How to date like a nerd

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:23 am

Orion wrote:Neeek,

I don't object to the ones FBMF posted as nearly as much as the ones I did. That said, I think that line isn't something that's never right to say, it's just not right as a pickup technique. Like, you can tease your friends about their cute mannerisms, but some woman in a bar is not your friend. Most women I know would feel very uncomfortable if a complete stranger started commenting on their facial tics.

People use that sort of thing as a pick-up line? That's kinda odd. Not even dickish, really, as much as "I can't believe it would work as a pick-up line". My situation is more along the lines of the middle of a date. Specifically, I told my last first date that I liked how expressive her face was. Because it was and I liked it. The night ended the way virtually all m first dates end, so I was concerned I messed with her head in some way.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:53 pm

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:22 pm

ubernoob wrote:More often than not, if you pretend you're best friends with someone you've just met, they will humor you and play along. Some people call these situations role playing.

Uh, what? I won't, and neither will most people I've met. If a stranger started treating me like their best friend, that would be weird, and (at least slightly) creepy.

Maybe there's a sharper divide in how I treat friends vs. strangers than other people.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:31 pm

Uber,

I do that all the time--mostly in the form of sharing things about myself and my history that you would "normally" only tell your close friends. On that level--choosing someone in a crowded party or something to be your friend for the night, telling them your life history, sticking together--that works great. But actual friends have a right to criticize in ways that nobody else does. Trying to imitate that feels wrong, to me.

Neeek: You may be missing the context on how "negs" are supposed to work.

The idea behind negs is that either all women, or just the "hot" ones, have too much self-confidence. The idea is make apparently-friendly comments which actually imply that she is in some way unattractive or not "put-together." This will make her insecure, and therefore she will desire to prove her worthiness by doing sex to you. Telling the truth is secondary--advice includes pretending she spit on you, for instance.

I'm sure there are dating contexts where laughing over each other's foibles can happen, especially if your date is someone who's been an acquaintance for a while, or if you've just bonded a lot in a short evening already. But listing that line among negs means that you are being told to call out totally fictional "weird faces" in order to make women self-conscious.

Post by **fbmf** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:13 pm

Orion wrote:Uber,
The idea behind negs is that either all women, or just the "hot" ones, have too much self-confidence. The idea is make apparently-friendly comments which actually imply that she is in some way unattractive or not "put-together." This will make her insecure, and therefore she will desire to prove her worthiness by doing sex to you. Telling the truth is secondary--advice includes pretending she spit on you, for instance.

So...you are either (A) preying on a woman's insecurities, or (B) creating an insecurity and then preying on it.

In The World According To FBMF, this is acceptable only to knock a stuck up [EDITED] down a few notches. Exploiting it for sex is fucked up.

Game On,
fbmf

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:39 am

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:19 am

ubernoob wrote:
PoliteNewb wrote:
ubernoob wrote:More often than not, if you pretend you're best friends with someone you've just met, they will humor you and play along. Some people call these situations role playing.
Uh, what? I won't, and neither will most people I've met. If a stranger started treating me like their best friend, that would be weird, and (at least slightly) creepy.

Maybe there's a sharper divide in how I treat friends vs. strangers than other people.
Honestly? That's because people in general find you creepy. Whenever I do it, it works.

I think you misunderstood me, or maybe I misunderstood you.

I didn't say people find me creepy when I do that to them. I said I find it creepy when people do that to me. Or would...I honestly can't recall a stranger doing that to me.

People don't find me creepy, because I don't do that. I treat friends like friends, acquaintances like acquaintances, and strangers like strangers. I treat people politely and respectfully, and they do the same back (mostly...the exception is assholes, and I don't bother with them). It works fine.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:16 am

So I have been mostly ignoring this, but wait, uber are you defending or suggesting "negs" or other "game" tricks?

