Sloppy Zhang

And yet, if we follow the line of logic presented by some in this thread, any time you "use language and vocabulary appropriate for a given conversation" you are, in fact, using a "false persona." Instead, you should "be yourself" fully at all times and let the people who like you for you interact with you as they see fit.

This may surprise you, but sometimes the issue on the surface is not actually the main issue. I prefer to cut through the bullshit. This, this is exactly the thing I've been arguing AGAINST. Do you speak to your friends the same as you speak to your boss? Your grandmother? Your 4 year old niece? No. Is that "playing games" and "being someone you're not"? No. Why is speaking differently to a woman you are attracted to and who you want to start a relationship with suddenly "playing games" and "being someone you're not"? How is it any different than the way we modulate our behavior in any other social situation? Serious question. I have given my own opinions on these questions. Seems like they were ignored. Since they make the posts too long, I'll just leave the question out there. I need to go meet up with a girl I'm "gaming." Peace.

Nice try, but that's not the thought process. If sex isn't your thing, it isn't your thing. But coming into a thread bemoaning the current state of sexual affairs and then stating that you're a 24 year old virgin and most people think that's kind of weird but you're toooooootally okay with it, yup, nothing to see here, just another 24 year old virgin who's completely okay with being a virgin in this hyper sexualized society that I don't even want to be a part of. Hm, what's that phrase? "the lady doth protest too much"? You know what man, you're right. Totally right. Absolutely. Yup. I missed it big time. Then on to the next issue. Or maybe he doesn't have any other issues, and after he gets laid he'll be totally enlightened. Wouldn't that be swell? I don't know man, everyone is different. Yeah, man, you're right. He's a 24 year old virgin by choice. Yup. That's why he's so totally okay with it. Because the way he's been interacting with women has been 100% successful and it's HIS choice that's kept him a virgin until age 24, which he is obviously totally okay with, as evidenced by his statements in this thread. You're right man, I get way too analytical sometimes. You really helped me out. [edit] I see your post above Creation. I truly hope you come to peace in whatever way you find the best. However, since we've both been around TTB's, I do hope you can accept my sincerest opinions outlined above. Maybe accepting sex and, dare I say it, going for it is the better spiritual act for you. But then again, maybe it isn't. Only you can know. I hope that you are brutally honest in everything you do.

Creation talks a lot about being a "24 year old virgin." Does that sound like someone who is liberated, or on the path to liberation to you? Because to me it sounds like someone who is fixated on sex and insecure about not getting laid. My advice to someone like that? Fuck spirituality. Get laid. Get to the root of the problem and fix it. Don't pretend like you're rising above anything.

The matrix analogies (agent smith, being neo, rising above, etc) are all incredibly interesting and a bit ironic to me. Agent Smith was a program created by the machines to enslave and exploit humanity. He feel disgusted by humanity because he is *not* human. One should not strive to be like Agent Smith in the real world. It makes me sad that Creation identifies with Agent Smith. Because to be on Agent Smith's side is to be against your own humanity. The human world (in the Matrix films) is dirty, disgusting, cold, and violent, but ultimately more desirable than the fake "paradise" of the Matrix. Humans would rather exist in a dirty and imperfect world of their own design than a perfect falsehood created by others. (Smith reveals that the first Matrix was a paradise and failed, humans naturally tend to gravitate toward suffering, we like the struggle, we like accomplishment) Humans are flighty, selfish, disgusting creatures. But we are also beautiful in our own imperfections. The more girls I "game", the more they open up to me in ways they would never open up to either "nice guys" (who don't know how to manage transitions between different states) or "douchebags" (who only know how to push for what they want). And I'm not just talking about physically opening- mentally, emotionally, spiritually, intellectually. My appreciation for women (and their appreciation for me) has grown dramatically because I have actually studied and learned (from men and women) how women think and behave and what they look at in relationships. Neo is also not the goal. Why? Because Neo has to go into the Matrix to be Neo. Neo has to subject himself to the fake world. Why do you want to be king of the fakes? Likewise, why would I want to sequester myself on a mountain, in a monastery, or inside of my own mind just so I can be the "one" and a master of my own little tiny realm? That's a sure fire way to be the only "one" in your life. That is not mastery, it is not transcendence. It is plugging yourself into a world where you can make your own rules and calling that transcendence. Let's snap back to reality. Oh, there goes gravity!

