Dating advice from a woman that actually works!

[zekko]

I'm trying (in order to understand your position) to figure out why you have such a strong emotional stake in this subject

For one thing, it annoys me that the main "role models" chosen by the community as their examples of men who attract women have a negative connotation (bad boy, jerk, @sshole, douchebag). It gives the impression you have to be some sort of horrible person in order to attract women, and in my experience, this simply isn't true. They should just stick with "Don Juan", that's respectable at least.

If I work on myself and develop confidence, self-direction, and masculinity, that does not in any way make me a bad boy. It makes me a well-developed, socially calbrated man.

I agree with what you're saying here. Confidence, self direction, and masculinity. I don't see these as things a bad boy should have, these are things a "man" should have.

But the bad boy possesses those qualities in spades

Here you've lost me. I don't see how having a rebellious streak (or however you want to define "bad boy") makes you more confident, self directed, or masculine.

It's debatable that rebelliousness is an independent factor that causes attraction.

Yeah, I mean most people have some rebelliousness in them anyway.

I think modern society and the government is getting way too Orwellian and too much like a police state for my tastes. Does that make me a rebel, and thus a bad boy? I imagine most people realize the government is at least a little screwed up in some way or other. It doesn't take a rocket scientist.

Besides, how do you display "rebelliousness" to a girl in a practical way so as to make her "'gina tingle"? Throwing a brick through someone's window might impress a high school girl, but I doubt too many other people would be thrilled with it.

Then there's the first rule in the 48 Laws of Power: Never Outshine the Master. That seems to suggest there is a limited value, at least, to rebelliousness, if you want to get ahead. And Robert Greene should know a thing or two about seduction.

The truth is that the most successful people in the world are those who are part of the establishment, not those rebelling against it. Most of the richest people in the world attended good universities and dress in suits and ties. You will actually find that they tend to be quite conservative.

Of course most of these people are daring and bold (you have to take risks to reap big rewards). They are quite confident and aggressive in their pursuit of success and these are all qualities that turn women on. But being rebellious won't help you if you don't have other traits going for you (looks, charisma, money etc.)

Absolutely. You don't have to be a bad boy to be daring, bold, confident, aggressive, masculine, etc.
But of course pickup gurus don't use successful men as role models because it's easier to teach someone to be a bad boy than to be a successful man.

 

[Lexington]

Not even all pickup gurus teach people to be had boys. Most emphasize "alpha" qualities but not the less savory qualities of bad boys. David DeAngelo encourages confidence and being ****y and funny, but nowhere does he encourage being abusive or immoral. Mystery has all kinds of routines and whatnot but he has never advocated being unreliable and abusive.

 

[Atom Smasher]

Zekko, I can't I just CAN'T continue in this thread, because number one I just don't have all that much stake or interest in it (my initial mild interest has dissipated), and I still see you reversing your logic.

You said,
"Here you've lost me. I don't see how having a rebellious streak (or however you want to define "bad boy") makes you more confident, self directed, or masculine."

What I'm trying to say is that having a rebellious streak DOES NOT make one more confident, self-directed or masculine. DOES NOT.

Rather, a bad boy consists of a man who has WARPED and PERVERTED versions of those qualities. Posession of those qualities DOES NOT mean that person is a bad-boy. But it is true that all bad-boys have those qualities.

Since a bad-boy is miscalibrated and over-does those qualities, those qualities are "out there"... on the surface and perceived on a surface level. Since women are ALWAYS in search of the holy grail of emotion, they perceive those surface qualities and become blinded to the bad, even if just for a few seconds in the bad-boy's presence. They are exposed to raw masculine traits (in a twisted, sick form), and cannot help but have a physiological response, until their rational process kicks in and evaluates him in a negative light. Raw masculinity affects virtually all women. Raw femininity affects virtually all men.

In conclusion, re-read paragraph 4 in this message.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Atom Smasher I think I and others were somewhat misinterpreting what you were saying. I don't think it was entirely our fault. Although you write clearly, you might have left out some info that made your point less clear.

One thing about bad boys that can make them attractive to women is the concept that women have this false belief that men are all slightly flawed and they need to fix them. So the bad boy amounts to a challenge. Of course women aren't interested in fixing or helping a guy that really needs help with women such as being unconfident, shy, lacking a backbone, etc. But a guy that has "commitment" or "emotional intimacy" issues they will want to "fix" his "problem".

Anyway, I agree that confidence and outgoingness, masculinity, self-direction are universal attractants.

