Sunday, July 19, 2009

Of Women

Arthur Schopenhauer, a German philosopher, had particular views on women, some of which are clearly outdated, but nonetheless very accurate in many regards. He had this to say on the subject of women:

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

One Way To Deal With A Flake

If a woman flakes on you for no good reason there is one thing you can do to remedy the situation.

Tell her you just want to be friends.

But before telling her this, mention that you started seeing some people, and would rather not complicate things by pursuing anything with her.

Why do this? Because it can turn things to your favor.

Assuming you have a shred of interest left in a girl after she flakes you off, this strategy can get her to fuck you.

But the downside is that she most likely fucks you because she is insecure, not because she genuinely wants to. So by telling her you just want to be friends it's like kryptonite on her brain.

There were two instances in the past that I used this, with women I met from the internet. They flaked on the first meeting so I decided to wait a few weeks before contacting them again. Then I dropped the H-bomb. I emailed them and said that I'd still like to meet them, but as friends, since I started seeing some people and would rather not complicate things by pursuing anything with anyone else. I then closed off the email by asking them if they were cool with it. And they said they were (but they were most likely reeling).

When I met them they were practically all over me, sexually propositioning me and flirting. Soon after they invited me back to their place, and we had sex. And I did almost no work.

In a way, this situation is kind of hilarious. Where the fuck is the "chemistry" in all of this? Don't women need to feel a special something before sex happens? Apparently not when their self-esteem is on the line.

But I learned an important lesson from this. When a chick wants to fuck you she makes it easy. These events marked the beginning of my quest to remove all the excess effort from meeting women, now that the bar had been set.

However, this "friends method" is not really a get-laid method per se. It would be too awkward, since the girl has to flake on you AND be insecure enough AND be attracted enough.

As well, I tend not to respect a girl if she fucks me because I made her feel inadequate. But on the other hand, if she flaked on me then chances are good the respect level is low anyway.

There were other times that I tried this H-bomb approach on other women, under somewhat different circumstances, but it didn't work. So from my limited experience on this I can reasonably say that it works on the sexiest women who have a high opinion of them selves. These are the women that are most likely not used to guys rejecting them. So they will have little or no immunity to rejection when it happens.

The nice thing about this strategy is that they can't suspect that you schemed the whole thing, since how could you have known they would flake? There was no real manipulation, just a re-shuffling of priorities where she is demoted to a lower position. Something she would probably want to recover from.

The idea is that you leave it totally up to her to take things to the next level, and if she doesn't you are free to walk or stay as "friends", assuming it's worth your time. But there's no obligation to stick around if she doesn't rise to the occasion where you are concerned.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Should Men Pursue?

My response to a comment made (scroll down to see the original comment):

The sosuave article is well written and motivating for sure. But the problem with it is that it essentially gives women a "pass" to do whatever they want, for the reason that the Don Juan will always find a way to break through. So she can cancel dates, flake, act disinterested, play hard-to-get etc, and that's cool because the Don Juan is relentless. You know, it's great motivational fodder but if you want a girl who respects your time and makes it easy for you, this is the worst advice to follow. And I don't think it's unreasonable at all to want that.

Think of a business partnership. Would you get into a business partnership with someone who didn't return calls, flaked on meetings, always made excuses etc. No way, you'd tell them to get lost.

So how come for dating and meeting women guys tend to take a "no pain no gain" approach? It's ego for one. It's nice to feel that you overcame a challenge. And it's also part and parcel of a culture that teaches women to play hard to get with guys who themselves are told to do all or most of the pursuing. It's totally dysfunctional.

IF a woman can show up at a job on time, show up for meetings on time, return phone calls with clients at work, initiate contact with prospective clients, and follow through, THEN I know women are capable of making my life easy when it comes to meeting them. There's no reason why women should "devolve" when it comes to dating and sex. So why lower the bar on what we expect from them in this part of life. I think the "Don Juan" behaviour encouraged in the article basically encourages women to act with impunity and disrespect for men, after all they are MEN and they should be able to take it. Only a guy's ego would permit such treatment. So yeah, male ego can really f**k us up if we're not careful lol.

