A Few Nuggets of Truth

[jophil28]

The problem most men face is not pulling the NEXT trigger until a major disqualifier is committed.

Yes, unfortunately.
However sometimes she is well behaved to a fault and knows how to recount her history in a glowing light, but eventually the facade will slip.

The most unintended tell-tale from unsuitable women is their beloved victim statements.
You know the ones...Her version of her past portarys her as a God annointed(and appointed) saint who was endlessly abused by the man whose life she was selflessly dedicated to improve or even save.
Some women are so enamored with their own grandness as rescuers that they fail to recognize how dysfuctional they really are.
MY favorite reply to their story of martyrdom, " That kind of 'helping' is the sunny side of control. "

The jaw drop is priceless.

 

[Sinistar]

However sometimes she is well behaved to a fault and knows how to recount her history in a glowing light, but eventually the facade will slip.

The most unintended tell-tale from unsuitable women is their beloved victim statements.

It's funny, as an AFC I can't count the number of times I played right into the victim statements (activates matrix subprogram 003 aka Rescuer/Savior). However, they always came with very little prodding and usually came relatively early (almost always before intimacy). The best thing regarding these types, just about any question regarding a past relationship will get them going.

I think the "glowing light" ones are so obvious now. After getting older and being exposed to so many people that talk themselves up I usually just re-process the audio to mean "I am insecure and I want to be like other people who seem to have their sh!t together." Always ask yourself, why is someone talking so much about a certain thing when you are with them one on one. Often they are just very interested/passionate in something. But they might also be displaying insecurity just under the barrier of being overt . If the topic is related to hobbies / interests you have the former. If the topic is personal it may very well be the latter. You can do 9 dates, spend $780 and get laid 4 times only to find this out - or go with your gut and move on using your time / money more wisely.

IMHO, the most challenging ones to screen are the anonymous ones. They seem a bit reserved (I call it a yellow flag now). That makes them a bit mysterious which draws us in more (not such a bad thing). But they never really reveal much about themselves. If you really tune in your radar you might just barely sense this very subtle discomfort when certain topics arise. In a way, they play an almost perfect game of half truths, implication, etc. To the young AFC especially, they're thinking they've found the motherlode. What could be better than a HB8.5 who doesn't talk about herself alot. She's never revealing that much which activates matrix subprogram 004 - detective mode. The problem with detective mode (much like Rescuer/Savior mode) is that you silently slip into her frame and get so far into it, there's no low effort low stress way back out due to the time/emotional investment which seemed to fly by. Sure, you might get lucky and this one is just a quiet hottie. I'd say eject though - way too much time/money wasted reaching intimacy via detective mode only to find out there's really nothing there and they were quiet for a reason.

 

[jophil28]

It's funny, as an AFC I can't count the number of times I played right into the victim statements (activates matrix subprogram 003 aka Rescuer/Savior).
.

Priceless. It is like they all work from the same playbook.

This is likely found on page 5 ,"Tell the new guy that all your problems from the past were your ex's fault. Portray him as nasty, selfish, drunk, a cheater and a liar. Add in some comments about his gambling if you think that will elicit extra sympathy, and hint that the only reason that the bank did not foreclose, and your child did not starve, was that you worked three jobs while he sat on the sofa with a pizza and the remote... you get the idea."

 

[Mr. Me]

Guru's right.

Just as a side note: I've got similar parameters. This year I got myself a GF, which, if you knew me, you'd know that's rare. Why is it rare? Because I have standards - like Guru. One of my pals, when I told him I was now in a relationship, asked me, "Did you put her through all your tests?", meaning did I hold her to the standards I had coached him about when he was dating. "Yes" was my answer. Not to brag, but to paint the picture of what that results in: The woman I'm with, it's been half a year now... is still just as crazy about me as when she met me, does everything and anything to please me, ALWAYS seeks to make sure I'm happy and comfortable, doesn't give me any shyt AT ALL, doesn't give me any shyt tests and gives me more sex then I care for. She travels out to meet me, cooks dinners, buys me drinks and gifts, and can't get enough of me.

 

[Colossus]

Here we go again with the semantics.

Guru drops some simple, reliable, direct wisdom and the tit-for-tat ensues on who has the last word on 'quality' or 'rare'.

Like it or not, he's right. If you screen women based on these simple criteria, you are exponentially less likely to end up with poor outcomes. As I am fond of saying, a Man needs to have some non-negotiables in his life. If you don't, or you are weak in holding them, don't be surprised if you get sh!t you don't like.

