This is Not the Boogle Memorial Dating Advice/Tips Thread, No

Demosthenes wrote:

I feel like I may have laid the groundwork for this thread way back when with my breakup blues threads about a particular ex-girlfriend. I've never noticed it till now, but while the original may have been created by Boogle, I think I should be created as a precursor or inspiriation to this and all future threads. Just saying. :D

You do NOT get to DDT this thread too!

ccesarano wrote:
DanB wrote:

Lets not forget this amusing "How Not To Fail At Life" strip that came out of 4chan, I do not endorse or support this message. This strip is a toy do not attempt to actually use in real life.
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/How...

That just forwards to the funny junk home page.

Ooops
http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictu...

ccesarano wrote:
hbi2k wrote:

I found Models: Attract Women Through Honesty is a pretty good read that takes a lot of lessons from the PUA movement while dropping most of the misogyny.

Is it safe to assume you could provide a recommended reading list as to this sort of stuff?

The UK Channel 4 documentary Seduction School is fun, although doesn't contain a great deal of tips/info.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a51D...

And this Wayne Elise interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8d6...

Lets not forget this amusing "How Not To Fail At Life" strip that came out of 4chan, I do not endorse or support this message. This strip is a toy do not attempt to actually use in real life.

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictu...

DanB wrote:
ccesarano wrote:
DanB wrote:

Lets not forget this amusing "How Not To Fail At Life" strip that came out of 4chan, I do not endorse or support this message. This strip is a toy do not attempt to actually use in real life.
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/How...

That just forwards to the funny junk home page.

Ooops
http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictu...

I dunno, I've heard much worse advice... I think I've delivered very similar advice to lots of people.

clover wrote:
DanB wrote:
ccesarano wrote:
DanB wrote:

Lets not forget this amusing "How Not To Fail At Life" strip that came out of 4chan, I do not endorse or support this message. This strip is a toy do not attempt to actually use in real life.
http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/How...

That just forwards to the funny junk home page.

Ooops
http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictu...

I dunno, I've heard much worse advice... I think I've delivered very similar advice to lots of people.

Step 5 and the flow chart are nonsense but the rest is pretty on the nose

I finally finished The Game. It's essentially a story about a train wreck. I could tell where Project Hollywood was going right from the get go. It imploded pretty much the way I expected, from Neil's description of who its founders were and what they did. The way he writes makes it ambiguous about whether he realizes why this happened, even later on.

At the same time, I'm a little weirded out about the entire thing. I've never considered myself "successful with women," but the way Neil describes their benchmarks, I'm what they might consider a "natural." I lost it young, have no problems approaching to and relating to women, and get all manner of "IOI's" all the dang time. I just thought that that was normal.

The way I see it, the only guys who become PUAs are those who need the validation for some reason, so they see everything as a self-esteem issue. To them, the whole exercise is like that. "Negging" is a self-esteem attack to make the target want to validate themselves to the PUA. I suppose that might work remarkably well with someone who themselves have issues (many party girls?), but a well-adjusted person (Lisa) won't respond the same way to that BS.

It appears to me that the entire PUA thing is just bullsh*tting people - essentially, you're faking it. That's okay for a transitional state, but you eventually have to either evolve or fall back to where you were before.

A "routine" is nothing more than a canned anecdote or activity. It's good to pick up stuff like that from other people, but to really be good, you have to be able to eventually make up your own stuff. Style does - it's arguable, as Lisa reveals, whether he really gained anything from the PUA community other than a little bit of self-confidence.

ccoates wrote:

The downside to asking a girl out via email is how irritating your run of the mill spam becomes.

The perils of asynchronous communication. May the odds be ever in your favor.

This is one of my favorite threads on the site. I usually have nothing to contribute, but I appreciate you all sharing your stories and insights.

ccoates wrote:

The downside to asking a girl out via email is everything.

FTFY.

It's like the flip-side to breaking up via texting. Face-to-face, people! Body language is important!

LarryC wrote:

The way I see it, the only guys who become PUAs are those who need the validation for some reason, so they see everything as a self-esteem issue.

