Does DJ = Player?

[PoachR75]

(silly rabbit)

 

[ESPN]

Originally posted by galactus:
I don't really care what label people want to give me. I know who and what I am.

I won't steal to get laid, but I would probably cheat, and I'd definitely lie, if that's what it took. I'm not going to forfeit a fine piece of ass because she wants to fvck a doctor and I just HAD to tell her I wait tables.

If it gets me laid, it IS good strategy, because that was my goal.

I am with you, l think the most important is to be happy with ourselves, and not following certain rules.

Life is short.

[This message has been edited by ESPN (edited 03-11-2002).]

 

[IntermediateDonJuaner]

Pook,

If girls think you seem like a player, this is good. It is BETTER then being seen as 'innocent' or 'decent'. ("But Pook, that don't make sense!" Silence! This is Womaniverse we are speaking of!)

Well, does that mean I must start changing from decent to non-decent? I guess you could still remember your post ********!!!! I think I did ask you questions in there about being decent/innocent.

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by IntermediateDonJuaner:
Pook,

Well, does that mean I must start changing from decent to non-decent? I guess you could still remember your post ********!!!! I think I did ask you questions in there about being decent/innocent.

IDJ, you can give the illusion of being the "bad boy" type without actually making a lot of changes. Just add a tiny element of "danger and excitement" to your personality. This could be from a hobby, your style, attitude... whatever. It will help you lose the "squeaky clean innocent" image that you seem to be portraying.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Good post Pook. That was good too galactus, haha.

------------------
~The_Chosen~ has spoken...

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence then is just not an act but a habit." - Aristotle

Judge a man by his questions and not his answers.

 

[DarkDream]

Originally posted by Pook:
Oh gentlemen! You forget that there are two worlds: the correct one and the bizzarre realm known as Womaniverse.

If you happen to stumble into this dimension, you will notice that it is governed by three forces: matter, sexuality, and shopping. It is MATTER because that is what woman is, fat deposits and milk sacs. It is SEXUALITY because woman is entirely sexual, the family, the husband, and so on are all within the sexual realm. It is SHOPPING because it is value, women wish to be desired, to be filled with thought, life, and purpose like an intellectual blow-up doll who is now currently deflated.

In our universe, being a player is BAD. Why? Because it shows a lack of self-control and lack of priority. If you cannot control your weakness for women, how do you expect to go anywhere in life?

In Womaniverse, the opposite is true. Being a player gives you ADMIRATION and PRAISE. Women do not understand the concept of self-improvement. If they see a man undergoing it, they will whisper, "You need to enjoy life" or "You are gay." They do this because you are not giving them VALUE. A player being a player often lets self-improvement slip by. It doesn't hurt him because women don't notice it. All they know is that he gets women and that is more than enough to be qualified.

In OUR universe, being a player is seen as not a good thing usually in light as a player to women as an alcholic is to beer. But in Womaniverse, you rise in status the more of a player you seem to be.

Wyldfire will, undoubtedly, agree with me. Women want a man who has his pick of the litter. Why do you think lawyers and doctors get girls? It is because women KNOW they have their choice of women. In the same way, a player has HIS choice of women. Yet, if he chooses to spend time with HER then that means, in the bizzare realm of Womaniverse, that SHE IS SPECIAL. A player giving her attention is seen to her as added VALUE to her.

Whisper, "Watch out, he is A PLAYER!" She will grin and say, "Then I will PLAY HIM!"

One of the female fantasies is that they change a player to love only her. In the realm of Womaniverse, this is SOLELY because a guy who has his pick of the litter chose her IMPLYING that this woman is SO GREAT, SO WONDERFUL that she BEAT all these other girls he could have picked.

All men are players; it just depends on how you play. EMBRACE THIS ASPECT. Nice Guy Fantasy Land is over. AFC Wonderland is gone.

Women are very frustrated with this truth. In Womaniverse, women would naturally become sluts. BUT because there is that real universe, that slut factor comes into play. This is why they tell 'ol Pook, "You guys get to sleep around and your worth rises but if we do the same, it lowers!"