 

[zekko]

Not even all pickup gurus teach people to be had boys. Most emphasize "alpha" qualities but not the less savory qualities of bad boys

Yeah, for the most part, pickup gurus do NOT teach you to be boys. They use the bad boy as a launching point for discussion: "Look, here's a guy who can get women, here's what he's doing right, and here's what you're doing wrong".

Check out the article at the top of the page, "How to the Bad Boy Women Love". Despite the misleading title, they're not teaching you to be a bad boy. They advertise "How to have Bad Boy power without being a jerk". And they say "Women don't pursue Bad Boys because Bad Boys are jerks. That's a myth.".

Usually it's the readers who get everything screwed up. They're the ones who come up with this idea of the Bad Boy as this magical creature that no woman can resist. They're the ones who are claiming women want the "jerk behaviors". The General Forum is really bad for this.

Also, remember that this "Bad Boy" is for the most part just a fictional character. He's not a real person. Not to say there are no bad boy types out there, there are. It's just that they are just as likely to be like samspade's cousin as some lady killer.

Have you seen the State Farm Insurance commercial where the girls conjure up a bad boy? Up pops this very buff guy with (no doubt) six pack abs and A&F model good looks, dressed all in black, including muscle shirt. It's fairly obvious what the attraction is here, and it isn't that the guy is a jerk.

What's funny is that this girl is saying many of the same things that can be found in the DJ Bible

Yeah, looking at her web page again, I see all kinds of familiar themes:
Avoiding the Friend Zone, Building your Inner Game, How to Approach Women, Why Women Test Men, etc.
It looks no better or worse than any other pickup site.

But because it's a woman, everybody's mind immediately shuts off and out comes the knee jerk reaction cliches "You don't ask a fish how to fish" and such. It's surprising in a way, because I've read a lot of posts here talking about how much help it can be to have a good wingwoman.

 

[Atom Smasher]

But because it's a woman, everybody's mind immediately shuts off and out comes the knee jerk reaction cliches "You don't ask a fish how to fish" and such. It's surprising in a way, because I've read a lot of posts here talking about how much help it can be to have a good wingwoman.

Zekko, the woman in question here (in the OP) removed all doubt about her awareness by stating that "It's ok for a guy to approach, as long as it's the right guy". Do you see the absurdity in that? SHe is saying that men should not fear rejection, that women want to be approached if you're the right guy!! LOL... I've never read anything so silly.

In my 54 years of living, I have honestly never once met a woman who had self-awareness when it comes to attraction and various other life motivations. For example, I have a sister who is far more logical than most women. I enjoy having frequent text-based "pun-battles" with her (not that that has anything to do with logic) and she has some excellent insight into men. However, I can see that even though she is a very logical thinker, deep, deep down she is completely, utterly in the dark about certain aspects of male/female dynamics. It's like her awareness goes to a certain point, and then the feminine mind kicks in and allows awareness to go no further.

I believe it's a mechanism within them which prevents their inner psyche form dis-integrating. They cannot face the truth about their inability to comprehend their own motivations, because they would have to face their logical absurdities. Therefore the mind shelves those concepts under lock and key. That's just my theory, but it describes a very real phenomenon.

We men are capable of the same mechanism of blindness, only in other areas.

Of course, a man can still leverage a wing girl and use her for his purposes. She doesn't have to have total awareness for that. I can still hammer a nail into a piece of wood with a monkey wrench, even though a hammer, designed with absolute perfection for its single purpose, would be more ideal. I maintain that there exists within women some kind of mechanism that makes them unable to accurately and factually contemplate their own attraction mechansim.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I agree. Putting the bad boy debate aside,as it really had little to do with that a woman said females don't really like bad boys. I think guys even if they were skepticle of a woman's advice read what she had to say and gave very good reasoning earlier in this thread why her advice was not very good and no better than typical advice from females and the average person.

For example as it has been pointed out earlier in this thread, she said the "right" guy was a matter of his character. And this right guy could approach her and say "banana, banana, banana" and she would be instantly attracted and giggling. If that doesn't demonstrate she, just like every other female, lacks self awareness of female attraction and substitutes words like character and "right guy" for what is really just appearance, then I don't know what does.

Her advice just wasn't very good and close to what any other female would say. She proved the rule that female advice stinks and not that guys dismiss female advice out of hand.

