[in]Security

[Sinistar]

- Sinistar
Can you explain a little bit more. I feel this is important but it doesn't "click" with me yet.

I just got stung by some type of bee about 2wks ago. It hurt at the time. But it never made me angry. It had probably been 25yrs since I was last stung and I'm pretty sure I got angry then. So what changed between then and now? Well, I learned a lot after the first sting. First, that I'm not allergic. Second, that it was more of a nuisance than anything else. Third, that a bee's life and actions are not centered around stinging. Being aware made me more responsible and understanding - that is undeniable.

AFC's spend their lives blaming women, judging them, being tooled by them and doing everything they can to get them to be more direct, correct, logical - more like a male. When it doesn't work they are hurt, broken and sometimes even snap.

In our quest to be the DJ (aka MEN) we begin to realize just how very different women are from us. We start to accept that what was once intuitive to us regarding women (speaking, attraction, actions) is most likely the opposite of what really works best for both sides. Prior to this stage in our life we had probably heard before that women are indirect, covert, emotional, etc. Now we start to observe it and since we are newly aware we are now also responsible. Yet even armed with this knowledge, a DJ is still prone to judging women as manipulators, liars, cowards, evil or whatever. Maybe it vents some steam but it usually leaves a sense of bitterness and continuing bewilderment.

And that's where it clicked for me. Obviously, that bee stung me because it felt threatened, not because it is evil or cowardly or mean or manipulative. When women speak indirectly and covertly it can be confusing, misleading and even manipulative. But their goal isn't to sting, it's to re-balance their [in]Security equation.

So what has really helped me is to better understand what is at the root of all the things we hear over and over again here. That's what I mean by "clicked". Now as I experience women, I feel I have a deeper understanding, knowledge and advantage instead of just a handbook of rules and expected behaviours. I believe this gives me a big advantage as a MAN. I'm more aware of WHY women act the way the do instead of just being told that they WILL act the way they do. Sometimes knowing the 'why' has not helped. But often it seems to play more in my favor than not.

Rejection is a great example. Guys (AFC's) take rejection way too hard. So they come on here and are told it's no big deal and to go get rejected a bunch of times and they'll overcome the fear. There is no substitute for that therapy. But understanding why rejection is happening is strong medicine too. If the AFC tries 50 cold approaches and fails every time, what has he learned - nothing. But if he were made aware that the cold approach is a fine dance of balancing their [in]Security equation it might click as to what is going wrong for them. Perhaps they don't realize that the 20 seconds they spend watching a women from distance is actually making her feel physically insecure. The same goes for "bumping" into each other too many times at the store. Perhaps the guy doesn't realize that during the time he's taking to come up with a good line, she's quickly evaluated him and judged him to be unconfident (insecure) which she translates to his being a bad candidate for provisioning her security in the future.

Contrast this to the PUA/DJ who barely gives the cold approach a thought. Within seconds he's made eye contact, smiled and said Hi. Within a few seconds more she's either responded positively (said hi and smiled back) or negatively (no smile or hello). The initial contact was as spontaneous and non threatening as possible so he minimized the chance of her [in]Security equation going negative. Plus he was confident and outgoing which broadcasts to her a positive sense of security. And he's shown what appears to be an almost casual non-threatening interest (versus fixating) in her which typically makes her feel more positively secure about her appearance (or reinforces it if she's already used to the attention).

The LJBF's are another great example. A guy is chasing after a girl that he is friend with and seeks advice. We tell him it's not gonna work (which it won't). But he still wastes his time and tries. Then he gets the dreaded LJBF and comes back here wondering what happened and how he can reverse it. We tell him it couldn't have worked and that it can't be reversed (at least not long term) and so he goes off again and then back here again when that fails. Maybe we should be explaining to him why it can't work at a level that he can't circumvent in his AFC mind instead of just telling him it's not going to work. And telling him it's not going to work because it never works just translates into a personal challenge for him to be the first to make it work. But I'm wondering - what if we told him that once he became friends with the girl she forever judged him to be incapable of balancing her [in]Security equation. And that no amount of trying will ever bring him back into that equation other than a friend. Maybe there's enough directness and logic there to help him see light instead of seeing a challenge?

