[soup]

Biggest myth in the world is that women are individuals. They aren't. They are robots. If you have the right code, you can crack them. If you don't, you see the as singular creatures.

Women are most like fruit. A very few are memorable, and most will rot in a week.

[Tengen]

Preaching to the converted.

Seriously though, did some chick flake on you?

[bojangles]

NAWALT blah blah, you're right

[soup]

(11-27-2012 06:21 AM)Tengen Wrote:  

Preaching to the converted.

Seriously though, did some chick flake on you?

I'm of the mind that it's up to me whether or not the game works. So, no, chicks can't flake; that's like saying a computer can flake.

[soup]

(11-27-2012 06:27 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

NAWALT blah blah, you're right

Yes, they are. I'd bet all the money in the world.

[Prophylaxis]

The same could be said about men to an extent.

Understanding women should not equate to hating women.

I think this attitude can become toxic when it comes to picking up and/or forming relationships.

[Pacesetter20]

This reminds me of a roissy/hearstise post that women are the ultimate herd creatures

[bojangles]

(11-27-2012 06:33 AM)soup Wrote:  

(11-27-2012 06:27 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

NAWALT blah blah, you're right

Yes, they are. I'd bet all the money in the world.

I was agreeing with you haha, any other place and NAWALT would be the response.

[j r]

This may be taking things a bit too far. Most women have the same attraction triggers, which is why game works. Even when those triggers ate different, you can figure out what they are and still run some kind of game. This does not mean that all women are the same. It just means that there are some near universal aspects of being human and of being female.

If you show a group of men picture of a hot naked woman, most of them are going to get boners and start thinking about fucking her. Does that mean that men are not individuals?

[soup]

(11-27-2012 06:50 AM)Prophylaxis Wrote:  

The same could be said about men to an extent.

Understanding women should not equate to hating women.

I think this attitude can become toxic when it comes to picking up and/or forming relationships.

No hate. Understanding them as having less of a capability to be individuals than men is the conclusion I've come to at the point I'm at in the game. I believe this is deeper empathy than trying to impose something on them that they are not.

Of course there are the stand-outs, but these are usually women who are more manly.

In general, they really do follow the herd mentality.

I see most of my failures occurring when I treat them as individuals.

[Prowl]

All people are individuals, yet all people are susceptible to manipulation via a handful of common methods. Girls arent any easier to manipulate than guys are, and both have their purposes.

[soup]

(11-27-2012 11:25 AM)Prowl Wrote:  

All people are individuals, yet all people are susceptible to manipulation via a handful of common methods. Girls arent any easier to manipulate than guys are, and both have their purposes.

I believe that there are shades of free-will. Most women and guys who aren't in the game can be easily manipulated with such mechanic precision that it calls into question their individuality, or at least the fantastical concept of individuality that is used to sell stuff in America.

[soup]

(11-27-2012 07:10 AM)j r Wrote:  

This may be taking things a bit too far. Most women have the same attraction triggers, which is why game works. Even when those triggers ate different, you can figure out what they are and still run some kind of game. This does not mean that all women are the same. It just means that there are some near universal aspects of being human and of being female.

If you show a group of men picture of a hot naked woman, most of them are going to get boners and start thinking about fucking her. Does that mean that men are not individuals?

I think that a lot of men forfeit the majority of individuality as well, or might be incapable of experiencing it as a result of either their nature or nurture. My hope is that this will change.

[tenderman100]

Hmm...doesn't every pussy look and taste at least a WEE bit different?

Anyway, I will say this on the dynamic of women vs men.

Women are prone to groupthink but on a very superficial level. Their concepts of the man-woman dynamic are cliched in the extreme. They want "their soul mate" their "last first kiss." They want a "good hearted man" who is "in touch with his emotions." They want him "strong and confident" but also "kind and romantic." Of course, then we have the last man they had who at first had these "qualities" but now is out of the picture because, well, they "grew apart." Then she jumps in the sack with another guy, because "it just happened."

These are the herd utterances, the things you see on all the on-line profiles about what THEY want. These phrases are rife with content for women, but at root entirely meaningless. It's vapid in the extreme.

But while the conceptual framework, if you can call it that, is collective, responses to this guy or that guy are individualistic.

Men, on the other hand, use harder more solid and more objective criteria to evaluate women. Is she hot? Does she like to fuck? Does she do standard woman flaking or is she bipolar and manic? Sure she is going to be an attention whore, but it is it manageable? Get a group of reasonable guys together and they will pretty much coalesce their opinions about some babe based on these assessable criteria.

[soup]

(11-27-2012 11:53 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

Hmm...doesn't every pussy look and taste at least a WEE bit different?

