Why you should never take a woman's words at face value

[jophil28]

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.
of this website.

John467, and you Jonwon, have a "sex is sports" view of your relationship with women.
This is not a view that a lot of men on the site share.
If that is what pleases you , then go that route, but many men ultimately are seeking more.
JOhn did not stop here long enough to grasp this. His contempt for the men on this site who do not subscribe to his philiosophy of " just give 'em a good fvck" was obvious. When I was 18 years old and on thru my twenties I lived by his approach..
Having sex with women is a relatively simple objective to achieve.
Having a rewarding relationship with a great woman is a mighty challenge and just "giving 'em a good fvck" will never achieve that.

 

[Interceptor]

Jo,

while you are correct in your stance, the way I feel john ios presenting his viewpoint, is that it is an angle of confidence. Of truly having something that far excceeds how many cars you have or the other guy has, or whatever MATERIAL good this other guy might have.
If you are a truly sexual, sensual seductor par excellence, then generally speaking the woman who is usually ruled by what "feels good" will usually go with the guy (assuming you are in touch with your masculinity and sexuality, and are attractive enough) that is TURNING HER ON!
The woman is just going to really go for YOU.
The other guy may have plenty fo money, but he;ll never have her passion, her lust, her romance, or even true affection,.

What I feel John is trying to crudely get across is to go deep into a primal aspect of initmate relationship dynamics, in that, we are sometimes focusing on the material aspects and this overly cerebral viewpoint when sometimes all it could often take is expressing a fvcing kick ass sexuality and masculintiy that makes a woman get weak on her knees....
Just another dimension to what we're always talking about.

It's about recognizing another side of ourselves as VALUEABLE.


The ability to turn the woman inside out and upside down, something that the richest AFC can probably only dream about.
Like I said, it's just another added dimension to look at in being VALUEABLE to a woman.

 

[jonwon]

John467, and you Jonwon, have a "sex is sports" view of your relationship with women.
This is not a view that a lot of men on the site share.
If that is what pleases you , then go that route, but many men ultimately are seeking more.
JOhn did not stop here long enough to grasp this. His contempt for the men on this site who do not subscribe to his philiosophy of " just give 'em a good fvck" was obvious. When I was 18 years old and on thru my twenties I lived by his approach..
Having sex with women is a relatively simple objective to achieve.
Having a rewarding relationship with a great woman is a mighty challenge and just "giving 'em a good fvck" will never achieve that.

I have had long time relationships, some spanning over 4 years, just because i choose not to have a relationship does not mean my advice is null and void.

Interceptor nice, he gets it

Believe me jo i have women who want to tie me down, do YOU?

Trying to make me out to be a *****, to justify men who think being a provider guy is the correct path to be on, was pritty weak.

If your path is to be a PROVIDER, then carry on, thats not MY IDEA OF A DEEP MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP<

I know which people i take advice from and i do MORE then ok.

 

[Tazman]

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.

It's not just a theory, this is what I see/experience in everyday life.

I also believe that guys get wrapped up in trying to be "all" things to "all" women and it just isn't gonna happen. Whats more, a woman will "percieve" you have quite a few of these desirable traits from just a brief encounter, some even attach positive traits to you that you didn't think you had, almost like they'll "fill in the gaps".

I've never been the smoothest talker, I avoid cold approaches and I'm not a generally talkative person unless I have the urge, yet a woman I met was attracted to me and described me in ways I couldn't see (positive things). She had a vested interest in me because of some value she saw, but she played things up in her mind, maybe it was to help "validate" why she was interested in me...

 

[Interceptor]

I

also believe that guys get wrapped up in trying to be "all" things to "all" women and it just isn't gonna happen

Very very true.
A LOT of guys try to be attractive and try to ATTRACT and SEDUCE ALL Women. And it's just not effective or practical. Sure, hopefully all the guys on here are trying to realize and maximize their true masculine, sexual potential to the fullest.
But trying to be this girls 'type' and that girls "type' and this other girls 'type" is first, misdirected, and second, unintelligent. Its a poor application of your resources, and negelcts your own unique belnd of characteristics, and personality!
(notice, I didn't say "don't try to be attractive to women." I'm saying don't strive to have say, a certain hobby that is in common with a woman you like, when it's not a hobby you really like. Or a certain food, or artist. haveyour own ideas, opinions, and preferences, And alwasy always stick to them. No matter what. A woman doesn't want another version of herself. She wants a man who knows his 'own damn mind." -actual quote from a woman! LOL!)

Don't try to be all things to every woman.