I'd say this is broadly true of any guy who self styles as a PUA. And the whole self-esteem thing runs through the way everything is framed it's kinda weird.

To them, the whole exercise is like that. "Negging" is a self-esteem attack to make the target want to validate themselves to the PUA.

Yeah, as I say I think there is a kernel of real/useful knowledge hidden within the whole negging thing that is utterly obscured by the whole attacking "self-esteem" angle.

I suppose that might work remarkably well with someone who themselves have issues (many party girls?), but a well-adjusted person (Lisa) won't respond the same way to that BS.

In my experience there is information to be had within the community that is applicable more broadly, but this assessment of what's described in The Game is totally reasonable.

It appears to me that the entire PUA thing is just bullsh*tting people - essentially, you're faking it. That's okay for a transitional state, but you eventually have to either evolve or fall back to where you were before.

A "routine" is nothing more than a canned anecdote or activity. It's good to pick up stuff like that from other people, but to really be good, you have to be able to eventually make up your own stuff. Style does

What The Game doesn't show at all is that the PUA community is fairly deeply divided over routines and what not. There is the whole side of it described in The Game with routines and tricks and so forth and there is another side that argues "Do you really hate women and yourself so much that you'd resort to routines and tricks?".

it's arguable, as Lisa reveals, whether he really gained anything from the PUA community other than a little bit of self-confidence.

My take is most people who are in the position on being "a natural" as per the terms of The Game likely aren't in a position to assess/know what it's like for guys who don't naturally have such social abilities or self-confidence. Fake it until you are it, works in a lot of different strands in life and "a little bit of self-confidence" goes a lot further than you might imagine. Do most people need to or want to become pick-up artists, probably not. But I certainly would count among a number of guys who need a little more clarity and insight in to an aspect of life I really did not previously get.

Coldstream wrote:
ccoates wrote:

The downside to asking a girl out via email is everything.

FTFY.

It's like the flip-side to breaking up via texting. Face-to-face, people! Body language is important!

I am well aware. But I've also learned that you work with what you got, and an email now is better than letting an opportunity slip by you otherwise.

DanB:

I'm a little miffed about reading how I'm supposed to be a "natural," like all that social skill came easily and automatically. Some of it did, but most of it did not. I just didn't go about it like either Tyler or Mystery or any PUA. In their terminology, you could say that I worked on "inner game" first, and the rest simply followed. I'm convinced that there's no social skill you can't eventually learn with an open mind, a good eye, and bulletproof self-confidence.

I was kind of shocked to find that I was, I suppose unwittingly, using some interactions that a PUA might mimic in his sarging.

For instance:

Last Minute Resistance tactics: Being Catholic myself, I had serious moral misgivings about having sex before marriage. It's not like I wasn't conflicted about it, so I'm quick to pull if the girl shows the least resistance. At the same time, I am a guy and I have urges, which means that I get right back to making out and stuff, or isolate myself and "normalize" an environment if I feel like I'm getting outside my own self-control. It's not like I plan all that; it just happens that way.

Triangular Gazing: I can't help looking at a woman's lips if I feel like kissing her. Of course, I get self-conscious about it and bring my eyes back to her eyes ASAP, only to have them drift again...

Negging: I'm NOT a nice guy, so I'm not particularly inclined to compliment everyone out of the blue. I also speak my mind plainly, so a lot of my compliments can sound backhanded, even if they're not. I never realized that this ever worked in my favor. I'm still not completely convinced that it ever does. I used to get a lot of metaphorical cuffs from my female friends about the things that I wasn't supposed to say to a girl I liked. It still sounds like it's way more complicated than it should be.

Pivot: I have a lot of women friends, and many of them honestly want me to be happy in my love life. Again, never really thought that just showing up with a sexy female friend ever worked in my favor. I used to think it intimidated girls into not approaching me themselves. Maybe it's just a different culture.

Openers and routines: normal people call these anecdotes and conversation pieces. I never thought they needed to be shared en masse or that they would ever be controversial. I certainly don't feel the need to make up a false one. Whyever would anyone need to do that? A simple read of the Onion or similar sites gives you plenty of material.

