Here I am.

[Prototype_42]

First things first: Hi all, been reading through the threads for a while now and finally had a chance/time/drive to register. Nice place to be

As I'm writing this, I'm asking myself if I do have a "problem" with Girls.
I'm 30, quite good-looking (People think I'm mid-twenties), exotic, etc. and live in a European Country where I stick out from the mass. I Party a lot or used to party a lot and work in a Bar. Nor am I, what many Americans would call, a douchebag.
I even say, I have a unique style and sometimes I'm quite weird or eccentric. I mostly don't give a feck what people think about me...

I've been in a long relationship, which lasted about three years, She was a nice, warm-hearted Girl, but due me moving cities (Studying somewhere else) we parted (Happened in January).
From January til now I did not have the urge to Game. Nowadays I feel a bit rusty (Back in my early twenties I used to game a LOT & was quite good at it).
With Spring and Summer coming, my instincts have become sharp again and I'm trying o get in Game for the "Tail".
Now to the Issue:

There's this 20 year old Doll (actually she's not really my type, blonde, tall, hot body - I'd say She's a 7.5 on my scala- I prefer the not so tall brunettes or asian Girls.)
She's a Co-Worker in one of our "branches". Sometimes, when we(the People that work in the Bar) work late at nights, we have place where we breakfast after work. A month or two ago I met her there and noticed how her Eyes gleamed when she saw me. Funny thing I noticed how she Kino'd me, was all on me, tried to get my attention, etc. I kept it cool and after a little small talk and som e winks and some playfulness I left the place to go home.
Last week, we worked together. After work (it was a Festival day, sunny weather, my confidence quite high-which happens a lot when I see the Sun ) we went out a bit, ate something, had a walk in the Park and so on. That's where I kissed her and we made out. Walked a bit more, accompanied her to her place and left her at the door (She's still living with her Parents, heh).
A day or so later she had her Prom Night, I texted her, wished her luck and fun and told her to meet me the next day, because we have to buy ourselves a bicycle. Yeah. I need one and she does too, so I thought, lets do it together.
Another sunny day in this usually rainy City I'm living in.. So we meet up, she's quite tired from her Prom Night Party and I'm tired from work. We go out and get some breakfast and a Cappuccino somewhere and start our hunt for the Bikes. We end up finding nothing. But we do walk a lot, eat some cherries and sit down near the Water.
Make out for approx. 2 hours before we return to the Trainstation (We both had to work again-she at her Bar, me at mine.)..... Before we part we remain in a way that we'll talk on the phone.
The Next day, this last Sunday, a Buddy of mine who just recently moved from Berlin to my City, hooks up with me for a few Beers and a Party outside. We meet up and have feckin' great time together. That Sunday Morning I text this Girl a 'Good Morning, what's up!?' Message. She doesn't answer. Later the day, while me and my Buddy are on this Party I text her again telling her that I'm on this Party and if she'll come too. Finally She answers and tells me that she worked that Sunday noon and is still a bit cold and that she'd rather stay home to get fit again.
I don't text her back.
Since then I've not heard, read anything from her.
Like I said, that was last Sunday(evening), today is Thursday. I have to admit, I thought about her today and yesterday... Should I call her? Would it be too needy or desperate if I would? Should she not initiate contact for once?
I mean if I call her I'd ask her if she's feeling better and that I want to meet her (We did not have sex yet).......

What do you guys think? Opinions, please !

Thanks in advance,
P_42.

ps: Apologies for my English, not a native speaker.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Put an age on your profile or your thread will be moved to Discussions.

 

[Prototype_42]

Done, better?

 

[Prototype_42]

Hey Guys I gave her a call but she didn't pick up.
Now the Ball is in her field. I won't initiate anything for now, game on, spin the Plates, look for other Girls to get that rust off.
If she calls again I'll probably tell her that I'm busy (Which I am, moving house....meh) and will call her when I have more free time.

What do you guys think, that okay? Did I do something wrong? Too needy, too desperate?

 

[Mr. Me]

Next her. Move on. She's already nexted you.

