Why you should never take a woman's words at face value
- Thread starter STR8UP
- Start date
- Status
aliasguy said:
I am a big believer in smart men find it hard with women, because they over think alot of things, where by naturals or guys with little brains and alot of brawn are bagging most of the chicks, you can see this everywhere, alot of guys just dont over-think about getting with women.
I cant explain this better then what has already been posted on these boards a recent one was Rollo, i will link it in, since to me it will communicate with the 'smart guy' more then i ever could put it into words, about 'security' this is a model i think is the best, not trying to fit into the 'provider' materilistic sheep think that is prevalent in society, to me guys are no better then the cosmo' mag worshipping harpies they so love to try to tie down.
I will link it in now.
This is all Rollo T, none of this is mine, but it sums it up perfectly:
Security can have roots in the emotional, intellectual, empathetic, etc. that aren't mitigated by money. Women for whom money has never been an object still have security needs, they're just expressed in different realms. The best security a Man can offer a woman is his ability to be respected as a Man, in a positive masculine sense which is based in his own self-confidence. Money may solve a lot of problems, but it's confident, masculine resourcefullness that provides a woman with security should the money dissappear.
Props Rollo, this is one post that should blow this whole thread apart, it is well written and explains what others have been strugling to say in this whole thread.
Read it, obsorb it, ignore it, the choice is yours as is most things.
What's all this in here?
How can anyone think Iqqi is a man? Iqqi's posts don't technically disagree with you, but are designed to subtly insult and annoy you. Don't women do that all the time??
And how can a man write these?
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=49770
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=54092
And what does it matter if Iqqi posts a picture for "proof"? She could post any picture and say it's her.
And how can anyone think John is 26?
And how can anyone think that jonwon's first language is English?
And how can anyone think that either great sex only, great money only, or great looks only, is enough to keep some normal woman interested? I don't think anyone here really openly espouses those positions, so I don't know why anyone would argue for or against them.
How can anyone think Iqqi is a man? Iqqi's posts don't technically disagree with you, but are designed to subtly insult and annoy you. Don't women do that all the time??
And how can a man write these?
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=49770
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=54092
And what does it matter if Iqqi posts a picture for "proof"? She could post any picture and say it's her.
And how can anyone think John is 26?
And how can anyone think that jonwon's first language is English?
And how can anyone think that either great sex only, great money only, or great looks only, is enough to keep some normal woman interested? I don't think anyone here really openly espouses those positions, so I don't know why anyone would argue for or against them.
No, it hasn't.
No, he didn't.
Lol, well it is my first language, i get called up on my grammer and my spelling shi* loads on here, hey i guess i deserve it, but i am far too lazy to write like i am sending a book out.Phyzzle said:
Granted some of my posts can be appauling to read, even i struggle but i still see the many mistakes and i still cant be arsed to fully edit them.
Maybe if this was some other form of medium, i would! Say like work.
Believe it or not i got good grades in English, I am just a lazy writer.
But i am English, granted i can see why you could make that assumption
Weird, I thought that becuase you don't talk with simple words or slang, it's eductated words, but there is always something off about the grammar and the order. Kind of like Latinoman, or some of the non-English posters.
I dont mind slang, but i prefer to not use it myself if i can help it, though i will use some C&F stuff if a women starts using some slang around me, just to toy with her a little.Phyzzle said:
If anything i am just a typical white british guy trying to make sense of the world we live in
One last edit:
Do you think alot of these guys are worrying about fitting into the 'provider' guy T-shirt?
http://www.sosuave.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=21
No the way i see these guys are doing the best they can to devolop themselves above and behond this type of thinking, hence there embracing there masculine traits has much has possible and toned, built guys get to choose ALOT, granted some playa' with cash can fuc* some cosmopolitan mag reading average western prada handbag wearing women, but women gravitate towards guys with masculine traits, these guys work on that aspect, not about aquiring the means to 'provide', its there if you so choose to 'look'.
Yes i have taken up waights about 4 months ago, i am no way in great shape, probably just a bit over average, but girls DO NOTICE and they totally love it.
