TyTe`EyEz said:
From my experiences, as well as many others, taking the time to be grammatically correct when texting females is only going to hurt your chances. I get much better responses when I'm short with them and don't use punctuation. Like it or not, that's the world we live in.
I like you, dude, so don't take this personally; I take issue with the myth of "text game".
Your experience is not my experience. Texting is ineffectual (limp-wristed) communication, thus a waste of time. My experience has been that eloquent speaking, with clear pronunciation, strong annunciation, without slang or jargon OVER THE PHONE out-produces texting by a longshot.
But, the main part of the above quoted that tweaks my nose is the acquiescence. Rather than have some pride and protest, or at least persistence for leadership sake, you accept the norm, and conform to it, even tout it's "merits", despite the glaring ignorance. Despite the ignorance of the practice to begin with, you go beyond ignorant to appear even less intelligent? Although you would prefer to not change your good habits, you cast aside your pride to appear less smart while playing texty games?
I can't think of a more shameful bunch of pandering to women, or a worse example of a backwards DJ attitude at the moment.
With an attitude like "let's text poorly because it works with women", intelligent people may just as well put a bullet in their heads and usher in
Idiocracy sooner-than-later. By default, ANY text you send is ignorant: you have a phone in your hand. "But I don't have time to talk on the phone!" is just an ignorant excuse: why do you have a phone, then? To text? If texting is why you have a phone, do you have a car so you can push it wherever you go? Texting, via phone, is clearly the "wrong tool for the job".
Yes, yes, I know: "everyone is doing it". I got that text from a lemming, once. I didn't respond to it. Their "hamster" must be going crazy.
Consider, also, that we tell guys "don't be too available". How is texting not contrary to this principle? I can't see how it couldn't be. We don't spam women 5 e-mails a day to get into their panties. We don't make five phone calls a day to a woman, either. So, how is it that sending five text messages a day isn't "too available"? That's the point: text game is no game.
A texting male's actions declare that they are scared to talk to women. If they weren't, they'd use the tool in their hand for what it's meant for. Instead, these less-than-males hide behind a little screen and avoid real-time interaction...
...being "too available" all the while.
Text game = No game.
Anyone who uses the expression "text game" to infer some sort of skill or success with women needs to look up "oxymoron" in the dictionary. "Text game" just isn't a real, possible concept. There are far too many dynamics which undermine a man's game to claim that there is any benefit, and that's regardless of anything you type. Metering out your attention in little text doses is exactly why women love playing that video game: little "Hershey's Kisses" of attention to savor throughout their days.
I fully understand Kharma Sutra's dismay: it appears that there are more women posing as men in the manosphere than actual men anymore. That's tough for any person with two testicles to watch. But to have to watch the core principles of "game" be perverted and bastardized on top of it? It's like watching a self-proclaimed "man" play a game of candy crush against a chick and listening to him tell you that "if I beat her this round, she'll be D, T, F."
Does one have some pride and lash out? Or, choke down their pride and encourage decay simply for the sake of getting a glimpse of the almighty gold-plated vagina? Where do we draw a line? The problem is that we don't take a stance in this politically correct world of non-confrontation anymore, on anything.