Let's see now, you flirted a bit after work and then went for a walk, made out and took her home. Then you planned to buy bicycles together a couple of days later. Walking around all day looking at bicycles. More making out and then a bunch of repeated texting "wassups" and she finally answers and says she'd rather stay home (then be with you) and you haven't heard from her since.

I think committing to buying bicycles and walking around all day in the sun when you're already tired from the night before just wasn't her idea of a fun date. She might've even met someone the night before that seemed more fun then you.

Next time, step up the fun factor in your dates and don't text so much. That playfulness flirting you had at the beginning... keep doing that. Don't change once you have date with the girl and start committing to buying things together!

 

[jophil28]

What do you guys think, that okay? Did I do something wrong? Too needy, too desperate?

It is very easy to fall into the belief that women react favorable and primally to 'alpha male' behavior. IT is common on this forum for guys to adopt pet theories and beliefs that are simplistic ( but comforting) about woman's reactions to a wide range of male behaviors.
A few example are "C and F" turns a woman on. Neg hits create attraction...indifference triggers intrigue and mystery in her...and so on.

These beliefs are almost true, some of the time, with some women under some circumstances. And that is as clear and predictable as it gets.

The OP did every thing right, yet still was rewarded with withdrawal by her.
Why? Because she has another life with other commitments, other interests and other priorities.

Sure, they had a fine time with the bikes and she kissed him BUT essentially she regarded all this as merely fun and entertainment. Because a woman has a flirty giggly few hours with you does not mean that she wants more or she wants to see you again.

Perhaps I am wrong and she was kidnapped by aliens.

 

[Prototype_42]

It is very easy to fall into the belief that women react favorable and primally to 'alpha male' behavior. IT is common on this forum for guys to adopt pet theories and beliefs that are simplistic ( but comforting) about woman's reactions to a wide range of male behaviors.
A few example are "C and F" turns a woman on. Neg hits create attraction...indifference triggers intrigue and mystery in her...and so on.

These beliefs are almost true, some of the time, with some women under some circumstances. And that is as clear and predictable as it gets.

The OP did every thing right, yet still was rewarded with withdrawal by her.
Why? Because she has another life with other commitments, other interests and other priorities.

Sure, they had a fine time with the bikes and she kissed him BUT essentially she regarded all this as merely fun and entertainment. Because a woman has a flirty giggly few hours with you does not mean that she wants more or she wants to see you again.

Perhaps I am wrong and she was kidnapped by aliens.

Hahahaha:crackup: , that made me laugh out loud!

I'm sure I'll see her again, that's not the Problem (I mean we're working for the same Bar/Entertainmaint/Cultural Place Project/Estabilishment), but I just cannot run after a girl. Not when I initiated the kiss & organised a meet-up a day after her Prom. We met at 12AM last Saturday, she was about 15 minutes too late, apologized a few times, saying that she only slept 3 hours, blah blah (Which wasn't too bad for me, because I was late myself), she paid for the first round of Cappuccinos, I paid for the fruits(Breakfast).

Giving the whole thing a second thought, I feel like I overrushed some things (not the kiss, but maybe the Contact-not the usual kino'). Maybe she's indeed thinking that I want committment from her side (versus the ""..she regarded all this as merely fun and entertainment. Because a woman has a flirty giggly few hours with you does not mean that she wants more or she wants to see you again..."" )

Plus, she's 10 Years younger, she's in another aspect in her life, finishing High School, getting ready for College, having a Cold in the Summer, Working...

Me, I'm busy with my work, moving house, chasing tail & getting back to do what I do best. Art.

What would you do or... what suggestion could you guys give me, when/if she calls me back the next few days?

More importantly, Thanks for the Responses and the Insights, Guys!!!

 

[Prototype_42]

Nexted

 

[Lioric]

IT is common on this forum for guys to adopt pet theories and beliefs that are simplistic ( but comforting) about woman's reactions to a wide range of male behaviors.
A few example are "C and F" turns a woman on. Neg hits create attraction...indifference triggers intrigue and mystery in her...and so on.

These beliefs are almost true, some of the time, with some women under some circumstances. And that is as clear and predictable as it gets.