I don't think much of that article, and if put in practice it would be a very low-yield strategy. There would be absolutely no chance of a decent ROI if you decided to use that approach.

I think persistence is something that is overly touted in the seduction community. I mean on the one hand it's good because it encourages guys to break through their comfort zone, but on the other hand it can be an incredible time waster.

I think it also comes down to point of view. If persistence prevents someone from running away after the first hello then it's good. But where it's bad is where the girl clearly shows she is not that interested but the guy keeps pushing and pushing. That never works in my experience.

Persistence helped me a bit in the beginning to exercise my social muscles but afterwards it ceased to be useful.

It's my belief that if someone always has to persist where women are concerned then there's something wrong. That should not be regarded as a normal thing. It should be pretty easy usually. And if it's not then there's something wrong.

Whenever I find myself wondering if I could have done more, I think back to the "business partnership" analogy. If someone wants to do "business" with you they make it easy. I'm not saying a girl has to come up and strike up a conversation every time, but at least position herself so that it's easy for me to start chatting with her. This furthermore means that she doesn't clip her responses, doesn't act cold, and makes some effort to talk with me. I'll personally give an "A" for effort every time. But she has to at least be willing to work with me.

I have a feeling that the guy who wrote the sosuave article is not very experienced. I suspect he had one or two solid success stories, which came from being persistent and now that's his proclamation to the world. Lo and behold, he found the "formula" lol.

Back to the real world, it's a total time waster and encourages shitty female behaviour.

I mean, your ego can tell you that you should persist otherwise you're not being a "real man" or whatever, but that's a trap too since the ego is never satisfied. But at the same time you have to know when you've done all that you reasonably can. So for example, you say hi to a girl and she ignores you – best to keep walking. You've done your part. Basic rule, make it easy and expect them to make it easy, since God knows they are certainly capable of it.

As for Brent, I've listened to his stuff and he's got great advice for getting guys out of the pursuing/persistence mindset. One thing he said in one of his programs was that he used to be a master pursuer, and then got tired of it. To quote him, he said he reached the top of the mountain and saw the other side, and would never go back. So in other words, he has experienced the fruits of not pursuing and relative to what he used to go through to get laid, he is much better off now.

Paul Janka seems to be at the point where Brent used to be before he made the switch. And that's an important thing to know. It gives you clues as to who is giving the best advice over the longer term. And I personally think it's Brent hands-down. The only issue I have with Brent is that he takes an absolute stance on not pursuing and equates that with "keeping your power". I think that's too much of an absolute view. There should be shades of gray there too, like in anything. But nevertheless, if there is one guy I would recommend above all the other well-known dating coaches it would be Brent because he's much more realistic and doesn't make it seem like it's always up to the guy to make it happen. It takes the load off your shoulders in a big way. And a more subtle point is that this approach raises the bar on what we expect from women, which results in more of them rising to the challenge (by pursuing us). With the current situation women are largely "dumbed down" because they can afford to be, knowing that guys will take up the slack (or try to). So in a sense, this is a way to re-train women for everyone's benefit.

I get that there's a polarity between what Brent and Paul Janka/sosuave etc teach, but I think the only way to resolve it for yourself is to build up enough experiences in your own life to find out what clicks for you. I mean, all these strategies can work to a degree, but ultimately what has the staying power and what makes you happier in the long run? If you do what Paul Janka teaches you may get laid more than with Brent's material, but the drawback is that you might become obsessed with women and never have a moment's peace when you go out. So instead of enjoying a nice day outdoors you're always on the lookout for chicks. And sure you can get them, but then you want more soon after. It's never ending. And Paul Janka actually admits to this in his ebook by saying that it can consume your life.

But with Brent's stuff you get to enjoy that nice day outdoors and if you happen to run across a woman you like then you chat her up.