I want to be clear on where people stand before I start murderizing.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:04 pm

Something you should consider before you start "murderizing", Kaelik, is that the PUA world is vast and benignly misunderstood. Many people just can't believe that it could be as stupid as it is, so lots of people pick out a few words or phrases and use them to mean something more reasonable. So it would be good to figure out not just whether Uber endorses "negs" but what he thinks a "neg" is.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:18 pm

S`okay Orion, Uber and I are personal friends, such that we know baseline each others dating history and preferences. As such, the murderizing would be entirely verbal, and context dependent.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Sun Mar 13, 2011 7:22 pm

Vnonymous · Post by **Vnonymous** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:20 am

One of the most important things to remember in any discussion of game is that it works. I've built a long and stable relationship out of it, and the guy who started the whole thing seems to be doing pretty well himself. Roissy, who runs http://roissy.wordpress.com/ writes one of the best blogs on relationships and society.

Cue the usual accusations of women-hating and misogyny, despite the fact that nobody really loves women as much as people who devote a non trivial time to figuring out how to give them what they want.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:22 pm

Ancedata is Ancedotal! Seriously the things to remember are

--I never said game does not work. I said that many game techniques *would* work in the very specific contexts they are designed for, but that they are often presented and marketed as panacea that solved every problem.

--The fact that you or Roissy used game, and now have a relationship, is not very strong evidence in favor of game. Lots of people are in relationships.

--Watch your base rate. Game will have a noticeable positive effect even if it's deeply suboptimal, as long as it's more effective than whatever dudes were doing before. Let me propose a scenario. Suppose that the most effective way to pick up chicks is some non-game based strategy. Let's call it "sensitive guy." Let's suppose that "Neg hitter" is half as effective. Finally, let's assume that "not talking to women" is least effective of all. If you marketed game to be men who were previously afraid to even talk to women, they would all give glowing reviews even if the technique weren't very good.

--Literally the most recent post on his blog that mentions a woman is about Monica Lewisnky, "bloated seacow." That is all.

Count Arioch the 28th · Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:26 pm

I have an anecdote!

I sharpened Vnonymous' pencil with my butt and now I need a band-aid.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:05 pm

Vnonymous wrote: Cue the usual accusations of women-hating and misogyny, despite the fact that nobody really loves women as much as people who devote a non trivial time to figuring out how to give them what they want.

All right, is this what Orion was talking about with using the same terms to describe different things? Because I never thought of "game" or this PUA crap that has been discussed as a way of "giving women what they want"...I see it as "getting what you want from women".

So...are you really about giving women what they want? Or are you about giving women what they want (or what you can make them think they want) so they sleep with you? That is absolutely a serious question.

But keep in mind, an honest answer needs to address, "what if what the woman wants is for you to go away and leave her alone?".

EDIT:

Okay, I stopped by that blog...holy shit. Yes, that guy is a misogynist.

Are you seriously claiming that this:

asshole's website wrote: But when you are loved for the charismatic alpha male you are, you can do no wrong. The bitter well from which those feminist harangues are drawn and that spill so easily from her lips when she is upbraiding beta males suddenly dries up when she is in the presence of a rare breed of man. It’s no coincidence that women regress to a child-like demeanor when they are with their lovers. The best of childhood is innocence, joy and carefree vivacity. That is what a good man does for a woman who loves him.

A woman who is constitutionally incapable of this girlhood regression is not worth loving.

...is not misogynistic? Hell, that goes beyond being insulting, and is actually downright creepy. Why doesn't this guy just up and admit he'd like to date insecure 13 year olds?

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:46 pm

That blog was linked to in the Wikileaks thread, and I remember the post I read being sort of funny. But as I read more and was exposed to larger and larger doses of it, it just made me ill.

And then I realized the whole PUA thing is really a filter for finding and fucking that certain type of woman those techniques work on while maintaining a man's inner core of delusional arrogance in the face of rejection.

Quite frankly, if that's all a man wants in life, he deserves it. It's just a shame that there are women who end up getting hurt in the process.

Vnonymous · Post by **Vnonymous** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 6:13 pm

PoliteNewb wrote: All right, is this what Orion was talking about with using the same terms to describe different things? Because I never thought of "game" or this PUA crap that has been discussed as a way of "giving women what they want"...I see it as "getting what you want from women".

How exactly do you think that these people are having sex with women? They're not using Jedi mind tricks, and they're not raping them either. If a woman has a perfect body and is amazingly attractive, is she giving a man what he wants when she seduces him? In a lot of cases, that would be very, very yes.

