On February 21 2012 11:57 Catch wrote:This study found that behind computers, or when they just didn't have to face the other person (ex: other rooms), they would give them much less money. I'm talking about a dollar, maybe two, or less. What about then? There is still a perceived injustice, but that didn't matter in this case. In face to face, it was pretty much an even split (here's five, I'll take five). Socially isolated, it was completely lopsided (Here's 0.50, I'll take 9.50). In my opinion, people did this because they don't view screens so much as people (no mirror neurons firing and all that stuff I said earlier). People become extremely condescending and selfish in these cases.
Edit: I really think that emotions are overlooked in life. People believe they are in complete control with with the logical part of the brain, but emotions have a ton of control and has many advantages that the logical brain simply doesn't have.
I don't disagree that people are more selfish/condescending/cruel when there's a level of social detachment. This has long been supported by other studies such as those related to ingroup/outgroup mentality, dehumanization, etc.
However, you are taking it for granted that the inverse (that people are dicks less often face-to-face) means that people aren't dicks, but this is a questionable assertion. Again, I think it just means that most people are dicks and cowards.
On February 20 2012 16:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On February 20 2012 16:16 Kojak21 wrote:
On February 20 2012 14:34 squattincassanova wrote: Don't forget, there was a lot of alcohol and weed involved. Its not like the girl was completely sober and conscious when she did it. There was music, distraction, drugs and she was obviously in state. They don't think ahead, they are all creatures of the moment. When a girl says "we're not going to have sex" it usually means "we're going to have sex". Obviously cuz shes already thinking about it.
It has nothing to do with the fact that shes intoxicated or the scene shes in. All it is that shes is a whore. Simple
Yeah I'm going to have to agree with this. Over the past couple years, I've met a few girls who have bf's from their hs days but obviously being in college they only see them during breaks, and yet they wanted to screw me. And mind you, these girls weren't intoxicated, nor were they even the overly attractive/sociable party scene type that you expect would have this personality. I didn't find out until after the fact of the matter that they had bf's and were cheating on them, and it made me sick to my stomach how whorish some people can be. I was pissed about it.
I've also heard of basically girls being whores tons of times second-hand, so no surprise there. I'm going to have to agree with Kojak. However, let's not forget tons of guys are the same way.
This is an example of why the current generation's thinking on sexuality is anti-progressive. What's wrong with having lots of sex with people you find attractive? You say it made you sick they were cheating on their boyfriends - well for your information, it probably makes a lot of old people sick that you were having sex before marriage. Do you give a shit about offending them? No, that's their problem. So deal with it, enjoy sex and stop judging other people for how they choose to live their sex lives, otherwise you just come across as someone who can't keep up with the times. Live and let live, old man.
The difference is that they're supposed to be in a committed relationship. If they aren't, then no one should be looking down on them but when you tell someone 'i'm all yours and you're the only one for me' yada yada yada then its not right to be going behind their back and sleeping around. Unless of course they've agreed to an open relationship but that's unlikely.
Its not about 'oh she's just a whore cause she sleeps around alot'. Having a strong sexual drive isn't bad, its screwing someone over just to satisfy yourself.
On February 20 2012 16:35 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On February 20 2012 16:16 Kojak21 wrote:
On February 20 2012 14:34 squattincassanova wrote: Don't forget, there was a lot of alcohol and weed involved. Its not like the girl was completely sober and conscious when she did it. There was music, distraction, drugs and she was obviously in state. They don't think ahead, they are all creatures of the moment. When a girl says "we're not going to have sex" it usually means "we're going to have sex". Obviously cuz shes already thinking about it.
It has nothing to do with the fact that shes intoxicated or the scene shes in. All it is that shes is a whore. Simple
Yeah I'm going to have to agree with this. Over the past couple years, I've met a few girls who have bf's from their hs days but obviously being in college they only see them during breaks, and yet they wanted to screw me. And mind you, these girls weren't intoxicated, nor were they even the overly attractive/sociable party scene type that you expect would have this personality. I didn't find out until after the fact of the matter that they had bf's and were cheating on them, and it made me sick to my stomach how whorish some people can be. I was pissed about it.
I've also heard of basically girls being whores tons of times second-hand, so no surprise there. I'm going to have to agree with Kojak. However, let's not forget tons of guys are the same way.