Maybe if women’s financial security needs are a factor to you, then i suggest you pop over to the link i posted and start working on things women tend to gravitate towards anyway, other then conforming to the materialistic stereotype.
Alot of those guys would not get into such a debate has this, there above it.
Last edited:
Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
I'm not sure this is any great revelation here, but assuming for the moment IQQ is in fact female, she is bitter. She is bitter in the classic sense that all women who become bitter are - she's angry with the game. You see there are two approaches to the world that most people employ in life; the first is to learn it, accept it, excell at it, even enjoy and exploit it, and then there are those who want to change it to better fit their abilities to function within it. Women usually fall into the latter category, but this again is caused by women's need for security. IQQI, like most older women, would like to change the rules of the game to better suit her particular conditions. Thus we get feminine social conventions to effect this.
Security
From a very early age women realize the power they have over little boys, and into their adolescence they learn to exploit and use this first, best agency to position themselves to achieve a long term security. Security is the single most important driving motivation women have. This is very important for men to learn because how this security drive is manifested and prioritized at various stages of a woman's life is key to understanding the sex. Security is not always financial. This is typical man-think; that security can only ever mean money. The richest woman in the world still seeks long term security form men (or their masculine substitute). Money, provisioning and the resourcefulness needed to procure it in times of want are tradtionally masculine traits that meet this security need, but there is also emotional security, familial and intellectual security that make up this need. There is also a security in a woman's ability to generate attention from men - and this is a very contentious issue for women because they lose this as they age.
Women are literally hard-wired for this security desire. From a biological standpoint, all of their gender's biochemistry is targeted toward achieving this long term security. Higher concentrations of oxytocin, estrogen and progesterone, and all of the accompanying emotional reaction that result from just these hormones prompt a woman to seek a masculine-exclusive sense of security. Likewise, men are hard-wired for their primary drive which of course is sex. This isn't to say men don't seek forms of security themselves, it's that this drive is secondary to their sex impulse. And likewise, women do want and enjoy sex, but this drive is sublimated and qualified by their overriding need for security.
Prerequisites for Intimacy
All women have conditions (prerequisites) for men in order for them to become intimate (sexual) with them; he's got to be good looking, he's got to be financially stable (i.e. rich), he's got to have some status ('different from 'power'), respectability, ambition, be confident, he has to be the inititator, he's has to be decisive, he has to make an emotional connection with her, he's got have 'provider' potential,..etc., etc. and the list goes on and on for any individual woman and according to her ability (i.e. looks) to demand each condition. Each of these personal conditions for intimacy is set in a priority order depending on her ability to demand them and this demand will ALWAYS be mediated by her age.
It's no secret that a woman's sexual marketability declines as she ages and men's increases as he ages. As a woman ages she progressively loses her ability to physically attract a mate (his one condition for intimacy), thus her conditions and their priority order shift accordingly because she is forced to compete with younger, more attractive women for the same pool of eligible men able to provide her with this security need.
Men's one condition for their own intimacy is sexual attraction. A woman MUST be hot - or sexually available enough while meeting a minimum threshold for physical attraction. No laundry list of esoteric qualities, no "what do you do for a living?" it's all physicality. In the long term, there may be prerequisite characteristics she'll need to possess, but in the attraction and intimacy phase it's all physical.
Feminine Competition
Women know full well men's one condition for intimacy. It's been taught to them as early as 5 years old. Pretty girls get attention, fat girls don't. This is a life-long subconscious recognition for women. Every day they put on make up, every day they wear pantyhose, every day they color their hair, this understanding permeates their lives. Attention is the coin of the female realm in every culture. Attention and the ability to generate it feeds the security need. In this respect women are FAR more competitive than men. And at no other stage of life is a woman more sexually competitive and at her peak than between the ages of 18 and 30. At no other period in a woman's life is she able to command so much male attention. She is at the peak of her physicality and the peak of her sexuality.
However, as she progresses and matures through this period, the underlying knowledge that her sexual agency has a shelf-life is ever present. Whether this is a conscious recognition or one below the surface, this understanding will at some point conflict with her need to find long term security. As women age their sexual marketability declines - this doesn't make them bad, undesirabel people - it only means individually they become less able to command the attention they did when they were younger.