So...are you really about giving women what they want? Or are you about giving women what they want (or what you can make them think they want) so they sleep with you? That is absolutely a serious question.

If a woman with a fantastically amazing appearance and demeanour seduces a man, is he getting what he wants? You fucking bet he is. Women simply care more about personality than men do, and the personality traits that women find attractive can be amplified in a man if he knows what he's doing. If a woman could learn some mental techniques that made her much more attractive, would she do it? Hell yes she would. Women go to absurd lengths for even minor advantages in appearance.

But keep in mind, an honest answer needs to address, "what if what the woman wants is for you to go away and leave her alone?".

Then you go away and leave her alone. Its' her loss, but if she isn't interested and doesn't want to be around you then that's what she does. If a woman has a problem with me in a public place and doesn't want to be around me any more, she can leave. Implying that women, or indeed anyone has the right to a life free from annoyance is seriously insulting.

EDIT: If a woman doesn't want to talk to you anymore, then you leave, and quickly. If you learn game you often learn the cues that lead up to this sort of thing, leaving earlier, and are actually less annoying than an average person, who requires this sort of thing to be told to them explicitly.

EDIT:

Okay, I stopped by that blog...holy shit. Yes, that guy is a misogynist.

Are you seriously claiming that this:

asshole's website wrote: But when you are loved for the charismatic alpha male you are, you can do no wrong. The bitter well from which those feminist harangues are drawn and that spill so easily from her lips when she is upbraiding beta males suddenly dries up when she is in the presence of a rare breed of man. It’s no coincidence that women regress to a child-like demeanor when they are with their lovers. The best of childhood is innocence, joy and carefree vivacity. That is what a good man does for a woman who loves him.

A woman who is constitutionally incapable of this girlhood regression is not worth loving.
...is not misogynistic? Hell, that goes beyond being insulting, and is actually downright creepy. Why doesn't this guy just up and admit he'd like to date insecure 13 year olds?

...you prefer women who are guilty, unhappy and carefully consider their ineffectual and unhappy lives? I fail to see how saying "When women are totally in love with you, you can do no wrong in their eyes, and they're much more pleasant to be around." is misogynist in the slightest. Being childlike is very different to being a child, and I'd much rather be in a relationship with a girl who was spontaneous, playful, innocent, happy and carefree than my old maths teacher.

And then I realized the whole PUA thing is really a filter for finding and fucking that certain type of woman those techniques work on while maintaining a man's inner core of delusional arrogance in the face of rejection.

Quite frankly, if that's all a man wants in life, he deserves it. It's just a shame that there are women who end up getting hurt in the process.

Wrong. Game works on almost all women everywhere(there are always exceptions - much like there are guys that find obese women more attractive than non obese women). It isn't limited to clubs or bars at all, although that is one of the most socially acceptable ways to introduce yourself to new people.

If you really want proof of this, just ask yourself how you would react if your significant other became a fawning toady, constantly asking you for forgiveness and treating you like royalty. Would you still respect him, even as he let you do no wrong and run roughshod over him, as all the while he let his body go to waste and become an unhealthy, unpopular and anti-social pariah? If this sounds like your dream man, then congratulations: game will not work on you.

As for the base rate question, it wasn't in terms of pickups. It was in terms of happiness, devotion and sex within an already existing relationship. While you could say that I was caring more about her and thus spawning this apparent increase, I was actually caring less about her - the relationship was on the rocks, and game was what saved it.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:45 pm

Vnonymous wrote: How exactly do you think that these people are having sex with women? They're not using Jedi mind tricks, and they're not raping them either.

I think they are manipulating them, which can absolutely work (in the sense that you get what you want. The same way con artists can make money, and often have the people they're ripping off defend them.

If a woman has a perfect body and is amazingly attractive, is she giving a man what he wants when she seduces him? In a lot of cases, that would be very, very yes.

First, define "seduce".
Second, how is this even comparable? If the man wants sex with a gorgeous woman, and she provides that, then yes...the same as if a woman wants sex with a gorgeous man, and he provides that.
That guy's argument, though, boils down to "men want sex with gorgeous chicks" and "girls want a guy to boss them around". Which is flat bullshit.

Women simply care more about personality than men do, and the personality traits that women find attractive can be amplified in a man if he knows what he's doing.