As my own critic, perhaps this [in]Security theory (being the root of women's communication, behaviours, attraction, etc) is too broad an application of a theme. And one could also argue that this is a rather large rationalization / justification for observed behaviours. But I don't think so because it seems to explain a lot more than it doesn't. And being consciously aware of it while dealing with women seems to provide some type of advantage although it's hard to describe in words.

I should note that this topic could be greatly misunderstood. The last thing a guy should do is read this and then run out and "Rescue or Save" women. That is the absolute worse thing you can do. So this [in]Security thing runs very counter-intuitive to everything socially programmed into us. Even the cluster-B wackjob has a [in]Security equation running her life - but the only ones capable of dealing with it are Narcissists and Psychos.

 

[Truman181]

Alright, so I'm curious, how does balancing the 'security equation' correlate to attraction?

For instance, about a month ago, I was dating a woman that I felt mediocre towards. She was physically attractive but there were a lot of things about her personality that annoyed me. Then she broke it off because she claimed she doesn't want to be in a relationship right now. Having felt her pull away, my feelings changed to that of trying to prevent a loss so I tried to pull her back to me by 'confessing feelings' that previously had been luke warm. After this, she felt SHE was the prize and pulled away from me further. We still talk on occasion, as friends, but it's obvious she lost the attraction for me.

So how does your theory fit into that example? I felt I was losing her, I tried to reassure her and once she felt that 'security' I was trying to provide, she was no longer attracted.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge. This appears to be a fresh way to look at things.

 

[Sinistar]

Uh oh theory test

Then she broke it off because she claimed she doesn't want to be in a relationship right now.

Let's say you were some mega alpha type (incredibly rich, sports star, movie star, etc.) Do you honestly believe she would have said "Truman baby, I'm just not ready to be in a relationship right now." Well, you know the answer to that one. Do the translation. You weren't doing it for her and she ejected. That much is obvious. How she ejected is classic - she was textbook indirect, the indirectness being a simple byproduct of her being a security conscience creature first, foremost and always. And why she ejected, I guess my theory is saying that somewhere along the line you no longer (or never) provided the healthy type and amount of security she needed to spur and sustain her attraction (ie desire+interest). Actually, since you dated briefly she was probably initially attracted. You were doing something right making her feel good forms of security (non-threatening + confident) plus the good form of insecurity (ie not too available, mysterious, etc). Then as she got to know you better (and possibly a reflection back of how you were seeing her) she locked onto some other vibe (women do naturally and instantly) which made her feel less secure around you (probably picked up on your hesistation regarding her personality, etc). If you were always worried about how other people perceive you (insecurity-based,LSE) and you got the vibe someone was annoyed or bothered by how you "are" wouldn't that make you take a step back or pretty much zero out the equation?

Having felt her pull away, my feelings changed to that of trying to prevent a loss so I tried to pull her back to me by 'confessing feelings' that previously had been luke warm. After this, she felt SHE was the prize and pulled away from me further. We still talk on occasion, as friends, but it's obvious she lost the attraction for me.

This one is a no brainer. We chase that which runs away from us (if we are in it's frame to begin with). So you chased. And then you ran matrix subprogram 001. You 'confessed feelings'. Well that ended it right there, we all know that. What that did to her was imbalance her security equation so bad you can never recover from it. You were no longer a mystery to her so she can never again feel any healthy insecurity (wondering,fantasizing,doubting,jealousies,etc). And I would even venture to guess that she will forever be a bit timid regarding physical contact (physical security) because she has pushed you away when she knows your # 1 goal was (and in her mind always will be) physical intimacy. If someone else physically stronger than you wants something physical from you, wouldn't that always have you on edge or at least somewhat insecure regarding direct contact?