In modern society this presents a very serious problem for women who have not achieved the security they desperately need after age 30. Thus social contrivances needed to be developed in order to level the playingfield. As women's natural propensity is to operate in the psychological, shame tactics became useful. Shame men into believing that their preference for younger women is wrong. Condition men to believe that their condition for intimacy is "shallow" while making their own conditons respectible, deep and prudent.
This is an effort to change the game in light of a lack of foresight on women's part. And so we have a disgruntled IQQI constantly raging at the machine on every "looks" thread she can post on.
Security
From a very early age women realize the power they have over little boys, and into their adolescence they learn to exploit and use this first, best agency to position themselves to achieve a long term security. Security is the single most important driving motivation women have. This is very important for men to learn because how this security drive is manifested and prioritized at various stages of a woman's life is key to understanding the sex. Security is not always financial. This is typical man-think; that security can only ever mean money. The richest woman in the world still seeks long term security form men (or their masculine substitute). Money, provisioning and the resourcefulness needed to procure it in times of want are tradtionally masculine traits that meet this security need, but there is also emotional security, familial and intellectual security that make up this need. There is also a security in a woman's ability to generate attention from men - and this is a very contentious issue for women because they lose this as they age.
Women are literally hard-wired for this security desire. From a biological standpoint, all of their gender's biochemistry is targeted toward achieving this long term security. Higher concentrations of oxytocin, estrogen and progesterone, and all of the accompanying emotional reaction that result from just these hormones prompt a woman to seek a masculine-exclusive sense of security. Likewise, men are hard-wired for their primary drive which of course is sex. This isn't to say men don't seek forms of security themselves, it's that this drive is secondary to their sex impulse. And likewise, women do want and enjoy sex, but this drive is sublimated and qualified by their overriding need for security.
Prerequisites for Intimacy
All women have conditions (prerequisites) for men in order for them to become intimate (sexual) with them; he's got to be good looking, he's got to be financially stable (i.e. rich), he's got to have some status ('different from 'power'), respectability, ambition, be confident, he has to be the inititator, he's has to be decisive, he has to make an emotional connection with her, he's got have 'provider' potential,..etc., etc. and the list goes on and on for any individual woman and according to her ability (i.e. looks) to demand each condition. Each of these personal conditions for intimacy is set in a priority order depending on her ability to demand them and this demand will ALWAYS be mediated by her age.
It's no secret that a woman's sexual marketability declines as she ages and men's increases as he ages. As a woman ages she progressively loses her ability to physically attract a mate (his one condition for intimacy), thus her conditions and their priority order shift accordingly because she is forced to compete with younger, more attractive women for the same pool of eligible men able to provide her with this security need.
Men's one condition for their own intimacy is sexual attraction. A woman MUST be hot - or sexually available enough while meeting a minimum threshold for physical attraction. No laundry list of esoteric qualities, no "what do you do for a living?" it's all physicality. In the long term, there may be prerequisite characteristics she'll need to possess, but in the attraction and intimacy phase it's all physical.
Feminine Competition
Women know full well men's one condition for intimacy. It's been taught to them as early as 5 years old. Pretty girls get attention, fat girls don't. This is a life-long subconscious recognition for women. Every day they put on make up, every day they wear pantyhose, every day they color their hair, this understanding permeates their lives. Attention is the coin of the female realm in every culture. Attention and the ability to generate it feeds the security need. In this respect women are FAR more competitive than men. And at no other stage of life is a woman more sexually competitive and at her peak than between the ages of 18 and 30. At no other period in a woman's life is she able to command so much male attention. She is at the peak of her physicality and the peak of her sexuality.
However, as she progresses and matures through this period, the underlying knowledge that her sexual agency has a shelf-life is ever present. Whether this is a conscious recognition or one below the surface, this understanding will at some point conflict with her need to find long term security. As women age their sexual marketability declines - this doesn't make them bad, undesirabel people - it only means individually they become less able to command the attention they did when they were younger.