Of course, his post presupposes that YOU are a man of quality---in other words, your house needs to be in order before you can expect to keep a woman who has the kind of character you're looking for. That includes dealing with your own emotional issues and the need to come on sosuave weekly to grind your axe against women.

Once you have the awareness, the ball is in your court. Stop blaming society and your parents and your BPD ex-gf and the feminist matrix. I know this saying has become trite here, but BE A MAN. Stop blaming the state of the world. It is what it is. You can be inventive and persistent or you can whine be a b1tch.

This whole selection process takes time, and it can be disheartening when you're on girl number 287 and you have yet another next. But you gotta get back in that seat.

 

[slaog]

People see what they believe. If you believe there are quality women out there then you'll find them. If you believe that all women are ho's then thats what you'll see. Its your own personal matrix.


I noticed the 'luck' word was mentioned a few times too. Personally I don't believe in luck. You make your own luck and the more positive people tend to be "luckier" people.

 

[Colossus]

Colossus,

Nobody is disagreeing with Guru on his message, the only thing going on here is a discussion about what "Rare" means. He said these women weren't "rare" and I disagree. I declare that if one applied his list of criteria to every woman, one would filter out the vast majority of them. I really don't think anyone can disagree with that statement.

I don't recall blaming BPD, Western Society, the Matrix, Women in general or anything else. My statements are just fact or a representation of what is, not whining. I think the merits of his filtering are spot-on, I also acknowledge that it is an uphill battle to find someone who makes it through that filter. I hardly think that makes me "anti-women".


His statement is simple and so is mine.

That wasn't directed at you, Danger.

It was more of a general statement regarding some men here who would rather lament that state of the world than get in the seat and start qualifying women more rigorously. Fixation on all the negative aspects of women and culture can become a cop-out for taking any action. I'm all for productive discussion about sociocultural matters, but there comes a point when discussion and venting becomes a big jerk-off without any sort of action plan.

I agree with you that when you apply a rigorous set of qualifying parameters to women, you will be hitting the next button more often than you may like. But I also think as you get more experience you can ascertain specific qualities faster. There are certain "cues" that can suggest red-flags and undesirable character traits.

 

[slaog]

There are certain "cues" that can suggest red-flags and undesirable character traits.

Its something I've learned too. I'll ask a few simple questions to see how they answer them and that can tell alot about a person.

 

[guru1000]

Just as a side note: I've got similar parameters. This year I got myself a GF, which, if you knew me, you'd know that's rare. Why is it rare? Because I have standards - like Guru. One of my pals, when I told him I was now in a relationship, asked me, "Did you put her through all your tests?", meaning did I hold her to the standards I had coached him about when he was dating. "Yes" was my answer. Not to brag, but to paint the picture of what that results in: The woman I'm with, it's been half a year now... is still just as crazy about me as when she met me, does everything and anything to please me, ALWAYS seeks to make sure I'm happy and comfortable, doesn't give me any shyt AT ALL, doesn't give me any shyt tests and gives me more sex then I care for. She travels out to meet me, cooks dinners, buys me drinks and gifts, and can't get enough of me.

It's a numbers game gentlemen. Here is a perfect example of a man sieving through the numbers until a compatible candidate stepped up to the plate.

Mr. Me, how many women have you dated (1 date+) and disqualified previous to this girl?

 

[jophil28]

It's a numbers game gentlemen. Here is a perfect example of a man sieving through the numbers until a compatible candidate stepped up to the plate.

Indeed, it is a numbers game and one in which most applicants fail the interview.
From Guru's and Mr Me's past posts, I am guessing that both have currently given their exclusivity to two women who have passed their rigorous tests.
I am assuming also that both men are CERTAIN that their respective woman are trustworthy, decent, loyal and compliant because those characteristics have been observed and confirmed as integral elements of those women's character.

Contrast those qualifying techniques with the chest beatings of those men here who believe that being a "DJ" with all of the strutting and manufactured swagger is the way to hold and be assured of woman's attention, loyalty and attachment.
Perhaps those evol psych tricks will succeed in attracting a woman, and even holding her for as long as the actor in you is 'on the job' ..Maybe even your positive masculinity is developing nicely and she is responding to it, but that alone will NOT guarantee her behavior in times of conflict.
You may subscribe to the belief that all woman are capable of cheating, or their character is flimsy and will be defeated by their biological "urges" under the right (or wrong ) circumstances.
Fine, believe whatever you want - just don't turn your back for long if you have not filtered her for character and are relying on DJ tactics alone to glue your relationship together.