Newbie Missions: Did this in college. I made a pledge to myself to make the effort to befriend every woman in my classes, regardless of who they were or how they looked. Relatively easy stuff - never think twice about it, introduce yourself, talk about something class-related. I actually ended up mortally offending a girl during an introduction, because I naturally sound so condescending. Of course I had to marry her.

Chick Crack: College again. I figured that the best way to get into a woman's head is to read what she reads, do what she does, eat what she eats, and so on. So I bought a lot of romance novels and women's magazines and read them all. I looked, really looked, at what ads were directed at them, why they might have trouble in certain pursuits, and why so many of them ate so damn little in public. It's not just about learning astrology; it was asking women, "Why would any intelligent person ever entertain this seriously?!?" And of course, the answer is that many of them don't. It's just for sh*ts and giggles.

I spent a great deal of time and energy building up my social skills from a very low nadir where I would just stare through people because I didn't think that eye contact meant anything.

Social graces and skills are not natural in any sense. They're all learned. Some of us are simply better positioned to learn them more easily than others. There is, of course, a personality and disposition that can also dictate how easily you can fall into these lessons, but none of us are naturally born with these abilities, especially if you consider how heavily culturally motivated they are. PUAs are simply analyzing and playing the games without acquiring the underlying skills. Following a PUA philosophy will simply land you in disingenuous relationships which will fail, if a relationship is your goal. That's not to say that the person is inadequate in relationships, but if you use PUA tactics, you'll pick up someone with certain expectations, and when that relationship doesn’t meet those expectations, it will fail.

Granted, my experience is quite limited, but I feel it is infinitely more important to be honest from the start than to be successful in pick-ups.

That's not to say that the person is inadequate in relationships, but if you use PUA tactics, you'll pick up someone with certain expectations, and when that relationship doesn’t meet those expectations, it will fail.

To this point, there's a segment in the middle of the book involving Mystery and a girlfriend that I will shove in spoiler tags just in case.

Spoiler:

Mystery, who is the "best pick up artist in the world", gets himself a girlfriend. But one of the big issues is she wants to go clubbing constantly and Mystery doesn't want to. Why would he? He was only going to clubs to get laid. So this becomes a point of conflict. He wants to sit around playing video games, she wants to go clubbing every night.

It's not necessarily a problem with dissimilar interests, but different styles of life. For Mystery, the clubs serve no purpose once he has a girlfriend because he can have sex with her any time. But the girlfriend wasn't going to the clubs for no reason other than to get laid. It becomes apparent quickly that the two are looking for something different in a relationship. Mystery sold his girlfriend a lie about who he really was, and Mystery just wants someone to f*ck and love him. Neither are fulfilled, and everything fails.

Dammit, I might have to start reading this book again.

Polliwog wrote:
ccoates wrote:

The downside to asking a girl out via email is how irritating your run of the mill spam becomes.

The perils of asynchronous communication. May the odds be ever in your favor.

This is one of my favorite threads on the site. I usually have nothing to contribute, but I appreciate you all sharing your stories and insights.

Typically in my failed relationships I am generally the one that is more attached and the one who keeps hoping the girl is into me. Well for the first time I find the roles reversed. I'm dating this girl who I do like and have a good time with, but there's just something... missing. I don't know what it is, but I find myself not thinking about her much or not really caring if or when I see her again. I was hoping that perhaps we might get closer as we go out more and open up (we're both pretty introverted), but it's been 4 or 5 dates and I still feel the same way: I'm just not that into her. It sucks. I wish I could fix it because I really would like to be in a committed relationship, but I just don't think it's going to happen with this one. So frustrating, especially because I know exactly how she feels.

I had a similar situation about six months ago. Didn't feel any emotional attraction. I broke it off and have never regretted that decision.

The good this is that after months of separation, we're back to being friends now, which is nice and for me, unprecedented.

My advice is to think about it some more and if you really can't identify a fixable problem with the relationship, well... life's too short. Not all relationships are meant to be. You may get contrary advice here though. I certainly got some differing advice, and while it's good to consider, only you know what is right for you.