But when it comes to women a lot of guys just listen to their Egos.


Now, here's the thing.
If you are pretty self realized,you will be very ATTRACTIVE to a lot of women, in fact, dare I say it, MOST women!

BUT........


A lot of women will NOT BE INTERESTED IN YOU.

Big difference.

Also, a lot of guys just get too carried away with the expectance of female validation. They get hooked, and when they dont get it, they snap.

Never go looking for female validation.

 

[Tazman]

Quote:

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.

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.

I don't understand, how could it be possible for men to "drive up" the demand for attractive women, unless we somehow became more valuable as men in general? As men, we desire hot women, I don't know of any other trait in a woman that can get my attention faster or with such focus. Hell, puberty had me feeling like I was in some kind of trance when I saw a pretty girl.

Just like women though, we can only demand what we're "capable" of obtaining.

 

[Interceptor]

Convey your sexuality. Convey your value subtley.
Covertly.
Inner game is being able to express value confidently and securely, and not susceptible to any kind of pressure.

Outer game is the physical proof you are what you express yourself to be.

Never boast or brag, or come off as arrogant.
Display your confidence, confidently. Women want that.
They actually want ot feel like you think you are the "sh*t". Funny, but true.

Communicate past their defenses.
Being valueable and conveying it is 'attraction".

Sharing it with a woman you are attracted to..
That is called "seduction". That is called having "game".

Instead we got guys brainwashed to think that they are supposed to buy flowers.


Goddamn,

buiying flowers or cards or gifts actually KILLS any ATTRACTION.
It has NOTHING to do with nor ever will have anything to do with BUILDING ATTRACTION.

 

[ketostix]

Well I'm going to have to go with Str8up's response. People who were disagreeing were mostly drawing their own conclusion of what they thought we said then ascribing words and conclusions we didn't really make to support their own conlusions. I find it laughable that they also give John and iqqi credit for things they never said and for conclusions they never made.

When I say being a man of means or a man with the ability to provide, I don't mean he's actually providing the woman with so much as a 5 cent piece of gum. It is a measure of status. And anyone who thinks women (and society in general) don't consider a man's status or that having means does't give you status, then I don't know what to tell you. Sure you can have status without means, but you're not going to get many desirable women without status.

This John guy essentially said it was all about "fvcking good". Why fill in the blanks positively for him? Besides that, if that's your mentality it's a good way to come across as the creepy, desperate guy that has no status. You might get some low class girls for sex that way but not much else. If you really want to "mind fvck" girls, then a better way is to not make it so obvious they can have you and not that you have a hardon for whatever girl you come across. That's easily interpreted as desperation by females.

I'll agree being confident and sexual is another thing and a good thing, but it's just one ingredient. It doesn't negate other things or mean things like status and looks aren't important.

The main thing is iqqi was saying girls go for a "nice, personable" guy. All women says this. The point of this thread was you can't take women's words at face value. I thought every guy in the know agreed with that. But it looks like in this thread if you say and agree with that, then it means to some you can't and don't attract women??

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.

I totally agree with this, and how is this saying a man has to have money and actually provide for women, or that it was the main factor or the only factor? Where's the disagreement?

 

[STR8UP]

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.

I read the entire thread up to your "masions and SUV's" remark. TWICE. And again, there is absolutely NOTHING in anyone's posts that suggest that a man must be wealthy and have a bunch of toys in order to attract women.

When it comes to this subject your brain doesn't work dude. Again, quote a specific post, and make sure it MAKES SENSE this time. You attempts to quote Joekerr when I called you out last time were pathetic and did nothing to support what you initially said.

I honestly don't know why I spend the time going back over posts several times to see if I can find SOMETHING that you could have taken out of context to arrive at your silly conclusions, because I can't ever find anything that could even remotely be misconstrued by a normal person. And every time I ask you to support what you said you quote something off the wall that a normal person wouldn't even remotely agree with you on. I see it, as do several others on here.

You have some kind of obsession with this money/wealth issue, as evidenced by your tendency to twist all of these posts around into a "rich vs poor" debate, not to mention the overall TONE you project when the subject comes up. This thread was moving along smoothly until your post changed the mood of the entire thread.

 

[iqqi]

iqqi sticks head in really quick...

Don't want you to keep pounding this one into the ground, so let me help ya out...

I find it laughable that they also give John and iqqi credit for things they never said and for conclusions they never made...

This John guy essentially said it was all about "fvcking good". Why fill in the blanks positively for him?