Anyway, I will say this on the dynamic of women vs men.

Women are prone to groupthink but on a very superficial level. Their concepts of the man-woman dynamic are cliched in the extreme. They want "their soul mate" their "last first kiss." They want a "good hearted man" who is "in touch with his emotions." They want him "strong and confident" but also "kind and romantic." Of course, then we have the last man they had who at first had these "qualities" but now is out of the picture because, well, they "grew apart." Then she jumps in the sack with another guy, because "it just happened."

These are the herd utterances, the things you see on all the on-line profiles about what THEY want. These phrases are rife with content for women, but at root entirely meaningless. It's vapid in the extreme.

But while the conceptual framework, if you can call it that, is collective, responses to this guy or that guy are individualistic.

Men, on the other hand, use harder more solid and more objective criteria to evaluate women. Is she hot? Does she like to fuck? Does she do standard woman flaking or is she bipolar and manic? Sure she is going to be an attention whore, but it is it manageable? Get a group of reasonable guys together and they will pretty much coalesce their opinions about some babe based on these assessable criteria.

It feels weird for me to say this because I've been raised to think think that everyone is unique and special in some way, but my experience has shown me that individuality is not a 100% given, and there is a tipping point. I often see game as a fight to assert my own individuality.

I'm seeing this more and more as a man's struggle; I've noticed that most women are happier being led around. This is true to the extent that if try to do so and fail, you are deemed creepy.

I think the same can be said for a lot of guys as well, but I've never been insulted by another man for failing in a leadership role. I don't know if this is social conditioning or if there are inherent leader/follower traits, or a mix of both.

[soup]

(11-27-2012 06:21 AM)Tengen Wrote:  

Preaching to the converted.

Seriously though, did some chick flake on you?

I actually don't get flaked on that often. I can't remember that last time I made plans with a chick and she didn't show up.

[captaingeneric]

Womants may be the term you're looking for.

[Branimir]

i disagree . sure there are many that are basically like 'programs' where you just have to push the right buttons .
but there's alot of exceptions.
like me , i'm sure we all know atleast one girl we have a friend/relationship with , where pua/ roosh theories didn't apply at all but were to be proven false over and over again.

[soup]

(11-27-2012 07:32 PM)Branimir Wrote:  

i disagree . sure there are many that are basically like 'programs' where you just have to push the right buttons .
but there's alot of exceptions.
like me , i'm sure we all know atleast one girl we have a friend/relationship with , where pua/ roosh theories didn't apply at all but were to be proven false over and over again.

Yes, I sort of do, and they are all lesbians. But, game works on them too.

I used to think that cats were all unique as well. But, as I got older, I realized that they are all pretty much the same, or have little variation in behavior.

You really start to notice this stuff when you find yourself having almost the exact same conversation with girls over and over again. It's like the movie Groundhog Day.

[RASER]

(11-27-2012 06:03 AM)soup Wrote:  

They are robots. If you have the right code, you can crack them.

Please supply the nuke codes so they will have sex with me immediatly and i/we do not have to go through layers of nonsense and bases to get full/proper action and a home run...lol



"Lifes about, shooting your load"

[TheMan]

(11-27-2012 06:27 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

NAWALT blah blah, you're right

NAWALT?

[Pappy]

I tend to agree with the conclusion of the OP. The problem with women individuality is that their beliefs, values and behaviors are strongly dependent upon the present moment. Which is the same as saying they don't really have them. A woman who is righteous, egalitarian and who has strong opinions, except when you sweet talk her out of it, is not really righteous, egalitarian and strong.

[ryanf]

(01-19-2013 01:08 PM)TheMan Wrote:  

(11-27-2012 06:27 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

NAWALT blah blah, you're right

NAWALT?

Not
All
Women
Are
Like
That

NAWALT. Usually spoken by women who are exactly like that.

[FunctionalPsycho]

(01-19-2013 01:52 PM)Pappy Wrote:  

I tend to agree with the conclusion of the OP. The problem with women individuality is that their beliefs, values and behaviors are strongly dependent upon the present moment. Which is the same as saying they don't really have them. A woman who is righteous, egalitarian and who has strong opinions, except when you sweet talk her out of it, is not really righteous, egalitarian and strong.

This. If don't stand for your beliefs and morals at all times, they are meaningless and just hobbies. They might be individuals but they are weak willed and don't mind being led; of course no woman will ever say that or admit it to herself.

@soup, could you please change your avatar. It's giving me a boner.

[Low Status Beta]

(11-27-2012 07:00 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

This reminds me of a roissy/hearstise post that women are the ultimate herd creatures

I would say it has someting to do with evolutionary/survival instinct. Since woman cant really defend themselves, they cant roll solo like men.