Girls who broke your heart thread
- Thread starter Aychamo BanBan
- Start date
Less pressure. If she is actually socially fucked giving her control over when she responds makes her feel more comfortable. Similar to why people will say anything over the internet but it in no way reflects their real life personality.Heylel Teomim said:
I"d be kind of nervous if she is so weird she can"t even talk on the phone. My problem is I"m too talkative on the phone and the chick can never get a word in edgewise.
That"s really not true at all. The rectum is relatively clean if you have regular bowel movements. You might get a smelly wiff once you pull out but if the girl has regular, smooth bowel movements it"s really a non-issue.Zinke said:
If I had to douche every fucking day to have sex, I wouldn"t be doing it.
What a pile of shit...Etoille said:
People will have natural tendencies towards various degrees of aggression/dominance. But everything you have just posted is wrong on a fundamental level. A "beta" will become an alpha if the situation dictates it. Someone who dominants in their role playing circle can be a complete submissive mangina in every other context. The IMMEDIATE environment dictates the mode of behavior not their core (whatever the fuck that means).
You cant isolate traits from "pressure from society" when both behaviors are ingrained largely through "social pressure". More importantly you can condition assertiveness or submission in individuals after adulthood. Its a matter of subtle degrees contingent on thousands of factors far beyond "Born a badass/pussy". A person being super wired for one behavior or the other is far from the "average".
A "submissive" will become a tyrant drunk on power with a dash of confidence. And an alpha male can become a broken submissive wretch with a few years of systematic abuse.
The fact that you quantify it in terms of "badass/pussy" tells me you don"t have a clue what I"m talking about. I never said someone had to be an extreme at one end or another or couldn"t play a different role but people have a natural state of being that they prefer to be in.Gryeyes said:
And submissives can be tyrants drunk on power. But a dominant person in the context that I was referring to is 100% unconcerned with how much power he"s got - and 100% focused on how much power the other person feels that they have.
I"m not turning this into a D/s thread - I just don"t think you know what you"re talking about at all on this subject.
Indeed, qft. I was reading Mystery"s (along with deangelo, maniac high, gunwitch, etc..) stories 8 years ago, in high school, before he ever got that show. It helped with my confidence for awhile, then I forgot 90% of that stuff when I realized the reasons behind it, rather then the actual rules. "Kino", for example, is simply not being afraid to make physical contact with a girl you are attracted to, which comes naturally when you don"t feel insecure. You like physical contact with a girl you are attracted to and guess what? Girls LIKE being touched by guys they are attracted to! There"s not some magic behind the art of "kino", but if you don"t understand how women think when it comes to meeting guys, those pickup rules give you a guidebook to build your understanding and confidence first.Tenks said:
Some people look at those things and think they are "sleazy", but really, girls start trying to figure out relationship dynamics at a much younger age then guys do. They have a jump on us. Those rules just try to translate an extremely volatile subject matter (emotions and relationships) into a more hard coded, logical, and therefore easier to understand rulebook for the male mind.
I agree with mostly everything except for girls figuring out relationships sooner. In fact I think some of them never really figure it out. It is just that I think what a guy wants in a girl regarding her personality is much more diverse than what a girl wants. The fact that there are tons of books written about the "perfect" pickup pretty much means girls are interested in only a few things. In fact if you read basically anything the #1 thing girls are attracted to is confidence and #2 is humor. If you can at least emulate the two you have your foot in the door. Not saying you can keep a good thing going (which is why so many relationships fail in 3-4 months once you really get to "know" them) but at least you tried.Zinke said:
However I think if a girl is really interested in picking up a dude most are lost. In fact the times I try to get picked up by girls in the bar it is so awkward and the interactions are always so lame. Girls tend to think all guys are interested in skanks so they come up to me, brush me with their tits, bat their eyes and say something stupid and then start hugging on their friends. Also the Mystery Method gives me no tips on politely letting a girl know I have no interest so generally I just leave the bar if it"s too bad haha.
Would you do A2M without having an enema? Or rim them out if they didn"t at least go take a shower immediately beforehand? Do you not use a condom either?chu said:
I was referring to porn"s idealization of anal, and the myth that "assholes are clean" without any preparation at all. Most guys who haven"t done anal don"t realize these things. My point was that neither do the girls, and you could run into an issue then.
And WILLINGLY go right back to being a beta when another alpha shows up. Durrr..Gryeyes said:
We were referring to someone"s core natural tendency, not extreme specific circumstances. When given the choice, the person chooses to either be in control or not. Not everyone WANTS to be the leader. In fact, most people think they want to be the boss, but only until they actually experience it and then realize they don"t want all the stress of being in total control and go back to being a worker/follower.
