“The 22 Rules That Flip the Script With Women… And How You Can Use Them Tonight”

Most guys accidentally kill attraction before they even speak. They assume they need a bigger bank account, a better physique, or smoother lines. They miss the point.

Female desire operates on a specific set of psychological triggers.  Break them, and you're invisible. Follow them, and you become magnetic.

I learned this the hard way. Years of freezing up. Getting friend-zoned. Watching other guys walk away with the girl I wanted. Then I discovered a set of 22 simple rules that rewired my entire approach.

Read more...

Important victory for men down under (child support)

Jitterbug

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
3,197
Reaction score
140

“The 22 Rules That Turned Me From Invisible to Irresistible With Women… Starting Tonight”

You can skip the expensive cars, the fancy clothes, and the endless gym selfies. Completely unnecessary.

I used to freeze the second a beautiful woman looked my way. Frustrated. Awkward. Watching other guys walk away with the girl while I stood there tongue-tied.

Then I discovered 22 simple rules that rewired my entire dating life. The anxiety vanished. Conversations flowed effortlessly. Women started chasing me for a change.

These rules trigger a woman's subconscious attraction switches. And you can start using them tonight.

Read more...

window

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
472
Reaction score
7
As Tom Leykis sais...if she isn't using birth control she wants to get pregnant.
 

Scaramouche

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
4,443
Reaction score
1,557
Age
82
Location
Australia
Dear All,
So many bitter stories,so many suicides,perhaps the pendulum is swinging back?
 

window

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
472
Reaction score
7
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.
 

ketostix

Banned
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
3,871
Reaction score
55
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...
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.
 

jophil28

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
5,216
Reaction score
277
Location
Gold Coast. Aust.
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.
Geez I am ashamed to be an Aussie after reading this proposal. The feminists must be in happy land today..
This is arrant nonsense and unenforceable. Just another feast for lawyers.

I guess that men who have affairs will just end them twentyTHREE months in.
 

What happens, IN HER MIND, is that she comes to see you as WORTHLESS simply because she hasn't had to INVEST anything in you in order to get you or to keep you.

You were an interesting diversion while she had nothing else to do. But now that someone a little more valuable has come along, someone who expects her to treat him very well, she'll have no problem at all dropping you or demoting you to lowly "friendship" status.

Quote taken from The SoSuave Guide to Women and Dating, which you can read for FREE.

Mr. Me

Master Don Juan
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,356
Reaction score
84
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."
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?

Would it also be argued, that if the mother was to have her wages garnished for any other legal debt she owed, that it would only hurt the child, and therefore, the liability should be waived?

So is the criteria for liability limited because it "would only hurt the child"? So, say a person doesn't pay their mortgage, but to take the house away would only hurt the child, so the negligent mortgagee becomes liability free?

I say it would hurt the child to see their mom get away with fraud. I say it would hurt the child to live with someone who commits fraud.
 

armadon

Don Juan
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
187
Reaction score
3
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.
 

bigjohnson

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
2,438
Reaction score
38
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.
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.
 

puma183

Don Juan
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
145
Reaction score
7
Location
Midwest USA
<<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!!!?
 

jophil28

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
5,216
Reaction score
277
Location
Gold Coast. Aust.
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!!!?
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.
 
Top