Forget the cash, the cars, and the chiseled jawlines. Female desire operates on a completely different frequency. Primal. Subconscious. Triggers that bypass her logic and hit her on a gut level. Most guys are totally blind to them.
I know because I was one of them. The overthinking. The paralysis. The silent drive home kicking yourself for freezing up. Watching average guys walk away with the girl while you stood there stuck in your own head.
Then I decoded the psychology behind what actually makes women tick. 22 hard rules. Subtle behavioral shifts that rewired my entire reality. The anxiety evaporated. Women started leaning in. Investing. Chasing.
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.
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?