The Girls Who Broke Your Heart Thread
- Thread starter Wintermute
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 46,936
- 100,370
moonarchia
The Scientific Shitlord
- 24,604
- 46,313
I'm not sure if I'm surprised or not that Big P had that link on hand. Did you look for that before or after Shelley?
TheBeagle
JunkiesNetwork Donor
- 8,981
- 31,215
What was the point of texting her "hello?" It sounds passive aggressive. Maybe she's just not into you. You said yourself she had a lot to drink when you guys were fooling around. So that means nothing
True. My gf texts me that when she's pissed off that I'm ignoring her.
Makes me not want to respond to her that much more, actually.
It was definitely too soon to be pulling that crap.
Sutekh
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 7,489
- 107
I'm about to make a (very long) post that should hopefully provide insight and real, meaningful advice to most people in this thread. I've touched upon what I'm about to go into numerous times here and elsewhere, but this time it should be more complete.
I've spent the last 6 months or so going on a million dates from OKC and PoF. Tons of them. Too many to count, averaging maybe 1 new girl a week, possibly 2, in that time frame. The purpose was not sex or finding a relationship, although in cases it led to either or both. I purposely included a huge mix and variance in just about every category one could conceive of - physically, ethnically, emotionally and in life background and experience: ugly to gorgeous, sheltered to cosmopolitan, homely white girls to ethnic mutts.
By behaving a certain way, by following advice given by the science of PUA in forums and articles, I did in fact have the best chance to get the result I wanted, assuming the result I wanted was sex or a relationship. Now, this wasn't true for all the girls. Some responded negatively to these suggested behaviors, but statistically speaking, it gave me the best chance to achieve a good result. I will not go into these behaviors or personality traits here, as they've been thoroughly mapped out and discussed in this thread and everywhere on the net ad nauseam. However, to provide info, I mostly took the angle of the emotionally unavailable mystery type that made these women qualify themselves, as that's where my background was best suited having traveled extensively and a wardrobe full of suits for work. I rarely played any cocky funny guy angles because I couldn't pull that off as well. But in every case where I used this or any stereotype, I wasn't very responsive most of the time, and I rarely responded to texts or phone calls, contacting them only after an amount of time passed from their initial text or message. And even when I did contact them, it was one line responses that showed little care, emotion or effort. I got the best results from this behavior.
I didn't enjoy myself any of the times doing this. That is to say in precise language, the social interactions I had with these women was not engaging or stimulating in any way. I would rather respond differently and had a different type of social interaction that was fulfilling to me, one where I could be emotionally responsive. Now, to be fair, some women did respond positively when I acted how I, myself, truly wanted to act, but it was few and far between, or hardly any at all.
What I've said so far isn't new. It's mostly obvious to the people in this thread. But now comes the insight and advice. Why do PUA tricks work? Why was my being emotionally unavailable all the time effective? Have you ever wondered why there's a science to the pickup and 'game'? (Why is it called 'game'?... see below) Or put in another way, why are so many women's personalities and attraction generators the same things? Now, what you'll probably say is that the answer lies in biology and physiology... but that's just a tiny part of the story. Physically it is true, as taller or more muscular men are seen as more attractive, and that's an objective biological quantity. But as any real PUA will tell you, looks mean very little.
So then, the question before us is why these behaviors and traits work most of the time. The answer isn't biology. You'll then probably say it's human nature. It's basic human nature that these certain qualities are attractive, but that's not quantifiable or even helpful because it means nothing. You can't even tell me what human nature IS firstly to begin to tell me of a certain aspect of it. I've touched upon Fromm, Gramsci, Weber, Durkheim, Jung, Marx, even Freud. I've went into these thinkers and many others here in posts and in conversation in real life trying to reach some insight about human relationships in this, our modern life.
And I realized it when I was going over Marx's substructure and superstructure economic literature. That is, everything has as its base an economic reality based in a mode of life, and our social structures and institutions are built upon this structureand thus reflect its attributes. Our mode of life is (very loosely) a market system capitalism, one where the concept of a 'market' is central to our everyday life. And THAT is where we form our base concepts of things. That's why we call it 'a game' and why we 'put ourselves on the market'. The definition of love changes according to a human being's, a society's, mode or method of productive life. Courtly love was never thought of as a game or a market precisely because their mode of living in economic terms was different than ours - and thus, their definition of love different. And so then, what's attractive varies according to a certain mode of existence, a certain reality grounded in economic roots. Being cool, distant, and emotionally unavailable is attractive in interpersonal relationships because it's also a desired quality in business. And the proof of this is the verbage seen in everyday life with regards to ourselves: 'human capital', 'emotional investment', 'playing the game' et al.