In modern society this presents a very serious problem for women who have not achieved the security they desperately need after age 30. Thus social contrivances needed to be developed in order to level the playingfield. As women's natural propensity is to operate in the psychological, shame tactics became useful. Shame men into believing that their preference for younger women is wrong. Condition men to believe that their condition for intimacy is "shallow" while making their own conditons respectible, deep and prudent.
This is an effort to change the game in light of a lack of foresight on women's part. And so we have a disgruntled IQQI constantly raging at the machine on every "looks" thread she can post on.
squirrels
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2003
- Messages
- 6,627
- Reaction score
- 178
- Age
- 45
See...herein lies the PROBLEM with most men. They've driven the demand up for "looks" to the point where it's priced beyond the affordable range for most.Rollo Tomassi said:
And although you put a disclaimer in there about "long-term prerequisites", the sad truth is that a LOT of men will set their prerequisites aside to hang on to a woman who's particularly good-looking.
Women KNOW this, and that's why many women believe that their looks will get them whatever they want in life.
Hell...if I could get money just for looking good, you can be damned sure I'd be milking it for all it's worth.
There are plenty of "gold-digging" women out there, but there are also plenty of them doing it for themselves, who really just want a man in a comparable income bracket who can afford to eat dinner at a nice restaurant once in a while.
What I wonder sometimes is whether these days, most women want to be with rich men for their money, or most women want to be with rich men because rich men don't have this ongoing inferiority complex originating from not HAVING money.
It's quite apparent on this website, since everyone seems to think that "bling" is a REQUIREMENT for pulling girls these days. I got more women when I was driving around in my rattle-trap Trans Am than when I got my Acura. I've pulled numbers from cuties out at a bar, unshaven and wearing dime-store sweats.
If you believe that looks are worth a lot of money, then YES, you need a lot of money to pull the kind of girl you want. But there are other forms of VALUE out there besides money. In fact, if you were clever, you could convert those kinds of value INTO money if you could find the right market.
If you don't believe in the "looks for money" market, then don't pay women for their good looks. It's as simple as that. It won't be that easy, since most people take whatever default is thrown at them, and that default is "looks for money", but as you start to discover your own intrinsic value, you'll find a way to express that value in exchange for the kind of woman you want. Or in exchange for the money that buys the hot materialistic girl you're after, if that IS truly what you're after.
Aliasguy said
What I am here for is a little entertainment. My life is pretty chaotic nowadays and this site takes my mind off of things. I'm also here to fine tune my understanding of women, the mating game, and human nature in general.
The last thing that brings me here is the possibility of one day putting my thoughts into words on this subject. Not necessarily looking to write the next best seller, but it would make an interesting project once I feel I have polished up a few of my theories.
I get the feeling that you are getting the wrong idea about my message due to the examples I used and other posters taking them out of context.
You seem to be alluding to the fact that I am bitter towards women or something of the sort?? Not at all. I love women, I just continue to see a more dismal picture of their true nature. All that means is that I have to compensate on MY end. Nothing is going to chance the way they are.
I'm still not 100% clear as to why you feel that I have a lot to learn, or even that we are really in disagreement on this subject. I would be happy to listen if you wish to try to explain it further.
I was thinking the same thing.
Well, lets put it this way. I'm not here to learn how to get chicks. I'm not here to haggle over details, although I always enjoy a good debate.jonwon said:
What I am here for is a little entertainment. My life is pretty chaotic nowadays and this site takes my mind off of things. I'm also here to fine tune my understanding of women, the mating game, and human nature in general.
The last thing that brings me here is the possibility of one day putting my thoughts into words on this subject. Not necessarily looking to write the next best seller, but it would make an interesting project once I feel I have polished up a few of my theories.
I don't disagree with Rollo at all on this. From what I understand he says that a woman's primary goal in securing a long term relationship is to seek a provider type. I never once said "it's all about money". Other people jump on threads like this and MAKE it all about money. I'm saying it goes way beyond that. It has to do with providing MANY things.
I get the feeling that you are getting the wrong idea about my message due to the examples I used and other posters taking them out of context.