Er, um, I don't believe in getting laid just for the sake of being laid, and I don't teach "be a douchebag" paradigm I know that sometimes it's easier to simplify other peoples' arguments so they fit into our own paradigms, though. Also, my posts do tend to be on the long side, so I understand that many people in the threads I've participated in seem to skim them, hear the words "douchebag," "asshole," "bad boy," "chicks," "laid," "sex" and decide to fill in the argument for me, again using their own paradigm. I can't say I'm completely self satisfied. There's a lot I can do better in my life. But I'm a hell of a lot more satisfied now than I was having sour grapes and complaining about my virginity and how annoying and dumb women/society/other guys/whatever are.

Sexuality is determined by culture. Which has changed. You can't play by the old rules in the modern day. You'll lose every time. Or at the very least, you'll be losing until you find someone else who's playing the same game. Learn the rules of the modern game. There are good people out there, there are good women out there. They're just playing by a different set of rules. Once you can both speak the same language, life gets a lot better. Trust me, I was heading in the same direction as you were not too long ago. Then I learned the rules. My interactions with women started to be a lot better. I became a lot happier. I got my first girlfriend. Life just seemed to keep getting better. Yeah, it's a different language and a different set of rules. You can learn them and win the game. Or you can keep losing and feel like shit.

This is interesting. From what I saw, the guys she asked were pretty equally represented from all levels of attractiveness. She asked some stereotypically good looking guys (tall, muscular), she asked some short, shrimpy guys, she asked some average height/averaged weight guys, some heavier people, a questionably gay guy, and an alternative guy. The only guys who said "no" were the guys in relationships or who might have been gay. The guys who laughed at her were laughing in disbelief that a girl (a fairly good looking one at that!) was approaching THEM for sex! They agreed because, well, a pretty girl wants to have sex with them! One kid was like "I hope I'm not getting robbed" but STILL went with her because girls never approach guys for sex! Conversely, when the guy asked those girls, they all laughed at him because they knew he was NEVER going to get any from them! Interestingly, the guy was not an unattractive guy. If he had run a bit of "game", flirted a bit, started a conversation, went for a number, kept talking, he could have easily gotten a kiss/makeout from several of the girls, could have invited them out for drinks, back to his place, and could have actually had sex with a few of them. A few of the girls did admit that he was attractive, and none of them were hostile to his initial approach. So for any guys watching, the takeaway is not "don't approach women.". The takeaway is also not "don't ask a direct question"- many of the girls asked him to qualify his question, and it's only after he was adamant that he was JUST asking for sex did they tell him "no." Do approach women, and don't be afraid of asking a bold opening question, because most of them will give you a shot. If you don't act in a way they'll like, they won't have sex with you, even if they would have sex with you in different circumstances.

It happened again! Still interested in magic and powers Unfortunately going to work and paying rent takes up most of the day to day. Plus going out with friends and ladies. Practice every day, but probably not enough to get powers, which I'm still after.

Well I went out last night Drinks, inappropriate dancing, back to my girl's place, wake up, leave, come back, back to sleep, wake up, eat, post... Going out again tonight

Depends on their looks, too (mike said he's going after only 10's) I've found that girls who are attractive (or were attractive in their formative years, middle school and high school) just go through life having things handed to them just for showing up. People like them and give them things. People help them out more than they help out other (non attractive) people. They rarely have to pay their own way (through money or through work) and they don't really have to work on bettering themselves (on a personal level or an intellectual level). Yeah, sometimes it's hard striking up intelligent conversations with women who have been beautiful their whole lives. They haven't had to. Instead many of those types of women just seek out thrills. Now I'm going to say something maybe crazy! The nicest and smarted women I have known and still know are women who are either: 1) Not conventionally attractive 2) Were not conventionally attractive during their formative years (middle school/high school) Interestingly, the same can be said about guys!!! The attractive guys who were pursued by girls and who were the "popular" kids are more likely to be douchebags. The guys who were the fat kids growing up, the kids who were picked on, who had late growth spurts, etc, are the nicest and most down to earth guys (even if they later grow into their bodies and their personalities). Why? They had to work for it.