If girls think you seem like a player, this is good. It is BETTER then being seen as 'innocent' or 'decent'. ("But Pook, that don't make sense!" Silence! This is Womaniverse we are speaking of!)

If you had a couple years of youth drained by a girlfriend, you and other guys would correctly say, "Perhaps I could have invested that time in better ways." Women will say, "You have experience!" and clap that as virtue. The concept of self-improvement seems entirely lost when women view men.

No, being seen as a player IS NOT going to hurt you with women.

What is so sad is that a woman's attraction to a man is built around her ego. By getting a man who has the "pick of the litter" she is showing to everyone that she is in someway special as you point out.

By her thinking she has a good catch, she elevates her ego.

In other words, it is this narcissitic love of her ego which translates in to attraction for a man. The sad thing is that a lot of woman may actually go for powerful, "player" type men (and not really actually like them) just for the sake of being able to experience the satisfaction of getting a guy a *lot* of other women want.

Unfortunately a woman may not really care who you are or what type of person you are, if she believes you can add value to what *she* is (forget about you), then she will be attracted to you.

This type of stuff really makes me sick.

--DD

 

[Wyldfire]

I don't think it's that cut and dry DD. The shallow stuff just isn't going to sustain much of anything in the long run. Although I got a kick out of other women wanting my fiance...that's not what attracted me to him at all. It was his sense of humor, physical chemistry and the clincher was something he said to his step daughter that convinced me that he was a great father who wasn't selfish. I also think it really was his overall personality and natural magnetism that made him so attractive to others. I wasn't thinking about how desirable he was to others when my interest was sparked. I was thinking about how desirable he was to me. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's much about status as it is that some qualities are just pretty much attractive to all women, and if that guy has those traits he's going to be attractive to most women.

 

[Powertrip]

Uhmm.. DD, you are usually on point, but I have to disagree.

Unfortunately a woman may not really care who you are or what type of person you are, if she believes you can add value to what *she* is (forget about you), then she will be attracted to you.

This is how most of US operate. We're all shallow to a point. A lot of us learn in the end that an 8 with a sparkling personality is better than a 10 with none. We want/get the girls everyone else wants, if not because that's who we deserve, but also slightly to "show off". You're kidding yourself if you think that never crosses our minds, so you shouldnt be so upset that it does cross theirs. I dont think it's the only goal, but I think it opens a lot more doors than it closes.

------------------
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -Hunter S. Thompson

 

[DarkDream]

It's a danger sometimes writing a pithy response and over generalizing.

Wyldefire, what I wrote was "too cut and dry." Like you pointed out there are a lot of other things that involve attraction: personality, good looks, ability to make woman laugh, being charming, positive attitude and so on. From my response it somewhat appeared I was solely focusing on perceived status.

However, what I think I was trying to get at, is that some of the elements of attraction is very ego-centric: we are attracted to a person because others are attracted to them and we want to be the focus of the attractive person's attention because it elevates our ego or our perceived personal value. The basic tenet in human nature is we give more value to an other person if that person appears to be perceived as being valuable by others.

Powertrip, you are right that we all are shallow to a degree and fall prey to this type of thing (we are human).

However, I believe, like Pook points out is that status and power is an important attractive factor for women, and even though it may be somewhat shallow and we all do it to certain degress, it is essential to take it in to account. Power and status is not as huge an issue with men (give a guy a pretty woman and could care less how much she makes or how powerful she is). The woman definitely is attracted to what a man *has* or what he can *do*, besides who he *is*. In other words, what can this man provide *me* with.

It can not be denied when a woman is first getting to know a guy, and is interested in a LTR, that things like the guy being successful, powerful and so on is a significant basis for attraction. I am not saying that it is the sole determining factors (a DJ can be working in Burger King and still get the woman) but it can be major ones.

And this *type* of attraction has a strong ego-centric basis.

This I believe was the point I was trying to make.

Thanks for your responses.

--DD

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by DarkDream:
It's a danger sometimes writing a pithy response and over generalizing.

Wyldefire, what I wrote was "too cut and dry." Like you pointed out there are a lot of other things that involve attraction: personality, good looks, ability to make woman laugh, being charming, positive attitude and so on. From my response it somewhat appeared I was solely focusing on perceived status.