Here"s a better analogy for this board, were you ever a guild master/officer? If not, did you want to be? If you were, did you enjoy it? etc..
Most people weren"t an officer in their guild, and even fewer were GMs, yet they still enjoyed playing the game. Most people tend to the slightly submissive side when it comes to day to day things. That doesn"t mean that specific person is submissive in bed or somehow a pussy, it just means they don"t enjoy being a leader all the time. Even total Type A personalities have submissive qualities most of the time. But, when that dominant personality interacts with an extremely submissive one, it"s very clear who is who. Most of the time, it"s a much greyer area. But, again, most people prefer to surrender some amount of control if it means less anxiety/stress, which is the basic trade off between dominant/submissive.
No, yes and no. Why wouldn"t you rim them provided they haven"t pooped since they took a shower? Do you imagine poop just leaking out of the asshole randomly throughout the day?Zinke said:
I think a lot of straight guys are making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to anal. I fucked my bf first thing this morning bb then jerked myself off after and he had a bowel movement the night before without cleaning up. I wouldn"t lick my hand or ask him to suck me off after but there was no poop or smell whatsoever.
Yea, sure, of course. I didn"t mean they have it all figured out, but they definitely can play games better then we can. They generally have thought about it more. What I mean is that while we"re all playing sports, video games, D&D or whatever in middle school, girls are already talking to each other about us. Shopping for clothes, makeup etc.. the hobbies that the average girl enjoys to some extent (and not trying to be sexist here, there"s exceptions to everything) is all about trying to attract the attention of boys (or girls even). They generally play the role of the prize to be won. Their basic ideal game plan is to make themselves so attractive, that the guy they are into can"t help but hit on them. Not that it always works that way, and when it does they end up having to fend off the ones they aren"t into so often they become overly picky (hot waitresses, strippers, bartenders etc..).Tenks said:
It"s the most they can do without becoming the dominant one, which they don"t want to do because 1) It might hurt our fragile male ego and/or 2) they just don"t know how to be assertive and make the first move.
Basic tell tale signs like playing with their hair, touching your arm, etc.. are supposed to show they are interested and get you to "take" them, sweep them off their feet and whatnot. Once you can recognize those signs and have the confidence to just go for it, you realize the whole thing isn"t so scary and they are more attracted to you for it.
To get way more specific about this then anyone probably wants to be, no, not exactly, but the asshole does become less clean over time from most every regular daily activity. Farting, sweating etc.. all contribute to small amounts of fecal matter escaping the asshole, yes. Especially if you are having anal intercourse on a regular basis, the muscles are going to be a little bit looser.chu said:
Also, when I said a shower immediately, I meant basically what you said. If they haven"t pooped since they took a shower and it was somewhat recently (less then 12 hours? idk, never quantified it before, and never really performed that act on a gf).
Wrong... A beta BECOMES an Alpha when the position is vacant (Alpha is a rank, disposition is ancillary). The CIRCUMSTANCES dictated their submissiveness not their fucking "core". They do not then automatically submit to the next comer, they have to be removed from that position just like any other Alpha... They always had the potential but circumstances dictated they behave otherwise (King will beat my ass,don"t have the backing to take power through other means,have no desire to be a leader even tho I could be if I wanted). The immediate circumstances change (as they are want to do) and amazingly so does the previously "submissive" behavior.Zinke said:
A persons natural (and by natural we mean social environment one was raised in just as much as genetic inclination) is lightyears away from "fated to be dominant/submissive". A persons "core" is largely what they have experienced not what they ARE. The term of "core" is also fairly stupid since im sure anyone with an IQ over 80 can easily discern how changeable such traits are in individuals throughout their lives despite the ignorant jabberings of the fat.
Barring exceptional circumstances (whether from genetics,environment) most people are both in varying degrees. Extremely passive individuals can easily have said behavior conditioned out of them and vice versa.
Ok, first of all, using the word core doesn"t imply it"s genetic, and I never said it was. Second, you seem to be implying that dominant means "best", it doesn"t. Third, when I say what they ARE, their life experience is a factor of who they ARE. As an entity, you are a product of your life experience to that point. I never stated otherwise. You started off on some rant before attempting to understand what we were even talking about. "Core tendency" does not mean the person is hardwired to only act in that way.
An adult standing in front of you, who is a product of both genetics and their life experience, has a tendency to prefer either a submissive or dominant role in their day to day actions (or would follower/leader be more acceptable verbage?). You can condition someone to like something, just like you can brainwash someone into joining a cult, ok fine. Wtf does that prove when it comes to interacting with people in your professional and personal life? Gonna brainwash everyone you meet? The point was to play to their tendencies versus your own. If they enjoy being the leader more then you, don"t try to wrestle it away from them, let them feel they are making the decisions and you"ll get along with them better. If they are a follower, take charge to an extent.