You seem to be alluding to the fact that I am bitter towards women or something of the sort?? Not at all. I love women, I just continue to see a more dismal picture of their true nature. All that means is that I have to compensate on MY end. Nothing is going to chance the way they are.
I'm still not 100% clear as to why you feel that I have a lot to learn, or even that we are really in disagreement on this subject. I would be happy to listen if you wish to try to explain it further.
Your first post seemed to be top heavy in the financial pre-quisits of what a man can offer, thats how i read it and i see others here have too, i see from this post that was not the intention.STR8UP said:
The way i see it, the posts that have been made thus far, squirrals and RT brought in some great posts also, show, yes security is a majour factor, but i for one have the impression if men want to become MEN then those pre-quisists would be part and parcel of his total make-up, which requires no effort to even be concerned with what women 'want' there to me are part of becoming in all respects the 'man', if this is seen has some form of ideal, then granted alot of teachings on this forum are about becoming a man/prize/natural e.t.c, hence the subject of security (to me is a no brainer) since those traits will be self-evident on the journey, hence women will gravitate towards those type of things anyway, but then ofc, you (general you) always have exceptions to the rule and i firmly labled them; modern average western women, hence; cosmo' supporting women who see men has 'external' sources of security in terms of wealth.
Now if i read your opening post in terms of women prefer men with money i.e the provider guy, that is how i read it and my posts have been reflective of that, i will go back and re-read your post again, but this is the angle i have been coming from, because that is the impression i got from your first post.
Regardless, there is some great advice in here now and you can see some posters do equate success with women due to financial value, most men do, so if i jumped on that conclusions, i apologise, but in all fairness most if not all men seem to gravitate to that conclusion, most, well i would say about 80/90 of men do it, so when i do see posts like this, my mind seems to pick up what is traditionally what men usually have the majour grip about.
Yes i know men who are successful with women who go on about this subject ALOT, its an easy trap to fall into, hence if your original post was not what i read it to be, then i have fallen into the trap of thinking it was, hence how easy it is to jump to this conclusion, since to me this is one of the majour hang ups men have with women.
Don't always be the one putting yourself out for her. Don't always be the one putting all the effort and work into the relationship. Let her, and expect her, to treat you as well as you treat her, and to improve the quality of your life.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
Okay, so I promised that I wouldn't post again here, but I just HAD to read the responses....I will only respond to this:
Swifty said here on page 7,
"When you come to this site you are in overthinking mode and when you finally get done you are in natural mode. THE ENTIRE GOAL IS TO BECOME NATURAL. i just went over the road and bought some eggs, steak, and mushrooms. Without thinking and without trying i just vibed with two hot chicks."
There should be TWO PHASES of any GOAL, SITUATION, EVENT, ETC.
1.) Phase One is when you THINK. It's when you sit down and just try to brainstorm a preditable result, cover bases, and eliminate failure. The problem with WOMEN is that you can only do this SO MUCH, before you START to get into A TOTALLYYYY DIFFEREENNNTTT ZONEEEEEEE that has NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN AT ALL.
>> I'm not trying to diss you guys, but quite honestly most of you guys are debating, thinking, analyzing, and brainstorming SHYT that has NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN AT ALL...and are just ALL YOUR OWN internal insecurities, beliefs, opinions, and judgements.
To prove this, look at your statements of: "A lot of women go for guys with resources, money, providers.." in other threads, " All women like guys with great looks" etc, etc.
We have gone from THINKING on what it TAKES to ATTRACT WOMEN and then KEEP WOMEN....to talking about BULLSHYT that has nothing to do with WOMEN, but are more YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINIONS.
Which are faulty.....I am sorry, F-A-U-L-T-YYYYYY.
2.) Phase Two is when you DO SOMETHING, it's when you GO OUT AND MAKE ACTION.
There's a COUPLE OF THINGS that you SEE when people are making ACTION CONTINUALLY,
>> You see a change in awareness and opinion from the beginning to now.
>> You should see a change in results......
You guys have been in "Thinking Mode" for years, some of you have been here for a very long time, and you are still saying the SAME SHYT you said back then.
All of it really is just BASHING WOMEN for not LIKING "REAL MEN" who are SUPPOSEDLY YOU???? (Laughing my fvcking azz off)
I came to this site, learned what I needed....and LEFT.
