I just got stung by some type of bee about 2wks ago. It hurt at the time. But it never made me angry. It had probably been 25yrs since I was last stung and I'm pretty sure I got angry then. So what changed between then and now? Well, I learned a lot after the first sting. First, that I'm not allergic. Second, that it was more of a nuisance than anything else. Third, that a bee's life and actions are not centered around stinging. Being aware made me more responsible and understanding - that is undeniable.
AFC's spend their lives blaming women, judging them, being tooled by them and doing everything they can to get them to be more direct, correct, logical - more like a male. When it doesn't work they are hurt, broken and sometimes even snap.
In our quest to be the DJ (aka MEN) we begin to realize just how very different women are from us. We start to accept that what was once intuitive to us regarding women (speaking, attraction, actions) is most likely the opposite of what really works best for both sides. Prior to this stage in our life we had probably heard before that women are indirect, covert, emotional, etc. Now we start to observe it and since we are newly aware we are now also responsible. Yet even armed with this knowledge, a DJ is still prone to judging women as manipulators, liars, cowards, evil or whatever. Maybe it vents some steam but it usually leaves a sense of bitterness and continuing bewilderment.
And that's where it clicked for me. Obviously, that bee stung me because it felt threatened, not because it is evil or cowardly or mean or manipulative. When women speak indirectly and covertly it can be confusing, misleading and even manipulative. But their goal isn't to sting, it's to re-balance their [in]Security equation.
So what has really helped me is to better understand what is at the root of all the things we hear over and over again here. That's what I mean by "clicked". Now as I experience women, I feel I have a deeper understanding, knowledge and advantage instead of just a handbook of rules and expected behaviours. I believe this gives me a big advantage as a MAN. I'm more aware of WHY women act the way the do instead of just being told that they WILL act the way they do. Sometimes knowing the 'why' has not helped. But often it seems to play more in my favor than not.
Rejection is a great example. Guys (AFC's) take rejection way too hard. So they come on here and are told it's no big deal and to go get rejected a bunch of times and they'll overcome the fear. There is no substitute for that therapy. But understanding why rejection is happening is strong medicine too. If the AFC tries 50 cold approaches and fails every time, what has he learned - nothing. But if he were made aware that the cold approach is a fine dance of balancing their [in]Security equation it might click as to what is going wrong for them. Perhaps they don't realize that the 20 seconds they spend watching a women from distance is actually making her feel physically insecure. The same goes for "bumping" into each other too many times at the store. Perhaps the guy doesn't realize that during the time he's taking to come up with a good line, she's quickly evaluated him and judged him to be unconfident (insecure) which she translates to his being a bad candidate for provisioning her security in the future.
Contrast this to the PUA/DJ who barely gives the cold approach a thought. Within seconds he's made eye contact, smiled and said Hi. Within a few seconds more she's either responded positively (said hi and smiled back) or negatively (no smile or hello). The initial contact was as spontaneous and non threatening as possible so he minimized the chance of her [in]Security equation going negative. Plus he was confident and outgoing which broadcasts to her a positive sense of security. And he's shown what appears to be an almost casual non-threatening interest (versus fixating) in her which typically makes her feel more positively secure about her appearance (or reinforces it if she's already used to the attention).
The LJBF's are another great example. A guy is chasing after a girl that he is friend with and seeks advice. We tell him it's not gonna work (which it won't). But he still wastes his time and tries. Then he gets the dreaded LJBF and comes back here wondering what happened and how he can reverse it. We tell him it couldn't have worked and that it can't be reversed (at least not long term) and so he goes off again and then back here again when that fails. Maybe we should be explaining to him why it can't work at a level that he can't circumvent in his AFC mind instead of just telling him it's not going to work. And telling him it's not going to work because it never works just translates into a personal challenge for him to be the first to make it work. But I'm wondering - what if we told him that once he became friends with the girl she forever judged him to be incapable of balancing her [in]Security equation. And that no amount of trying will ever bring him back into that equation other than a friend. Maybe there's enough directness and logic there to help him see light instead of seeing a challenge?
As my own critic, perhaps this [in]Security theory (being the root of women's communication, behaviours, attraction, etc) is too broad an application of a theme. And one could also argue that this is a rather large rationalization / justification for observed behaviours. But I don't think so because it seems to explain a lot more than it doesn't. And being consciously aware of it while dealing with women seems to provide some type of advantage although it's hard to describe in words.
I should note that this topic could be greatly misunderstood. The last thing a guy should do is read this and then run out and "Rescue or Save" women. That is the absolute worse thing you can do. So this [in]Security thing runs very counter-intuitive to everything socially programmed into us. Even the cluster-B wackjob has a [in]Security equation running her life - but the only ones capable of dealing with it are Narcissists and Psychos.
