Most guys accidentally kill attraction before they even speak. They assume they need a bigger bank account, a better physique, or smoother lines. They miss the point.
Female desire operates on a specific set of psychological triggers. Break them, and you're invisible. Follow them, and you become magnetic.
I learned this the hard way. Years of freezing up. Getting friend-zoned. Watching other guys walk away with the girl I wanted. Then I discovered a set of 22 simple rules that rewired my entire approach.
This is good! :yes:KarmaSutra said:Mine's 16.
Gorgeous. Brilliant.
She's in Orlando this week for a robotics competition (she writes binary code for robots). She's in Atlanta next week for the same reason.
My kid is hip to Game. I taught her everything I could about "Players" and "Seductionists". She's caused guys to weep openly because they don't know how to Game her.
We were out at dinner and she pointed out dudes were "Peacocking". Pathetically peacocking.
Makes a Dad proud.
What happens, IN HER MIND, is that she comes to see you as WORTHLESS simply because she hasn't had to INVEST anything in you in order to get you or to keep you.
You were an interesting diversion while she had nothing else to do. But now that someone a little more valuable has come along, someone who expects her to treat him very well, she'll have no problem at all dropping you or demoting you to lowly "friendship" status.
Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.
I think KarmaSutra just wants her to be informed so she doesn't get manipulated.Chronocidal said:Just out of curiosity, how would you want or expect boys/men who are interested in her to attempt to connect with her romantosexually, if "peacocking" (i.e. differentiating oneself visually from the crowd) is considered "pathetic" and "game" (i.e. social skills for men) is something considered problematic?
There isn't much "romance" in romantosexual from a "game" standpoint. Romance is pretty much a dirty word on the DJ forum.Chronocidal said:Is making someone who is interested in romantosexual activity weep openly considered a good thing?
Zekko this is a paradox that I can certainly relate to.zekko said:Most of the guys on here are always railing against feminism. Does that mean they would raise their daughter to be a housewife? Somehow I doubt it. Guys here want sex from a girl the first night they meet them. Does that mean they would raise their daughter to give it out so freely?
She's interested in guys who are interested in, and passionate about, their future and other things than getting into her pants.Chronocidal said:Just out of curiosity, how would you want or expect boys/men who are interested in her to attempt to connect with her romantosexually, if "peacocking" (i.e. differentiating oneself visually from the crowd) is considered "pathetic" and "game" (i.e. social skills for men) is something considered problematic?
It's a good thing from a Paternal perspective. Like here, it separates the men from he-b!tches.Is making someone who is interested in romantosexual activity weep openly considered a good thing?