Powerlifter
Senior Don Juan
I agree and the exact thing I am doing now.
FrankieFunkinGamble said:
"I'm Not Looking for Anything Serious Right Now"
When a woman says it, guys hear a confession. A heads-up. A scheduling conflict.
Here's the translation: I don't feel anything. Right now. With you.
Watch what happens when a man triggers actual attraction. The busy career, the recent breakup, the "not in a place to date" — all of it evaporates instantly. The same woman who was guarding her freedom is suddenly free every night.
The "22 Rules" explain why. When the right switches flip, her timeline rearranges itself around you.
If She Dosen't Ask You Personal Questions
- Thread starter Powerlifter
- Start date
"She Liked You in March. It's October Now."
Attraction runs on a clock.
She flirted for weeks. Touched your arm. Found reasons to be alone with you. And you were careful. Respectful. Waiting for the right moment.
The moment had a shelf life. It expired around month two, and by the time you asked her out, she'd quietly filed you under "little brother."
One of the hardest lessons inside the 22 Rules: women rarely wait. Interest either grows or it decays, and nothing decays it faster than a man who never moves.
Make the move while she's still inventing reasons to be near you.
jafyk
Master Don Juan
Update
I sent the girl I was talking about in this thread Rollo's response to initial post . I just asked her what she thought. Here's what she had to say.
well... this was interesting. I will say that I disagree very much and the scenerio was quit far fetched (a women who NEVER has sex, even when married???). I think sex is extremely important however it is not the glue that holds a relationship together. The glue is commitment, trust, and mutual respect. I believe that God designed sex as the icing on the cake... very sweet! Like a cake, you have to combine all the right ingredients together first and then let it bake for a period of time. The icing is last and tops it all.
Really, for me sex is a moral and practical issue. As a christian I trust that God knows better than I do so when he says to wait til I get married, I take that very seriously. I see it too as a gift I want to give my husband. The practical part of me also knows there are many consequences that people don't always think about - diseases, pregnancy, and espeically for women.. emotinal attachment.
One of the ways I know I have found a guy I want to marry is if he respects my morals. If he is willing to make that sacrafice, it shows me that he cares about me, respects me, and will put me first as his wife. This is more romantic than any other gesture I can think of. I would admire and adore him more than words can say. I get that sex is important and how important it is to a guy, which is why when I am married I will more than make it up to him and not use sex as a way of manipulation in a marriage.
This brings me to us... I just want to clarify my boundaries and be as honest and open as I can. Please do not ask me to violate my ethics. It does not matter if you have every other quality I want, if you don't show that you have a heart for God and treat me as though I were your sister in christ I have to walk away. My faith is the most important thing. I want a Godly man and someone who can be a leader spiritually.
maybe i'm wrong, but I feel in my gut that you do not want the same thing in a relationship. I do not want to continue from here on out unless you can tell me that you are willing to wait til marriage to have sex. Also I have tried to take the talking dirty in stride but I really really do not like it. You say that I am too serious but I think on the spectrum of humor you are the one who is extreme. You don't even seem to try and not talk like that around me. Again, I will not be offended if you want to stop seeing each other. I would rather stop now than later when things have progress emotionally.
I hope you can understand my position and that I am only being true to myself and what I feel is right.
I sent the girl I was talking about in this thread Rollo's response to initial post . I just asked her what she thought. Here's what she had to say.
well... this was interesting. I will say that I disagree very much and the scenerio was quit far fetched (a women who NEVER has sex, even when married???). I think sex is extremely important however it is not the glue that holds a relationship together. The glue is commitment, trust, and mutual respect. I believe that God designed sex as the icing on the cake... very sweet! Like a cake, you have to combine all the right ingredients together first and then let it bake for a period of time. The icing is last and tops it all.
Really, for me sex is a moral and practical issue. As a christian I trust that God knows better than I do so when he says to wait til I get married, I take that very seriously. I see it too as a gift I want to give my husband. The practical part of me also knows there are many consequences that people don't always think about - diseases, pregnancy, and espeically for women.. emotinal attachment.
One of the ways I know I have found a guy I want to marry is if he respects my morals. If he is willing to make that sacrafice, it shows me that he cares about me, respects me, and will put me first as his wife. This is more romantic than any other gesture I can think of. I would admire and adore him more than words can say. I get that sex is important and how important it is to a guy, which is why when I am married I will more than make it up to him and not use sex as a way of manipulation in a marriage.
This brings me to us... I just want to clarify my boundaries and be as honest and open as I can. Please do not ask me to violate my ethics. It does not matter if you have every other quality I want, if you don't show that you have a heart for God and treat me as though I were your sister in christ I have to walk away. My faith is the most important thing. I want a Godly man and someone who can be a leader spiritually.
maybe i'm wrong, but I feel in my gut that you do not want the same thing in a relationship. I do not want to continue from here on out unless you can tell me that you are willing to wait til marriage to have sex. Also I have tried to take the talking dirty in stride but I really really do not like it. You say that I am too serious but I think on the spectrum of humor you are the one who is extreme. You don't even seem to try and not talk like that around me. Again, I will not be offended if you want to stop seeing each other. I would rather stop now than later when things have progress emotionally.