I'd say the differences between men and women exist throughout the relationship process- Initial meeting ("pickup"), relationship building, interactions with others (other guys/other girls/mutual friends/your friends/her friends/her family/your family). These differences can manifest themselves as mike describes, and actually continue through the relationship (to varying degrees). The trap is assuming that these traits are always going to remain constant and in the same ratios. They are going to be changing constantly. As a result, your behavior must change constantly. Sure, (some?) women complain about men being lazy sexist bastards only thinking with their small head.... Yet somehow they wind up dating the same type of guy over and over. Hm. Obviously the men are doing something right in the initial phase (meeting/pickup phase) but either do something wrong, or continue doing the same things they did in phase 1 that doesn't work in phase 2 (say, building a relationship, being a good partner, etc) So it may or may not be fair to say "well your perspective on women would change if you knew them for more than one night, or if they were the mother of your children" or some variant on that. The underlying modes of thinking are still going to be there- just expressed in different ways. [edit] Some people can handle this naturally without thinking, and can do so for various reasons. You could have a traditional "good man" who has a respectable job, he's a reliable guy to all of his friends, tall, good looking, and naturally energetic and outgoing. The tall, good looking, outgoing personally is naturally attractive to the woman in the initial meeting/"pickup", and as they continue to see each other his natural ability to provide for others, act as a considerate leader, etc, means she's more likely to stick around with this "long term mate." Conversely you can have the "douchebag" who is tall and good looking and as a result has had historically a lot of sex with women- so he has bolstered confidence and a fearless approach. This can also be attractive to women in the initial meet/pickup. This guy approaches her even though she might have been talking to other female/male friends. He's not intimidated by putting himself "out there." Then, as the relationship continues, his fundamental self centered ness makes him poor relationship material, and the woman breaks up because he's a "lazy self centered sexist pig only interested in one thing." The incredibly irony is that many women are stuck with the fantasy of men making the first move (read through even just the OP, as well as many of the scenarios that, say, Bagua Kicks Ass puts forward, many of them have the guys making the approach/hitting on/flirting with her). Many "considerate" men will see a woman and think: "Oh she's taken," or "oh she doesn't want to be bothered" or "oh she's out with her friends she doesn't want guys bothering her." Meanwhile, many "douchebags" will see a woman and think: "Yeah she wants the d." So guess who is more likely to approach women? Douchebags. This is the truth I had to learn myself and force myself to start approaching women. Which, interestingly, leads to meeting more women and starting more relationships Since, for some reason, women don't really approach men even if they're checking them out... (anticipates barrages of exceptions)

Well it was good talking to everyone I'm going out for the weekend!!!!!!!!!!

First, I'm a very smart guy so it's not too much for me. Second, I've always been good at reading situations and people. I just never knew what to look for. Third, practice You can even use the Taoist principle of "separate and combine." Maybe for one night, or one week, just practice approaching. Or just practice telling a good story. Or just practice asking the right questions. Or just practice inviting her to another bar, or dinner, or just asking for her number, or just meeting her friends. Something like that. Have a plan of something you want to emphasize, and do it. Fourth, practice. In my case, I had most of the right elements already. I was already good at talking to people and making them laugh and being good friends with them. My weaknesses were the initial approach, and escalating. I got "friend zoned" by a lot of girls but I never could tell when she wanted me to make the move. I was raised in a very feminist family. The stuff I've done to start dating some of the girls I've dated, mm, maybe mother would not approve? But the girls sure did I'll say another thing- The fact that you were an athlete says a lot about you. One of my major eye opening experiences was playing basketball in high school. Damn did the girls CHASE me! Girls like athletes. For a lot of different reasons, I'm sure. But girls who I NEVER would have gotten on my own pursued ME because I was on the school sports team. Crazy! (Unfortunately back then I didn't know how to handle that, I didn't know what to do, and didn't get the women I could have gotten back then... oh well, lessons learned!) Boys who grow up playing sports, or are regular members of sports teams (and I mean like, school sports teams, where social status can be easily leveraged) learn whole different interactions with women because girls/women make themselves available to these boys/young men. The lessons they learn earlier are different and they become internalized. Namely, that girls are approachable, girls like them, girls are easy to talk to. Plus they get lots of practice. These boys don't really have to *try* so they learn "just be yourself.* Different from the mathlete kids, to be sure

It doesn't matter whether or someone is consciously doing it or not, the successful guy is going to do the same things that other successful guys do (good guys, douche bags, whatever) and the successful guy is going to be doing the things that unsuccessful guys AREN'T doing. The intent, or lack of intent, is not the determining factor, it's the moves that he's making. I change my behavior and I tell my friends to change their behavior so we do the things that guys who are "naturally" good with women do. The guys who are "naturals" don't think about it, in their mind they're just "doing their thing." Really, their actions are the same as ours. Ironically, the more you practice, the more "natural" it becomes until it becomes a part of you. The difference between us "new naturals" and the "natural naturals" is that we know what we did, we understand the process. The other guys are "just going with it." Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, but they don't really know why. But at the end of the day, the actions taken and the results received are the same.

Are you sure that wasn't the LOCH NESS MONSTER???