Me thinks you must've missed this post:

It's GUYS that base their entire altercation with women around money, status, etc. ........WOMEN will LOVE YOU if you FVCK THEM GREAT, if you are boring mentally, socially, in the bed and can't fvck their MINDS, BODIES, AND SOUL.....they WILL NOT LIKE YOU.....PERIOD!

You jumped in so quickly and frothing at the mouth, that I think maybe you didn't read all of the posts. I thought maybe you'd go back and reread once it became obvious you missed something, but I see that you... just wouldn't. Well, there ya go. I'm not above helping you out.

And as far as all of my posts, I kept them pretty short and to the point just for you, but I see you still find it hard to follow. Oh well.

Actions always speak louder than words. Noone really knows what they want. Men or women. To say that women are ALWAYS lying and decieving, is plain silly. Some of you are taking a concept that applies to dating, and just running way too far with it.

The funny thing with that is, I've learned the hard way that when someone's action differs from their words, sometimes you are better off listening to the words, even though you could go with the actions. But that is a higher learning concept.

And Rollo... I'm not bitter. I don't even know where you'd get that. I think that a lot of you guys project your own issues with women onto me specifically. That's why when I say something, it gets twisted into some weird sh!t that doesn't even resemble what I originally said. It most likely resembles your own sh!t that you've been through.

So I've decided to not get mad anymore when that happens. It's pointless. Nobody likes their words to get twisted or for words to be put into their mouth, but luckily words really are just words. Twisting them and changing them doesn't change the reality. My reality is far different than some of the projected realities I get on this forum.

I'm not here to convince anyone about anything. I come here for entertainment, conversation, procrastination (mostly, haha), and to provide some examples of what I've seen and experienced as a woman who gets a lot of attention in REAL LIFE.

In my life, men don't hate me. It's quite the opposite. Then again, most men I know don't really have many issues with women at all.

K, bye. Off to catch America's Next Top Model! :yawn:

(Actually I am really watching Anderson Cooper... I am heartbroken that he is gay! Can someone please tell me this isn't true? He is my IDEAL MAN!!!)

 

[iqqi]

I read the entire thread up to your "masions and SUV's" remark. TWICE. And again, there is absolutely NOTHING in anyone's posts that suggest that a man must be wealthy and have a bunch of toys in order to attract women.

Mansions and SUV's are just symbols of wealth and status, ST8UP. He is using symbols that everyone understands.

Even when you change what you originally said into "projecting an image that conveys you COULD be a man of wealth or status" or however you said it, it is the same thing. This thread is about wealth, and status, and it being what you need to get or "marry" or whatever, a woman.

Provider, status, money, rich, wealth, SUV, mansion, its all the same. They mean the same. You are arguing with Edger over moot points. His argument has to do with what you meant, not with your wording.

ANDERSON COOPER IS HOT!!!

 

[STR8UP]

Well I'm going to have to go with Str8up's response. People who were disagreeing were mostly drawing their own conclusion of what they thought we said then ascribing words and conclusions we didn't really make to support their own conlusions. I find it laughable that they also give John and iqqi credit for things they never said and for conclusions they never made.

......This John guy essentially said it was all about "fvcking good". Why fill in the blanks positively for him?

Yea, I went back and re-read his WOMEN WANT A GOOD FUKK post and the people who read it as a WOMEN WANT A GOOD FUKK read it correctly the first time. What's with the poor reading comprehension in threads like this?

When I say being a man of means or a man with the ability to provide, I don't mean he's actually providing the woman with so much as a 5 cent piece of gum. It is a measure of status. And anyone who thinks women (and society in general) don't consider a man's status or that having means does't give you status, then I don't know what to tell you. Sure you can have status without means, but you're not going to get many desirable women without status.

Exactly. A man doesn't have to actually provide her with anything. He simply has to display the QUALITIES that a good provider would display to get his foot in the door. Once you are in a relationship and especially after you are married she is probably going to expect you to live up to a minimum standard of what she projected you to be (you can't show ambition and industriousness in the beginning then sit around all day unemployed watching soaps), but the base personality traits are the actual triggers for attraction.

I'll agree being confident and sexual is another thing and a good thing, but it's just one ingredient. It doesn't negate other things or mean things like status and looks aren't important.

And it doesn't negate a woman's perceived need to settle down and have a family. I learned that lesson awhile back. You can give her the best sex she's ever had and she will still run off with the next guy if he's willing to marry her and that's what she has in her head that she wants at the moment. This particular chick I am talking about came back into town for her bachelorette party, and earlier in the night made a comment about how I "probably hate" her (since she ditched me for the guy she just married), then later on about how she has to stay away from me because the sex was so good.

