As a mindset for gaming girls, I think this is a useful shortcut. If your frame is already solid, it will give you that "amused mastery" flair that chicks dig.
Not sure if it's actually true, however, especially when it comes to women in relationships.
I've met many married women, secure in their position at home, who acted in a very a rational and cold way. There was nothing in their interaction with their husbands, kids, or colleagues, that would suggest they had any trouble keeping their emotions in check.
Among married men, a domineering wife is a common occurrence. It's the man who allows it to happen but for it to happen, there must be a woman capable of doing so. She will use emotion for sure, and I'll get to that in a bit, but she'll also use reason to plead her case such that the man finds it irresistible. Such as, "if you love me, you're going to want to spend all your free time with me, since the time spent otherwise would indicate that you value other things more than me."
If women indeed were like tall children at all stages of their lives, even weakly beta males would have no trouble keeping them in check, and we know that is not the case.
I've been thinking for this for years now, and am working on a hypothesis that I could call the "reverse butterfly": at the beginning, you start with a beautiful creature (the butterfly), whom you catch (or, does it catch you?), then it goes through a transformation in the cocoon of the LTR/marriage to emerge as ... I don't want to call it a maggot, but it's not as beautiful as it was before, and definitely not as (positively) emotional.
Admittedly this is a rather bizarre analogy but how else can you explain the 70% of divorces initiated by women? A child would certainly not "divorce" the parent unless in the most extreme circumstances.
There was a book that Roosh reviewed a few years ago, "The Manipulated Man" by Ester Villar. The author is a woman, and a feminist to boot, therefore her motivation could and should be questioned, however even after a few readings I find it utterly compelling. It describes women as parasites who'll find the host (the man) whom they can exploit so that they don't have to work and provide for themselves. Any emotions displayed and used in the process are merely a tool to manipulate the man into doing their bidding. A stream of tears you see on a woman's face could be very convincing however her emotional state could be very flat or indeed absent; all the woman is doing is making you obey.
At this point I consider the book's argument to be overblown. It surely is a parody. Or is it? If you have ever been in a marital argument, especially after the thousandth time, you'll start questioning the authenticity of women's emotional displays. The amount of rage is most often out of proportion to its alleged or actual cause. The woman's goal, however, is always clear - she is not wavering. Even in the middle of her outburst, she'll be ready to recite her demands in a most logical way.
Are women really like children? The young ones indeed seem so in an irresistible way. Then, something happens, and they lose this lovable weakness. Usually after they get the ring. Which makes me wonder if it's ever been there at all. If it wasn't just a show to make me fall in love - and commit to her.
--
The above isn't really meant to argue against the OP's points, which I find useful for gaming. I've been thinking about this topic for a long time now and thought this thread might be a good place for me to try to give my thoughts some form - and open them for critique.
Not sure if it's actually true, however, especially when it comes to women in relationships.
I've met many married women, secure in their position at home, who acted in a very a rational and cold way. There was nothing in their interaction with their husbands, kids, or colleagues, that would suggest they had any trouble keeping their emotions in check.
Among married men, a domineering wife is a common occurrence. It's the man who allows it to happen but for it to happen, there must be a woman capable of doing so. She will use emotion for sure, and I'll get to that in a bit, but she'll also use reason to plead her case such that the man finds it irresistible. Such as, "if you love me, you're going to want to spend all your free time with me, since the time spent otherwise would indicate that you value other things more than me."
If women indeed were like tall children at all stages of their lives, even weakly beta males would have no trouble keeping them in check, and we know that is not the case.
I've been thinking for this for years now, and am working on a hypothesis that I could call the "reverse butterfly": at the beginning, you start with a beautiful creature (the butterfly), whom you catch (or, does it catch you?), then it goes through a transformation in the cocoon of the LTR/marriage to emerge as ... I don't want to call it a maggot, but it's not as beautiful as it was before, and definitely not as (positively) emotional.
Admittedly this is a rather bizarre analogy but how else can you explain the 70% of divorces initiated by women? A child would certainly not "divorce" the parent unless in the most extreme circumstances.
There was a book that Roosh reviewed a few years ago, "The Manipulated Man" by Ester Villar. The author is a woman, and a feminist to boot, therefore her motivation could and should be questioned, however even after a few readings I find it utterly compelling. It describes women as parasites who'll find the host (the man) whom they can exploit so that they don't have to work and provide for themselves. Any emotions displayed and used in the process are merely a tool to manipulate the man into doing their bidding. A stream of tears you see on a woman's face could be very convincing however her emotional state could be very flat or indeed absent; all the woman is doing is making you obey.
At this point I consider the book's argument to be overblown. It surely is a parody. Or is it? If you have ever been in a marital argument, especially after the thousandth time, you'll start questioning the authenticity of women's emotional displays. The amount of rage is most often out of proportion to its alleged or actual cause. The woman's goal, however, is always clear - she is not wavering. Even in the middle of her outburst, she'll be ready to recite her demands in a most logical way.
Are women really like children? The young ones indeed seem so in an irresistible way. Then, something happens, and they lose this lovable weakness. Usually after they get the ring. Which makes me wonder if it's ever been there at all. If it wasn't just a show to make me fall in love - and commit to her.
--
The above isn't really meant to argue against the OP's points, which I find useful for gaming. I've been thinking about this topic for a long time now and thought this thread might be a good place for me to try to give my thoughts some form - and open them for critique.