My guess is that you weren't spinning enough plates or were too focused on this one (initial onset of oneitis). When you're in that mode, it is nearly impossible for you to not tip their security equation the wrong way. You were most likely too available, predictable and too focused - that's like multiplying the number by a fraction and driving the number way down. However, when you are interested + patient + aloof + confident + c0cky + spinning she will naturally keep adding to that number for you because she's feeling a healthy combination of security + insecurity.

But when you "confessed feelings' and tried to 'pull her back' she just zeroed you out - zip attraction! And since you can't add or subtract (remember she does that naturally by wondering, fantasizing, etc) you're stuck at zero. You can never change this one so your best bet is to start dating others, get out and do things to meet new people and learn from this rather than dwell on it, etc.

And even if you do re-connect with her, she'll always retain the frame because she'll be the one taking you back, controlling intimacy and never feeling quite right about her feelings of security/insecurity w/r to you.

Now some much simpler advice from our almighty Rollo:

Rejection is better than regret - you're still alive right

Stop wishing it were easier and start wishing you were better - women will forever act this way - they are never going to change. So the only thing you have left is to start getting better at this stuff (which I'm sure finding this site, you are a different person than before).

 

[Vulpine]

Edit: Sinistar beat me to the reply, and I like the logical "mathimatical" response... I'm leaving mine up for similar but different perspective.

Then she broke it off because she claimed she doesn't want to be in a relationship right now.

You've got a lot to learn.

Your little scenario demonstrates to us that you somehow came off as needy. She probably picked up on that vibe too, and you didn't hear the last part of what she said: ...with you.

See, women 'need' a man, men shouldn't 'need' a woman. So, if it appeared to this woman that you depended on her (in this case too early), then that upsets the balance Sinistar is talking about. It could be that since you were chasing, or "pulling" as you put it, she felt insecure. Feminine types seek shelter in the strength of their partner.

To help relate my take on what Sinistar is explaining, consider a Man (and his involvement in a relationship) as "THE CASTLE". Now, a woman (maiden?) goes about her life, skipping and playing through the countryside. When the weather gets nasty, or some wild animals in the woods scare her, perhaps some highwaymen have been in the area, she's going to want somewhere that feels safe, somewhere secure. So, she sees a CASTLE, and wants in. Does the CASTLE follow her around the countryside? No, the CASTLE sits there with the drawbridge down welcoming her in. If there are threats outside, all a guy needs to do is pull up the drawbridge: the woman should, for the most part, already feel secure because she is inside the CASTLE.

Now, there is an aspect that is important to convey: confinement. Many DJ's will agree, modern women want freedom, they want their cake and eat it too. So, sometimes you need leave the drawbridge down in order for a woman to feel a little [in]Secure. She's free to come and go as she pleases, but, so are other women... it's a two-way corridor. And this is where spinning plates and demonstrating value fits into the analogy.

Myself, I've found that, at breakup time, I can't and shouldn't try to chase. Instead, I load the worthless wench into the trebuchet and launch her ass as far away from my kingdom as possible. She doesn't just get to stroll out of the CASTLE nonchalantly, she's forcefully ejected.

The CASTLE is strength and security for the woman. The stronger and more secure it is, the less likely the woman is to leave it; provided there are enough things in the courtyard to keep her interested.

 

[The Bat]

See, women 'need' a man, men shouldn't 'need' a woman. So, if it appeared to this woman that you depended on her (in this case too early), then that upsets the balance Sinistar is talking about. It could be that since you were chasing, or "pulling" as you put it, she felt insecure. Feminine types seek shelter in the strength of their partner.