You guys come to this site, debate, debate, discuss, discuss, and have turned this into a NEW RELIGION ( A sort of Man's Group, which makes me think you guys would rather talk with other guys then girls, which is starting to make me question your supposed "Masculinity" anyway), rather than a SHORT STOP on the way to doing what the fvck the subtitle says"
"Meeting, Dating, and Attracting WOMENNNNN."
^^ If you are STILL not doing this, to quote
iqqi: If you keep doing the same bullshyt, you
will get the sammeeeee results.
P.S.....lol chill out with your "Flames" what good does it do YOU? YOU are the one thinking, "WOMEN ARE SHALLOW" "American Women aren't like women in other countries"......then if THAT'S THE CASE FOR YOUuu (look in the mirror) then go to the other country and find a chick then! Why are you bytching?
Instead of just admitting most of you are NOT the "Don Juans (attracting women)" like you claimmmmm to be, instead admit that you STILL (after years of being here) are STILLLL having problems "Meeting, Dating, Attracting...and let me add.....Keeping Women."
- OKay...I'm really gone this time lol
Swifty said here on page 7,
"When you come to this site you are in overthinking mode and when you finally get done you are in natural mode. THE ENTIRE GOAL IS TO BECOME NATURAL. i just went over the road and bought some eggs, steak, and mushrooms. Without thinking and without trying i just vibed with two hot chicks."
There should be TWO PHASES of any GOAL, SITUATION, EVENT, ETC.
1.) Phase One is when you THINK. It's when you sit down and just try to brainstorm a preditable result, cover bases, and eliminate failure. The problem with WOMEN is that you can only do this SO MUCH, before you START to get into A TOTALLYYYY DIFFEREENNNTTT ZONEEEEEEE that has NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN AT ALL.
>> I'm not trying to diss you guys, but quite honestly most of you guys are debating, thinking, analyzing, and brainstorming SHYT that has NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN AT ALL...and are just ALL YOUR OWN internal insecurities, beliefs, opinions, and judgements.
To prove this, look at your statements of: "A lot of women go for guys with resources, money, providers.." in other threads, " All women like guys with great looks" etc, etc.
We have gone from THINKING on what it TAKES to ATTRACT WOMEN and then KEEP WOMEN....to talking about BULLSHYT that has nothing to do with WOMEN, but are more YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINIONS.
Which are faulty.....I am sorry, F-A-U-L-T-YYYYYY.
2.) Phase Two is when you DO SOMETHING, it's when you GO OUT AND MAKE ACTION.
There's a COUPLE OF THINGS that you SEE when people are making ACTION CONTINUALLY,
>> You see a change in awareness and opinion from the beginning to now.
>> You should see a change in results......
You guys have been in "Thinking Mode" for years, some of you have been here for a very long time, and you are still saying the SAME SHYT you said back then.
All of it really is just BASHING WOMEN for not LIKING "REAL MEN" who are SUPPOSEDLY YOU???? (Laughing my fvcking azz off)
I came to this site, learned what I needed....and LEFT.
You guys come to this site, debate, debate, discuss, discuss, and have turned this into a NEW RELIGION ( A sort of Man's Group, which makes me think you guys would rather talk with other guys then girls, which is starting to make me question your supposed "Masculinity" anyway), rather than a SHORT STOP on the way to doing what the fvck the subtitle says"
"Meeting, Dating, and Attracting WOMENNNNN."
^^ If you are STILL not doing this, to quote
iqqi: If you keep doing the same bullshyt, you
will get the sammeeeee results.
P.S.....lol chill out with your "Flames" what good does it do YOU? YOU are the one thinking, "WOMEN ARE SHALLOW" "American Women aren't like women in other countries"......then if THAT'S THE CASE FOR YOUuu (look in the mirror) then go to the other country and find a chick then! Why are you bytching?
Instead of just admitting most of you are NOT the "Don Juans (attracting women)" like you claimmmmm to be, instead admit that you STILL (after years of being here) are STILLLL having problems "Meeting, Dating, Attracting...and let me add.....Keeping Women."