Koz wrote:

Typically in my failed relationships I am generally the one that is more attached and the one who keeps hoping the girl is into me. Well for the first time I find the roles reversed. I'm dating this girl who I do like and have a good time with, but there's just something... missing. I don't know what it is, but I find myself not thinking about her much or not really caring if or when I see her again. I was hoping that perhaps we might get closer as we go out more and open up (we're both pretty introverted), but it's been 4 or 5 dates and I still feel the same way: I'm just not that into her. It sucks. I wish I could fix it because I really would like to be in a committed relationship, but I just don't think it's going to happen with this one. So frustrating, especially because I know exactly how she feels.

Just do the right thing and break it off now, instead of drawing it out and keeping you both out of the dating pool for longer.

Dan Savage once said, "every relationship fails, until finally one doesn't."

It sounds self-evident, but people also spend a lot of energy trying to force a relationship to happen, or keeping some relationships on life support, when they're not meant to be forever or even really get off the ground at all.

Oh I will, I don't intend to string it out. Part of me just wants to keep trying to see if something sticks because I haven't been in this position in a long time, but I know it's not going to change at this point.

How long have you been dating her?

Too little information to go on to say anything very definite. In the first place, I don't believe that "introverted/extroverted" personality models ever really work. I've never met a human who didn't desire or need human contact - everyone needs some amount of human contact or interaction in usually specific idiosyncractic ways.

Obviously, that kind or amount could be altered based on the amount of confidence and social skill set you have. If every person in a room is giving you affirmation, and you've convinced yourself that you don't have any obligations to them, then you're just really receiving a whole lot of no-strings praise for little to no anxiety.

Broadly, I'd say it's important to know what you want (career type, relationship type, what-have-you) and to expend some degree of effort getting to where you want to go. On the other hand, I also think it's important to appreciate what you've already got and enjoy it while you have it. There are many real upsides to being single. If the relationships aren't coming, just enjoy having an awesome single lifestyle. Look for someone to commit with, but don't wallow in misery while you're doing it. Win-win.

I don't know what it is, but I find myself not thinking about her much or not really caring if or when I see her again. I was hoping that perhaps we might get closer as we go out more and open up (we're both pretty introverted), but it's been 4 or 5 dates and I still feel the same way: I'm just not that into her. It sucks. I wish I could fix it because I really would like to be in a committed relationship, but I just don't think it's going to happen with this one.

Specifically dealing with this...

Four or five activities or instances are not enough for you to judge whether or not you're going to have a long-time employee. That's a week - this is generally the honeymoon period. It'd take at least a month before you really get to know a new co-worker, boss, or subordinate and even then you'd consider that knowledge superficial.

Why would you hold a romantic relationship to a faster time table? While it's nice to start off on a heady infatuation, that's no guarantee for whether or not you're going to have a long term relationship, romantic or otherwise, with another person.

I wouldn't be dishonest about my intentions and feelings, if I were you; but I also wouldn't write it off completely just because I'm not feeling it at the moment. Committed relationships aren't built on feelings. They're built on commitment that outlasts feelings, both positive and negative. There have been times when my wife exasperated me to the point where I was tempted to be indiscriminately violent. I shut my trap, told her what's what, and let the feeling pass over the course of a week. My commitment to our arrangement is stronger than my feelings.

In screening prospective partners for long term commitments, I think it's best for you to put that off until you know which factors are so-called "deal-breakers." Examine yourself honestly on a deep level and determine which are the things you cannot live with or cannot live without in a partner. Delve deep. Lots of guys venture only superficially, but end up with a list that they really can live without, and don't realize many things that they can't live with.

In my case, I don't like nagging. It's a major deal-breaker. I won't even put up with much nagging from a friend, let alone a life partner. I told that to my wife when she was still my girlfriend. There are no excuses. No nagging is justifiable. If we were going to build our lives together, she will NOT nag me. Ever. For anything. It was clear as clear could be and we've been 15 years without anything like that going on.

TL DR: Don't be hasty. Reflect on what you really want.

Worth pointing out that Larry was the one supplying me with contrary advice six months ago.