To help relate my take on what Sinistar is explaining, consider a Man (and his involvement in a relationship) as "THE CASTLE". Now, a woman (maiden?) goes about her life, skipping and playing through the countryside. When the weather gets nasty, or some wild animals in the woods scare her, perhaps some highwaymen have been in the area, she's going to want somewhere that feels safe, somewhere secure. So, she sees a CASTLE, and wants in. Does the CASTLE follow her around the countryside? No, the CASTLE sits there with the drawbridge down welcoming her in. If there are threats outside, all a guy needs to do is pull up the drawbridge: the woman should, for the most part, already feel secure because she is inside the CASTLE.

Now, there is an aspect that is important to convey: confinement. Many DJ's will agree, modern women want freedom, they want their cake and eat it too. So, sometimes you need leave the drawbridge down in order for a woman to feel a little [in]Secure. She's free to come and go as she pleases, but, so are other women... it's a two-way corridor. And this is where spinning plates and demonstrating value fits into the analogy.

Myself, I've found that, at breakup time, I can't and shouldn't try to chase. Instead, I load the worthless wench into the trebuchet and launch her ass as far away from my kingdom as possible. She doesn't just get to stroll out of the CASTLE nonchalantly, she's forcefully ejected.

The CASTLE is strength and security for the woman. The stronger and more secure it is, the less likely the woman is to leave it; provided there are enough things in the courtyard to keep her interested.

I just wanted to say this is the most interesting and....erm, fun....analogy I've read so far about the idea of masculine behavior when it comes to dating as a single Man.

And LOL @ the wench in a trebuchet picture. :crackup:

Reps for you, Vulpine.

To the OP:

Are you trying to say that there is a reason behind women act the way they do, and it's our job as Men, if we want to succeed at attracting women, to figure out those reasons and learn to deal with them (or not deal with them in some cases)?

If so, then I wholeheartedly agree. If not, then maybe you should elaborate a bit.

 

[Sinistar]

Now, there is an aspect that is important to convey: confinement. Many DJ's will agree, modern women want freedom, they want their cake and eat it too. So, sometimes you need leave the drawbridge down in order for a woman to feel a little [in]Secure. She's free to come and go as she pleases, but, so are other women... it's a two-way corridor. And this is where spinning plates and demonstrating value fits into the analogy.

...this part of your analogy is bang-on - the bridge staying open gives her the freedom she wants (or that a feminized society is telling her that she should demand and take) yet it allows other babes in as well. Bingo - that is the good healthy inSecurity for a women to be experiencing.

If you don't mind, I want to extend your analogy a bit.

Let's say the maiden in Vulpine's analogy happens to come across this castle with the bridge open and just outside and all around inside are more and more maidens milling about. This is golden (well actually its just plate spinning).

Now this castle is looking really appealing to her - why? Not simply because other maidens are present (that would mean it is only about competition). Nope, it's because the other maiden's would only be present in such numbers and staying around if this castle were safe (ie physically secure, non-threatening, non-demanding, non-judging, etc). And there must be some kind of energy, excitement, mystery and competition because without all of those the maidens would get bored or feel stressed and just leave. And the appearance of the castle combined with other attributes must be creating some type of vibe which makes the maidens feel better here than in other castles.

You could surround a HB5 with 20 alpha males and the last thing I'm going to do is approach. Whether a HB5 is surrounded by other guys or not does not spark attraction. Guys work different. 20 million guys could tell me Marissa Miller is not that hot - I'm still gonna think she's hot.

Women are different. When they see other women around guys I believe there is more to it than just competition. They are using their spiddy sense and perceiving that this guy is interesting, confident, secure, physically non-threatening, funny, low stress, whatever. It makes total sense too. Why would all these other women (ie competition) be interested in this same guy and be willing share? If just a few of those key attributes were missing there would be no flock. This effect makes 'em go into Vulpine's castle or really jump starts the [in]Security equation with a nice big positive number (her initial interest being closely followed by her increasing desire if all goes well).

 

[Sinistar]

Are you trying to say that there is a reason behind women act the way they do, and it's our job as Men, if we want to succeed at attracting women, to figure out those reasons and learn to deal with them (or not deal with them in some cases)?