- OKay...I'm really gone this time lol
I think John is simply past SS, even i get tired of posting here sometimes, if my job was not so easy and allowed me some free time, even i would probably not be active here.ketostix said:
I know where John is coming from, even if he is being a little over critical of the SS bunch, but i can see in way why he would, there was nothing wrong with his insight, what i personnally did see wrong was alot of guys flaming him.
I dont blame him for leaving, why would he stay?
If it was a compititon for gaming women, between you and him K' my money is on John, from what i am reading so far, thats one of the main purposes of this website.
Well why assume he's not doing anything other than trolling? He rolled into the thread and basically said "it's all about fvcking good..". No one flamed him by disagreeing, he was flaming. It sure seemed like he was someone associated with iqqi another troll IMO. The point of this thread was femlaes words aren't credible and I think that pont was proven as if it hasn't been proven forever. If anyone wants to think iqqi knows what she's talking about they're free to believe her nonsense, or if they believe this thread is useless or sosuave is useless, they're free to believe that as well and not post or come here.jonwon said:
I just find your last few post over the last few days odd, like you're doing a 180. You are usually the most extreme one on SS about negativity of "modern western women", and now you're saying others are being extreme?
Okay, here is what I should have phrased differently:
And again, I know this was the example I used, and maybe I should have known better than to use something that is so hotly debated and often misconstrued, but this is what brought on thought in the first place.
I fully believe that money in and of itself IS a factor that can influence a womans mate choice. But it would be just as ignorant to assume that this is the PRIMARY factor as it is to assume that it is NOT a factor at all.
I liked the pie charts in that ladder theory article. I think it pretty accurately sums up the way women generally choose a mate.
Money is just such an emotional subject that no woman will own up to it being a factor in her choices, and some men will overstate or understate it's importance, depending upon their overall view of money (that it's "dirty" or "evil" or whatever) and their perception of how money (or lack thereof) contributes to their level of success with women.
I give off the appearance of "money". But I have said it many times before.....most of the time when I meet a woman who becomes attracted to me it's BEFORE she sees that I have a nice place and a nice car and knows that I own a fairly well recognized business.
Everyone sees that "dirty" word "money" and automatically assumes many things. Fact is there are a lot of myths surrounding it, and like I said it's a very passionate subject for most people which makes it easy to jump to conclusions.
I should have replaced the word "rich" with "provider", which is what i really meant. I was guilty of putting the wrong word in the wrong place as a catch all, which is entirely incorrect. Actually, the statement itself was correct but it didn't account for the bigger picture.
And again, I know this was the example I used, and maybe I should have known better than to use something that is so hotly debated and often misconstrued, but this is what brought on thought in the first place.
Again, it was my poor choice of words that was partially responsible, but this is one of those topics where it's very easy for someone to get the wrong idea.jonwon said:
I fully believe that money in and of itself IS a factor that can influence a womans mate choice. But it would be just as ignorant to assume that this is the PRIMARY factor as it is to assume that it is NOT a factor at all.
I liked the pie charts in that ladder theory article. I think it pretty accurately sums up the way women generally choose a mate.
Money is just such an emotional subject that no woman will own up to it being a factor in her choices, and some men will overstate or understate it's importance, depending upon their overall view of money (that it's "dirty" or "evil" or whatever) and their perception of how money (or lack thereof) contributes to their level of success with women.
I give off the appearance of "money". But I have said it many times before.....most of the time when I meet a woman who becomes attracted to me it's BEFORE she sees that I have a nice place and a nice car and knows that I own a fairly well recognized business.
Everyone sees that "dirty" word "money" and automatically assumes many things. Fact is there are a lot of myths surrounding it, and like I said it's a very passionate subject for most people which makes it easy to jump to conclusions.
Trust me i dislike modern day western women has much as the next guy, but that does not mean i hate all women, there is a huge difference, i suppose i did not make that clear, well now i hope i have.ketostix said:
And granted i have pulled IqqI on alot of stuff before, imo i felt it was warranted, but in this instance i dont see any wrong, i am not going to flame her based on past judgements, she give some great advice that was truly ignored due to the poster who posted it, I dont usually hold a grudge not on an internet forum anway.