This is an example of why the current generation's thinking on sexuality is anti-progressive.
Wait, dishonesty is progressive?
If you're unattached, or in an open relationship, and you want to sleep around... That's your perogative. Doing it behind your partner's back? That's a whole other story.
On February 21 2012 07:05 squattincassanova wrote: The common mass aka the dumb general populous love to lump things into an over arching concept or theme. Their stupid brain is too simple so they try to tie everything to a general "truth". The matter of fact is, life is not fucking black and white and not every thing is this way or that way.
Everything in life is full of exceptions, grey areas, and paradoxes. But people can't handle that. They want to think "This is good, that is bad, do this, do that". Why do you think president campaigns have simple fucking slogans? "CHANGE" "YES WE CAN". Because the public wants to believe a very simple concept. They don't want to dive into the details that maybe shit is complicated. If Barack started talking about the nitty gritty details of politics, it would mind fuck the general populous.
Same thing with pick up. Everything is a case by case basis. Some girls are like this, some girls are like that. Some's dudes are like this, some dudes are like that. Some girls are freaks, some girls aren't. Some like to be treated like shit, some aren't. Did you know that?
I always see people arguing over two sides, but in many cases, they are BOTH true. Pickup / Girls / Social Dynamics they all have many paradoxes and some times both can be true and not true at the same time.
On February 18 2012 06:30 squattincassanova wrote:
On February 18 2012 05:39 Xiphos wrote:
On February 18 2012 05:20 squattincassanova wrote:
On February 18 2012 04:39 Xiphos wrote:
On February 18 2012 03:58 squattincassanova wrote:
On February 17 2012 23:00 bloopie wrote: Squattin,
I know how the basics of the night game, and I have gone pretty far with it. I also know that you shouldnt shit where you eat - i.e. perform pickup on girls you meet often (in the day), in social circles, etc. But whats your MO on girls you see SOMETIMES in the day/night on a semi regular basis (once,twice a week, or maybe less)? How do you generate chances to meet with the chick/what sort of frame of mind/what to say?
So don't learn pickup in your social circle if you aren't good at it yet. I know some guys who have crazy social circle game. They hate cold approach but once you introduce them a girl through a friend, its game over the same night. My friend in SD who is a rich mother fucker who used to wing with Fuji, did this where he had a party. He hit it off with the girl but her boyfriend as AT the house party. He lied and told the boyfriend they were all going downstairs to go out to a club, once e got the dude to go downstairs, he locked him outside and escalated on the girl and got the lay while the bf got locked outside. There are some crazy stories I have heard with social circle game.
Learn pickup from cold approach first, then start working social circle game. You wont be able to make the risky moves to really learn this stuff in social circle. Thats why cold approach is amazing at learning, its like hitting the reset button every time.
How about starting games at your own comfortableness. You have to utilize every single angle at your advantage in the mating field. Some guys who might be good at initiating the conversation but falter later on due to the lack of materials, some guys are very good at keeping the flow of the routine by dictating the direction of topic but just can't seem to find a good opening. You should always start of with whatever you are good at first and then slowly inching into the more difficult part. This way you are at a reasonable pace and eventually you will arrive at the final destination of being a virtuoso at whatever you do.
Learning pick up has never been about "gaming in your comfort zone". Because for most people, that means playing Starcraft at home on a weekend lmao.
Pickup is all about stepping outside of the comfort zone. If you are already good at opening, then you should work on escalating and isolating. If you area already good at showing interest, you should work on showing disinterest.
You should also note that most of the guys aren't willing to step outside of their comfort zone. I have gotten multiple of guys into PU but they couldn't handle the intensity of it. So to make things easier, they are much better off going with the "slow and steady" route.
PU is not something you do leisurely and expect results. If you look at the ones who were nerds/dorks/losers who actually made it, they all have something in common, literally 10000+ approaches. Tyler, Mystery, etc etc.
PU for most people who start out is inherently painful. I'm not talking about the naturals who already get laid and want to get better, I'm talking about the WoW players, the Software Programmers, the Engineers. Its actually quite depressing getting rejected left and right. If you don't punch through that pain period with massive intensity and focus, you basically fail and quit like the rest of the 95% of the people who attempt it. Hell, I was that 95% until I ended up interning for a pick up coach. I was into pickup for 4 years reading and I couldn't go out. I never got anywhere. Then when got yelled at, forced to approach 50 sets a week, I got my lay within 4 months and boom, I am out of the pain period and on my way to the next level.