Yes, I am saying there is a reason behind why women act the way they do - there is a reason behind why everything acts the way it does. And yes it is our job as MEN (if we want to succeed at attracting women) to figure out these reasons - AS BEST WE CAN - to learn to either bring them closer to us or move forward with our lives leaving behind the ones that are indifferent or boring or broken or scared or quite simply not meant to be a part of our lives anymore.

When I found this site it took a while for things to sink in. The things that sank in were observations making sense that never made sense before. DJ's here could predict responses to actions and be right where as an AFC I had always gotten them wrong. Being open to that way of thinking and understanding it and accepting it alone are more than enough to help a misguided man find his path towards becoming a MAN.

Then I took a break for awhile. And as I sat back and observed women of all types I just started seeing a bit more than predictions and rules and expected outcomes. What sort of clicked for me was that it seemed that it could all really be pinned back to how women continuously (24/7) manage, deal and cope with seeking to feel secure and yet requiring healthy insecurity - simulataneously. Using math to try and describe it as an equation is probably a poor analogy with the exception that guys are logical and a math-like approach might accelerate them opening up to the DJ way with less of a fight. Quite honestly, if I had to take a shot at what the equation looks like, I'd say women operate on derivatives and integrators while guys can only be multipliers. The reason I say this is that there is one element that guys just can't seem to deal with in every single post you see here - time!!!

Guys want things done and solved and all fixed up and better RIGHT NOW. They don't factor in time. If guys understood the value and concept of time better they'd know how to use it towards their advantage. The PUA/DJ understands this and uses it to their advantage. They know a bit of brief low key fun non-threatening contact make the women feel secure. And then to pull back (ie time) will let them slowly integrate (sum) their healthy insecurity. And viola - interest builds which opens the door for desire (which I believe is very much a physical thing despite what other might say).

Am I saying I have found the magic equation that will describe every woman and in-turn give any guy out there instant hook-up capability. No way! But for once their actions and responses (which DJ's/MEN can predict reliably) seem to make more sense and this awareness seems to give me and advantage I didn't sense before when interacting with them.

 

[Vulpine]

Nope, it's because the other maiden's would only be present in such numbers and staying around if this castle were safe (ie physically secure, non-threatening, non-demanding, non-judging, etc). And there must be some kind of energy, excitement, mystery and competition because without all of those the maidens would get bored or feel stressed and just leave. And the appearance of the castle combined with other attributes must be creating some type of vibe which makes the maidens feel better here than in other castles.

I just imagined a flock of sheep in a castle's courtyard. Sheep flock together because there are safety in numbers, right? It's the security thing again... baa-aa-aaa!

The CASTLE analogy really applies to a lot of aspects of being a DJ.

For example, visibility. Usually, a castle is built in a prominent location (edge of a cliff, top of a hill, etc). This not only makes it easy for women to see, but, serves to the CASTLE's advantage as well. In order to approach the CASTLE, a woman must overcome certain obstacles (climb a hill, scale a cliff, swim across a moat or river...)[qualification], which serves to give a sense of accomplishment when she actually arrives inside, and ensures only the healthiest enter.

Peacocking? It's nothing more than painting your castle fluorescent orange, maybe drawing a huge "bull's-eye" on the side.

Older castles? They aren't necessarily dilapidated, they are "distinguished" by having moss or ivy growing on the walls.

Lifting weights? Fortifying the ramparts, training the guards.

Hell, I can even relate the CASTLE idea to my being homeless: my castle merely has a trailer hitch and is on wheels right now, like a mobile home, but it's STILL a castle. I'm just looking for the right hill or cliff to park it by.

And, personally, I used to roam aimlessly around the countryside trying to meet women before I found this site. I got along alright, but, I wasn't getting anywhere besides "around". Since, I've realized the error in such priorities (or lack thereof). Nowadays, I'm working on my castle and kingdom. Maidens will come and go regardless of the size, color, or location of the CASTLE. I guess you can say the CASTLE is much like the "field of dreams": if I build it, they will cüm... er... well, you know what I'm saying.

