Thank you!
[quote]imhungry wrote:
Wow. Women don’t know a damn thing.
It’s a good that men are here to lead them to a happy and fulfilling life they didn’t even know they wanted.
You’re welcome.[/quote]
I know this is sarcastic but isn’t there some truth to it? I mean I have yet to find a women who does not want a man who leads.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Chivers and colleagues reviewed more than 130 studies published between 1969 and 2007 involving participants’ arousal responses. In total, the review included more than 2,500 women and 1,900 men.
Men’s subjective ratings of arousal were in agreement with their body’s level of sexual arousal about 66 percent of the time, while women’s were in line only about 26 percent of the time.
“The general pattern that I have seen in my laboratory is that women experience a genital response but do not report feeling sexually aroused,” Chivers told LiveScience. [/quote]
Call me crazy, but is it possible this study more accurately measured women’s willingness to ADMIT to arousal than to recognize it? I mean, 1969? Headline: STUDY PROVES THAT WOMEN RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS NOT GOOD GIRLS
[/quote]
Na, there is this artificial phallus thing that can measure lubrication and swelling-
Women simply dont know.
Unless they are simply so prone to lie when it comes to sex that it amounts to the same thing:
Dont listen to women how to get laid.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Chivers and colleagues reviewed more than 130 studies published between 1969 and 2007 involving participants’ arousal responses. In total, the review included more than 2,500 women and 1,900 men.
Men’s subjective ratings of arousal were in agreement with their body’s level of sexual arousal about 66 percent of the time, while women’s were in line only about 26 percent of the time.
“The general pattern that I have seen in my laboratory is that women experience a genital response but do not report feeling sexually aroused,” Chivers told LiveScience. [/quote]
Call me crazy, but is it possible this study more accurately measured women’s willingness to ADMIT to arousal than to recognize it? I mean, 1969? Headline: STUDY PROVES THAT WOMEN RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS NOT GOOD GIRLS
[/quote]
Na, there is this artificial phallus thing that can measure lubrication and swelling-
Women simply dont know.
Unless they are simply so prone to lie when it comes to sex that it amounts to the same thing:
Dont listen to women how to get laid.
[/quote]
I believe they were aroused, what I question is whether twentieth century taboos for women were strong enough that they looked at pictures or video and denied the arousal. Man spanking and pulling woman’s hair? Er, no. No, does nothing for me. Rape scene? No, no! NOTHING. Gang bang? ~faint~
That’s not lying, that’s exhibiting the engrained attitudes that society demanded at the time. Women’s thoughts regarding sex and arousal have been monitored and punished since forever. I hear the word “slut” from teens at least once a week. And never in a “you go girl!” way.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Chivers and colleagues reviewed more than 130 studies published between 1969 and 2007 involving participants’ arousal responses. In total, the review included more than 2,500 women and 1,900 men.
Men’s subjective ratings of arousal were in agreement with their body’s level of sexual arousal about 66 percent of the time, while women’s were in line only about 26 percent of the time.
“The general pattern that I have seen in my laboratory is that women experience a genital response but do not report feeling sexually aroused,” Chivers told LiveScience. [/quote]
Call me crazy, but is it possible this study more accurately measured women’s willingness to ADMIT to arousal than to recognize it? I mean, 1969? Headline: STUDY PROVES THAT WOMEN RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS NOT GOOD GIRLS
[/quote]
Na, there is this artificial phallus thing that can measure lubrication and swelling-
Women simply dont know.
Unless they are simply so prone to lie when it comes to sex that it amounts to the same thing:
Dont listen to women how to get laid.
[/quote]
I believe they were aroused, what I question is whether twentieth century taboos for women were strong enough that they looked at pictures or video and denied the arousal. Man spanking and pulling woman’s hair? Er, no. No, does nothing for me. Rape scene? No, no! NOTHING. Gang bang? ~faint~
That’s not lying, that’s exhibiting the engrained attitudes that society demanded at the time. Women’s thoughts regarding sex and arousal have been monitored and punished since forever. I hear the word “slut” from teens at least once a week. And never in a “you go girl!” way.