Personally, I'd rather be happy and make women an offshoot of my life. So I tend to lean towards Brent's approach. But I also don't entirely dismiss what other guys teach, especially when they're talking about certain aspects of female psychology, which comes from just observing women in your daily travels.

Dennis wrote:

I'd love to get your opinion on this article about pursuing...

Now, I have to admit, that when it comes to pursuing (or not), I allow my ego to come into play. A part of me doesn't want to make a fool of myself.

Then there's one of Brent's famous podcasts about not pursuing...

I don't know if you've ever heard of Paul Janka of New York, but he stated in one of his books...

Let me ask you this question: what happens to the good-looking guy who is sitting on the train as the hottie nearby is checking him out? What happens when she gets to her stop and the doors open? Answer: she gets off the train.

Now re-read that last paragraph. This needs to really sink in.

All your props are meaningless unless you initiate and carry a conversation. There are those women who will come over and introduce themselves, but only if you’re goodlooking (or visibly rich) and they, themselves, aren’t always prizes. And here’s an irony for you: though women are verbal and language-oriented they’re surprisingly poor at driving a conversation. They can really talk, don’t get me wrong. About themselves, dating, clothes, men, relationships, and high-heels. (Women’s shoes are a subject of interest to me, believe it or not. That knowledge has helped me out a good many time.) But, while they’re superbly skilled at answering questions, they lack the ability (in general) to structure an interesting conversation. I’m sure it goes to the submissive, follower tendency of the female character. I like that quality.

The reason I'm posting these is because of the polarity of the two. One guy emphasized not pursuing, the other advocates intiating because most women won't initiate themselves. This goes back to what you were saying about women's herd mentality. The problem is that there's a delicate balance between pursuing and not pursuing.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

The Main Reason Why Meeting Women Online Can Be So Difficult

In the world of online personals, women are usually swamped with responses by men. And the more responses a woman gets the less likely she is to meet someone out of those responses.

But this doesn't make sense. Shouldn't a higher number of responses increase the odds that a woman will meet someone?


Women are notorious for getting tons of messages from men but NEVER meeting any of them.

What the heck is going on?

Could it be that of ALL the men that responded NONE of them measured up? Is that even statistically possible?

In fact, it is not possible at all.

If you think about it, the limiting factor in all this is the women. Think of it as an assembly line. Things are marching along, but at one point in the process things always halt, and go no further. At first you might think that certain things upstream of the "failure point" are problematic (and indeed, sometimes they are). But as time goes on and the numbers continue to pile up, you begin to see that no matter what goes on upstream; things always seem to fail at the same point. In this case the failure point is the woman. She is the one that is consistently bringing the system to a grinding halt. She is the one with the problem. Not that there aren't bad responses, there are, but you would think that a few would turn out good once in a while. But as it turns out, not even those make it through the so-called "screening".

The failure points of online dating are for the most part the women's fault, because they sure as heck aren't lacking for options. And it certainly can't be the men's fault (not as a whole anyway) because they are simply "feeders" into the system. It is this way because men voluntarily choose to be the pursuers en masse. But due to flaws in the system under load, this approach is almost always doomed to failure.

So why do women fuck this part up so badly?

The main reason is lack of management skill. Women tend not to look at situations as objectively as men. They will usually let emotions and prejudice get in the way when pushed (challenged) a bit.

So for example, if a woman like this works in an HR office and there's a pile of resumes on her desk, she would probably look through the first few and if there's anything "off" about them she'll assume the remainder are the same. But to be "fair" she'll probably scan through those as well, but with the prejudice and therefore pre-established conclusion that they won't make the "cut" either. This is the power of woman's intuition (not).

And then she would tell her boss that none of the candidates are "qualified".

So realize, that when you are one of many guys sending a woman a message online, you will likely be pre-judged and consequently dismissed no matter what you say. And women will do this for various reasons; such as, out of frustration (having to read them all), anger (having a bad day), someone wrote a bad message (so you're just like him), or she is skeptical about meeting anyone online (so you are out before the first hello).