On February 18 2012 11:47 squattincassanova wrote:
On February 18 2012 11:36 TMOUllrich wrote: Just seen this thread, had a skim and a look at that last video ...
... this is absolutely disgusting TBH, what a bunch of complete disrespectful bunch of barbarians ...
Its the guys that don't learn how to get good with women that the creepy, needy, annoying, desperate, abusive ones. They are all around you. They will be like that the rest of their lives. All the creepy dudes at the club that follow chicks around... ARE NOT the ones learning pick up.
Heh, yeah. Good luck getting a response to that, though. Too funny.
This is an example of why the current generation's thinking on sexuality is anti-progressive. What's wrong with having lots of sex with people you find attractive? You say it made you sick they were cheating on their boyfriends - well for your information, it probably makes a lot of old people sick that you were having sex before marriage. Do you give a shit about offending them? No, that's their problem. So deal with it, enjoy sex and stop judging other people for how they choose to live their sex lives, otherwise you just come across as someone who can't keep up with the times. Live and let live, old man.
There is nothing wrong with people having lots of sex with people they find attractive. Nothing wrong in the slightest actually. The problem is when you start hurting other people in the process. Relationships that are defined as exclusive should remain as such. If the person is interested in being physical with other people, that should be defined in the rules that guide the relationship, or the person should be honest and break up with the person they are in a relationship with. I have no qualms with people who have more than one sexual partner, even if they are in relationship, if it's been accepted as acceptable by both parties. Live your life however you want. People who cheat on boyfriends and girlfriends typically do it because they are unsatisified in their current relationship and have found a temporary or permanant "upgrade". Stuff like that needs to be addressed honestly in a relationship. If people were more emotionally mature there'd be a lot less negative stigma associated with relationships. Unfortunately, people need emotional attachment and they get comfortable, so rather than do the "right" (... morally subjective) thing, they go off and fulfil their physical desires elsewhere while their chump of a boyfriend/girlfriend sits at home being an emotional tampon. Occasionally you have the opposite as well. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. If you want to sleep around, either stay single, or find someone who has a similar view point of relationships as you to form that emotional connection with. It's unnecessary for people to get hurt in the process.
Setting up a date with her. She messages me "I don't feel comfortable having sex outside of a committed relationship" after she was screaming and moaning last Sunday.
I'm going to reframe the fuck out of her and then fuck her again tomorrow. Basically I am going to tell her "So you would jump into a relationship not knowing if the guy is good in bed? How silly is that? And then you are going to dump him after the sex is horrible? That's like buying a new car without test driving it, and then selling it again".
"I am not going to judge you for expressing your sexual desires"
I think this crap might be useful to learn some basic skills about how to present yourself and how to start talking to a girl while keeping the awkwardness level as low as possible. But actually making a sport out of getting as much women as possible as some of these guys are doing is just really fucking sad.
On February 21 2012 18:42 B.I.G. wrote: I think this crap might be useful to learn some basic skills about how to present yourself and how to start talking to a girl while keeping the awkwardness level as low as possible. But actually making a sport out of getting as much women as possible as some of these guys are doing is just really fucking sad.
Just about every guy would if they could. Too bad they don't have the skills or the balls to learn it.
On February 21 2012 19:51 squattincassanova wrote: Just about every guy would if they could. Too bad they don't have the skills or the balls to learn it.
I love it how you totally disregard any well-made points against you, and just keep bashing your own opinion through regardless. Sir, I have absolutely no respect for you.
On February 21 2012 18:38 squattincassanova wrote: I'm going to reframe the fuck out of her and then fuck her again tomorrow. Basically I am going to tell her "So you would jump into a relationship not knowing if the guy is good in bed? How silly is that? And then you are going to dump him after the sex is horrible? That's like buying a new car without test driving it, and then selling it again".
Ok are you really going to say that? lol..
In all seriousness, what kind of standpoint is this? I take it you wouldn't get into a relationship without knowing if the she "is good in bed" than ? Could you please elaborate on what you think defines a "commited relationship" ?
I read some page before this one that PUA was also about finding a "good match" for you and preparing for longer relationships (besides how to be more self confident, talk to women etc.) which is a good idea imo, sadly all I get to read in this thread is who "scores more chicks" etc.
