works if she is not attracted to you. You can be a Greek god with the body of Adonis, but if she is attracted to men that look like Santa, you are likely not going to make any head-way with her. Most women like men that are tall, dark, and handsome, but occasionally you will find a woman who likes short fat dudes.... it happens. What is talked about here is what TYPICALLY women are physically attracted to. The bottom line is that if she is not interested in you, you don't have a chance. And the only sane thing to do at that moment is to move the fvck on. Make a pass at a woman, and if she doesn't respond, or she flakes and cancels, then she doesn't like you... simple. Stop thinking about her and find women that want you... it's really that simple. Be the best man you can be, and all this does is increase the sample size of women who will be interested in you. Never, and I mean NEVER lock onto one chick, period.

 

[Herb]

I've seen this kind of thing on more than one occasion too... Just goes to show you the rules don't apply in all situations. I've had friends who text girls all the time and tell them how they feel and all that and end up getting them. Don't underestimate the power of being genuine, when done effectively.

 

[Poon King]

zekko is just confusing "attraction" with "individual agendas".

Every living thing on earth puts survival before sex. This is why rich men with resources are always guaranteed hot sexy poon. Doesn't mean women get wet over their money. Strong men in the ghetto are hot because they can provide protection. A woman doesn't need to be "attracted" to you to be with you. She just needs to have an agenda. Beta males are easy to exploit so do the math when you see one of these faggots with a hottie.

Its only stupid men that don't get this.

 

[mrgoodstuff]

zekko is just confusing "attraction" with "individual agendas".

Every living thing on earth puts survival before sex. This is why rich men with resources are always guaranteed hot sexy poon. Doesn't mean women get wet over their money. Strong men in the ghetto are hot because they can provide protection. A woman doesn't need to be "attracted" to you to be with you. She just needs to have an agenda. Beta males are easy to exploit so do the math when you see one of these faggots with a hottie.

Its only stupid men that don't get this.

Why I always said one of a mans primarily objectives is getting with females who are physically attracted to him. Not his money and not his success. This will give him best chance of best treatment possible.

 

[Mike32ct]

There are no 100 percent rules in this game.

 

[Pandora]

I dont understand why people say that Tenacity doesnt have a point. I may not agree with him on everything but on this subject he does have a point. Today i went on a date with the friend of girl that friendzoned me (lets call the girl that friendzoned me Jane). It was a great date and we ended up getting physical. The girl likes me. This is the second one of Jane's friends that i got physical with. The other one fell in love with me and got creepy when i didnt want to commit. Jane hooked me up with both girls by talking so highly of me. By the time i met them it was easy. They were very physically attracted to me so that also helped.

The point of this story is that Jane has me in the friendzone for almost a decade. NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF SEX HAS SHE THROWN MY WAY. NADA. Yet she tells her friends how awesome and amazing i am. Then her friends meet me and i am basically their ideal guy and they fall for me. So what has changed? I am the same guy. But I get totally different responses. Why? How is this possible? It is possible because women look for different things in a man. This alpha/ beta dichotomy is ridiculous. Some girls like Jane just dont like stable nice smart guys. They like dating down. Or they like the emotional rollercoaster of dating guys that are not emotionally available. We are forgetting that many women are just not mentally and emotionally healthy. These are the women that are always single or in some sort of dysfunctional relationship. Do you think they will respond well to an emotionally balanced stable guy? Hell no. Water seeks it own level.

I was texting a girl the other day who said that she intentionally targeted guys with low self esteem because it gave her control in the relationship ( i can post the texts if you dont believe me). She also liked to be a fixer. But she would grow bored of their AFC behaviors and realize that they were losers and then dump them. Many hot girls do the same thing. These girls fu*k alpha men, but they rather not be in a relationship with them. It constantly reminds them of their inferiority. I keep saying some womens main goal in life is the avoidance of rejection. This avoidance supersedes their attraction for you.

There are other women that just dont want to be happy at that time. I was also talking to this girl and she admitted that she ran away from good guys because she was not ready to happy. She wanted to hold on to the pain. It gave her strength. Being a victim gave her power. The victim role is a powerful one. Some girls just dont want to be in a functional relationship. So to act like women all want this emotionally stable, smart, good looking, alpha man is ridiculous. I have dated many many women and it doesnt match up to the reality of American women. Now maybe in more healthy societies this may be true, but not for American girls. Many American girls are mentally messed up. The ones that are not taken or married are even more so.

 

[zekko]

If you, or others, want to dismiss things such as basic biology to suit your ego, then that's your problem. I'm not joining you in fantasy land.

Men were built to impregnate as many women as possible.

The idea that pair bonding is not natural is one of the most laughable lies in the manosphere. The vast, vast majority of men get into exclusive relationships at some point in their life. PUAs want you to think this is all Mickey Mouse's idea, but it's not, it's a natural phenomenon. You can't prevent it from happening.

Besides, if the real goal was to impregnate multiple women, no one would use birth control.

When men chase exclusivity, they chase women away - because it isn't natural. There is nothing less attractive in a man than neediness. It's an abomination of a man's nature..

I did not "chase" exclusivity, but we agreed on it since it was mutually advantageous to both of us. I've explained my reasons previously in this thread. No neediness was involved.
I wouldn't say I'm "celebrating" relationships either, although I do choose to be in one. The only reason I discuss it here is because relationships are constantly (and unfairly) under attack by red pillers.

 

[zekko]

Monogamy isn't natural. If it were, there wouldn't need to be a constant frame push for it..

Lifelong monogamy may not be natural, but temporary or serial monogamy is. If it weren't, there wouldn't be all these cases of "oneitis" on the forum. The argument over what is natural is silly. What makes humans successful is their flexibility in approach and their ability to adapt.

I never said you did. Don't take things so personally.

I've noticed this is a limitation of the message board. You can quote a poster, address that poster, then make a separate point, but the poster may think you are still responding to him.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Monogamy isn't natural. If it were, there wouldn't need to be a constant frame push for it.

While it may not be biologically natural to be monogamous, we are more than just our biology, in that, we have "choice," in spite of "instinct." Without consciousness (as an animal which is slave to its instinct), your contention would be correct.

 

[l_e_g_e_n_d]

Societal expectations are just a veneer. We are still animals, really.

I find the grey area between our rational and animal parts to be quite interesting, actually.

That's why a woman protects her social value above all else. I protect it for her too. It's a sexy game

I like the chase more than the sex.

No question I love to fvck different hot women and the chase. But I love real estate and wealth-building more. Let's face it, plate spinning is time intrusive. I value my time. For this reason alone, I prefer exclusive relations (and you can bet she will help toward my passions).

A hot new real estate purchase or a HB10? I'll choose the former every time. Biologically backwards? Perhaps. But it's a choice.