For this reason, it is almost always better to not initiate contact with a woman on the internet personals, especially if she gets a lot of responses (and the critical "threshold" has been passed). If you do there is a high chance you will be categorized and dismissed simply because you are occupying her inbox along with tons of other men, and therefore subject to those prejudices and harsh filters which have nothing to do with reality.

Women in these situations cannot hope to find the diamond in the dirt, because even if they do they'll assume it's not a diamond anyway.

Men on the other hand, have a much higher chance of objectively navigating through women's responses to find the one that clicks. So if the situation were reversed and men were getting tons of messages from women, things would be a lot more fair for all those involved.

So let women message you instead, especially the attractive ones who normally get tons of responses. It is strongly encouraged; especially now that you know what you are up against if you decide to be "one of many".

Saturday, July 4, 2009

The Western Female Value System

The typical western female's value system is aligned with avoiding responsibility and prioritizing emotion. They are not creatures of their word. They will say something "in the moment" and have a different view later on when their mood is different. They will usually exhibit this behaviour when there are no consequences for it. Obviously, they can't do this at a job since the consequence would be termination of employment, but for situations where the only potential consequence is a disgruntled friend/lover, they will do this and not think twice about it (since it won't directly affect them).

If you follow the chain of events before, during, and after a "flake event" you will see that a woman's actions are heavily skewed towards avoidance of discomfort.

For example, let's consider the following sequence leading up to the planning stages of a date and the subsequent cancellation (flake) that follows:

1. Guy sets up a date with a girl. She accepts (because she doesn't want to say no and deal with potential "hurt" feelings)

2. The day before, or a few hours before the date, she calls to tell the guy that something came up and she can't make it. Result: no date

If you look at this closely you'll see that she managed to get out of the date without having to take a shred of responsibility for it. By accepting the date at the beginning she is avoiding the responsibility of having to explain how she really feels. And by canceling the date later on (using an excuse) she is avoiding the responsibility of going through with something she originally agreed to.

There are many more real-world examples of course. Any guy who has done a serious amount of dating can name a few off the top of his head.

The clinical term for this behaviour is passive-aggressive personality disorder. It's incredibly common among modern women. It's how they go through life avoiding as few bumps and bruises as possible. Of course there's another more urban term for this kind of behaviour, which I will designate as "chickenshit".

I'm afraid I must file you under chickenshit — Kurt Russell, Death Proof

One question to be asked is, how many women are like this? If I had to guess I would say at least 50% of women do this on a regular basis. And the numbers skyrocket for the serial-daters among us, and women who like attention (even from men they aren't interested in).

You don't need to watch the nature channel to see the wild. You can just observe the behaviour patterns of the modern female in the dating arena, one of the most unregulated social mediums there are, lacking in all manners of civility.

A while ago, I wrote a post on Give And Take, the basis of which is equality. But I feel I must add a special escape clause for those instances where a woman shows that she is unwilling or unable to play the "gentleman's" game.

Therefore, I propose the following:

If a woman proves herself to be somewhat fickle, and at the mercy of her whims then it's best to let her do all the pursuing. Give-and-take won't apply with this type of woman since it's a concept based on integrity. So it's best to let her pursue you (suggest get togethers, etc.), and IF you are available & willing then you make the time. Note however, that give-and-take applies by default, when you enter a situation with someone new. It means that, by assumption, you are willing to do your share of the work, since it's a concept based on equality and fairness. But with whimsical, emotionally unregulated women this won't apply. So your best bet is to do LESS than your normal share, in some cases much less. This is a very different philosophy from the commonly held belief that when women don't do "X" you have to do "X" for them. In this case the philosophy is, when women don't do "X", you also don't do "X" - which can be extended to not doing "Y" or "Z" either (if the situation demands extra heavy-handedness).

In other words, play fair until it's time to not play fair.