So I'm starting to think about, is this (long relationships) something you think/care about? (you personally in this case because you seem to know a bit about the PUA scene) Would you say this has anything to do with PUA at all?
In all seriousness, what kind of standpoint is this? I take it you wouldn't get into a relationship without knowing if the she "is good in bed" than ?
Actually, NO ONE can get into a relationship without knowing if a woman is good in bed. Romantic relationships with women BEGIN with sex; until then you are just an orbiter, if you are anything at all.
Oh, interesting to see one of my new favorite websites have also got a thread with the whole 'Game'/pick-up artist thing. I do have the book 'The Game' and read it with most interest. After reading several pages in this thread I can tell that my observations in the book are similar to others. Even though its a few years ago I read the book there are still some things that I remember clearly, for example that if one look away from all the superficial and silly ways of behaving there's actually not a whole lot new to the reader after reading the book. What struck me back then was that the only thing that was new, was that now there was words for quite a lot of things we people knew was already there when approaching girls or getting to learn other people but didn't really know how to explain or say in words.
One of the terms in the book (I read it in Danish): [explained] was the whole afraid of the approach as that was a perfect statement for my personality. I'm a reall good looking guy (I know how this sounds and looks but honestly its true), yet, the thought of going over to a girl I think looks really sweet frightens me so much (girls do bite! ^^), and this is even though I've had eye contact and smiles with this girl several times through the evening. Real silly actually but its just mweh...Okay, giving my heart and secrets to a gaming site haha, but heck, who cares. Then some times a girl approaches me or I get in contact with a girl one way or another (not always sure how) but you know what strikes me then? I'm sorry for this, but most girls really do not have a lot of good humor or interests worth talking about. And worst of all they want the guy to be interesting not the other way around, or atleast this is my experience. So I always end up dropping out of the talking with them because its simply more entertaining dancing ugly on the dancefloor than talking to girls. Actually I've thought of making a game with some girl one day, something like: "I will love to talking to you, so lets make this game where there is only one rule: you completely decide the subject of conversation and lead the word as long as we talk to each other.", wonder how someone will react to this ^^
On February 22 2012 00:14 kuriz wrote:Actually I've thought of making a game with some girl one day, something like: "I will love to talking to you, so lets make this game where there is only one rule: you completely decide the subject of conversation and lead the word as long as we talk to each other.", wonder how someone will react to this ^^
A. You'll come across as beta and she'll have orbiters willing to fulfil her entitlement complex. B. You do it in a cocky/funny way and she'll think you're a challenge. C. She's a feminazi cunt and has a shitload of militant liberal/progressive LGTB views to share.
On February 21 2012 18:42 B.I.G. wrote: I think this crap might be useful to learn some basic skills about how to present yourself and how to start talking to a girl while keeping the awkwardness level as low as possible. But actually making a sport out of getting as much women as possible as some of these guys are doing is just really fucking sad.
Just about every guy would if they could. Too bad they don't have the skills or the balls to learn it.
mate I enjoy your back and forth with people here but this is bang on wrong. Not everyone wants to a) think of women like this and b) sleep around/ push themselves out there.
People like me (and there are millions) like to find a nice girl and settle down and focus on other things in life. Focusing on women as a life interest or treating pickup like a sport etc is your thing, don't say that guys who don't choose your thing are automatically unskilled or afraid.
On February 21 2012 23:25 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
In all seriousness, what kind of standpoint is this? I take it you wouldn't get into a relationship without knowing if the she "is good in bed" than ?
Actually, NO ONE can get into a relationship without knowing if a woman is good in bed. Romantic relationships with women BEGIN with sex; until then you are just an orbiter, if you are anything at all.
Also what is this?? Total crap imo. Good in bed??? What does that mean? Being like a porn star or knowing a bunch of positions and stuff? If a guy judges whether he should be in a relationship with a girl because of THAT he is a weirdo IMO, definitely not the standard guy. Judging girls based on their physical attraction yeah fair enough, but 'ability' in bed? Crazy.
On February 21 2012 19:51 squattincassanova wrote: Just about every guy would if they could. Too bad they don't have the skills or the balls to learn it.
On February 21 2012 07:05 squattincassanova wrote: The matter of fact is, life is not fucking black and white and not every thing is this way or that way.