See, this right here? This is insulting. And misogynistic. And, incidentally, bullshit.
I am NOT saying it won't help you bag chicks. I am saying that it is not working by "giving women what they want", and that doing it makes you a bad person.

...you prefer women who are guilty, unhappy and carefully consider their ineffectual and unhappy lives?

Are you familiar with the words "false dichotomy"?

I fail to see how saying "When women are totally in love with you, you can do no wrong in their eyes, and they're much more pleasant to be around." is misogynist in the slightest. Being childlike is very different to being a child, and I'd much rather be in a relationship with a girl who was spontaneous, playful, innocent, happy and carefree than my old maths teacher.

I'd prefer being with a mature, intelligent person with whom I can have a serious discussion (and am). There is a reason I don't particularly enjoy conversation with children, and it's actually related to the reason I don't sleep with them (one of the reasons).
But I don't see why being "happy" or "spontaneous" have anything to do with "you can do no wrong in their eyes". In any relationship, there are things about the other person you are not going to like. You can ignore these things, or you can deal with them. Only one of these choices results in a happy, healthy, long-lasting relationship.

And yes, it's misogynist, because it implies (actually, states outright) that the only woman worth having is one who ignores all of your faults...ESPECIALLY when the guy makes it clear that he does not ignore any of his woman's faults.

Wrong. Game works on almost all women everywhere(there are always exceptions - much like there are guys that find obese women more attractive than non obese women).

I'd be really interested in seeing the statistical evidence behind this claim. Because it sounds like the guys touting a weight-loss regimen that has a "100% success rate".

If you really want proof of this, just ask yourself how you would react if your significant other became a fawning toady, constantly asking you for forgiveness and treating you like royalty.

This is especially hilarious (well, that and disturbing), because that seems to be exactly what this guy wants and expects from his women.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:38 pm

EDIT: This post makes more sense if you know that I hadn't read PN's last post when I wrote it.

On when to leave a woman alone

Pickup Artists are sharply divided on this issue. Vnon is right that the "core" people like Mystery focus on speaking to a lot of women and moving on as soon as any sign of disinterest appears, but this isn't universal. You also have guys like Gunwitch running around saying that once you've picked a victim lady, you mustn't leave her alone until explicitly tells you to fuck off. So Vnon and PoliteNewb are both right.

On Jedi Mind Tricks

Hilariously, many pickup artists do claim to know jedi mind tricks. Look up "patterning" if you want to laugh yourself sick.

On looks vs. personality

Vnon, to say men care less about personality is just bullshit. Lots of men care about personality, and not just "sensitive new age guys." This isn't a boast or anything, caring about personality is morally neutral. For instance, many men (myself very much included) are attracted primarily to women who think (or will pretend to think) you are interesting/talented/funny/exotic/dangerous. I firmly believe that how convincingly a woman can say "go on, that's fascinating" has way more effect on her dating prospects than her breasts do. Fucked up but true.

On the Roissy Quote

I raised my eyebrows when I read the post PN quoted, but I deliberately didn't cite it as evidence of misogyny. That blog is an embarassment of riches anyway, but I'm actually going to defend that post. I can see why it raises hackles--the bitterness about "feminist tirades" in unneeded and the universal language sounds prescriptive. But ultimately I think talking universal is just what people do when they describe love and relationships.

I've been in relationships based on the woman's awe and elation at the man's talent and charisma. Ultimately I think it's just another thing that can bring two people together. It can cause some problems, and it can be fragile, but the same is true of most human connections. I'm happy with my relationship. I think PN is off base when he says wanting that kind of marriage is like pedophilia. It's not right for him to say that a woman who doesn't want that is "not worth loving" but neither is it right to say that a woman who does want that is.

On rampant dishonesty

I've defended your viewpoint twice in this post, Vnon, but it would be easier if you could refrain from engaging in rampant dishonesty. Please don't claim that being a "fawning toady" will automatically turn a man weak and ugly. That makes no sense, you can have a strong body and a weak mind. Plenty of women manage to exercise their way to a model's body while still being a neurotic wreck, and men can too.

Similarly, don't pretend that the only alternative to being a woman's god and master is being her slave. Look, I love kink culture as much as anyone but I hear rumors that some people do manage to have vanilla relationships.

