lorekeeper
Senior Don Juan
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 252
- Reaction score
- 4
- Age
- 47
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.
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.
I think that was the point...Credos said:What a joke![]()
David Wong is a "she"??Credos said:the writer clearly had a bad life and feels she has to project herself on other to make her feel better...
My question to her would be, what makes her so credible to tell me how bad life is, cause clearly how she writes, her life is sh!t and she hasen't done anything but write sh!t aswell
What a joke![]()
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.
mrRuckus said:Why is it okay to naturally pick up ways of relating to other people but if you go and look it up and learn it from others then you're a douche?
You're pretty much born with little social skills and learn most of it along the way. Some have more opportunity, better parents or whatever, and learn more. Others simply don't learn as much. Maybe they're just naturally introverted and don't want to be around people as much so they learn less social skills than others.
So those who aren't naturals through life experience look up how to learn social skills. Learning pick up skills is basically learning social skills. What is wrong with that? As if women don't spend their entire lives learning what to say and do to men to get what they want out of them, even when it's not intended maliciously. No one berates them for reading Cosmo or having their silly "let's talk about boys all night" sleepovers.
It's okay to buy books about "beating your shyness" but not books on relating to women and getting them to WANT to (note: they WANT TO and enjoy it) bang you?
Giving a woman sexual pleasure is not immoral. And the example in this article is "make you want to gain their approval (by letting them touch your boobs)." Is that not manipulating a guy to make him like and approve of you?
So whatever, they do the same sh1t, and none of it is wrong.
That's erroneous, good sir. Homeopathic "medicines" contain less than one molecule of their supposed medicine. Homeopathy operates on the premise of diluting substances in half 30 times and violates Avagardo's Number. There's literally not one particle of medicine. Homeopathy originates from the 18th century and was considered a better alternative to the contemporary practice of drilling holes in people's heads, which created lethal infections. Doing nothing was safer than doing something. Nowadays, you will find people who swear homeopathic medicines work, but any positive effects can be attributed solely to the placebo effect and coincidence (they would get spontaneously healthier from their sickness anyway).squirrels said:It takes certain things to extremes (for example, some "homeopathic" cures do have some merit), but despite its cynical outlook, for the most part it is true.
Off topic, but have you ever watched Brian Dunning's "Here Be Dragons"?Rogue said:That's erroneous, good sir. Homeopathic "medicines" contain less than one molecule of their supposed medicine. Homeopathy operates on the premise of diluting substances in half 30 times and violates Avagardo's Number. There's literally not one particle of medicine. Homeopathy originates from the 18th century and was considered a better alternative to the contemporary practice of drilling holes in people's heads, which created lethal infections. Doing nothing was safer than doing something. Nowadays, you will find people who swear homeopathic medicines work, but any positive effects can be attributed solely to the placebo effect and coincidence (they would get spontaneously healthier from their sickness anyway).
Next Monday you'll feel more confident. After the gym you'll feel more confident. After one more drink you'll feel more confident. After you get a better haircut, a better jacket, a better job.
You've been "getting ready" for two years.
She's standing ten feet away right now. She'll be gone in four minutes. No amount of preparation will manufacture the courage that only comes from moving your feet.
Walk over. Stumble through the first sentence. Let it be clumsy. Let it be imperfect. You will feel more alive in those ten seconds than you have all month.
What? Are you retarded?nivapimpru said:What should these spoiled women contribute? Vagina?
"there could be a firm scientific foundation for homeopathy" and "there is be a firm scientific foundation for homeopathy" are two different statements.d!ckmojo said:seems like some heavy-weight nobel prize-winning scientist decided to come out in support of my position on homeopathy... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...meopathy-a-boost/story-e6frg8y6-1225887772305
KingofHearts said:Why do you think guys get shamed out of researching how to attract girls?? What is the motivation for stopping a guy from learning these social tools?
1) Anecdotes are not scientific evidence.d!ckmojo:
With regards to homeopathy, all the ppl who say "oh that doesn't work, it couldn't possibly work blah blah blah" have never even tried it! I have, and can tell you that it does help. Its disingenous to say 'Homeopathic "medicines" contain less than one molecule of their supposed medicine. Homeopathy operates on the premise of diluting substances in half 30 times and violates Avagardo's Number. There's literally not one particle of medicine.' You completely ingnore the school of thought that underpins it: Its not a pharmacuetical drug! The whole philosophy and treatment principle is completely different to medicine, that's why the discipline is not called 'medicine', its called 'homeopathy'.
Smart people believe dumb things. Luc Montagnier is a quack. He published his 'findings' in a published 'journal' for which he himself is the editor. That's not exactly peer-review.seems like some heavy-weight nobel prize-winning scientist decided to come out in support of my position on homeopathy... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225887772305
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.
So women think learning un-natural techniques is manipulation, but they don't see how they manipulate guys in their in own ways. Ah, convenient double standardsmrRuckus said:Women don't like their games turned on them.
Women want to have power over men (or think that's what they want...)
Women think it's evil manipulation.
KingofHearts said:So women think learning un-natural techniques is manipulation, but they don't see how they manipulate guys in their in own ways. Ah, convenient double standards
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.