 

[STR8UP]

Mansions and SUV's are just symbols of wealth and status, ST8UP. He is using symbols that everyone understands.

Even when you change what you originally said into "projecting an image that conveys you COULD be a man of wealth or status" or however you said it, it is the same thing. This thread is about wealth, and status, and it being what you need to get or "marry" or whatever, a woman.

Again, what's with the poor reading comprehension?

This post was about WORDS OVER ACTIONS. Where on earth do you get that it's about wealth and status being needed to marry a woman?

Provider, status, money, rich, wealth, SUV, mansion, its all the same. They mean the same. You are arguing with Edger over moot points. His argument has to do with what you meant, not with your wording.

No, they are not even CLOSE to being synonymous.

Edger has something against rich people and people with status so he twists these threads around so he can throw in his two cents about it.

 

[Phyzzle]

You can give her the best sex she's ever had and she will still run off with the next guy if he's willing to marry her and that's what she has in her head that she wants at the moment.

Eat that!!

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that the notion of "just be the best sex partner, modern women only want good sex partners," is retarded. I personally know women who complain about how they had to dump the best guy she's ever had in bed. They complain, but they don't go back, because despite the great sex, the desire isn't there.

I've also noticed that for a woman I'm with, the goodness of sex is a direct function of her interest in me. The sex is terrible right before I'm dumped, yet I am doing everything exactly the same. High interest -> good sex, not the other way around.

 

[ketostix]

Don't want you to keep pounding this one into the ground, so let me help ya out...



Me thinks you must've missed this post:



You jumped in so quickly and frothing at the mouth, that I think maybe you didn't read all of the posts. I thought maybe you'd go back and reread once it became obvious you missed something, but I see that you... just wouldn't. Well, there ya go. I'm not above helping you out.

And as far as all of my posts, I kept them pretty short and to the point just for you, but I see you still find it hard to follow. Oh well.

Actions always speak louder than words. Noone really knows what they want. Men or women. To say that women are ALWAYS lying and decieving, is plain silly. Some of you are taking a concept that applies to dating, and just running way too far with it.

The funny thing with that is, I've learned the hard way that when someone's action differs from their words, sometimes you are better off listening to the words, even though you could go with the actions. But that is a higher learning concept.

And Rollo... I'm not bitter. I don't even know where you'd get that. I think that a lot of you guys project your own issues with women onto me specifically. That's why when I say something, it gets twisted into some weird sh!t that doesn't even resemble what I originally said. It most likely resembles your own sh!t that you've been through.

So I've decided to not get mad anymore when that happens. It's pointless. Nobody likes their words to get twisted or for words to be put into their mouth, but luckily words really are just words. Twisting them and changing them doesn't change the reality. My reality is far different than some of the projected realities I get on this forum.

I'm not here to convince anyone about anything. I come here for entertainment, conversation, procrastination (mostly, haha), and to provide some examples of what I've seen and experienced as a woman who gets a lot of attention in REAL LIFE.

In my life, men don't hate me. It's quite the opposite. Then again, most men I know don't really have many issues with women at all.

K, bye. Off to catch America's Next Top Model! :yawn:
.
(Actually I am really watching Anderson Cooper... I am heartbroken that he is gay! Can someone please tell me this isn't true? He is my IDEAL MAN!!!)

Thanks for providing more of your nonsense iqqi. Why you're not just banned, tared and feathered and ran out of here on a pole is beyond me. I guess it's because your posts are a case study for any guy on what not to do. This quoted post of yours should be stickied to be rediculed and read over and over again on what not to believe and do.

 

[jonwon]

Eat that!!

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that the notion of "just be the best sex partner, modern women only want good sex partners," is retarded. I personally know women who complain about how they had to dump the best guy she's ever had in bed. They complain, but they don't go back, because despite the great sex, the desire isn't there.

I've also noticed that for a woman I'm with, the goodness of sex is a direct function of her interest in me. The sex is terrible right before I'm dumped, yet I am doing everything exactly the same. High interest -> good sex, not the other way around.

Not sure where in this thread, the term 'just be the best sex partner, modern women only want' was mentioned by the other party.

Not at all, what i do see is the word 'fuc*' being miss-understood.

Interceptor nailed it, there is no need to drag this thread on.

For the record just because i was pisse* with a statement of me being some whor* who only fuc*s women, here is a list of women i have DATED!

