old hippy wrote: » Not at all, I was waiting for an actual pseud to come along and loftily pass judgement. Mind you, on a topic such as this one, I didn't have to wait long at all. It seems to attract a certain sort from the pro and anti camp. Next!
Czarcasm wrote: » Nothing pseud or lofty about it hippy, I'd read the back of a cornflake box if put in front of me, I read all sorts of stupid shìt. Only this morning I was in a well known book store intending to buy the complete works of Shakespeare in bound book form for my young lad for €30 for Christmas (He has them as an app on his tablet, but you can't beat a book!), but then I spotted the complete works of Oscar Wilde for €8 and the complete novels of James Joyce for €15, bargain and bargain, then I spotted a Seamus Heaney box set and thought "I can't walk out without that!", but upon checking the price I nearly dropped on the spot - €80!! :eek: I like Seamus Heaney's writings, and I'd love to have got them for the young lad, but that price gave me butterflies in my wallet :pac:
Pug160 wrote: » I was flicking through a book earlier and read a few interesting things. The author drew comparisons between men who are unsuccessful with women and gay men who feel as though they are not living up to expectations. So it's basically the same feelings of inadequacy and of being less of a man as a consequence. Of course, the main difference is that one is self inflicted (to a certain degree at least) and one is not.
Pen.Island wrote: » Why take one books views over another? You obviously had your mind made up to begin with.
Pug160 wrote: » About what? It all seems perfectly logical to me. Certainly nothing that's controversial (I would have thought).
Balaclava1991 wrote: » Easily one of the best PUA coaches is Richard Le Ruina who teaches natural game.
Balaclava1991 wrote: »
Our Year wrote: » How to get back with your ex girlfriend, Step 1, break up with her. ...makes sense.
Wibbs wrote: » He's a good looking guy. The chances are a lot of the guys buying his pitch are well... not.
wprathead wrote: » I really despise the term "friend zone"
Wibbs wrote: » Actually it does OY. I've seen it work. I couldn't "pick up" to save my life :) but I have had success with getting mates girlfriends/boyfriends to come back. I mainly did it not so they'd be happy ever after, but more so my mates could see that ye broke up cos it was broken so this way with a bit of a rematch you can lose a fair chunk of the "what if" and then move on.
Femme_Fatale wrote: » Guys, ignore Balaclava. Yep, a whingey phrase made up by guys who reckon the woman they fancy owes them sex.
Legs.Eleven wrote: » Is the idea of PUA to score very young women i.e. under 23, say?
Pen.Island wrote: » Some women eh? :rolleyes: How about it's girls who lead guys on but then only want them as friends.
Czarcasm wrote: » That's exactly it Legs, and it helps if they're incredibly naive too! The target demographic of the PUA audience is also naive men in their 20's who don't have a whole lot of social interaction instincts nor people skills, and like most men with a sense of entitlement in their 20's - they want everything dropped in their lap, including women! When it doesn't happen, an ideology like PUA provides a convenient explanation and, erm, "solution".
Czarcasm wrote: » I know Wibbs looks are subjective and all, and I said it'd be unfair to comment on these guys looks, but as Oscar Wilde would say - "I can resist anything but temptation"... The guy looks like a French Dean Gaffney!
Femme_Fatale wrote: » Yep, a whingey phrase made up by guys who reckon the woman they fancy owes them sex.
Femme_Fatale wrote: » Fair enough if it's deliberate leading on (which I know can happen to both sexes indeed) but sometimes what's deemed "leading on" is just being nice. She'd be deemed a bitch if she wasn't nice.
Wibbs wrote: » It certainly can be. It's almost always the man's fault for getting into the position too. However FF I have encountered more than once the type of woman that encourages and enables such behaviour. The types that have "satellite" men around them other than the boyfriend. Where they know the guy has feelings for them, but keep him around for other support, usually emotional. I've known a few who would even snog the guy once, then pull the "oh I think we made a mistake" stuff the next day. Adding in "I don't know how I feel, but not at the moment/you never know. I'm not in the right place". This ensures the bloke has some hope and sticks around. It's always BS though. Of course they can be in the right place a week later with the bloke that gets their engines revved. Like the blokes who come out with "I'm not ready for a relationship" when they actually mean "I'm not ready for a relationship with you". I've seen/heard this one countless times. There are some right narcissistic bitches out there(then again I have a radar for the buggers so ). Hell more than once I was the "boyfriend/fling" while there was some other poor sap "friend" waiting in the wings listening to them(usually whinging about me :)). One guy I remember used to do this particular wagons course work for her, help her move gaff, put up shelves, bring her to dinner etc. All the while I was getting the bits he wanted and doing little enough beyond buying a few drinks and the odd dinner and night at the flix. This wan used to tell me about how she wasn't sure if she was hurting this bloke or not. I mean real narcissistic. All about her. Still she had a lovely arse. Yes I am that shallow or was at least. Plus early on I had my wagon detector going mad and had erected razorwire and watchtowers manned with spandaus around my emotions so was safe. TBH I buggered off when I just felt crap for this other poor bastard. I'd also note that IME and IMHO narcissistic women never grow out of this kinda stuff. They get better at hiding it and it comes out in different ways, but it's always there in the background. I'd imagine similar of narcissistic men?
Wibbs wrote: » It certainly can be. It's almost always the man's fault for getting into the position too. However FF I have encountered more than once the type of woman that encourages and enables such behaviour. The types that have "satellite" men around them other than the boyfriend. Where they know the guy has feelings for them, but keep him around for other support, usually emotional. I've known a few who would even snog the guy once, then pull the "oh I think we made a mistake" stuff the next day. Adding in "I don't know how I feel, but not at the moment/you never know. I've seen/heard this one countless times. There are some right narcissistic bitches out there(then again I have a radar for the buggers so ). Hell more than once I was the "boyfriend/fling" while there was some other poor sap "friend" waiting in the wings listening to them(usually whinging about me :)). One guy I remember used to do this particular wagons course work for her, help her move gaff, put up shelves, bring her to dinner etc. All the while I was getting the bits he wanted and doing little enough beyond buying a few drinks and the odd dinner and night at the flix. This wan used to tell me about how she wasn't sure if she was hurting this bloke or not. I mean real narcissistic. All about her. Still she had a lovely arse. Yes I am that shallow or was at least. Plus early on I had my wagon detector going mad and had erected razorwire and watchtowers manned with spandaus around my emotions so was safe. TBH I buggered off when I just felt crap for this other poor bastard. I'd also note that IME and IMHO narcissistic women never grow out of this kinda stuff. They get better at hiding it and it comes out in different ways, but it's always there in the background. I'd imagine similar of narcissistic men? .