Dinner ran three hours. She laughed at everything. You walked her to her car thinking this one's locked in.
Then: nothing. Two texts. No reply. What happened?
You did what most men do on a great date. You filled every silence, answered every question, and left her with nothing to wonder about. No mystery. Nothing to sit with when she got home.
Rule 3 of the "22 Rules" changes the ending: tell her a little, hold back the rest, and let her imagination do the chasing. The ghosting stops too.
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.
"Slvt" doesn't imply sexual deceit. "Drama queen" sounds more comical. The closest equivalent was "c0cktease" and that STILL doesn't resonate the way the word "womanizer" does.mrRuckus said:Drama queen is pretty related too.
That's only because you've been socialized to think that, its another one of women's social conventions/shaming language. There isn't anything intrinsically negative/evil in the sounds the make up the word itself. For example- I doubt you you think the word energizer sounds intrinsically "BAD" in the same fashion.STR8UP said:"Slvt" doesn't imply sexual deceit. "Drama queen" sounds more comical. The closest equivalent was "c0cktease" and that STILL doesn't resonate the way the word "womanizer" does.
It's just such a BAD sounding word, like "rapist" or "thief". It conjures up images of a devastated victim.
I think not being personally shamed by females shaming is only half the issue. Other people will see the accusations as the accused acted shameful. Women use shaming to not only instill shame on the target but to turn others' opinion against him as well. It's about lowering your reputation and defamation basically.Aenigma said:That's only because you've been socialized to think that, its another one of women's social conventions/shaming language. There isn't anything intrinsically negative/evil in the sounds the make up the word itself. For example- I doubt you you think the word energizer sounds intrinsically "BAD" in the same fashion.
Don't let yourself be controled by the emotional implications women attach to language; they're a method of verbo-emotional control- and control over others is power.
Dinner ran three hours. She laughed at everything. You walked her to her car thinking this one's locked in.
Then: nothing. Two texts. No reply. What happened?
You did what most men do on a great date. You filled every silence, answered every question, and left her with nothing to wonder about. No mystery. Nothing to sit with when she got home.
Rule 3 of the "22 Rules" changes the ending: tell her a little, hold back the rest, and let her imagination do the chasing. The ghosting stops too.
STR8UP said:I be more concerned about how she treats YOU than anything else.
Exactly, it's intended to have negative implications on the guy's reputation.STR8UP said:Even though the word c0cktease does somewhat describe the female equivalent, it still doesn't have the negative implications that the word "womanizer" does.
"Don't bother. She's just a c0cktease"
"Stay away from him girl. He's a WOMANIZER"
See the difference?I realize that it is more of a compliment than anything else, however that is not its intent.
Well as I was saying earlier in this thread, the female equivalent to womanizer would be slvt (or wh0re, tramp, hussy). Most women will take great offense and are very concerned about others saying they're a slvt or wh0re, so they're very aware of reputation and what they're doing when they try to lower a guy's rep. Although, the point still remains that women can say something negative like "Womanizer" about a man and he's suppose to take it in stride if not as a compliment. But call a woman a "slvt" or even a c0ck tease and all shyt hits the fan.I still have yet to see a word that implies that there is equal accountability or that a man could possibly be a "victim" of a woman's actions.
Thats what men are doing, I seen somewhere that young men suicide rate are 6 times higher than younger women. I think more men also enters self-destructive behavior, like drink like crazy or drugs...We, as males, might as well kill ourselves
Some statements often given in opposition to these facts are that women attempt suicide at higher rates than males, while males are more often successful in their attempts. It's also said that women have higher rates of depression than men.SXS said:Thats what men are doing, I seen somewhere that young men suicide rate are 6 times higher than younger women.
No, it means they are a bunch of pussies .... er, well ya.Luminescence said:.... it doesn't mean women have it harder in life at all.
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.
OH, so that's why? Gotcha ...bigjohnson said:Of course she said something coarse, hurtful, crass, wrong, etc.
She's a she.
Most men know that even though it's supposed to be a jab at him designed to damage his reputation, it does exactly the opposite, so most guys don't care about being labeled as such.ketostix said:Well as I was saying earlier in this thread, the female equivalent to womanizer would be slvt (or wh0re, tramp, hussy). Most women will take great offense and are very concerned about others saying they're a slvt or wh0re, so they're very aware of reputation and what they're doing when they try to lower a guy's rep. Although, the point still remains that women can say something negative like "Womanizer" about a man and he's suppose to take it in stride if not as a compliment. But call a woman a "slvt" or even a c0ck tease and all shyt hits the fan.
That is part of it as well.The issue really is how women have free reign to defame men but it's not OK for a man to do the same-a double standard. Think about how ingrained it is. You can't even type slvt or wh0re on this very website.
Exactly!Colossus said:Womanizer does have a sort of sinister connotation to it.
All it really implies is a man who seduces women for sex and conquest. Are there not women who seduce men for money? Provision? Attention?
Since a woman has much more at stake in the reproductive game (she gets stuck caring for and supporting the baby by herself) she is going to be naturally more inclined to villainize a man who "tricks" women into sex (any guy who doesn't call the next day).Danger said:I'm not sure I follow....can you explain?
Your buddy Dave has been single for three years and thinks "hey u up" is a valid strategy. Your other buddy Mike just got dumped and told you to "just be yourself."
You showed them her text. You asked them to decode the emoji. You drafted four responses and sent the screenshot to the group chat for a vote.
She's been waiting forty minutes.
Put the phone down. Stop crowdsourcing your love life. Type something that sounds like you. Hit send. Then go do literally anything else with your evening.
So now you're assigning TV watching homework with a pop quiz after?SXS said:Would you guys consider those TV chars to be womanizers:
Christian Troy(nip tuck)
Charlie Harper(2/1men)
Todd(scrubs)
Chuck Bass(gossip girl)
Because women usually say they hate them.
But that would imply that money/wealth/resources factors into women's attraction mechanism. Some people don't like to acknowledge that fact....shhhhh.....Aenigma said:I'm going to have to go with gold digger as the equivilent cross gender term.
Namely that the person in question is faking a genuine emotional connection in order to establish feelings of trust in affection in order to deprive the "victim" of something valuable.
With men its money/intimacy
With women its sex/intimacy
You paid for dinner. You drove. You said "whatever you want is fine" every single time. All the effort, no expectations.
And she left anyway — probably for a guy who makes her pick up the pizza.
Painful. Also predictable. Her mind quietly concludes that anything requiring zero effort from her is worth exactly zero. You became a free sample, and free samples get taken for granted.
The 22 Rules flip the dynamic. Small shifts that get her investing effort, money, and time in you — until SHE'S the one afraid of losing YOU.