 

[zekko]

Zekko, the woman in question here (in the OP) removed all doubt about her awareness by stating that "It's ok for a guy to approach, as long as it's the right guy". Do you see the absurdity in that? SHe is saying that men should not fear rejection, that women want to be approached if you're the right guy!! LOL... I've never read anything so silly.

But it IS true when she says "It's ok for a guy to approach, as long as it's the right guy". You're right, it might be silly, but it's still true. Like Nutz said earlier in the thread, it's reminiscent of the Tom Brady sketch on Saturday Night Live. Funny stuff.

She doesn't really say anything about fear of rejection in that paragraph though. I think what she means is "Go ahead and approach, you might be ther right guy". Go ahead and take a chance, in other words. Or regret is worse than rejection, as Pook might say.

I like what she says here:

If you see a girl you like, stop, breathe and think to yourself, "She's adorable. I want to talk to her and see if I like her." Notice the "I want" and the spirit of figuring out what you like. Until you get to know this girl, it's about you, not her

It's about you, not her. That's pretty good.

Anyway, just because someone isn't 100% right about everything, that doesn't make her 100% wrong either. As I said before, I don't agree with everything she says. But she got a few good points in, I thought. And for a dating article written by a woman, I thought it was quite good.

I rarely agree with everything ANYBODY says, whether or guy writes it or not. That doesn't make it a bad article. If I can pull a nugget of truth out of it somewhere, something that works for me, I'm usually happy. Everybody has a different philosophy.

 

[zekko]

"The Right Guy" = post-hoc analysis.

Funny how often women end up dating guys that "totally aren't my type."

You're right that girls often end up dating guys they don't think are their type.
But when she says "the right guy", I take that to mean someone who passes her immediate filters. He looks good enough, doesn't come across as a chode or a creep, etc.

E.g., "He's totally not my type....he's short and balding and into comic books. But he walked up to me and started talking and was really charming. We totally hit it off."

Hey, that doesn't sound like a bad boy.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I think the bigger fallacy in the seduction community isn't the bad boy, it's that the old, out shape, bald, short guy can get a hot younger girl with just "charm". I'm not saying it doesn't happen but it happens less than a true bad boy in the sense of bad attracts girls. Lots of average to unattractive guys have charm and don't attract girls too well. Charm isn't that uncommon. It's subjective and it is important but I've been looking high and low for real examples of the short, old, bald guy with hot girls, and I find alot more examples to the contrary. But hey looks don't matter, age, height, hair and money doesn't matter. Just sending $19.95 for my ebook that teaches you the secret to charm is all that matters.

Back to the wing girl, when she said character is what matters in a guy you again need to read between the lines. What she meant by character was the definition of character in a play.

 

[SharinganUser]

Taking advice about dating from a woman is like taking hunting advice from the animal you want to shoot in the head.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Then there's the first rule in the 48 Laws of Power: Never Outshine the Master. That seems to suggest there is a limited value, at least, to rebelliousness, if you want to get ahead. And Robert Greene should know a thing or two about seduction.

And then there's Law 6,..

Law 6: Court Attention at All Cost
Everything is judged by its appearance; what is unseen counts for nothing. Never let yourself get lost in the crowd, then, or buried in oblivion. Stand out. Be conspicuous, at all cost. Make yourself a magnet of attention by appearing larger, more colorful, more mysterious than the bland and timid masses.



Once again, from the top, Alpha ≠ Chivalrous, leader-of-men, business success, etc.

There are noble Alphas and there are scoundrel Alphas, the difference is all in how they apply themselves. There's a tendency to approach every "Alpha" argument from what a guy thinks is righteousness; ergo his definition of Alpha is what appeals best to his sense of virtue, because that's what he believes he embodies and ought to be rewarded for. However, the sad truth is that prisons are full of Alpha males who simply channeled their drive toward destructive and anti-social endeavors. There are plenty of examples of indifferent A-hole Alphas who you wouldn't say are leaders at all, yet women will literally kill each other (or themselves) in order to bang them because they exude a natural Alphaness.

Corey Worthington is a piss poor example of a human being, but he's a textbook example of Alpha. I could use a lot of adjectives to describe this kid, but "beta" wouldn't be one of them. What's funny, and a bit ironic, is this kid's probably never come across Mystery Method or "the community" or even heard of 'peacocking' or Negs, yet he gets naturally what millions of guys pay small fortunes at PUA seminars to acquire over the course of a lifetime. He's a selfish little prick, but what makes him insulting to 'normal' men is his having the natural bravado so many AFCs wish they had.