Okay, since it's my first post, I guess I need to make an intro... I have been an avid reader of this forum but I was happy with my life, and didn't need immediate advice so I didn't join. Now I changed my mind. OK, that was the introduction.
------
Adopting pet theories and beliefs that are as "simple" as possible is a method of science and a great tool for the analytically minded. The success of this forum has been in its objective approach to correct itself, its ability to refine its theories and spread this knowledge freely and unconditionally.

If scrutinized with a pedantic attitude every theory in modern science will be 'almost true, under some very delicate circumstances'. But that doesn't take away the beauty (or the simplicity) of it, because you cannot make a CLEAN experiment ANYWAY, especially in social sciences. As you are saying, for this particular example, there are zillions of other interactions that are going on in her life... But can we use these inaccuracies to debunk our milestones?!

Looking at a sample's measurements and complaining that there's some noise while denying the "SIMPLE" (but NOT simplistic) principles behind the experiment is not fair game...And I'd immediately counter by asking your alternative social model. What are you proposing? Should we stop thinking about the internal dynamics of female behavior just because we cannot do a fine-grained analysis?

It is well established in the community that if used properly, "C" and "F" goes a long way... So does the NEG concept...

So I found it rather interesting, especially from a person like you, to use this irrelevant , noisy, dubious "social experiment" to attack these very well established concepts. :yes:

 

[jophil28]

Okay, since it's my first post, I guess I need to make an intro... I have been an avid reader of this forum but I was happy with my life, and didn't need immediate advice so I didn't join. Now I changed my mind. OK, that was the introduction.
------
Adopting pet theories and beliefs that are as "simple" as possible is a method of science and a great tool for the analytically minded. The success of this forum has been in its objective approach to correct itself, its ability to refine its theories and spread this knowledge freely and unconditionally.

If scrutinized with a pedantic attitude every theory in modern science will be 'almost true, under some very delicate circumstances'. But that doesn't take away the beauty (or the simplicity) of it, because you cannot make a CLEAN experiment ANYWAY, especially in social sciences. As you are saying, for this particular example, there are zillions of other interactions that are going on in her life... But can we use these inaccuracies to debunk our milestones?!

Looking at a sample's measurements and complaining that there's some noise while denying the "SIMPLE" (but NOT simplistic) principles behind the experiment is not fair game...And I'd immediately counter by asking your alternative social model. What are you proposing? Should we stop thinking about the internal dynamics of female behavior just because we cannot do a fine-grained analysis?

It is well established in the community that if used properly, "C" and "F" goes a long way... So does the NEG concept...

So I found it rather interesting, especially from a person like you, to use this irrelevant , noisy, dubious "social experiment" to attack these very well established concepts. :yes:

You need to get out there for a few years and experiment with these tactics to test their effectiveness. Then adopt the stategic style which works best for you and your particular hopes and desires.

I am a big fan of C&F,and I rarely let a day go by in which some 'lucky' woman is not the target of my clever wit, BUT the results vary widely.

Recently I was opening 'Gina', a waitress at a great little coffee shop. Gina is all of 23 years old. She was working on ten tables, but continued to return to chat with my wing and me. She was laughing so hard at our negs and funny patter. When I was paying, she stood right next to me and pulled open the top of her shirt after I told her that she would make a great Salsa dancer..Her eyes were the size of dinner plates and she was nodding in agreement.
MY wing knows body language.

WE went back a few days later and she was all business. After a polite greeting, she just chatted as if we were new customers.
The point is that Gina , like most women, revel in the moment. I am sure that I triggered attraction (in the DD definition) when I was entertaining her, but it appears that that Gina has a B/f and she "remembered that she was a good Italian girl".
However I have also seen very diferent reactions from women. Some do not 'get' wit or C&F. Some are just boring , some are as dumb as a box of rocks, and some are actually offended that a guy would make fun in their royal presence.

Its all just a random experiment mostly.

 

[IronStar]

Its all just a random experiment mostly.