The "switch theory" etoille was referring to is that someone equally enjoys both roles when played out to a more extreme end, generally referring to sexual roles. Etoille felt that"s disingenuous. Yes, people can enjoy playing both, but they have a natural tendency towards one or the other when given a choice, however slight. It"s an opinion about a theory, you cannot prove that right or wrong. It"s almost impossible to measure an individual"s enjoyment of an activity without bringing their own personal bias into it. i.e. how do you get a correct, quantifiable response asking someone who wants to believe they can switch between both roles with equal enjoyment, if they enjoy one or the other more?
The switch theory doesn"t have anything to do with conditioning someone"s behavior, or that they can"t adopt the less comfortable position if the situation demands it. Some followers will step up and lead when everyone around them has even less leadership ability then them. It doesn"t mean they prefer to be the leader or they are even good at it. As soon as a capable leader shows up, most are often willing to hand it back over.
An adult standing in front of you, who is a product of both genetics and their life experience, has a tendency to prefer either a submissive or dominant role in their day to day actions (or would follower/leader be more acceptable verbage?). You can condition someone to like something, just like you can brainwash someone into joining a cult, ok fine. Wtf does that prove when it comes to interacting with people in your professional and personal life? Gonna brainwash everyone you meet? The point was to play to their tendencies versus your own. If they enjoy being the leader more then you, don"t try to wrestle it away from them, let them feel they are making the decisions and you"ll get along with them better. If they are a follower, take charge to an extent.
The "switch theory" etoille was referring to is that someone equally enjoys both roles when played out to a more extreme end, generally referring to sexual roles. Etoille felt that"s disingenuous. Yes, people can enjoy playing both, but they have a natural tendency towards one or the other when given a choice, however slight. It"s an opinion about a theory, you cannot prove that right or wrong. It"s almost impossible to measure an individual"s enjoyment of an activity without bringing their own personal bias into it. i.e. how do you get a correct, quantifiable response asking someone who wants to believe they can switch between both roles with equal enjoyment, if they enjoy one or the other more?
The switch theory doesn"t have anything to do with conditioning someone"s behavior, or that they can"t adopt the less comfortable position if the situation demands it. Some followers will step up and lead when everyone around them has even less leadership ability then them. It doesn"t mean they prefer to be the leader or they are even good at it. As soon as a capable leader shows up, most are often willing to hand it back over.
Holy shit I agree with something gryeyes has said. But as always, its a mixture of both. People may have a natural tendency towards being dominant or submissive, but the circumstance ultimately dictates the social hierarchy.
An absurdly small number of alpha males are alpha in every situation. I"ve met...0 in my lifetime. I know this because, being a really shy guy when I was young, I used to watch these guys and model my behavior off them. You can always find a situation in which they lose their confidence. I always did, and was quite disappointed to see it. I thought I was modeling the ultimate confident guy, and then inevitably I eventually find ourselves in a situation where he"s quite uncomfortable and suddenly I"m in control.
I remember vividly this guy in NC when I worked there, the chef of the restaurant who was preposterously dominant. Guys were fuckin terrified of him and kissed his ass left and right, because he was funny, a little crazy, loud, and always gave other people shit. You could NEVER 1-up him in a power game or a game of wits. I, always looking to improve my originally-terrible social skills, made it a little game to keep on his level and not submit to him. I remember vividly one day he said something to me sort of to fuck with or challenge me. My first reaction was to qualify myself to him, but I stopped myself from doing it. The problem was, I had no idea how to react, so in the end I did and said nothing, basically ignoring him while my mind raced with things to say in return. Then the most unexpected thing happened. He laughed nervously and qualified himself to ME in regards to what he said. I almost shit my pants. In my social ineptitude I inadvertantly created the illusion of dominant behavior and made the most alpha guy on the planet submit.
There are a million other examples I could give and I actually had to edit them all out because this post is too long.
The situation dictates the hierarchy. Those who fit the situation best become the alphas. The key though is that some people are more fluid and fit more situations than others. These are the alpha "types" that are comfortable and confident with a wider range of situation.
An absurdly small number of alpha males are alpha in every situation. I"ve met...0 in my lifetime. I know this because, being a really shy guy when I was young, I used to watch these guys and model my behavior off them. You can always find a situation in which they lose their confidence. I always did, and was quite disappointed to see it. I thought I was modeling the ultimate confident guy, and then inevitably I eventually find ourselves in a situation where he"s quite uncomfortable and suddenly I"m in control.