Finally, please just fucking acknowledge that the pickup community contains a lot of bad advice and woman-haters. That doesn't mean they have no good advice or every one of them is a bastard, but it does mean that if you're going to talk up the benefits of "game" you're going to need to be really fucking explicit about what sites and techniques you're talking about.

EDIT: Re: Polite Newb

On Manipulation

I don't think manipulation, that is, creating desires where there were none, is inherently evil. It's wrong if you're manipulating someone into doing something that harms them, good if you're manipulating them into doing something good for them, and neutral otherwise. Sex isn't an evil, it's a neutral, so deliberately trying to create sexual desire in other is morally neutral as well.

So of course "game" is manipulative, but that's not why I have a problem with it. I don't use "game partly because much of the advice or is stupid or evil, but mostly because what it assumes I want is not what I actually want. But I've put a lot of effort into figuring out how to manipulate people in general, and women in particular. What I mostly want from pretty girls is not to get laid, but just to feel their attention, praise, and attraction. So I have a whole bunch of techniques to create those kinds of flirtations and the circumstances that allow them. I don't see anything wrong with that.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:01 pm

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:17 pm

Cool story bro? I'm sitting here trying to figure out whether that's a commentary on "game" discussion, or back to your original question, or what? I mean, I was sorely tempted to whip out my e-peen during my post, too. So for the record, anything can do I can do better. But seriously what point are you trying to make? People like people who are assertive and interesting? I'm pretty sure nobody here implied otherwise, because that would be stupid.

PoliteNewb · Post by **PoliteNewb** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:48 pm

Orion wrote: On the Roissy Quote

I raised my eyebrows when I read the post PN quoted, but I deliberately didn't cite it as evidence of misogyny. That blog is an embarassment of riches anyway, but I'm actually going to defend that post. I can see why it raises hackles--the bitterness about "feminist tirades" in unneeded and the universal language sounds prescriptive. But ultimately I think talking universal is just what people do when they describe love and relationships.

I've been in relationships based on the woman's awe and elation at the man's talent and charisma. Ultimately I think it's just another thing that can bring two people together. It can cause some problems, and it can be fragile, but the same is true of most human connections. I'm happy with my relationship. I think PN is off base when he says wanting that kind of marriage is like pedophilia. It's not right for him to say that a woman who doesn't want that is "not worth loving" but neither is it right to say that a woman who does want that is.

I don't want to judge other people's relationships, and if stuff works for both parties involved, I say go for it. But I have a hard time seeing how someone wants to think the sun shines out of someone's ass regardless of what they do. And that is explicitly what Roissy is saying he wants/gets from women...I didn't provide the full quote before; let's see it now:

Roissy's blog wrote: When you are gaming a girl successfully and she perceives your alphaness shining like a supernova, everything you do — even the stinky shits you take — will be imbued with a positive glow by her HIL (Hamster In Love). I have belched in girls’ ears and pressed my ass cheeks against them just in time to rip a vibrato fart and the best they could muster in reply was feigned indignation betrayed by fledgling smiles.

This guy is seriously bragging about how he can fart on chicks and they still dig him. He thinks it is admirable that he can do whatever fucked-up shit he wants, and he's got them so brainwashed they won't leave him.
I especially love the "feigned indignation"...he's so certain these chicks think the sun shines out of his ass, that he can't believe they would be HONESTLY indignant about a dude deliberately farting on them. This guy has NPD to an insane level.

I can honestly understand loving someone despite their faults...God knows I'm not perfect, and neither is my wife. But I have nothing but loathing for the idea that the "perfect mate" is one who will let you get away with whatever, and totally ignore any bullshit you pull, because your "alpha maleness" is so awesome.

As for pedophilia, hey, dude is the one who brought up "childlike demeanors" and "girlhood regression". He is flat-out saying he wants women to act like young, innocent, naive children. Probably because children are easily manipulated.

Orion wrote: On rampant dishonesty

Similarly, don't pretend that the only alternative to being a woman's god and master is being her slave. Look, I love kink culture as much as anyone but I hear rumors that some people do manage to have vanilla relationships.