Yeah, I've got to agree with this. Its mostly some random experiment, you throw sh*t at the wall, sometimes it sticks, mostly it doesnt but you learn a little each time. Best advice I could give is be brutally honest with yourself when its not going anywhere & cut your losses as quickly & gracefully as possible.

Nexted

Which you've done this time so, good job, straight on to the next.

 

[Joe Stud]

Be aloof, and disinterested. If she starts chasing you, GRANT her another date. But make it end in s$x

 

[Jeffst1980]

If scrutinized with a pedantic attitude every theory in modern science will be 'almost true, under some very delicate circumstances'. But that doesn't take away the beauty (or the simplicity) of it, because you cannot make a CLEAN experiment ANYWAY, especially in social sciences. As you are saying, for this particular example, there are zillions of other interactions that are going on in her life... But can we use these inaccuracies to debunk our milestones?!

Hey Lioric, welcome aboard.

You brought up an interesting issue that receives a good deal of discussion on this board.

The main issue is that pickup is NOT a science in the same way we consider physics, chemistry, etc to be. It is BASED on observable biological phenomena as well as work in the field of evolutionary psychology, but as of today we don't have means to actually test many of these hypotheses that we talk about on this site.

Classical mechanics as defined by Newton, Einstein, etc. is a deterministic science; there is a cause and a corresponding effect that occurs as a consequence. It is also infallible when applied to its appropriate constituency; we know it's not the entire picture of our physical universe because it does not take into account the physics of the quantum world, but these theories nonetheless hold true EVERY TIME so long as they are not applied outside of their boundaries.

The science of pickup, by comparison, is markedly softer; Many of the hypotheses introduced by evolutionary psychologists predict a whole plethora of reactions to a given circumstance. The difficulty lies in the fact that we have only our current condition as a species and an incomplete historical record with which to base our observations. Additionally, psychology requires INTERPRETATION as much as it does OBSERVATION. You can't read a person's thoughts by looking at their brain-- you can only learn about the physical and chemical processes that are going on at the moment. To learn their thoughts, you must get them to COMMUNICATE with you, and from there you must INTERPRET their communication. Clearly, this is nowhere near as simple as classical or even quantum mechanics, which still can be modeled mathematically and predict outcomes within a probabilistic framework.

This is a bit longwinded, but I think it forms the crux of the matter: We offer models of pickup and general rules of engagement because they have shown to be very successful, although we don't know HOW successful or even precisely WHY they work. That's all besides the point, though; it is virtually guaranteed that following the DJ Bible will bring you more success than NOT using it, and that should be enough of a selling point for anyone.

Despite this success, there will always be unfortunate cases like the OP, who may have done everything correct by the book (although I personally feel he rushed things and saw this girl too many times early on for her to build up sufficient interest in him) yet failed to hook the girl. Pickup is DEPENDENT, rather than RESISTANT, to outside variables; it is NOT clinical. It is impossible to consider a woman in such an interaction without also considering her current life situation, her immediate emotional state, her upbringing and cultural heritage, her life goals, her other suitors, etc.--all this will have some bearing on the outcome, despite the overall efficacy of game.

The best strategy is to recognize this, and chalk up unexplained failures to these outside variables while resolving to improve yourself INDEPENDENT from any perceived successes or failures. That way, you steer clear of the trap of becoming a validation junkie that measures self-worth by the outcome of a single interaction.

 

[PSYCHO]

It's about understanding the mind of the woman and her deviant nature as the hor! Two different mindsets. Most of the DJ Bible and comments from posters here, relate to the hor mindset and thus behavior - not the woman's!

There is a core reasoning to human behavior, and so there is a science to the male/female dynamic - although there is no guaranteed specific outcomes, there is a general consensus on generalities.

 

[jophil28]

Pickup is DEPENDENT, rather than RESISTANT, to outside variables; it is NOT clinical. It is impossible to consider a woman in such an interaction without also considering her current life situation, her immediate emotional state, her upbringing and cultural heritage, her life goals, her other suitors, etc.--all this will have some bearing on the outcome, despite the overall efficacy of game.

And that gentlemen is just the way it is.

Because you do not have access to either knowledge or manipulation of these variables, your influence over the outcome of an approach is limited to what YOU bring to it and your attendant skills.