There are Alpha drug dealing gang leaders, and there are Alpha husbands, fathers and leaders of industry. It's all in the context.

Scott Peterson, the man who was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child, had been on Death Row barely an hour when the first proposal arrived from a woman who wants to be the new Mrs. Scott Peterson.

Three dozen phone calls came in to the warden’s office on Peterson’s first day at his new home in San Quentin State Prison — women were pleading for his mailing address, and one smitten 18-year-old said she wanted to marry him.

Here's the full story.

Do all women love convicted killers? No, but the sheer volume and intensity of sexual attention lavished on death row inmates tells us something very valuable about the deepest, sincerest female desire. And that something is quite discomfiting for men invested in being the 'best' Men they can be.

But don't take my word for it, lets read what Rachel Díckens has to say about Women loving ass-holes.

Fact: Girls love guys who are, for lack of a better description, total *******s.

So explain to me why the LEXINGTONS's linked article should have more legitimacy than Ms. Díckens? Perhaps because it fits in with our ego-investments better?

You know what? It’s a cop-out to say only weak girls go for *******s. Self-esteem aside, many girls crave the thrill of keeping up with a jerky guy, or better yet, putting him in his place.

Her words, not mine,..

 

[Lexington]

Zekko, the woman in question here (in the OP) removed all doubt about her awareness by stating that "It's ok for a guy to approach, as long as it's the right guy". Do you see the absurdity in that? SHe is saying that men should not fear rejection, that women want to be approached if you're the right guy!! LOL... I've never read anything so silly.

How is that absurd? Were you under the impression that women would be receptive to every single approach? Or that guys are going to be successful on every single approach?

Not everyone is right for everyone. People have different tastes. So you might be the wrong guy for one girl, but the "right guy" for another. The point is, women want to be approached. They may not want to be approached by you, but you'll never know unless you do the approach, right?

I don't see how that's news to you. No one here ever said that women would be receptive to you if they find you unattractive. No one ever said you won't get rejected. In fact, one of the most basic DJ principles is to not care about rejection. But it's also known that women want to be approached and, to use a cliche, "you don't make 100% of the shots you don't take."

The same principle could be applied to guys. What if an HB7, who was tastefully dressed, friendly and well-mannered approached you? How would you likely respond? What if another HB7 who was distastefully dressed, had obnoxious manners and was a complete stuck up b*tch approached?

 

[guru1000]

Once again, from the top, Alpha ≠ Chivalrous, leader-of-men, business success, etc.

An alpha, as you contend, is also a trait whose meaning is molded. The man on death row, as well as the majority of incarcerated men, are men with, on average, higher testosterone levels and irrational thinking skills. They are not ALL alpha males. I know plenty of men who exhibit high testosterone levels, and therefore, ostensibly appear alpha. However, they are unquestionably betas, evidenced by their emotional outbursts and relations with their women. So testosterone relating to alpha as you may be alluding to, has little correlation.

Corey, your example and as Roissy broached, doesn't appear to be of high testosterone levels, nor can we conclude he is alpha based on his indifferent dialogue on national television, where his motivations may be contrived. Measure his actions, and then we can render a sound conclusion.

Alpha, as I see it, is a man who honors himself first and foremost before servicing the needs of others. In other words, in a hierarchy of objectives, he overtly serves himself and is not thwarted by others' opinion of this principle. Hence, alphas tend to be more successful as they focus solely on their needs rather than spreading their focus in unproductive, divergent arenas. This characteristic can be a man of higher or lower testosterone: contrary to Pook's ideology, one's thinking is what embodies this "alpha" trait, not his hormones.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Unfortunately, GURU, you and I don't determine what is or isn't Alpha. While it may be self-satisfying to define Alpha based on what we think are virtues and moral strengths, it's women who define what's Alpha every time they spread their legs for whomever their hypergamy leads them to believe is the best immediate breeding opportunity.

 

[zekko]

There is no man who is just a "bad boy," or just a "rich a$$hole," or "Alpha," or "nice guy." These are simple descriptors, about as useful as "jock" or "nerd" were in high school. They make it easy for us to dismiss the person, or exalt him. In no way do these labels tell us how a man fares with the opposite sex.

This reminds me of the film The Breakfast Club. I know this is just a Hollywood movie, but its point was that there was more to teenagers than merely being stereotypes, people are deeper than that. That's why it resonated with a lot of people from my generation. Even though at my age the movie seems kind of silly, being as I am so far removed from that high school world.