One can say that it is a sickness on asocietal level, a mental pathology that is 'normal' precisely because it presents in everyone.
If you truly are emotionally responsive, supporting, understanding, caring, loving, all the things peoplesaythey want but in fact do not because those qualities do not create attraction, then you will not have much luck in terms getting what you want. You then have tobe adjustedto what society deems as attractive, which again has as its roots the economic structure.
Now the real advice. You have two choices. You can truly be yourself. That is, express your own human individuality in your social interactions with people - or again in precise language, express your thoughts and emotions wholly and earnestly in your relationships. Doing this, however, will not get the results you want. Your second choice is in terms ofadjustmentto these behaviors and traits society teaches as attractive ('playing the game'). Doing this means you will not express your own individuality, but you will get better results. Some people have rationalized this choice to such an extent that they think this learned behavior is their true selvesprecisely because it gets the results they want, but make no mistake, it is in fact learned and adjusted behavior.
What is more important to you as a human being entering into social interactions with other human beings? Do you want to express yourself and get less results, or adjust yourself and get better ones? I would make the thesis that the stronger person, is in fact, the one who can overcome results andwants to express himself as himself, but that's another post entirely.
I hope this gives others something to reflect upon and consider when it comes to your relationships with others.
I've spent the last 6 months or so going on a million dates from OKC and PoF. Tons of them. Too many to count, averaging maybe 1 new girl a week, possibly 2, in that time frame. The purpose was not sex or finding a relationship, although in cases it led to either or both. I purposely included a huge mix and variance in just about every category one could conceive of - physically, ethnically, emotionally and in life background and experience: ugly to gorgeous, sheltered to cosmopolitan, homely white girls to ethnic mutts.
By behaving a certain way, by following advice given by the science of PUA in forums and articles, I did in fact have the best chance to get the result I wanted, assuming the result I wanted was sex or a relationship. Now, this wasn't true for all the girls. Some responded negatively to these suggested behaviors, but statistically speaking, it gave me the best chance to achieve a good result. I will not go into these behaviors or personality traits here, as they've been thoroughly mapped out and discussed in this thread and everywhere on the net ad nauseam. However, to provide info, I mostly took the angle of the emotionally unavailable mystery type that made these women qualify themselves, as that's where my background was best suited having traveled extensively and a wardrobe full of suits for work. I rarely played any cocky funny guy angles because I couldn't pull that off as well. But in every case where I used this or any stereotype, I wasn't very responsive most of the time, and I rarely responded to texts or phone calls, contacting them only after an amount of time passed from their initial text or message. And even when I did contact them, it was one line responses that showed little care, emotion or effort. I got the best results from this behavior.
I didn't enjoy myself any of the times doing this. That is to say in precise language, the social interactions I had with these women was not engaging or stimulating in any way. I would rather respond differently and had a different type of social interaction that was fulfilling to me, one where I could be emotionally responsive. Now, to be fair, some women did respond positively when I acted how I, myself, truly wanted to act, but it was few and far between, or hardly any at all.
What I've said so far isn't new. It's mostly obvious to the people in this thread. But now comes the insight and advice. Why do PUA tricks work? Why was my being emotionally unavailable all the time effective? Have you ever wondered why there's a science to the pickup and 'game'? (Why is it called 'game'?... see below) Or put in another way, why are so many women's personalities and attraction generators the same things? Now, what you'll probably say is that the answer lies in biology and physiology... but that's just a tiny part of the story. Physically it is true, as taller or more muscular men are seen as more attractive, and that's an objective biological quantity. But as any real PUA will tell you, looks mean very little.
So then, the question before us is why these behaviors and traits work most of the time. The answer isn't biology. You'll then probably say it's human nature. It's basic human nature that these certain qualities are attractive, but that's not quantifiable or even helpful because it means nothing. You can't even tell me what human nature IS firstly to begin to tell me of a certain aspect of it. I've touched upon Fromm, Gramsci, Weber, Durkheim, Jung, Marx, even Freud. I've went into these thinkers and many others here in posts and in conversation in real life trying to reach some insight about human relationships in this, our modern life.