[/quote]
So, you agree?
Cause societal norms do not work on the bonaz.
Lesson: Dont listen to women when it comes to how to get laid.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Chivers and colleagues reviewed more than 130 studies published between 1969 and 2007 involving participants’ arousal responses. In total, the review included more than 2,500 women and 1,900 men.
Men’s subjective ratings of arousal were in agreement with their body’s level of sexual arousal about 66 percent of the time, while women’s were in line only about 26 percent of the time.
“The general pattern that I have seen in my laboratory is that women experience a genital response but do not report feeling sexually aroused,” Chivers told LiveScience. [/quote]
Call me crazy, but is it possible this study more accurately measured women’s willingness to ADMIT to arousal than to recognize it? I mean, 1969? Headline: STUDY PROVES THAT WOMEN RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS NOT GOOD GIRLS
[/quote]
Na, there is this artificial phallus thing that can measure lubrication and swelling-
Women simply dont know.
Unless they are simply so prone to lie when it comes to sex that it amounts to the same thing:
Dont listen to women how to get laid.
[/quote]
I believe they were aroused, what I question is whether twentieth century taboos for women were strong enough that they looked at pictures or video and denied the arousal. Man spanking and pulling woman’s hair? Er, no. No, does nothing for me. Rape scene? No, no! NOTHING. Gang bang? ~faint~
That’s not lying, that’s exhibiting the engrained attitudes that society demanded at the time. Women’s thoughts regarding sex and arousal have been monitored and punished since forever. I hear the word “slut” from teens at least once a week. And never in a “you go girl!” way.
[/quote]
So, you agree?
Cause societal norms do not work on the bonaz.
Lesson: Dont listen to women when it comes to how to get laid.
[/quote]
I’m calling it junk science. Do you call that agreeing? If so, then sure, I agree.
Personally, I feel that I’ve always recognized arousal in myself. I remember very clearly the first time it happened (found a book in my parents’ closet).
Recognition is a very different thing from being comfortable with the arousal or telling others what caused it.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Chivers and colleagues reviewed more than 130 studies published between 1969 and 2007 involving participants’ arousal responses. In total, the review included more than 2,500 women and 1,900 men.
Men’s subjective ratings of arousal were in agreement with their body’s level of sexual arousal about 66 percent of the time, while women’s were in line only about 26 percent of the time.
“The general pattern that I have seen in my laboratory is that women experience a genital response but do not report feeling sexually aroused,” Chivers told LiveScience. [/quote]
Call me crazy, but is it possible this study more accurately measured women’s willingness to ADMIT to arousal than to recognize it? I mean, 1969? Headline: STUDY PROVES THAT WOMEN RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS NOT GOOD GIRLS
[/quote]
Na, there is this artificial phallus thing that can measure lubrication and swelling-
Women simply dont know.
Unless they are simply so prone to lie when it comes to sex that it amounts to the same thing:
Dont listen to women how to get laid.
[/quote]
I believe they were aroused, what I question is whether twentieth century taboos for women were strong enough that they looked at pictures or video and denied the arousal. Man spanking and pulling woman’s hair? Er, no. No, does nothing for me. Rape scene? No, no! NOTHING. Gang bang? ~faint~
That’s not lying, that’s exhibiting the engrained attitudes that society demanded at the time. Women’s thoughts regarding sex and arousal have been monitored and punished since forever. I hear the word “slut” from teens at least once a week. And never in a “you go girl!” way.
[/quote]
So, you agree?
Cause societal norms do not work on the bonaz.
Lesson: Dont listen to women when it comes to how to get laid.
[/quote]
I’m calling it junk science. Do you call that agreeing? If so, then sure, I agree.
Personally, I feel that I’ve always recognized arousal in myself. I remember very clearly the first time it happened (found a book in my parents’ closet).
Recognition is a very different thing from being comfortable with the arousal or telling others what caused it.
[/quote]
You are basically restating their point and then call it junk science?