2x Retail Managers (one for 2 years, the other is a FB going on 3 years)
Legal Secretery (6 months)
Receptionist (seeing her now)
Human Geneticist (1 year)
2 x IT girls: One corperate banking IT Project managment (FB two years), the other IT systems analysis (6 months).

And i was married to A:
High School Teacher.

Not wasting anytime in these retarded fuc*ing thread any longer.

If you want to be a 'provider' i suggest you go out and learn how to become rich, hence why even waste your time on this site?

The only tip you need is 'how to make money' Fuc8ing SHEEP, materialistic DRONES.

Yes I am getting pissed at the sheer ignorance presented in this thread, but for the sake of my frustration, I am bailing on this one.

I suggest before anyone even bothers to reply to me, to do research on materilistic society and you will see most are firmly rooted to it.

Peace out.

 

[ketostix]

Not sure where in this thread, the term 'just be the best sex partner, modern women only want' was mentioned by the other party.

John-467.

Not at all, what i do see is the word 'fuc*' being miss-understood.

No one who disagreed misunderstood him he used fvck to mean coitus.

Interceptor nailed it, there is no need to drag this thread on.

Interceptor is not John or iqqi, the latter who diverted the thread off topic.

For the record just because i was pisse* with a statement of me being some whor* who only fuc*s women, here is a list of women i have DATED!

2x Retail Managers (one for 2 years, the other is a FB going on 3 years)
Legal Secretery (6 months)
Receptionist (seeing her now)
Human Geneticist (1 year)
2 x IT girls: One corperate banking IT Project managment (FB two years), the other IT systems analysis (6 months).

And i was married to A:
High School Teacher.

I noticed that in every girl you listed, you listed her employment status. If that's not proof that status matters to you as a guy and to everyone else especially women I don't know what is.

If you want to be a 'provider' i suggest you go out and learn how to become rich, hence why even waste your time on this site?

Why is it you are having such a hard time reading what was posted and comprehending that being a man that has the ability and potential to provide is about status and not necessarily about actually providing anything nor women being greedy, materalistic, or gold digging? You listed the profession for every girl you dated remember? Are you saying you were of below average means and dated all these girls and they knew it and payed your way? Do you think girls wouldn't care if you were a broke homeless guy?

 

[jonwon]

John-467.



No one who disagreed misunderstood him he used fvck to mean coitus.



Interceptor is not John or iqqi, the latter who diverted the thread off topic.



I noticed that in every girl you listed, you listed her employment status. If that's not proof that status matters to you as a guy and to everyone else especially women I don't know what is.




Why is it you are having such a hard time reading what was posted and comprehending that being a man that has the ability and potential to provide is about status and not necessarily about actually providing anything nor women being greedy, materalistic, or gold digging? You listed the profession for every girl you dated remember? Are you saying you were of below average means and dated all these girls and they knew it and payed your way? Do you think girls wouldn't care if you were a broke homeless guy?

K' i aint going to waste my time on you any longer.

I have better things to do.

Laters.

By the way, Fuc* you, i have been with more women, have more women and have more options with women THEN YOU EVER WILL.

So blow it, i am passed this shi* and playing coc* fight's with someone at your level is a waste of my time.

Yes i am pissed so here is another big fat FU>



Waste of my time! Explaining myself to you or even thinking i need to qualify myself to one such has you, was a waste of time, so maybe you can understand bluntlness, well there it is, i hope i am making myself clear.

 

[ketostix]

K' i aint going to waste my time on you any longer.

I have better things to do.

Laters.

By the way, Fuc* you, i have been with more women, have more women and have more options with women THEN YOU EVER WILL.

So blow it, i am passed this shi* and playing coc* fight's with someone at your level is a waste of my time.

Yes i am pissed so here is another big fat FU>



Waste of my time! Explaining myself to you or even thinking i need to qualify myself to one such has you, was a waste of time, so maybe you can understand bluntlness, well there it is, i hope i am making myself clear.

You know what, I tried to be nice, but since you want to take the gloves off, I'll be honest. You always came acrossed metally offkilter. You rant and rave about "modern western women". And now well I'm not even sure what your point is. My take is you're just moody and your posts are based on mood and not reason, and you got laid recently and now your all about defending the "modern western woman". It sure seems like the UK guys that post here are a little jacked in the head. I don't care if you think you can get more women than me. That's just another one of your many assumptions. But see your claims about getting women is going back to the point of status. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Last Man Standing]

I feel sorry for the women that come on here and have to take all the harsh words and flame-baiting against them!! Do women give better overall dating advice to men, than men in general? NO! But they can still give their view and perspective, and they also give better insight than many here!! Don't hate them for that!!!