Speaking of weight

Post Reply New Topic

I'd say to be a proper negger, you'd have to have a sense of humour like Jeremy Clarkson. Or just be Jeremy Clarkson.

lol, well he breeds confidence. Women in general always say they want an attractive man, but part of attractiveness is being confident. I too come off as a jerk most of the time, which doesn't help at all and then I get rejected, because no woman in their right mind will actually continue the conversation and pick up what my real intentions were. So nobody sticks around to correct me, if this guy was an Aspie, wouldn't it have been nice if meems took the time to assist him. But where would anyone see this?

Being an aspie wouldn't excuse his behavior. It certainly wouldn't be a reason for me to subject myself to verbal abuse from this guy. There would be nothing nice about that, Stalk.

The scenario that I was creating was about the Aspie guy applying it on any woman with confidence her self. So if she saw right through him, even if she didn't fancy the guy, she could have corrected him in a nice way. This is of course in a idealistic world where everyone is assisted for the greater good The idea would have been not to break down his confidence but help him on the correct path so that he will approach the next woman with confidence and not in a way that is seem as verbal abuse. Somebody needs to teach us this stuff, and you happen to be one of the innocent victims of practice.

How does it help anyone but him if someone helps him disguise his efforts to break down women's self-esteem for his own benefit? How is that at all for the greater good?

ok so if you want to take on this role, you would convey the message that his approach had no effect on you and in fact the opposite of his goal, if that was his intent. You could have suggested to him an alternative way that was positive. You will be walking away feeling positive and actually helped someone. If he accepted your proposal and not added more hurtful backlash, then you can continue and take control of the conversation. You did take control by leaving. But the difference this time would have been you would have felt positive leaving him something to think about and he would understand what he did wrong. Perhaps change his attitude. I'm referring to the scenario that this would have been an Aspie, not a jock that will get women in the way he usually approaches them.

this is purely hypothetical and in an idealistic world.

I thought I was the aspie in this situation. Are we pretending to be in a paralell universe right now?

•-{*-*}-•

You're a female in L&D, don't you know that you're not allowed to be logical?

http://www.xkcd.com/1027/

ALWAYS cracks me up.

Answering questions means that the guy managed to get the woman talking as opposed to being hit with what is known as a "b***h shield" and thus having a better chance at initiating a relationship of some kind with the woman in question. Hence the term "opener".

Not directed at you specifically Valentine: If people have no idea about PUA, its central techniques and such, why are you discussing it? Am I the only one who feels that one should at least have a superficial knowledge about something before attempting to judge it?

"b!tch shield" is really just a way to describe a girl who has standards and doesn't enjoy being hit on. Even if you don't start out by hitting on her and making your intentions known, she's still going to have standards.

Starting a conversation in an interesting way with anyone other than an attractive girl doesn't involve getting through a "b!tch shield" apparently, then it's just called starting a conversation in an interesting way.

The difference seems to be that when starting a conversation with an attractive girl, you don't actually care about having an interesting conversation. That says a lot, I think.

You're painting everyone with the same brush. This is entirely circumstantial and we don't know if he was using you to practise on. He may have been jock to begin with.

The difference is that attractive women are used to being approached constantly by males, and thus "auto-reject" anyone who approaches them in a traditional manner. An "opener" exists to get past the "auto-reject" through:

A: Interesting conversation starter that she cannot resist giving her 2c on.
B: An artificial time limit, of the type "I can only stay a minute" thus letting her know that you do not plan on hanging around past your welcome.

http://www.google.no/search?client=oper ... dfn:1&tbo=
u&sa=X&ei=MqlTUKODBNHJsga7ooCQBw&ved=0CBkQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4b963991afc88b54&biw=991&bih=655

As I said earlier, read up on PUA, then you may speak on it, because at the moment you kind of sound like the Jehovah's witness criticizing evolution whom Tallyman had to school on basic science.

You're confused, TM. I don't require your permission to speak on a subject, or to have opinions on it. I didn't have opinions on PUA techniques until I'd read up on it. My dislike of the language and attitudes(specifically, contempt for women) of some of the people who employ PUA techniques is hardly something that can be compared to religious ideals. And PUA techniques aren't really something I would compare to the science of evolution, but whatever floats your boat, dawg.

I've seen plenty of demonstrations from you indicating that you are a misogynistic evo-psych enthusiast, so I think this conversation isn't going anywhere. All I can offer to you is that you stop reading this thread if my opinions on the subject bother you. No need to resort to your "read heaps and heaps of my supporting 'evidence' and THEN we can talk" tactics. They don't work on everyone, TM. In fact I've never seen them work on anyone. It's not bringing anything of substance to the conversation if you can't state your own opinions and not rely on directing me to several other people's opinions. I'm not going to play games with you or resort to taunting one another with thinly veiled insults(direct would've been acceptable) as if we're children.

Sorry, bro.

@Stalk, I know not all PUA peoples are the same. I was quite interested and recalled there were actually in-person classes in Austin that my friend Cameron had described to me ages ago as being something like this. I spoke to him today and that's exactly what it was. It sounds pretty harmless, as much as I dislike the language. I don't know if this guy was using PUA techniques or was just an ass. I think a small portion of the online research I did was tainted by all of the bad apples you can find within any group getting together online.

That's pretty much where my dislike of PUA peoples lies. Not with most of them, not even with a lot of them, more with the guys who have nothing but contempt for women. It seems a handful wish to blame all women for their romantic feelings and they feel entitled to certain things and certain types of women etc.

But the rest... yeah, I guess a lot of guys just don't know how to approach women and this helps them.

I am well aware of exactly what it is and how it works and have been for many years.

It can give you some useful tools, but not all of them should be accepted automatically, as some of them are harmful. They can be tweaked slightly and used as useful tools needed however (like negs / teasing). The problem becomes when they start basing their life around it - although that is encouraged in some circles and isn't in others, it generally happens at some point. Part of the other problem that can happen is that they can become too relient on tools like this and forget that on the rare occasion, at very specific moments, it actually does you more good to be real with someone completely.

I have seen guys get involved to the extent that they don't trust women at all anymore and become incapable of being vulnerable or real with even their very close friend (if they happen to be a girl). There's a point at which this stuff is harmful, for both women and men. If it's being used in a way that isn't harmful, I don't have a problem with it - but too often it is being used for some form of harm, often because they aren't thinking about the implications when they are in the middle of this stuff.

(P.s. @mv: )

Wow. I feel sick. Jerk #1 bet jerk #2 that he could bed any (single, I presume) female in our social circles, and jerk #2 decided based on I don't know what criteria that I would be a suitable choice.

And a handful of people were in the student area and observed jerk #1 get flustered and make an ass of himself right before I laughed and moved elsewhere.

I'm not supposed to think this is weird, I'm supposed to be flattered, so says the girlfriend of jerk #2

Whaaaat?