I hope you can understand my position and that I am only being true to myself and what I feel is right.
jafyk
Master Don Juan
I felt the follow up might be an interesting counterpoint of view for others to gain insight from. Hopefully, Rollo takes out the time to come and make points that we can gain something from.
All, the same I said to her that I never asked her to have sex with me since she told me her stance and that I like her and getting to know her and finally, that if she felt I wasn't the right guy for her she can walk away.
All, the same I said to her that I never asked her to have sex with me since she told me her stance and that I like her and getting to know her and finally, that if she felt I wasn't the right guy for her she can walk away.
Rollo Tomassi
Master Don Juan
POWERLIFTER, I apologize for the threadjacking. I had thought this was JAFYK's OP when he PM'ed me about it.
Let me begin by saying we're really pushing into some SoSuave no-no's here by taking this thread in a religious direction. Personally I think that issues like this, when cast in an inter-gender context are relevant to the discussions here on SS. The trouble with, and the reason we censor, religious content is because God-Threads invariably devolve into proselytizing and/or "my god (or no god) can beat up your god" flame wars.
I'll respond to this one from a gender issue basis, but take note, I'll probably have to close this thread. Let me state now that when I do it wont be to crush any voice of dissent - 'dems jus da rulez.
First and foremost she fails to recognize that marriage, even in biblical times, has never been a constant, social contract of monogamy between a man and a woman. In the old testament there are many instances where "men of god" could not only take multiple wives, but could also bang their maid-servants - and often at the willing behest of their wives (Sarah to Abraham, or Jacob's wives offering their maid-servants to him). All of this polygamy was common practice right up until the middle ages in Europe, where the feminine advent of courtly love and monogamy in marriage took precedent.
Since then, monogamous marriage has been a feminine imperative to the point that any prior iteration of polygamous marriage had to be erased from history. And the best way to do that has always been to infer that God willed it to be that way. Father Abraham be damned, and King David - remember, the man of god who had the husband of a hot piece of ass he wanted to bang put to death so he could do so? - King David the polygamist, was one of the sires of Christ. I would challenge any biblical scholar to point out scripture that defines marriage to be exclusively monogamous.
So, to put things into perspective, we need to understand that marriage is a social institution that's subject to cultural and societal shifts. The importance of commitment, trust and mutual respect was probably lost on many of the most powerful men of god in biblical times. However, then as now, the importance of tapping a LOT of ass in as socially acceptable a manner as possible was a very high priority for them. All that is easily demonstrable by the many tribes of Judah.
And again, I can enjoy commitment, trust, and mutual respect from my mother, my brother, my colleagues and friends, but the only one I ƒuck is my wife. Sex is what bonds that relationship. Sex is what initiated that relationship almost 15 years ago.
The next problem, and one I've recounted many times for you and others, is that she's already casting her sexuality into a proposition of negotiation. And of course this once again brings up the specter of genuine desire. You cannot negotiate real desire. There is no true, organic expression of passion for this woman, only a calculated trade off. She's disingenuous because she'll sublimate her genuine sexual desire (her 'gift' and commodity) in exchange for an esoteric list of subjective qualities in a man.
Just to pause for a moment, and knowing what we know from her words (really her evangelical talking points), not her actions, would any Alpha Man want to be the "he'll do husband" for her? As I stated before, any woman with less than a 100% IL, to the point of uncontrolled lust for me is not in the running for the ring. I don't think any man should ever consider marriage with a woman who didn't want him so bad that she WOULDN'T violate any notion of moral convictions to get with him. THAT is genuine desire, anything less is negotiating terms according to an agenda.
And of course all this is emphasized by this part of her negotiation,..
At this point I should add that far too many men are more than willing to convert to a new religion, move across a continent or transfer to a closer university if it means they can better facilitate ƒucking their ONEitis woman. I covered this back in Identity Crisis.
Her second inconsistency is that she presumes a platonic, comfortable rapport will lead to unrestrained genuine passion. She has this backwards. This is going to be controversial, but sin is a necessary prerequisite for any healthy marriage. In Christ's own words "if any man look upon a woman with lust in his heart he has already committed adultery with her." I don't believe this message was the condemnation a lot of people would make it, but In every potential sexual relationship there has to come a point where an unmarried man and an unmarried woman look at each other and think "damn, I want to hit it with her/him". There will always be a point at which a person will visualize what ƒucking that other person would be like - scripturally speaking, that's sin. Evangelical women love the nice safe fantasy that 'Godly' men can view them as sisters, but never make the connection that ƒucking them would be incest in that perspective. As if arousal, foreplay, dialoging, and everything else that works her up into a frothing hormonal mess is OK for her, but a perverted sin for him.
Let me begin by saying we're really pushing into some SoSuave no-no's here by taking this thread in a religious direction. Personally I think that issues like this, when cast in an inter-gender context are relevant to the discussions here on SS. The trouble with, and the reason we censor, religious content is because God-Threads invariably devolve into proselytizing and/or "my god (or no god) can beat up your god" flame wars.