 

[02hero]

Great thread, it was a pleasure to read. It's the first time in ages I've been able to say that on here......cheers everyone, I feel smarter for reading

 

[Colossus]

This is an interesting thread. I actually printed it out an read it on my way to work.

At first it seemed you were oversimplifying a bit by putting all this under the security umbrella, but I think this describes that aspect of their emotional hierarchy of needs very well.

I think there is a 'triad' of female emotional needs: Attention, security, and validation. This is a dynamic trilogy in that no one need will always precede another; there is a flux depending on the situation, environment, and those involved. But if you critically look at it--and as you have wonderfully broken down in this security thread--almost ALL of their behaviors, especially in regards to men, serve to fill one of these keystone emotional needs.

 

[Truman181]

Uh oh theory test

Let's say you were some mega alpha type (incredibly rich, sports star, movie star, etc.) Do you honestly believe she would have said "Truman baby, I'm just not ready to be in a relationship right now."

Then you're saying that mega alpha types never get dumped? It happens to everyone once in awhile, yes even famous people or sports stars. So I think you shouldn't assume I'm an afc because it happened in this case.

From the beginning I initially felt she wasn't attractive enough for me. I even considered posting a thread on here about "how do I be less shallow". I mean I was attracted enough to give her a chance at a semi-casual relationship...Then as I spent more time getting to know her, I was irritated by lots of her personality traits. She even said to me the weekend before she broke up with me when I was getting irritated "are you going to run now?".

So that was my confusion. How could she have broken it off with me when I was so indifferent with her.

Now I understand a bit more what you are getting at with the 'security equation'. She must have felt insecure in the relationship and that is why she passively broke it off.

Then when she broke it off, I of course wanted her back. Like you said it's that old story about chasing what runs from you. And then of course, in attempting to get her back, I gave her too much security (old habits die hard, even when we ABSOLUTELY know better).

You've got a lot to learn.

Perhaps not as much as you assume.

Your little scenario demonstrates to us that you somehow came off as needy. She probably picked up on that vibe too, and you didn't hear the last part of what she said: ...with you.

I wasn't needy before the initial break up. I was indifferent and considering breaking it off with her.

Trust me, when she handed me that "I don't want to be in a relationship" line, I've heard it many many times before. I mean really, I've been around the block many times. I've been on this forum since 2004 and absorbed the wisdom and had the experience to back it up, however KNOWING this stuff and doing it are two different things and like I said, those old habits are tough to break, even when you know you are breaking them.

Anyway, though I may repeat some of the same mistakes from time to time, and I know I'm doing it when I'm doing it, I'm not devastated by the situation these days.

I think a lot of it has to do with balancing the security/insecurity equation as Sinistar pointed out. Back in the old days I would make the girl feel too secure, now I suspect maybe I'm over correcting.

Myself, I've found that, at breakup time, I can't and shouldn't try to chase. Instead, I load the worthless wench into the trebuchet and launch her ass as far away from my kingdom as possible. She doesn't just get to stroll out of the CASTLE nonchalantly, she's forcefully ejected.

The CASTLE is strength and security for the woman. The stronger and more secure it is, the less likely the woman is to leave it; provided there are enough things in the courtyard to keep her interested.

I've learned this lesson COUNTLESS times. But do I act on it???? NOOO! Not yet at least! I think you pointed out a big part of my problem, I don't spin enough plates. Yes I may be somewhat indifferent in the relationship but then a test comes along (such as a break up) and the fear of loss overcomes my indifference. Anyway, good advice. I see what I'm doing wrong.

Sinistar -

I think it's as you put it. I've been caught up in the rules and predicted behaviors of what women do. I'm going to look at things from your new perspective for awhile and see if it helps me make more sense of it all.