On February 21 2012 19:51 squattincassanova wrote: Just about every guy would if they could. Too bad they don't have the skills or the balls to learn it.
On February 21 2012 07:05 squattincassanova wrote: The matter of fact is, life is not fucking black and white and not every thing is this way or that way.
? O_o
You're right. I forgot the gays and the asexuals.
A lot of men use this "I have morals" as an ego defense mechanism. You all too often hear guys say "That is rude, I would never do that to a woman! She deserves better!". This is typical white knight behavior. You see it on the internet ALL the time.
On February 21 2012 19:51 squattincassanova wrote: Just about every guy would if they could. Too bad they don't have the skills or the balls to learn it.
On February 21 2012 07:05 squattincassanova wrote: The matter of fact is, life is not fucking black and white and not every thing is this way or that way.
? O_o
You're right. I forgot the gays and the asexuals.
A lot of men use this "I have morals" as an ego defense mechanism. You all too often hear guys say "That is rude, I would never do that to a woman! She deserves better!". This is typical white knight behavior. You see it on the internet ALL the time.
I can't watch Youtube at work. A summary would be appreciated.
Of course there is white knight behavior and it's fruitless. But even now you're doing what you said only stupid people do - separating them into two defined groups: men who justify their white knighting, and men who try to sleep with many women. Of course there are several other groups. I think what you're saying is especially misleading in this context because you're personally invested into one of the groups, which you've labeled 'the best'. "You either do what I do which is ideal, or you are envious and skilless."
Why can't you just do what you want to do without elevating that group and lowering the other group? For example, you see the value other men get out of marriage, but that certainly isn't for you. You value chasing and catching mulitple women freely. It's not necessarily better, but it's better for you.
On February 22 2012 02:17 squattincassanova wrote: You're right. I forgot the gays and the asexuals.
A lot of men use this "I have morals" as an ego defense mechanism. You all too often hear guys say "That is rude, I would never do that to a woman! She deserves better!". This is typical white knight behavior. You see it on the internet ALL the time.
Just because someone has different moral values than you does not mean they are white knights. Or do you think it's fair to say that anyone that shares most of your moral values are manwhores?
You seem to think that your way of looking at women is the only right one for a heterosexual male, which is something that I just can't get. Are there people that are actually this narrow-minded?
On February 21 2012 19:51 squattincassanova wrote: Just about every guy would if they could. Too bad they don't have the skills or the balls to learn it.
On February 21 2012 07:05 squattincassanova wrote: The matter of fact is, life is not fucking black and white and not every thing is this way or that way.
? O_o
A lot of men use this "I have morals" as an ego defense mechanism. You all too often hear guys say "That is rude, I would never do that to a woman! She deserves better!". This is typical white knight behavior. You see it on the internet ALL the time.
There is also a lot of men using "i got laaaiid !" as an ego defense mechanism, because they somehow think (or don't know better) that that is something important or will get you anywhere in life.
On February 21 2012 11:57 Catch wrote:This study found that behind computers, or when they just didn't have to face the other person (ex: other rooms), they would give them much less money. I'm talking about a dollar, maybe two, or less. What about then? There is still a perceived injustice, but that didn't matter in this case. In face to face, it was pretty much an even split (here's five, I'll take five). Socially isolated, it was completely lopsided (Here's 0.50, I'll take 9.50). In my opinion, people did this because they don't view screens so much as people (no mirror neurons firing and all that stuff I said earlier). People become extremely condescending and selfish in these cases.
Edit: I really think that emotions are overlooked in life. People believe they are in complete control with with the logical part of the brain, but emotions have a ton of control and has many advantages that the logical brain simply doesn't have.
I don't disagree that people are more selfish/condescending/cruel when there's a level of social detachment. This has long been supported by other studies such as those related to ingroup/outgroup mentality, dehumanization, etc.
However, you are taking it for granted that the inverse (that people are dicks less often face-to-face) means that people aren't dicks, but this is a questionable assertion. Again, I think it just means that most people are dicks and cowards.
Well, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I personally see it how I said it, especially considering the background knowledge I have from that particular book, some 100 level psych classes, and nearly a year of anatomy and physiology lectures. You seeing it a different way is fine, even though I disagree with it.
EPT![[image loading]](http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111214064523/halo/images/d/dc/Troll_face.png)