I'll respond to this one from a gender issue basis, but take note, I'll probably have to close this thread. Let me state now that when I do it wont be to crush any voice of dissent - 'dems jus da rulez.
This response is typical of what I'd expect from what I call a reformed slut - churches are full of them. They're mostly single mothers seeking absolution in finding the reliable 'godly man' (see beta-provider) that the father of her children (i.e. the guy she eagerly spread her legs for at 22) wasn't ever going to be. That may or may not be true in her case (not sure if she's really a virgin, or she had a bad sexual past), but judging from her evangelical pre-scripted response, I can tell you she has a very immature grasp of sex, marriage and how marriage has evolved as a social and religious institution.jafyk said:
First and foremost she fails to recognize that marriage, even in biblical times, has never been a constant, social contract of monogamy between a man and a woman. In the old testament there are many instances where "men of god" could not only take multiple wives, but could also bang their maid-servants - and often at the willing behest of their wives (Sarah to Abraham, or Jacob's wives offering their maid-servants to him). All of this polygamy was common practice right up until the middle ages in Europe, where the feminine advent of courtly love and monogamy in marriage took precedent.
Since then, monogamous marriage has been a feminine imperative to the point that any prior iteration of polygamous marriage had to be erased from history. And the best way to do that has always been to infer that God willed it to be that way. Father Abraham be damned, and King David - remember, the man of god who had the husband of a hot piece of ass he wanted to bang put to death so he could do so? - King David the polygamist, was one of the sires of Christ. I would challenge any biblical scholar to point out scripture that defines marriage to be exclusively monogamous.
So, to put things into perspective, we need to understand that marriage is a social institution that's subject to cultural and societal shifts. The importance of commitment, trust and mutual respect was probably lost on many of the most powerful men of god in biblical times. However, then as now, the importance of tapping a LOT of ass in as socially acceptable a manner as possible was a very high priority for them. All that is easily demonstrable by the many tribes of Judah.
And again, I can enjoy commitment, trust, and mutual respect from my mother, my brother, my colleagues and friends, but the only one I ƒuck is my wife. Sex is what bonds that relationship. Sex is what initiated that relationship almost 15 years ago.
So essentially, her promise is not to use sex as leverage in marriage, but while single, she's more than happy to advertise her 'gift' as a bargaining agency? Got it. So the "icing on the cake" is really a commodity then, right?jafyk said:
The next problem, and one I've recounted many times for you and others, is that she's already casting her sexuality into a proposition of negotiation. And of course this once again brings up the specter of genuine desire. You cannot negotiate real desire. There is no true, organic expression of passion for this woman, only a calculated trade off. She's disingenuous because she'll sublimate her genuine sexual desire (her 'gift' and commodity) in exchange for an esoteric list of subjective qualities in a man.
Just to pause for a moment, and knowing what we know from her words (really her evangelical talking points), not her actions, would any Alpha Man want to be the "he'll do husband" for her? As I stated before, any woman with less than a 100% IL, to the point of uncontrolled lust for me is not in the running for the ring. I don't think any man should ever consider marriage with a woman who didn't want him so bad that she WOULDN'T violate any notion of moral convictions to get with him. THAT is genuine desire, anything less is negotiating terms according to an agenda.
And of course all this is emphasized by this part of her negotiation,..
There are two inconsistencies in this quote. First, and back to the Desire Dynamic is that her negotiative ultimatum is that you conform to her prescribed belief set. Not only is this a blatant and permanent frame grab, the problem with that notion is that any 'change' you could make to conform to it is now suspect of it's true legitimacy simply by your having had to talk about it in the first place. That's the legacy of negotiating desire that she's oblivious to - you weren't her idealized 'Man of God' to begin with, but you changed into that person to better accommodate achieving the 'gift' of ƒucking her. Observing a process will change it. If you're not THAT guy of your own accord to begin with, any attempt of your genuinely changing into THAT guy will always carry the taint of suspecting your motives no matter how sincere you may be.jafyk said:
At this point I should add that far too many men are more than willing to convert to a new religion, move across a continent or transfer to a closer university if it means they can better facilitate ƒucking their ONEitis woman. I covered this back in Identity Crisis.
Her second inconsistency is that she presumes a platonic, comfortable rapport will lead to unrestrained genuine passion. She has this backwards. This is going to be controversial, but sin is a necessary prerequisite for any healthy marriage. In Christ's own words "if any man look upon a woman with lust in his heart he has already committed adultery with her." I don't believe this message was the condemnation a lot of people would make it, but In every potential sexual relationship there has to come a point where an unmarried man and an unmarried woman look at each other and think "damn, I want to hit it with her/him". There will always be a point at which a person will visualize what ƒucking that other person would be like - scripturally speaking, that's sin. Evangelical women love the nice safe fantasy that 'Godly' men can view them as sisters, but never make the connection that ƒucking them would be incest in that perspective. As if arousal, foreplay, dialoging, and everything else that works her up into a frothing hormonal mess is OK for her, but a perverted sin for him.
Powerlifter
Senior Don Juan
No problem Rollo.
Last edited:
"The Coffee Shop Girl You Never Spoke To"
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.