You replay the conversation at 2 a.m. She texted back fast yesterday. Today, nothing. Was that smile friendly or flirty? What did the shoulder touch mean?
Every hour you spend decoding her signals drains your confidence and hands her the controls. Women can sense that insecurity from across the room — and it repels them.
One of the "22 Rules" kills the obsession on the spot: assume she likes you, and act accordingly. Sounds too simple. Works anyway.
Her interest tends to rise to meet your expectations. Psychologists call it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Not surprising to see women's rights groups b!tching about it.MOTHERS are being forced to pay back as much as $60,000 to men they wrongly claimed fathered their children following a contentious reform of child support laws.
...
She asks it casually, mid-sip. And you feel the floor open up, because the honest answer is work, gym, and a couple shows you're half-watching.
Women rarely say this out loud, but a man with a life is attractive before he says a word. The guy who spent Saturday deep-sea fishing and came back with photos and a story — he walks in already interesting.
The "22 Rules" pushed me to build a life worth talking about. Turns out the fastest way to be interesting to women is to be interested in your own life first.
I could talk to any woman I wasn't attracted to. Charming, funny, relaxed. Then a gorgeous woman looked my way and I'd become a sweating, babbling mess.
The fix took me years to find and ten minutes to learn. Nervousness and excitement are the same physical state — pounding heart, adrenaline, flushed face. Your brain just picks the label. And you can pick a better one.
Rule 16 shows you how. You feel the nerves, relabel them as excitement, and let that energy pour out as enthusiasm. Women notice the guy radiating it. They always do.
That is seriously fvcked up!window said:Sorry guys have a read of this...shocking.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24639854-421,00.html
That's how they work it in the U.S. too. We'll gain a small step forward but at the expensive of compromising over a giant leap backwards.Jitterbug said:That is seriously fvcked up!
One small step forward with the child support thing, and this is a giant leap backward!
Can't wait for the bachelor tax...
Geez I am ashamed to be an Aussie after reading this proposal. The feminists must be in happy land today..window said:Now they're saying you don't even have to live under the same roof to have a de facto relationship in place. It really is becoming ridiculous.
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.
If the child already enjoyed the benefit of the money being spent on them in the past, then how does garnishing future wages of the mother negate that?Sole Parent's Union president Kathleen Swinbourne said garnisheeing a mother's wages would only hurt the child.
"The money has already been spent on rearing the child," she said. "If the mother is forced to pay it back, its hard to imagine the child won't be disadvantaged."
Ya except rich chicks get that way by screwing over a rich dude and taking his money. Rich guys got that way by earning it.armadon said:Yeah but a dude could hook up with a rich chick and get the same benefits. Lay the pipe good and you could be takin care of.
Don't expect reason, logic or fairness from a woman who is defending other women who deliberately cheated on their husband, and then systematically deceived him into raising the other man's child.puma183 said:<<Sole Parent's Union president Kathleen Swinbourne said garnisheeing a mother's wages would only hurt the child.The money has already been spent on rearing the child," she said. "If the mother is forced to pay it back, its hard to imagine the child won't be disadvantaged." >>
So you mean if I rob a bank, they can't prosecute me provided I am the custodial parent of a child? I mean my child will be disadvantaged if they lock me up and take back the stolen monies. What logic!!!?
That sentence contains at least five follow-up questions she WANTS you to ask. Where in Florida? What brought you here? How long have you been in the area? What do you miss? How does it compare to here?
She handed them to you on a silver platter. And you said, "Oh cool. I come here every week. I love this band. Ummm... pretty crowded tonight."
She smiled politely. Nodded. And never texted you back.
I was that guy for years. Talking too much. Listening too little. Panicking about my next sentence while she was literally feeding me the answers.
Then I found 22 rules that fixed the whole thing. Rule number one: shut up and listen. She'll tell you exactly what to say.