What you basically claimed is that they will not admit to arousal when it has no good girl stamp on it, maybe not even to themselves.
Either way they lie, either to anyone but/or including themselves.
Lesson: Dont listen to women when it comes to how to get laid.
Your point, if I remember correctly, was that women don’t know what arouses them. Let’s see, what did you say exactly?
[quote]One would think that they would know, but they dont.
So, I would take anything a woman says in this area with a ton of salt.
They dont know what makes them horny, they dont know what they want in a man, they dont even know when they are horny unless it crosses a, comparatively rather high, threshold.
I believe and I have nothing to back this up, that they were specifically designed not to get it.
What can be measured though is the swelling of the labia and lubrication and while its objectively there, they dont recognize it.[/quote]
That they don’t know what makes them horny, they dont know what they want in a man, they dont even know when they are horny unless it crosses a, comparatively rather high, threshold.
And my point is that I disagree. I also think, as I may have mentioned previously, that smart women absolutely know what they want and would laugh at a man who tried to game them in the manner you advocate. Mostly, in my experience, smart women want smart men. Because they’re not that much fun to talk to otherwise.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Right-O, Orion. Gamesters know all about women and their arousal responses but don’t know about coyness?
Doesn’t say much about these PUA masters.
[/quote]
Bwahahaha!!
No, if they do it right, they dont.
Also, these “coy” creatures were lying on a table with an artificial penis inserted in them, but they would not admit to being aroused by gay porn, that would simply be crossing a line.
SMH…
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Your point, if I remember correctly, was that women don’t know what arouses them. Let’s see, what did you say exactly?
[quote]One would think that they would know, but they dont.
So, I would take anything a woman says in this area with a ton of salt.
They dont know what makes them horny, they dont know what they want in a man, they dont even know when they are horny unless it crosses a, comparatively rather high, threshold.
I believe and I have nothing to back this up, that they were specifically designed not to get it.
What can be measured though is the swelling of the labia and lubrication and while its objectively there, they dont recognize it.[/quote]
That they don’t know what makes them horny, they dont know what they want in a man, they dont even know when they are horny unless it crosses a, comparatively rather high, threshold.
And my point is that I disagree. I also think, as I may have mentioned previously, that smart women absolutely know what they want and would laugh at a man who tried to game them in the manner you advocate. Mostly, in my experience, smart women want smart men. Because they’re not that much fun to talk to otherwise.
[/quote]
Good.
Than take a 25 year old virgin and make teach him how to get devirginized.
Because if you know how women tick, after all, you are one, right?, that should be no problem whatsoever.
That, you practically owe to yourself.
You wont be able to do it, whereas there are plenty of men who can.
How come?
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
just don’t be shy or a dick.
If you’re no good at picking up women you’re either shy, a dick, or both.[/quote]
I must be a dick, because I’ve never been described as shy; but I absolutely suck at picking up women. I’m like kryptonite to most women. Most women start frantically looking for the nearest means of escape when I walk up and say hello.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I also think, as I may have mentioned previously, that smart women absolutely know what they want and would laugh at a man who tried to game them in the manner you advocate.[/quote]
Maybe I missed something, but I’m not see where the woman would even have the opportunity to notice anything. All of the “game” can also be described as “looks good”, “smells good”, “confident”, “sensitive”, etc. Just depending on who’s describing it.
But, what kind of “gaming them” are you referring to? Because I think one or both of us misinterpreted something.
Completely agree; I’d say that goes both ways too, for the most part. At least, if you’re trying to establish anything of substance. Plus, a smart girl can easily see through a guy who’s just pretending to be smart and vice versa.