The sad part is, I don't think (or Roissy) are pretending. Some people honestly do believe that in every relationship, someone is on the top and someone is on the bottom, and that is the way it has to be...so you should make sure to squash everyone you can beneath your boot.

Messed up? Sure.

Orion wrote: On Manipulation

I don't think manipulation, that is, creating desires where there were none, is inherently evil. It's wrong if you're manipulating someone into doing something that harms them, good if you're manipulating them into doing something good for them, and neutral otherwise. Sex isn't an evil, it's a neutral, so deliberately trying to create sexual desire in other is morally neutral as well.

We may be experiencing difference in definitions; I was going by this (bolded parts especially):

Manipulation:
1. ( tr ) to handle or use, esp with some skill, in a process or action: to manipulate a pair of scissors
2. to negotiate, control, or influence (something or someone) cleverly, skilfully, or deviously
3. to falsify (a bill, accounts, etc) for one's own advantage

So yeah, I see a problem with manipulation when it is dishonest, which is mostly is, IMO.

Further, while I can see moral neutrality in manipulating people in certain situations (business, for instance), I don't believe it is all right to manipulate people for sex and/or romance. Not only do I feel it is skeezy, but unless you want to turn your ENTIRE relationship with that person into an exercise in manipulation, eventually you will need to let your true self show. So you may as well do that from the beginning. If they don't want to be with you because of who you are, why do you want to be with them?

The exception is one-night-stands, and I only believe in those when both parties are aware of what's going on there (i.e. all either one wants is random sex).

Orion wrote:But I've put a lot of effort into figuring out how to manipulate people in general, and women in particular. What I mostly want from pretty girls is not to get laid, but just to feel their attention, praise, and attraction. So I have a whole bunch of techniques to create those kinds of flirtations and the circumstances that allow them. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I kinda do. Manipulating people for praise and attention is not as bad as manipulating them so you can stick your wiener in them, but I think messing with people's feelings in general is kind of a low sport.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:13 pm

PoliteNewb,

Yeah, the full Roissy post is full of all kinds of nasty stuff, because he's a nasty piece of work and it infects everything he writes. All I'm saying is that the core thesis--that you can have a fulfilling relationship based on male power and status--seems to me to be true.

Re: manipulation.

I strongly disagree that "just" wanting attention and praise makes me less wrong than someone who wanted sex. Actually, I think my desires are *more* morally questionable. I want women to find me attractive, even though I'm not going to sleep with them because I'm in a relationship. Creating desires I can't fulfill seems worse than creating desires I could.

But I'm consequentialist. I think what's important is not what I'm hoping to get out of it, it's whether what I'm doing makes people's live better or worse. And when you look it at it that, I don't think I'm hurting anyone by being "devious."

The definition of "devious" in Merriam-Wesbter is "not straightforward." I think being devious is okay, because being "not straightforward" doesn't mean you have to falsify anything or be dishonest. It means that you don't explicitly state all of your motivations, that you arrange things behind the scenes to some degree. Here are some of the rules of my personal "game."

--when there's a visitor or newcomer in your dorm, club, or workplace, make a point of paying attention to her.

--if you notice someone being talked over or swallowed up in a noisy room, move closer to her and tell her you are listening.

--make a point of complimenting people's outfits and hairdos

--wear distinctive clothes with stories behind them. That way, when people ask about them, you have an opportunity to introduce some of your hobbies and tell stories.

--when you tell a story, leave loose threads or references to other things that happened so one story leads into another

So when I say, "I'm gonna wear this hat to the party so that a hot chick will comment on it and I can tell the story about the time I got tarred and feathered," I think that's being "manipulative." I'm deliberately arranging circumstances so that I can tell my story, and thus taking time and attention away from others. I get that "all according to keikaku" thrill when it works. But I don't think it's wrong, because the interest generated is genuine. People really do want to hear about my time as a minuteman, and I really am entertaining them by framing myself in a certain way.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:26 pm

Vnonymous wrote:How exactly do you think that these people are having sex with women? They're not using Jedi mind tricks, and they're not raping them either. If a woman has a perfect body and is amazingly attractive, is she giving a man what he wants when she seduces him? In a lot of cases, that would be very, very yes.

The same way Fox news gets people to vote Republican.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:55 am