You wil be blown off regularly, but you will succeed frequently.... Patience, persistence and realistic expectations are key.

Tactics that work like magic with girl A may send girl B running to the bathroom. Your sharp sense of humor will entertain girl C for an hour, but may be regarded as wiseass by girl D who can't get away from you quickly enough.

Random experiment is all.

 

[Lioric]

Recently I was opening 'Gina', a waitress at a great little coffee shop. Gina is all of 23 years old. She was working on ten tables, but continued to return to chat with my wing and me. She was laughing so hard at our negs and funny patter. When I was paying, she stood right next to me and pulled open the top of her shirt after I told her that she would make a great Salsa dancer..Her eyes were the size of dinner plates and she was nodding in agreement.
MY wing knows body language.

WE went back a few days later and she was all business. After a polite greeting, she just chatted as if we were new customers.
The point is that Gina , like most women, revel in the moment. I am sure that I triggered attraction (in the DD definition) when I was entertaining her, but it appears that that Gina has a B/f and she "remembered that she was a good Italian girl".

Its all just a random experiment mostly.

This is the same story OP is reporting. A single counter example in a not-so-clear situation like this IS NOT enough to conclude that 'everything is random experiment'. In fact this argument suggests that all our efforts are futile and we must just go outside and do some experiments, expecting random results.

But this is not true... And although people's "hey, come on Lioric, this is not a real science" trigger will go off , it really is like physics.

In fact, even the most concrete science is COMPLICATED and UNPREDICTABLE in PRACTICE. Nonetheless, we have all these beautiful theories that we believe are true. What's more we build these space shuttles, computer chips that have more than 1 billion transistors working in unison, skyscrapers, and all the other wonderful things that WORK using these NOT-EXACT theories.

You might THINK you found a hole in the conservation of energy principle with a counter example, but if you look close enough you WILL in fact find out that you have been ignoring the microscopic frictional energy contribution. Actually, in some cases you ONLY speculate and say, hey - it's LIKELY that I missed something in the experiment. I really don't think I have RELIABLE, PREDICTABLE data to conclude energy is not conserved.

Just like in Gina's case, your very limited data on her life (maybe she just got a terrible day at work before you and your wing arrived) leads us to believe that it is very LIKELY that C & F works as well as it did before on Gina; but now other issues are interfering.

So let me sum up, our observation: Gina is yielding contradictory outputs with respect to our well known techniques:

A) Data on Gina's entire reality is highly limited. In fact, you have a very tiny window where you can only observe her AT HER WORKPLACE for a limited amount of time, where she really has to get some work done while dodging your ****y remarks. There are really hundreds of 'hidden variables' that we are not aware of that could help us understand her behavior.

B) All is random experiment, and our "simplistic theories" cannot be trusted, they don't have prediction power.

So tell me, which option is more likely?

 

[Lioric]

Hey Lioric, welcome aboard.

You brought up an interesting issue that receives a good deal of discussion on this board.

The main issue is that pickup is NOT a science in the same way we consider physics, chemistry, etc to be. It is BASED on observable biological phenomena as well as work in the field of evolutionary psychology, but as of today we don't have means to actually test many of these hypotheses that we talk about on this site.

Classical mechanics as defined by Newton, Einstein, etc. is a deterministic science; there is a cause and a corresponding effect that occurs as a consequence. It is also infallible when applied to its appropriate constituency; we know it's not the entire picture of our physical universe because it does not take into account the physics of the quantum world, but these theories nonetheless hold true EVERY TIME so long as they are not applied outside of their boundaries.

The science of pickup, by comparison, is markedly softer; Many of the hypotheses introduced by evolutionary psychologists predict a whole plethora of reactions to a given circumstance. The difficulty lies in the fact that we have only our current condition as a species and an incomplete historical record with which to base our observations. Additionally, psychology requires INTERPRETATION as much as it does OBSERVATION. You can't read a person's thoughts by looking at their brain-- you can only learn about the physical and chemical processes that are going on at the moment. To learn their thoughts, you must get them to COMMUNICATE with you, and from there you must INTERPRET their communication. Clearly, this is nowhere near as simple as classical or even quantum mechanics, which still can be modeled mathematically and predict outcomes within a probabilistic framework.