However, what I think I was trying to get at, is that some of the elements of attraction is very ego-centric: we are attracted to a person because others are attracted to them and we want to be the focus of the attractive person's attention because it elevates our ego or our perceived personal value. The basic tenet in human nature is we give more value to an other person if that person appears to be perceived as being valuable by others.

Powertrip, you are right that we all are shallow to a degree and fall prey to this type of thing (we are human).

However, I believe, like Pook points out is that status and power is an important attractive factor for women, and even though it may be somewhat shallow and we all do it to certain degress, it is essential to take it in to account. Power and status is not as huge an issue with men (give a guy a pretty woman and could care less how much she makes or how powerful she is). The woman definitely is attracted to what a man *has* or what he can *do*, besides who he *is*. In other words, what can this man provide *me* with.

It can not be denied when a woman is first getting to know a guy, and is interested in a LTR, that things like the guy being successful, powerful and so on is a significant basis for attraction. I am not saying that it is the sole determining factors (a DJ can be working in Burger King and still get the woman) but it can be major ones.

And this *type* of attraction has a strong ego-centric basis.

This I believe was the point I was trying to make.

Thanks for your responses.

--DD

Actually, I think the phenomenon you're speaking of does come into play with some women AFTER the intitial attraction, and probably has a lot to do with whether or not some women will stay with a guy she has just started dating. I DO think that most women don't care so much about success and power as they do that the guy has purpose in his life...something he is passionate about and committed to. It shows responsibility and commitment, which is needed in a relationship.

On top of this...women don't really "need" a man to support her in this day and age like they did back in the day. More women are graduating from college than men are every year at this point, so things have changed a bit. Women have gotten MUCH more shallow about looks than ever before...because they can be.

Basically...I think that the things you mentioned might influence some women about whether or not to settle down with a guy they are already attracted to, but I don't think it plays a big factor in initially attracting the woman to the man.

 

[DarkDream]

Originally posted by Wyldfire:
Actually, I think the phenomenon you're speaking of does come into play with some women AFTER the intitial attraction, and probably has a lot to do with whether or not some women will stay with a guy she has just started dating. I DO think that most women don't care so much about success and power as they do that the guy has purpose in his life...something he is passionate about and committed to. It shows responsibility and commitment, which is needed in a relationship.

Wlydefire, the vast majority of the personals in newpapers and magazines have common themes and wants expressed by women who post personal advertisements. A lot of them want (typically) successful men, who are well educated and are reasonably wealthy.

The universality of these common set of traits expressed in the personals point to (what I believe) a genetic pre-disposition of women to be attracted to guys who have acheived a degree of success or high status.

The fact of the matter is that having a lot of money, a fancy car, dresses in fancy suits and so on can be indicators that a man has acheived success in his life. I'll explain to you why this is important in a moment after I quote you.

I DO think that most women don't care so much about success and power as they do that the guy has purpose in his life...something he is passionate about and committed to. It shows responsibility and commitment, which is needed in a relationship.

I think what you are saying is essentially correct. Woman definitely do like a man who has a sense of purpose, is able to take charge, is responsible, committed to a task and so on. Why these traits are so important is that these are the traits in males that are needed in a long term relationship with a woman. To put it more simply, like you said, these are the traits of a good provider that is committed and responsible to one woman.

An older male can still be as attractive to a woman as a younger counter part because the successful older male most likely has a lot to offer in terms of material wealth, property, maturity and so on.

I still contend, however, that woman are still attracted to such things as status, power and so on in the beginning as it is usually an *indicator* that the man is committed and has a sense of purpose (you got to be committed and responsible to do well in your job, get a degree and so on).

The bottom line is that woman who are looking for a long term relationship are attracted towards men who display the trappings of high status as it is an indicator that they may be a successful provider as well. Woman universally (showing a definite genetic componet) want a good provider.

On top of this...women don't really "need" a man to support her in this day and age like they did back in the day. More women are graduating from college than men are every year at this point, so things have changed a bit. Women have gotten MUCH more shallow about looks than ever before...because they can be.

What is very interesting is that a lot of successful women, even millionaires, want to find men that are successful, are high status and have lots of cash. While they don't need money or status themselves, they still go for it, which simply reinforces the notion of women being gentetically pre-disposed towards successful men.