And I realized it when I was going over Marx's substructure and superstructure economic literature. That is, everything has as its base an economic reality based in a mode of life, and our social structures and institutions are built upon this structureand thus reflect its attributes. Our mode of life is (very loosely) a market system capitalism, one where the concept of a 'market' is central to our everyday life. And THAT is where we form our base concepts of things. That's why we call it 'a game' and why we 'put ourselves on the market'. The definition of love changes according to a human being's, a society's, mode or method of productive life. Courtly love was never thought of as a game or a market precisely because their mode of living in economic terms was different than ours - and thus, their definition of love different. And so then, what's attractive varies according to a certain mode of existence, a certain reality grounded in economic roots. Being cool, distant, and emotionally unavailable is attractive in interpersonal relationships because it's also a desired quality in business. And the proof of this is the verbage seen in everyday life with regards to ourselves: 'human capital', 'emotional investment', 'playing the game' et al.
One can say that it is a sickness on asocietal level, a mental pathology that is 'normal' precisely because it presents in everyone.
If you truly are emotionally responsive, supporting, understanding, caring, loving, all the things peoplesaythey want but in fact do not because those qualities do not create attraction, then you will not have much luck in terms getting what you want. You then have tobe adjustedto what society deems as attractive, which again has as its roots the economic structure.
Now the real advice. You have two choices. You can truly be yourself. That is, express your own human individuality in your social interactions with people - or again in precise language, express your thoughts and emotions wholly and earnestly in your relationships. Doing this, however, will not get the results you want. Your second choice is in terms ofadjustmentto these behaviors and traits society teaches as attractive ('playing the game'). Doing this means you will not express your own individuality, but you will get better results. Some people have rationalized this choice to such an extent that they think this learned behavior is their true selvesprecisely because it gets the results they want, but make no mistake, it is in fact learned and adjusted behavior.
What is more important to you as a human being entering into social interactions with other human beings? Do you want to express yourself and get less results, or adjust yourself and get better ones? I would make the thesis that the stronger person, is in fact, the one who can overcome results andwants to express himself as himself, but that's another post entirely.
I hope this gives others something to reflect upon and consider when it comes to your relationships with others.
Famm
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 11,041
- 794
Everything about your personality is actually learned and adjusted behavior. Your personality is not some static innate operating system that never needs patches and updates. And you give far too much credit to the influence of the economics. There are most certainly biological triggers at work in every step of sexual interaction. We should understand them and attempt to recognize them in both sexes, not write them off as tainted offshoots of some nebulous nefarious market influence.
Ronaan
Molten Core Raider
- 1,092
- 436
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 46,936
- 100,370
I regularly check out efukt and remember it being on there, sounded like exactly what he was talking about so I had to post it.
TheBeagle
JunkiesNetwork Donor
- 8,981
- 31,215
I can definitely agree with this sentiment.
When I first started the online dating thing, I went with the tried and true cocky, smartass tact. It worked great, I was banging 2 or 3 different girls every month until I got a decent stable of no-commitment booty calls going. After a few months, all those booty calls eventually faded away since I literally would only text them after 8pm and a few beers. Even the most hardened booty call slut will eventually want a little more than that. So I recently had to start over in building up a new stable and thought I would try the sincere, maybe I'll find my one true love approach (lol). Numbers were way down and the couple girls I found got WAY too attached and clingy WAY too fast. Needless to say I'm back to doing my best Archer impression when approaching these corny bitches on POF. And Backpage.com helps keep the edge off as well, heh heh.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 46,936
- 100,370
Women interrupting stereotypical "not giving a shit" for "omg he cant talk/hangout with me? must mean hes curing cancer!" isnt news. Good way to weed out fools/stupid girls though.
Springbok
Karen
- 9,573
- 14,234
Should not have texted for a few weeks. Sounds like a typical young skank who wants to fuck but doesn't want to "feel bad about it". Ignore her and move on - girls like that are idiots.
Pigbenis
Molten Core Raider
- 679
- 279
You know the whole availability thing is interesting to me. I was actually talking with my old man about this the other day. He was telling me when he was "courting" my mom he would go days without calling her. Now that's not really news or anything, but I think in this day and age it's a bit more difficult to pull that off with so many different avenues or communication, at least imo. Case and point, with the suicide girl we talk on google chat, fbook messages, texts, skype, etc. etc. She knows when I'm like working throughout the day when I'm on google chat that if I don't respond to her it's not me not being available, but it's like why didn't you respond. The same goes with texts and everything. To me trying to go a day without responding doesn't look unavailable, just not interested / playing a game.
I think immediately from the get-go these communication barriers need to be set and if you try after the fact to play the less available card it just looks like you're not interested.
I think immediately from the get-go these communication barriers need to be set and if you try after the fact to play the less available card it just looks like you're not interested.