This is a bit longwinded, but I think it forms the crux of the matter: We offer models of pickup and general rules of engagement because they have shown to be very successful, although we don't know HOW successful or even precisely WHY they work. That's all besides the point, though; it is virtually guaranteed that following the DJ Bible will bring you more success than NOT using it, and that should be enough of a selling point for anyone.

Despite this success, there will always be unfortunate cases like the OP, who may have done everything correct by the book (although I personally feel he rushed things and saw this girl too many times early on for her to build up sufficient interest in him) yet failed to hook the girl. Pickup is DEPENDENT, rather than RESISTANT, to outside variables; it is NOT clinical. It is impossible to consider a woman in such an interaction without also considering her current life situation, her immediate emotional state, her upbringing and cultural heritage, her life goals, her other suitors, etc.--all this will have some bearing on the outcome, despite the overall efficacy of game.

The best strategy is to recognize this, and chalk up unexplained failures to these outside variables while resolving to improve yourself INDEPENDENT from any perceived successes or failures. That way, you steer clear of the trap of becoming a validation junkie that measures self-worth by the outcome of a single interaction.

I concur that social science is really NOT like physics but I don't agree completely to some of the reasons you outlined.

The conception that physics principles hold EVERY TIME under the same circumstances is grossly inaccurate. For classical physics, this is ONLY on PAPER, and worse yet, for quantum mechanics there's INTRINSIC unpredictability and chaos even on PAPER!

But more importantly, even in a completely deterministic system where there are more than a few hundred variables, your core theory cannot predict the future, even the slightest error you make in your OBSERVATION will yield to gross macroscopic errors in subsequent intervals. So the point is: Observational science cannot predict the future WITH CERTAINTY because 1) the fundamental theory itself is not deterministic 2) predictions are always prone to error (chaos, butterfly effect).

I completely agree that people practicing the principles in the DJ Bible will have unfortunate results on occasion and this stems from a very fundamental reason. But statistically speaking, they will have, undoubtedly, more success in the long run. This has been confirmed by the outpouring results from the community, the respectful status of this forum, why people advertising this got so rich, and etc... Because it works!

Therefore, one must keep in mind that there's no theory (in any branch of science) that will give you a %100 success rate in predicting results. Even the most basic table-top experiment might have large unexpected errors.

But this limitation IS not to be used to judge the great usefulness of the abstract tools and theories we are using. Isn't one of the first lessons of the pick-up art is "You will not fixate on one woman"?

So I think we completely agree here - a single experiment is as worthless as a single coin toss to determine the probabilistic spectrum of the system, and you must keep on tossing until the results look similar to the patterns described in the community... If you get to "a statistically reliable" outcome contradicting the current literature, report it and let people try to explain why that is the case - isn't this happening all the time in this forum ?!

 

[jophil28]

In fact, even the most concrete science is COMPLICATED and UNPREDICTABLE in PRACTICE. Nonetheless, we have all these beautiful theories that we believe are true. What's more we build these space shuttles, computer chips that have more than 1 billion transistors working in unison, skyscrapers, and all the other wonderful things that WORK using these NOT-EXACT theories.

Newton would laugh. I'm with him.

 

[jophil28]

So I found it rather interesting, especially from a person like you, to use this irrelevant , noisy, dubious "social experiment" to attack these very well established concepts. :yes:

Geez, we are blessed with our very own epistemologist !

 

[Lioric]

Newton would laugh. I'm with him.

I don't want to turn this into physicsforums, (jophil is obviously not the right audience), but Newtonian physics has been dead for about a hundred years from a fundamental point of view. I can't really laugh - I am stunned.

But maybe your generation couldn't catch the quantum revolution of 1920's... : )

Too bad you disdain our pet theories, the world must look so dull (and complicated) if you really buy the almost childish 'everything is random, everything utterly everything is random!' idea.

But I have a feeling it's not what you really believe. Otherwise why would you be here, right?