gaming them as in using pickup artist techniques
my only game is to genuinely befriend the woman and then be somewhat mean to her
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
gaming them as in using pickup artist techniques
my only game is to genuinely befriend the woman and then be somewhat mean to her[/quote]
Right… but this:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I also think, as I may have mentioned previously, that smart women absolutely know what they want and would laugh at a man who tried to game them in the manner you [orion] advocate.[/quote]
I don’t remember there being any particular PUA technique posts in here that would actually stand out as someone “gaming” her.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
gaming them as in using pickup artist techniques
my only game is to genuinely befriend the woman and then be somewhat mean to her[/quote]
Right… but this:
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
I also think, as I may have mentioned previously, that smart women absolutely know what they want and would laugh at a man who tried to game them in the manner you [orion] advocate.[/quote]
I don’t remember there being any particular PUA technique posts in here that would actually stand out as someone “gaming” her.[/quote]
I didn’t read any of his posts beyond something about gorillas and dominance so I don’t know. Personally I think most strategies for picking up girls would be a waste of time. Getting a nice girlfriend isn’t hard if you’re meeting new people and have nice qualities (friendly, funny, smart, $, good looking, etc). I don’t go out to clubs looking for one night stands every weekend so maybe that’s why I don’t need to research game.
[quote]infinite_shore wrote:
zyzz and 2pac are working on a collab somewhere right now
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
gaming them as in using pickup artist techniques
[/quote]
I think a lot of people misunderstand what Mystery et al really did.
He was in fact “peacocking” and yes, it looked ridiculous, BUT, the reason why it worked for him is because he could back it up.
The whole point in fact was to provoke women in wanting to see whether he could back it up and because he could he went to extremes just to get an initial strong reaction.
So, in a way, women did sleep with him in spite of his outfits, not because of them, but he would not have gotten a foot in the door without them, so ultimately they slept with him in part because of them which is a tad confusing.
The point is, the whole “it does not work on smart women” is questionable because if you adapt the principle it most certainly does.
If she is smart, say something she deems to be outrageous you actually believe in and be willing and able to back it up.
Suddenly, a woman that was not interested has all the time in the world and you can flex your intelligence and eloguence while not only not sucking up to her but also by demonstrating that you will not defer to her just because she is attractive.
[quote]browndisaster wrote:
zyzz and 2pac are working on a collab somewhere right now
[/quote]
Body language
Revisiting this thread.
I just got back from a trip to a strip club with a friend. He was debating whether to go to a strip club, or hit up the actual dance clubs to attempt a one night stand. After a few more drinks, it was “who am I kidding, let’s just go to the strip club”.
This guy has absolutely zero game. He vacillates between the right kind of cockiness when we’re out playing pool, to being completely shy and insecure in the presence of women. Normally this is more ok… but these are strippers we’re talking about… girls who could care less about how interesting you are, and will do their best to make you have a good time anyway, as long as the money and/or liquor keeps flowing. And even in that environment, with the decks stacked, he was still having problems.
The decks stacked = I actually know the girls who were sitting with us fairly well (I picked them myself), and I’m the one spending the money. This is a place where I walk in the door where my drink is poured it before I sit down. And yet with all that going for him, he still was… insecure. This is an environment where the most beta of guys can actually feel on top of the world. Of course I managed to find a good combination of enough alcohol for him + a trashy enough girl, to get him to at least have SOME fun, but it was a challenge.
I feel sorry for the guy. I want to help, but I really haven’t a clue what to do.
Any advice?
I considered starting a thread about this whole “Alpha/Beta” thing, but it’s probably not worth it. I get the common usage, but on the “Beta” side it’s just seems inaccurate to me. Beta wolves are strong, aggressive, capable animals who are constantly challenging the Alpha Male for social dominance and trying to mate with the Alpha female. They basically have everything it takes to be the Alpha, but there happens to be one animal that has just a little more. This can actually make them more overtly aggressive than the Alpha, as they are, I believe, pissed of about this fact and constantly seeking to prove themselves and knock the Alpha out of the top slot.
The kind of weak, submissive, generally pathetic behaviour that seems to get described as “Beta” is actually characteristic of the Omega wolf, the lowest dog in the hierarchy. I suspect that most guys who consider themselves Alpha are actually more Beta as they likely know at least one guy who is even just slightly more socially dominant than they are. It seems improbable that we are all the biggest fish in our respective social ponds. I realize that this is pretty trivial, but it bugs me a little. I’m a dork like that. That is all. Continue.