In that case:

TL DR: Don't be hasty. Reflect on what you really want.

Follow your heart; I'm glad I did.

We've been dating a little over 3 weeks, usually 1-2 times a week. And I was mistaken before, I actually counted and we've gone out/seen each other 6 times.

The other issue is that it's starting to get physical and I don't want to get too far into that because it hasn't changed my opinion of her. At the end of the day, I feel that if I never saw her again I wouldn't be that bothered by it, and that is a huge red flag in my book.

Koz wrote:

We've been dating a little over 3 weeks, usually 1-2 times a week. And I was mistaken before, I actually counted and we've gone out/seen each other 6 times.

The other issue is that it's starting to get physical and I don't want to get too far into that because it hasn't changed my opinion of her. At the end of the day, I feel that if I never saw her again I wouldn't be that bothered by it, and that is a huge red flag in my book.

I think it's great that you're self-aware enough to have red flags. It's a good thing. That said, I'll repeat my advice not to get carried away by emotion - or the lack of it. If you have an infatuation, go ahead and enjoy it, but don't plan on an LTR based on that - it's a fleeting situation that comes and goes, sometimes with the same person. Likewise, don't burn your bridges just because you're NOT infatuated by a date right off or even three weeks in. Let her know how you feel and what you plan, but don't call it off.

At the risk of sounding like a total whack-job, my best advice at the moment would be this: exchange used clothes. Let her smell yours, you smell hers. If either of you don't like what you smell, then yeah call it off.

Oh Larry, you're insane. In a good way.

I'm with Grubber and Clover on this. It's tough to end something, especially if you're not good at meeting and dating new people, but you know what's right.

While Larry is right that you can't base a long term relationship on chemistry and infatuation, you do need a bit of that in a relationship, especially the early part.

Just let her down as gently as you can, she will probably be hurt, especially if you just got physical, but it's kinder to do it ASAP.

LarryC wrote:

DanB:

I'm a little miffed about reading how I'm supposed to be a "natural," like all that social skill came easily and automatically. Some of it did, but most of it did not. I just didn't go about it like either Tyler or Mystery or any PUA. In their terminology, you could say that I worked on "inner game" first, and the rest simply followed. I'm convinced that there's no social skill you can't eventually learn with an open mind, a good eye, and bulletproof self-confidence.

Sorry I took you at your word when you said:

but the way Neil describes their benchmarks, I'm what they might consider a "natural."

Not miffed at you; I'm miffed at the entire idea (presented by Strauss) of "naturals" having the benchmarks they describe. I fit those descriptors, but acquiring the skills took time and effort; more than just 2 years. That's why I put the quotation marks and specifically say that it's their specific designation.

LarryC wrote:

Not miffed at you; I'm miffed at the entire idea (presented by Strauss) of "naturals" having the benchmarks they describe. I fit those descriptors, but acquiring the skills took time and effort; more than just 2 years. That's why I put the quotation marks and specifically say that it's their specific designation.

The fact that you put a lot of work in to some of those things suggests that you aren't, by definition, a natural in their terms.

DanB:

It's PUA terminology that has certain implications. One of them is that I didn't work for what I have. That's inaccurate. However, how I relate to women and win them over is more in keeping with what they would term as "natural game." I'm also not part of the seduction community, nor did I learn what I do and say from PUAs. Style uses, of course, "unnatural game." I'm not aware that there's an in-between.

LarryC wrote:

DanB:

It's PUA terminology that has certain implications. One of them is that I didn't work for what I have. That's inaccurate. However, how I relate to women and win them over is more in keeping with what they would term as "natural game." I'm also not part of the seduction community, nor did I learn what I do and say from PUAs. Style uses, of course, "unnatural game." I'm not aware that there's an in-between.

My take was that a natural by definition didn't have to work for it. If you had to work for it, it's neither here nor there whether you were party of the PUA community or not. Although members of that community may well mislabel you because they don't know what you did or didn't work on. I agree that community doesn't really think/speak in terms that there are in betweens, I don't think that's true. Social skills are obviously made up of all sorts of differing interpersonal skills and all people have really mixed capabilities in those differing skills.