Mm, I don't know man, my argument hasn't changed much. My wording and my approach has, though. I think the douchebag and the good guy approach and mechanics are fundamentally the same. So, yeah, the good guy getting attraction from women is going to be doing the same things the douchebag is doing. The ratios, the scope, the scale, the intensity, it all varies, and that's why we have the different "types" of guys. On some level, yeah, some women are just not going to be into you. And on some level, yeah, some women are going to really be into you. But this: I don't think is accurate and it comes down to language use. "Using tactics" implies that the guy is consciously making a certain "play." This may or may not be the case. Regardless of whether or not the guy is using "tactics," the mechanics he uses (consciously or subconsciously) the underlying man/woman interaction, is going to be unchanged. THAT is what I think there is great benefit in studying, understanding, and teaching.

As surprising as this may sound to some of this thread's readership, easiness doesn't appeal to me. I'll let you make of that sentence what you will

Oh no man, you're going in the wrong way! I thought we were close The mechanics used to pick up a woman at a bar and have sex with her that same night and never see her again are the same mechanics used to meet a girl, have a successful 3 dates, have nice sex, keep seeing her, bring her around the friends and family, marry, and continue to have a fulfilling (lifelong?) relationship. Or whatever your picture of a relationship is It's about how you apply those mechanics, what ratios you use, how and where you act, that determine where you'll fall on the spectrum of Douchebag <-------------------> Good guy. From an outside observer looking in, and in this case I mean someone who is not good with women, who has never kissed a girl, had sex, dated a girl, or been in any sort of relationship (short or long term, sexual or non-sexual) with an individual woman, these mechanics are a mystery. If he asks a douchebag or if he asks a good guy how they are successful with women, they'll both say: "I don't know man, just be yourself." To which our 30 year old virgin will respond "that's what I've been doing."

Haha, maybe it was a mistake?? Hopefully it's just a matter of a few degrees of where that post fell on the spectrum of this discussion. I find it so funny, sometimes when I talk to people, that we can say the exact same things but if we tweak it just a little differently, we can sound like we are on completely other sides! Earlier you made a post about your friends who were good with women and I agreed 100% with your posts. But at the same time I was in 100% agreement with some of Dorian's posts. I'm not looking at whether someone is a "nice guy" or a "douchebag" or whatever. I'm looking at the mechanics of their interactions with women. These mechanics can lead to healthy or toxic human relationships. They can lead to one night stands or can lead to long term fulfilling monogamous relationships. I also think it depends from which side you approach the situation. It's hard for me to explain because I sometimes think about things in a weird way But you can approach it from the angle of the "douchebags" and why they are so good at "banging sluts." You can approach it from the "best guys you'll ever meet" who are so "good at meeting women and starting relationships." I think the underlying mechanics are going to be the same, it's about the applications of those mechanics that determine where on that spectrum you'll fall. Just a little bit this way, you're Dorian Black dominating guys at the discotheque. Just a little bit this way, you're the stand up guy respectfully dating his long term girlfriend. Ironically, if you ask both of those guys what their secret is, they'll probably say the same thing: just be yourself

It's not that you're disagreeing, it's that you're missing a very subtle point

Is it bad if I like a post that just agrees with mine? it's like liking your own posts.... I'm all about self love though

And this is the crux of my point. What is the difference between unconsciously shifting behavior- between talking to your boss to your friends to your family, and consciously shifting behavior to talk to women? Some boys learned this behavior from a young age- they were surrounded by women, they learned how to talk to women. And so, they put on a different "mask" and most of the time it isn't even conscious. And so, when they "be themselves" they have success. But not all boys went through that process. In which case, they have to learn that behavior, and consciously apply it. How is that any less genuine than what people do all the time anyway? I argue that it's not. I argue that telling people to just "go with the flow" might be counter productive if they don't know how to even be "in the flow" (talk competently with the opposite sex) in the first place! Is it a "false persona" when you don't swear around your boss? Is it a "false persona" when you tease a girl in a way that you wouldn't tease your best friend? In both cases I argue no. Will doing the same things as a douchebag get you better success with women than doing other things? Yes. Do I think you have to be a douchebag? No. Do I think speaking to the opposite sex in ways they find appealing is manipulative? No. Do I think this automatically makes the interaction disingenuous? No, and I think it's incredibly hypocritical to think so, and detrimental to some out there to say such. If you ask your buddies who are good with women how they're good with women, they'll shrug and say "I don't know, be yourself." It's worked out for them and it has worked out for you. What do I tell my buddies who aren't good with women? I tell them to act like a douchebag, or an asshole. Why? Because after 25 odd years of virginity and no close female friends, it's obvious that "being themselves" is not a very good route to starting an interpersonal relationship with the opposite sex. And you know what? These guys are HAPPIER after they have had successful interactions with women. Because not being able to interact successfully with women, and not knowing WHY, is not a very pleasant way to live life.