However, I do degree to a certain extent on what you are saying. Because women in the U.S. have acheived more financial freedom (can have jobs and so on) they have gained more personal freedom (don't have to rely on a guy for money). As such, woman have the luxury of not having to fall for the first successful guy they stumble upon (they can support themselves). Due to this, a woman can afford to wait for a guy who they consider to have good genes (handsome) and be a good provider (successful). Or a lot of woman who are not so much in having a long term relationship (younger women especially) can simply go for looks. This is the basis of the shallowness you talked about.

Basically...I think that the things you mentioned might influence some women about whether or not to settle down with a guy they are already attracted to, but I don't think it plays a big factor in initially attracting the woman to the man.

I disagree with you. I still think power and status are powerful qualities that cause a woman to become initially attracted to a man. Whether a woman stays settled with a man is really contingent on, as you mentioned, being able to demonstrate committment and responsiblity or at least provide the woman with goods, money and property.

--DD

 

[Wyldfire]

Originally posted by DarkDream:
I disagree with you. I still think power and status are powerful qualities that cause a woman to become initially attracted to a man. Whether a woman stays settled with a man is really contingent on, as you mentioned, being able to demonstrate committment and responsiblity or at least provide the woman with goods, money and property.

--DD

I agree with most of what you said except for the last thing.

Because women don't have to settle for the first guy that comes along so she can be provided for anymore...women look at the physical attraction first. If a woman isn't first physically attracted to a man she isn't likely going to find out if he's successful or not. Men are much more fashionable today and you can't really tell by looking at someone what their "status" is.

Personally, I have dated one guy who was quite wealthy and I didn't like how materialistic he was. He also was so obsessed with making money that he lived to work instead of worked to live. I don't know how common my mindset is in this area...but I value the time a man gives me (that's more precious and priceless) far more than how well he can provide.

It's not really that I don't agree with women finding these traits attractive in a man...I just think it's an added incentive to a physical attraction that is already there.

 

[Page]

Originally posted by Pook:
Oh gentlemen! You forget that there are two worlds: the correct one and the bizzarre realm known as Womaniverse.

If you happen to stumble into this dimension, you will notice that it is governed by three forces: matter, sexuality, and shopping. It is MATTER because that is what woman is, fat deposits and milk sacs. It is SEXUALITY because woman is entirely sexual, the family, the husband, and so on are all within the sexual realm. It is SHOPPING because it is value, women wish to be desired, to be filled with thought, life, and purpose like an intellectual blow-up doll who is now currently deflated.

In our universe, being a player is BAD. Why? Because it shows a lack of self-control and lack of priority. If you cannot control your weakness for women, how do you expect to go anywhere in life?

In Womaniverse, the opposite is true. Being a player gives you ADMIRATION and PRAISE. Women do not understand the concept of self-improvement. If they see a man undergoing it, they will whisper, "You need to enjoy life" or "You are gay." They do this because you are not giving them VALUE. A player being a player often lets self-improvement slip by. It doesn't hurt him because women don't notice it. All they know is that he gets women and that is more than enough to be qualified.

In OUR universe, being a player is seen as not a good thing usually in light as a player to women as an alcholic is to beer. But in Womaniverse, you rise in status the more of a player you seem to be.

Wyldfire will, undoubtedly, agree with me. Women want a man who has his pick of the litter. Why do you think lawyers and doctors get girls? It is because women KNOW they have their choice of women. In the same way, a player has HIS choice of women. Yet, if he chooses to spend time with HER then that means, in the bizzare realm of Womaniverse, that SHE IS SPECIAL. A player giving her attention is seen to her as added VALUE to her.

Whisper, "Watch out, he is A PLAYER!" She will grin and say, "Then I will PLAY HIM!"

One of the female fantasies is that they change a player to love only her. In the realm of Womaniverse, this is SOLELY because a guy who has his pick of the litter chose her IMPLYING that this woman is SO GREAT, SO WONDERFUL that she BEAT all these other girls he could have picked.

All men are players; it just depends on how you play. EMBRACE THIS ASPECT. Nice Guy Fantasy Land is over. AFC Wonderland is gone.

