Not sure if you've got us/me figured out. However, although maybe not a truly accurate synopsis, I guess I can appreciate you referring to me as a "PUA" who's red pill. :flowers:
PairPlusRoyalFlush said:
Does anyone actually know any HB7+ western women who had no guy friends that they hung out with when you met them?
Eh, that ones tough to say. I don't always find out who their friends are. In LTR's I do, but still, I think some of these 'friends' were just temporary attention providers, only used when another Man isn't around. So once I get into the picture, those friends just aren't there anymore. There's a few that have kept them around. And, also, like I've said, they were betas that were, for the most part, being used for something.
Pairs said:
I think some of us are just living a different reality than others. Women thriving on male attention is a maxim of this site. Women somehow intuitively knowing right from wrong, never having double standards, and never playing jealousy games or sh1t tests by way of actual or potential male friends is simply not my reality.
I've seen this plenty. All of it. However, when it does happen, it's usually at the beginning of a relationship pre-exclusivity. But once they see that Jealousy doesn't work on you, and you pass her other $hit tests. The women will figure out rather quickly that there's no point in playing those games with YOU. She will realize you truly are a MAN, her childish bull $hit does nothing to you, except possibly the opposite of what she expected it would do: it repels you. Not saying ALL $hit tests or games will go out the window. But, like I've been saying all along, if you just
don't care who she hangs out with. And instead, take it from a stance as
you are testing her by who she hangs out with, then she'll realize all her games that work with other guys, actually backfire when she tries to play them with YOU. You're not obligated to spend time with her. She hangs out with some dude
you feel is a threat(remember, some men aren't threats though
),
fine, back away from the relationship. It's good that she did that, she SHOWED you she's not taking the relationship seriously. Games or not, in an exclusive perspective, you're not going to stand for it, it's a turn-off for you.
She calls the next day:
You: Hey you
Her: You want to hang out tonight.
You: Sorry, I can't.
Her: Oh, okay....
You: I'll call you some other time.
All of your statements being in a happy, no fvcks given voice. SHE CANNOT EFFECT YOU. Does this makes sense? NOTHING she can do or say can bother you. Her attraction will, in turn, sky rocket. If it doesn't, so be it, whatever. Point being---> You are a MAN, who cannot be swayed or manipulated by her pettiness. Though, in all honesty, us men
do have emotions/feelings somewhere, so I'd be stone cold lying if I said I could pull this off 100% of the time. But you get the point, right?
Pairs said:
Women becoming mother theresa for life just becausd you make their pvssy super wet during the honeymoon phase is not reality.
I don't know about mother theresa, but women will change for YOU. Yes they will. If they're highly attracted to you, they will lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, fight....
for YOU. I don't necessarily want a girl who will do all those things just because they like someone, but, again, you get the point, right?
Pairs said:
Some Immigrant women and HB5 and below who are not like this though, maybe that is skewing the analysis for some of you?
No. Women are Women. Hypergamy aside, in all reality, they WANT
one man. Deep down, they're searching for "the one", and once they find him, they will do everything in their power to please him...figuratively speaking, of course.
Pairs said:
What's sort of interesting is that the three anti-boundaries people have such wildly different perspectives. Exception is typical blue pill. P+V and Sooli are red pill about the nature of women. I will call P+Vs orientation "PUA" and Sooli's "MGTOW".
Interesting, but I'm 99% sure Exception's red pill, and I also wouldn't consider myself a PUA by nature, my 'style' comes more from an internalize game: Indirect approach i.e. just starting up a conversation,
not using canned openers. Acting, being a certain way, which will naturally attract women. Doing something not because it will attract her, but because that's what a MAN would do, therefore it naturally attracts her. Makes sense? Doing things because I want to do them, if she comes along, she comes along, if not...so what. Again, Disclaimer: I'm by no means a perfect man in this regard, I do 'fvck up'...but it's a lot less than even a few years ago.
Pairs said:
I dont believe P+Vs insecurity argument makes sense but I do believe that that is because his life experiences must WILDLY differ from the rest of us. So when he makes a statement like this: I can make a few assumptions. #1 Might not be "married" to the idea if monogamy and probably spinning plates himself.
Monogomy's fine, so is being single. Either one is virtually the same to me. If I get into an exclusive relationship, that's cool. If I become 'single', that's cool too. At one point in my life, I was searching for 'the one', in doing so, through outcome
dependence I feel I re-tracted some potentially quality women----> which is the foundation for worry, insecurity, nervousness, fear, etc. It's much better being free of those things when dealing with a woman.
#2 Different concept of self respect, to be kind.
Not exactly sure what you mean here. But yes, self-respect is key when dealing with women.
#3 Never fvcked girls with bfs
I have. But I don't actively pursue them. If they pursue me, eh, case by case. In that sense, I take it as a: "if not me, someone else" stance. That may just be a guise to help me sleep at night, but it's still pretty rare that I'll sleep with someone who's already in a committed relationship.
Not that I know of.
#5 Not dating desireable women
I've dated plenty of desirable women, I've also dated some that were "beneath me", I've also dated 'sluts', 'good girls', older women, younger women. Been a glorified dildo for some, been the love of their life for a few others. I've been around, bro.
#6 only dates unicorns. I believe the philisophical differences based on experiential differences are so vast that there can be no real reconciliation...he cannot understand us monogamous men that date desireable non-unicorn western women without the plate-spinning safety net , and that seems apparent.
I understand the plate-spinning safety net. If I'm 'exclusive', I may still have other options out there somewhere, but I'm not actively spinning plates. I'm exclusive. However, one of the main concepts preached on here, is that
you need to be able to walk away. You have to be able to. You can't put yourself into a compromising situation where you have no other choice than to bend your will, hand over your balls, or change who you truly are, just to make it 'work'. You can go full boar 100% commital, but you still have to be able to turn your back on it all, at the drop of a hat. You can invest yourself fully, but understand that you may lose your investment. Win some, lose some. Oh well, that's life, it goes on.