 

[gösta berling]

From now on, I'll always have this security/insecurity equation in the back of my mind when dealing with women. Thank you Sinistar and Vulpine, you have both helped me immensely.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Yo Troops,

This is a great thread and some great responses and elaborations ALL AROUND.

These are the kinds of thought provoking concepts that I have always enjoyed reading-----and contributing to whenever I come back here.

Much RESPECT.


VU

 

[Heretolearn]

great thread - thanks

 

[Rhoto]

Guys want things done and solved and all fixed up and better RIGHT NOW. They don't factor in time. If guys understood the value and concept of time better they'd know how to use it towards their advantage. The PUA/DJ understands this and uses it to their advantage. They know a bit of brief low key fun non-threatening contact make the women feel secure. And then to pull back (ie time) will let them slowly integrate (sum) their healthy insecurity. And viola - interest builds which opens the door for desire (which I believe is very much a physical thing despite what other might say).

Brilliant thread. Took a couple times to really understand (castle analogy is money).

But I find this part critical and would like some more discussion and explanation.

This has been a big problem of mine recently. I can start the fire, but I can't seem to sustain it as well as I'd like.

 

[Audiophile]

Bump for a fantastic thread. Any chance anyone could elaborate even more on the [in]Security equation? i.e, which actions/feelings influences the equation over to either the inSecurity or Security side.

 

[Colossus]

....You were most likely too available, predictable and too focused - that's like multiplying the number by a fraction and driving the number way down. However, when you are interested + patient + aloof + confident + c0cky + spinning she will naturally keep adding to that number for you because she's feeling a healthy combination of security + insecurity.

But when you "confessed feelings' and tried to 'pull her back' she just zeroed you out - zip attraction! And since you can't add or subtract (remember she does that naturally by wondering, fantasizing, etc) you're stuck at zero. You can never change this one so your best bet is to start dating others, get out and do things to meet new people and learn from this rather than dwell on it, etc.

And even if you do re-connect with her, she'll always retain the frame because she'll be the one taking you back, controlling intimacy and never feeling quite right about her feelings of security/insecurity w/r to you.

Brilliant thread that definitely deserves a bump. I still refer back to this in my head and it was great to refresh.

What this reminds me (and taught me) is how simple success in this area of your life really is. The 'community' has a tendency to hyper-analyze EVERYTHING, and make mountains out of molehills. Once a guy has this moment of clarity and stops FIGHTING the way women are, and instead accepts their nature, understands it----things really start to fall in place. This "game" stuff starts to make sense. You understand WHY you shouldn't confess your feelings, be too available, share your whole life story, etc.

I love to simplify things. There is so much in life that can be distilled and refined to only what is truly relevant and necessary. In a nutshell (and IMO)--

1. Find someone with whom you have genuine, mutual desire and attraction. Probably the most overlooked but important step of all.
2. UNDERSTAND [in]security, and abide by it.
3. Never change yourself to what you think another might want. Always be improving, achieving, and striving. Once you get to a place where you KNOW you are a stud (most of the time, lol), it just becomes a function of you choosing the right girl, or girls.

 

[PokerStar]

its like putting the ball back into my court yard.

 

[Jamo]

By the time you figure out what is on a woman's mind, she would have changed it. Therefore it is not up to you as the man to figure out the reasons why...moment you get into that you have lost.

I think this is one of the "boilerplate" principles taught here. You should only take actions based on what she does. If what she does constitutes as "bad behavior", the best answer to that is become aloof and indifferent. If there is a genuine problem she will voice it.

 

[DanelMadr]

Good post, man.
Cat is not a murderer and mouse is not a thief.

I also believe women behave this indirect way because they are simply the weaker sex. And you are absolutely right about the rejection. And it was quite a relief for me to accept everything as my own fault. Even if she is clearly wrong I made the mistake to not recognize her stupidity in the start and asked her out :]

Every time I treat a woman like an adult male I get a strong reality check. They just love to take advantage of you and poop on your head. They mistake kindness for weakness....since in most cases they are right.