Women are very frustrated with this truth. In Womaniverse, women would naturally become sluts. BUT because there is that real universe, that slut factor comes into play. This is why they tell 'ol Pook, "You guys get to sleep around and your worth rises but if we do the same, it lowers!"

If girls think you seem like a player, this is good. It is BETTER then being seen as 'innocent' or 'decent'. ("But Pook, that don't make sense!" Silence! This is Womaniverse we are speaking of!)

If you had a couple years of youth drained by a girlfriend, you and other guys would correctly say, "Perhaps I could have invested that time in better ways." Women will say, "You have experience!" and clap that as virtue. The concept of self-improvement seems entirely lost when women view men.

No, being seen as a player IS NOT going to hurt you with women.

Yet another post from possibily one of the most powerful DJs that havs ever lived.

Yo Neo, is the canon of the DJ Bible closed yet? Even if it is, I would still consider adding this. Anyone second this nomination?

 

[DarkDream]

Originally posted by Wyldfire:
I agree with most of what you said except for the last thing.

Because women don't have to settle for the first guy that comes along so she can be provided for anymore...women look at the physical attraction first. If a woman isn't first physically attracted to a man she isn't likely going to find out if he's successful or not. Men are much more fashionable today and you can't really tell by looking at someone what their "status" is.

Personally, I have dated one guy who was quite wealthy and I didn't like how materialistic he was. He also was so obsessed with making money that he lived to work instead of worked to live. I don't know how common my mindset is in this area...but I value the time a man gives me (that's more precious and priceless) far more than how well he can provide.

It's not really that I don't agree with women finding these traits attractive in a man...I just think it's an added incentive to a physical attraction that is already there.

I can't argue here. While there are woman who don't really care what a guy looks like and just care how much cash he has (mercenaries), the vast majority of woman will either find you worthy of a possible relationship or unworthy in a matter of seconds after meeting you. The first thing a woman does put you through is the physical attraction test. If you fail, no matter how powerful or wealthy you are, she is not going to want a relationship with you.

While looks in a potential partner are not as important (in general) for woman as it is men, it is a definite initial factor that either rules you out or in.

As for the wealthy guy you talked about, a good provider is not only a guy who can get the goods but also be committed to providing you with the goods. The rich guy you talked about, in my opinion, is not a good provider for the reason that he displayed *no* invested interest in you. Someone who does not have an invested interest in a woman (have high interest) is more likely to not be supportive, reliable and so on because of other interests in other matters such as work or other women. Such a guy can not be depended on and therefore is not a good provider. If the guy is not around, how can he provide for you (not just in a material sense, but also an emotional sense)?

The fact of the matter is that a person with a high level of interest in you is more willing to invest more in a relationship than a person with lower interest. While this guy had the goods, he was *not* delivering because of his low interest in you (or to put it another way he had a *higher* interest in his job).

Instinctively, you knew this guy was ultimately not dependable and could not deliver on emotional, financial and other such goods. You ruled him out as a good provider.

--DD

[This message has been edited by DarkDream (edited 03-14-2002).]

 

[preditor]

you act like being a player is a bad thing?

 

[Albion3]

Originally posted by Shiftkey:
To be a DJ is to have the skills of a player. How you use those skills defines who you are when it comes to women.

Exactly!

-al

 

[Wyldfire]

Actually, he was head over heels for me, but he worked 7 days a week to pay for all his "toys" that he never had time to enjoy. We got along great, when he was around he was perfect to me and very attentive. I'm just of the frame of mind that if you don't get to see the person you're with on a regular basis then what's the point. It wasn't that his interest in me wasn't high, it's that he was married to his job.

 

[SoSuave.com]

To The Archive.

 

[stats]

hello every body, im new on here! but i would just like to say that all the topics ive read have been about trying to make a girl like u, and how to do that! but personally i think its all crap, u dont need to be a player to find a decent women. all u need is a good personality, good understanding, and be calm and polite!just be urself and be happy. if ur not happy with urself then noone else will be! if ur all roudy and up for it, i garentee u will only end up with a hoe! take ur time and enjoy life and all its experiences!