You've replayed it a hundred times. She stood three feet away, scrolling her phone. You had an opening. You composed the perfect line — after she was gone.
For all you know, she's married now. To some guy who said something. Anything.
Openers are cheap. Almost any sentence works when it's delivered within three seconds. The expensive part is the standing there, drafting and deleting, while the window quietly closes.
The "22 Rules" stripped out my hesitation. What to open with, how to keep it alive, and the one habit that costs guys more women than anything else: waiting for perfect.
You asked her if she wanted to grab coffee. Then you asked if the time worked. Then you asked if the place was okay. Then you asked if she'd prefer tea.
Four questions. Four chances for her to say no. Four signals that you're terrified of making a decision.
Plan it. Pick the place. Pick the time. Tell her where to meet you. She'll either show up or she won't.
Either way, you look like a man instead of a scared little boy.
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.
Dinner ran three hours. She laughed at everything. You walked her to her car thinking this one's locked in.
Then: nothing. Two texts. No reply. What happened?
You did what most men do on a great date. You filled every silence, answered every question, and left her with nothing to wonder about. No mystery. Nothing to sit with when she got home.
Rule 3 of the "22 Rules" changes the ending: tell her a little, hold back the rest, and let her imagination do the chasing. The ghosting stops too.
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?