Once again, from the top, Alpha ≠ Chivalrous, leader-of-men, business success, etc.

As if things aren't confusing enough, let's throw the term alpha out there.

I don't know anyone who is arguing that alpha has anything to do with chivalry, righteousness, or virtue, so I'll set that aside
(Edited to say okay, I just saw Gurr's post -after I wrote this). But I disagree that alpha does not mean leader of men. Women are attracted to a guy who is the top dog, the leader, the best at what he does. That is what they call "situational alpha". I liked a quote from Warrior74, who said "alpha is not a person, it's a position". No one can be an alpha in every situation.

You are talking about alpha personality traits, which is another way to define it. Both are legitimate. Words seldom have just one meaning. You shouldn't dismiss one meaning just because there is another. Both are useful when talking about seduction. But again, a guy who is dominant in one situation may not be dominant in another. Take the alpha male out of one pack and put him in another and he may find himself a beta.

So explain to me why the LEXINGTONS's linked article should have more legitimacy than Ms. Díckens?

I wouldn't argue that either had more legitimacy. But I wouldn't dismiss either one simply on the basis that it was written by a female. Until you examine the content, you don't know.

But anyway, what is so "@sshole-ish" about the qualities of the guy she describes in the article? That he doesn't come up and talk to her right away? What is this guy doing that is so horribly "bad"? Seems to me is major crime is not making her the center of his universe.

She talks about how women don't like guys who gush all over them. That's putting them on the pedestal, treating them as if they were higher value. Obviously that's a turn-off, and there's no dispute about that.

This is one of my major complaints about the stereotypes:
Because the guy doesn't NEED the girl, that makes him a jerk?
Because the guy places his value BELOW the girl's, that makes him nice?
That makes no sense.

 

[Lexington]

Uh - sounds like you agree with Atom Smasher, dude.

You know I think I do too, but it seems he dismisses that woman's statement simply because she is a woman. I bet if a guy said the same thing here, he'd probably agree as would a lot of the guys on this thread.

That woman didn't say anything that isn't in the DJ Bible. Most of those comments she made are staples of the DJ/PUA community. I have a very strong suspicion that if the byline had a man's name instead of a woman's, this thread wouldn't get nearly as many views or comments.

 

[guru1000]

Unfortunately, GURU, you and I don't determine what is or isn't Alpha. While it may be self-satisfying to define Alpha based on what we think are virtues and moral strengths, it's women who define what's Alpha every time they spread their legs for whomever their hypergamy leads them to believe is the best immediate breeding opportunity.

Alpha can be categorized, as a definition needs not to apply to all situations; every theory has exceptions.

 

[zekko]

Truth: Women have fallen for bad boys since time immemorial. The part about having "backbone and strong sense of self" is key though. You don't have to be a criminal. Just be independent-minded and confident - a man on his own path who knows where he's headed.

Again (and I hate beating a dead horse here), how does being "independent minded and confident" make you "bad"? Or a jerk, or an @sshole, for that matter? These are admirable qualities. You might as well be saying "women like guys with admirable qualities" as "women like bad boys".

Pretty good fair minded analysis on the article though.

 

[zekko]

Here's how I think "bad boy appeal" actually works (usually). It's just a theory, but it's based on life experience. I believe it's almost a case of smoke and mirrors.

This idea depends on two principles:
1. The woman is generally passive (she is the pursued, not the pursuer)
2. Women tend to become emotionally attached to men they have sex with (part of her instinct to insure survival of her offspring).

The bad boy (or "cad" as I will call him here, since that seems a better descriptor) does not care about the girl. He just wants sex.

The girl (being passive) waits for someone to ask her out. Usually the cad does this first since he isn't worried about being rejected (because he doesn't care about her opinion of him one way or the other - he just wants sex). He, from experience, will say and do whatever is necessary to get her into bed.

They have sex. The girl now has an emotional connection to him. He's got what he wanted so he leaves. This causes the girl pain, because she has gotten the rug pulled out from under. "I thought maybe this guy liked me, what happened?". If she wants any resolution out of it, she has to now chase him, because he is no longer interested.

In hindsight, because she doesn't really know the guy, she can impose or invent any personality about him she wants. She may romanticize him as "the one that got away", or she may realize she was simply duped. To the outside observer, she fell for a jerk.

Note that in no way here did she want or prefer to have an unreliable jerk as her partner. She just got suckered in by him.