I understand where you are k' i too have been here, you can dig through some of my older posts when i first came here and see a similer trend and i still struggle with these issues due to being surrounded by materlistic people all the time, not just women though, granted there more susceptable to it imo, so yes i still toy with where your coming from now and again, but know this:
It gets me no where, all i get is a sticky wrist when i hold these ideas and keep them as my 9th degree with dealing with women, there is nothing wrong with growing a dislike for women when you realize there shi* does stink like the rest of us and some are appauling, but i will fight that ideal to stop me from only adding to the cra*, hence i will fight this internal limited belief about ALL women and put the blame where the blame is deserving.
Also my marriage topics are about a dumb deal for men, are not about women there about a corrupt system, i stated in those threads if men had the same sort of power they would be just has bad (the system needs to change)
When all is said and done there are normal great women out there, treating them all with disdane will prove nothing.
For all the limited stuff i expose myself to, i try to balance it out with positive stuff also, having so much negativity can be a cancer, one has to fight there hatred and just accept these are the way things are, use them to your advantage and move on and up.
There is no point stagnating, i am the type of guy that likes progression, granted i can get stuck in a negative loop but i am glad i can recognize its not so black and white and with this thread these are one of those times.
Nice guys usually go through this faze, it's normal, whats after is normally positive results with women worth your time, i know many women can be a great pleasure to be around, i wont ever ever forget that even though some are not worth the steam from your shi*, harsh but hey if you dont know what is bad how can you apprecciate the good?
Where you are is ok, but eventually you will pass this phase, i am getting passed it alot and have been for a while now, i took a break from this place, due to alot of limited beliefs i had, i did not like what i was uncovering, but at the end of the day, day to day interactions with women prove to me, most of the stuff i have learned about women from a nice guys perspective are just not has bad as what poeple make them out to be.
I would not trade in my path for anything, i have uncovered alot, it makes me stronger, it makes me more reserved to get the best i can get and it makes me more tempered when faced with what potentially is a modern average western women.
Not all women, alot of women are deserving of quality guys.
Johns post was not about fuc8ing in the sense of sex, he was communicating a deeper level of game, mind body and soul, which has very postive applications for women and as far has i can tell is about spot on, the word fuc*ing is not what i am going to get caught up on, it was an expression for what he was trying to communicate, i understand and i think you do too.
I dont hate all women, i hate materilistic pampered prissy princess, i.e a large % of modern day western women, a large % only, not the general rule.
edger
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 1,875
- Reaction score
- 39
My man, that's exactly what it got turned in to(not by me). Don't point any fingers at me in a pathetic desperate attempt at your defense. A few posters started talking about how you needed to be "wealthy", not a person of a MODERATE income, in order to secure a long-term relationship with women. That's not what I said, it's what THEY said.STR8UP said:
I already cleared this up with you this past week in your "Stripper" thread, I'm not going into it again. Go read that post again if you're that brain-dead.STR8UP said:
I said nothing about getting "laid"..I said they were saying you need to be "W E A L T H Y" in order to secure a "L O N G-T E R M R E L A T I O N S H I P". Look, I even slowly spelled it out for you. But of course, what good will it do.STR8UP said:
I never said you said anything about having to own a bunch of material possessions to get women. YOU'RE saying that my man.STR8UP said:
And again, I already touched on the "better than anyone else" subject in your "Stripper" thread, and cleared that up, remember Str8ty? Noooo, of course not.
I present a legitimate argument as well, and don't resort to your imaginary biased attacks.STR8UP said:
Hahahaha, when I start comprehending? No, you in every post just bring out things I've already discussed with you and cleared up like 10 times. Str8up, you're a joke. A real joke.STR8UP said:
Now, I'll wait patiently for a few days to go by till you to tell me, "you said this, you said that, blah, blah, blah", after I've already made myself clear once again.
edger
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2006
- Messages
- 1,875
- Reaction score
- 39
Phyzzle said:
Yeah? Then what's this below?Phyzzle said:
joekerr31 said:
- Status