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.
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.
...
Three seconds. That's how long it took. Your shoes. Your posture. The way you held your drink. Whether you looked at the floor or looked at her.
She already filed you away. Interesting. Boring. Safe. Bold. Before you even opened your mouth.
Everything you say after that is just her confirming what she already decided.
So stop rehearsing lines. Fix the first three seconds. Stand tall. Look up. Smile like you mean it. Walk like you belong wherever you're standing.
The words come later. The impression comes first.
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.
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.
She calls you when her car breaks down. When she needs help moving. When some guy she's actually dating treats her badly.
You're the listener. The reliable one. The guy who would treat her so much better, if she'd just open her eyes.
She won't. You trained her to see you as the low-effort option — the friend who requires zero risk and zero investment. Every favor dug the hole deeper.
The "22 Rules" break the pattern. You'll stop auditioning for a role she already cast and become the man she chases instead. It starts with Rule 1.
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!!!?
You made your case like a lawyer. Stable job. Good guy. Ready for something real. All true. All irrelevant.
She weighed your points, nodded along, felt nothing — then fell hard for some tattooed bartender with a motorcycle and a gambling problem.
Logic is where attraction goes to die. The "22 Rules" work a level deeper, on the subconscious switches that decide within minutes whether you register as a MAN or as part of the furniture.
Stop presenting evidence. Start flipping switches.