I agree it's a very fine point. What's that saying, "a matter of a few degrees"? Just a few degrees off in one area and you have the difference between a "genuine guy" who is just "good with women" and a "dominant asshole" beating up other guys to fuck their girlfriends. I don't agree with, say, Dorian Black's methods, but I do agree that they work. I wouldn't personally use them, because I'm not after meaningless sex. But if I was talking to someone who did just want sex, I'd give them the option, and tell them why it works. I'd wager a large amount of people on this "spiritual forum" are not after anything spiritual. Instead, they have just denied (or society has just denied) what they really want- money, status, power, respect, women, self esteem, whatever- for so long, that they use spirituality as an outlet or an excuse. It's the same reason we see so many "solo cultivation"threads, where really it's just horny young men looking to masturbate without the same, so they try to make it spiritual. I say cut the crap. If you want sex, just say you want sex and go get it. But I also want to cut the crap in the other direction. Yes, there are plenty of "good guys" out there who are "good with women" who are just "being themselves." And there are plenty of guys out there who are "being themselves" and are lifelong virgins. Telling them to be themselves and be genuine and not "play games" can be hurtful and confusing, and is simply not true. There are things that men can do which women find attractive, and those are the common threads between the "douchebags," "assholes," "bad boys," and "nice guys" who get laid or have long term relationships which involve sexuality (because upping your notch count and being in a long term relationship with a single woman who wants to have sex with you is on the same spectrum, just like how your pals and Dorian Black are on the same spectrum; it's a matter of a few degrees) The trick is to read between the lines and find out what it is women really find attractive when they say "I just want a guy who can come up to me, strike up a good conversation, buy me a book/drink/coffee, and then ask me out." Hint: It's not buying the book. And telling people it is the book is counter productive, and every time someone says it's about buying the book, I'll call bullshit and make no apologies. Just like I'll call bullshit on anyone who says being an asshole, being a douchebag, playing games, and whathaveyou "doesn't work." Because it does. And modulating your behavior based on the situation does not exclude you from being able to have a fulfilling long term relationship with a human being. In fact, I've had many fulfilling interpersonal encounters that would NEVER have happened if I hadn't learned the rules of the game. And I will never apologize for it.

I'm not the type of person who believes that spirituality is so far separated from this life that we're in now. In fact, I believe they are both tightly intertwined. Human relationships, sex, sexuality, plays a HUGE part in our lives and is one of our most primal desires (the desire to love and be loved, to procreate, etc) There is no other place BUT a spiritual forum to discuss these things. How does anyone hope to manager greater spiritual awareness if they can't get over a little sex talk? Ah, and here we have something interesting! As long as these "games" only exist "early on" in the "mating dance," or as long as "some" of these "truths" only apply to the "drunk teen and 20 something" crowd, then we can safely ignore them, pretend that we are above them, that if you just "be yourself" you'll find the person "you deserve" and "who deserves you." But we all change our behavior in different circumstances, from the way we look, dress, behave, speak, what we speak about, who we associate with, etc. You don't talk with your mates the same way you talk to your parents, and you don't talk to your parents the way you talk to your grandparents, your teacher, a child, your lover, your lover's parents, your lover's ex. Different human relationships means different behavior on your part. The only people who don't change their behavior in different social situations are those unable to read social cues. What makes it so uncomfortable to think that changing one's behavior can change the way one approaches, or is approached by, the opposite sex? Does it disrupt our social narrative that love is always honest and true? That beneath all of our biology and social conditioning there is a true and incorruptible human spirit which years to find its soul's mate? Maybe it's just the language? You wouldn't tell your friend to "be a douchebag and bang that hottie" over there, but would you tell him to "man up and strike up a conversation with her"? Well do you really think that a teen or 20 something male (not a small demographic on this board, if "the usual suspects" (of which I am sure i am one) are an accurate representation) really wants to just TALK to the girl? Really wants to just go out for dinner? How about we home in on what they (we?) really want: Sex. Someone to love. Someone to love us. Someone to spend time with. Someone to hold and cuddle up with when its cold outside. Someone to show off to our friends and family and society to prove that we're worth, it, we've done something with our lives. Someone to take of us when we feel sick. Whatever floats your boat. Why don't we cut through the bullshit and just admit what we really want (might be variable amongst people) and why don't we admit what REALLY gets you what you want. Is buying a book going to get you _____? Is "being a man" going to get you ______? Is "being a douche" going to get you ______?