I remember vividly this guy in NC when I worked there, the chef of the restaurant who was preposterously dominant. Guys were fuckin terrified of him and kissed his ass left and right, because he was funny, a little crazy, loud, and always gave other people shit. You could NEVER 1-up him in a power game or a game of wits. I, always looking to improve my originally-terrible social skills, made it a little game to keep on his level and not submit to him. I remember vividly one day he said something to me sort of to fuck with or challenge me. My first reaction was to qualify myself to him, but I stopped myself from doing it. The problem was, I had no idea how to react, so in the end I did and said nothing, basically ignoring him while my mind raced with things to say in return. Then the most unexpected thing happened. He laughed nervously and qualified himself to ME in regards to what he said. I almost shit my pants. In my social ineptitude I inadvertantly created the illusion of dominant behavior and made the most alpha guy on the planet submit.
There are a million other examples I could give and I actually had to edit them all out because this post is too long.
The situation dictates the hierarchy. Those who fit the situation best become the alphas. The key though is that some people are more fluid and fit more situations than others. These are the alpha "types" that are comfortable and confident with a wider range of situation.
1. I never made such an assumption, how that term was used in the last several pages sure as fuck implied it. But this is largely irrelevant because the term "core" itself is meaningless if accept that "core" is something that can be changed. And if you accept that you wouldn"t be using the term in the first place.Zinke said:
2.I have not even vaguely implied dominance means best...
3. When you say "Core" and imply one person is that way or not NATURALLY. And then discount the explanations for why this is a stupid opinion, you sure as fuck are implying its an INHERENT trait and not something mutable by other factors. Thats what the entire term CORE means in this discussion. Furthermore half the shit in your post while being completely irrelevant to my arguement and directly contradicts Etoile assertions. I never even touched upon the "switch theory" because its predicated on assumptions that are completely fucking wrong in every way.
LOL. You QUOTED etoille"s explanation of her stance on why she disagrees with the switch theory in your first post to start this whole derail. You specifically quoted thisGryeyes said:
(emphasized prefer for you this time) and then ended up saying basically the same thing to try and prove Etoille wrong.
Then you went on to talk about HOW they act, and we"re talking about how they WANT to act.
Your hatred has made you want to disagree with Etoille, and you"ve basically agreed with her the entire time. Anyone can act in either capacity given whatever circumstance, no one argued that. However, given their own choice, they are more comfortable in a specific role.
Oh?
So, if the submissive gains confidence (a positive trait) they become a dominant. If the dominant is abused for years (a negative action), they become a submissive. Hmmm.. No, nothing implying dominance is better, nothing at all.
It"s not hard to see you assign a positive value to a dominant personality, whether you intended for that to come out or not. That shows you also don"t understand that it"s simply a matter of comfort and choice. Often times, submissive/follower types get a better deal. They get to sit back, not worry and reap the benefits of others organizing things for them. Look at how most guy"s are expected to buy stuff on valentine"s for girls, pay for dinner/drinks, open doors etc.. That"s the subtle dominant/submissive roles played out in every day dating. In exchange, the guy might get to make more of the decisions and the girl will go along with what he says, such as the decision of whether he gets a BJ in the car after dinner. Hey~! Awesome! heh.
In any case, this derail is completely ridiculous at this point. I"m done with this retarded argument of semantics for the sake of the other posters.
Back on topic
Texting gives you time to figure out what you want to say. Sometimes you blurt something out before really thinking it over when talking on the phone. Sounds like she"s a bit of all the categories I picked for her. She"s got a little bit of low self esteem and she"s quirky. She is afraid to say the wrong thing with you on the phone, cause she"s surprised you made the effort to contact her (she"s afraid to screw it up now that you"ve shown you are actually interested).Heylel Teomim said:
I cant even translate that fucking travesty of a post. But what is certain is that you have no fucking idea what the fuck you are babbling about. Etoille said outright that people have an inherent trait for dominance/submission. That regardless of circumstance by their "nature" are submissive OR dominant in their "core" barring social/other pressures. And while they can pretend to be otherwise they will always be in their CORE one or the other.Zinke said:
Me responding with "Yes, while people do have inherent tendencies towards aggression/assertiveness how those traits are being implied to describe this behavior is wrong in every fucking way". This in no way compromises my position or "agrees" with her "point".
THE ENTIRE FUCKING SCENARIO IS CREATED BY SOCIAL PRESSURE. There is no "well if the very factors that create this situation are removed" the entire topic is contingent on those factors. Trying to remove them implies you dont understand the conversation. Dominance/submission has no fucking meaning outside of "social pressure".
Also, preferences (how they feel) cannot be isolated from the behavior for any meaningful conversation about dominance/submission. Those feelings and preferences ARE the conditioning...