Raising the odds of someone falling in love with you.

[ShySoul]

Well lil lady (spoken in the best cowboy accent I can come up with ),

 

Good point. I've had some people say I'm right. But I'm pretty sure most of the people who so fiercely fight against me actually get my point and agree. It's their foolish proud that won't let them admit to it. I mean, why would they want to admit that this "nice" and "shy" guy can teach them more about relationships then some "macho" and "bad" guy?

 

Always a pleasure hearing from a sweet gal. Let me know whats on your mind sometime, ya hear?

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

Those are two polar extremes shy and I thin a nice shy guy's advice is only a tad worse than the macho bad guy's. Neither are usually pragmatic in general nor do I think any of my advice is immoral.

That being said I am pleased to see my opinions have at least generated discussion.

[Markers]

Good point. I've had some people say I'm right. But I'm pretty sure most of the people who so fiercely fight against me actually get my point and agree. It's their foolish proud that won't let them admit to it. I mean, why would they want to admit that this "nice" and "shy" guy can teach them more about relationships then some "macho" and "bad" guy?

 

 

are you intentionally trying to piss me off? Or being "funny" again? You're telling here to everyone that since I'm so fiercely fighting against you, I actually would AGREE (??) with you or get your point (again, ??). What? If I'd agree, I'd say that and definitely would not bother writing page long essays about subject.. get real.

 

You claim that I'm arrogant. Yet you try to talk wise with that "most who fight against me actually agree with me - they have problems with their pride" accent. Sorry, you're the overly arrogant guy here. You think you are wise, but despite your meticulous grammar your logic is seriously leaking.

 

Please, hold it, Shy "I'm right" Soul. You didn't pick my hint that I'd wish this conversation to end. You didn't pick my hint about the fact everyone must make up their own minds, not listen to us. You said I'm wrong, and said they should listen to you and only you.

 

That is alone a very good reason not to listen to you, as it's completely against what you preach about arrogance.

[ShySoul]

Ya know, I was feeling kinda down. But it puts a smile on my face to see how much overreaction a few words can incite. It's really amusing when you stop and think abou it.

 

are you intentionally trying to piss me off? Or being "funny" again? You're telling here to everyone that since I'm so fiercely fighting against you, I actually would AGREE (??) with you or get your point (again, ??). What? If I'd agree, I'd say that and definitely would not bother writing page long essays about subject.. get real

 

Calm down there boy. I was having a cute side conversation with a lady. No reason to go nuclear on me now. I just find it interesting (again) that when I talk with the ladies they are 1)more open and reasonable and 2) tend to agree with me. And it has been my experience that when people don't want to face something, they'll pull out every trick in the book to avoid facing what they know is true. And you can usually tell because they resort to language like "piss off" or name calling like "Shy "I'm right" Soul." That's especially true when it becomes a pattern... hmmm.....

 

Sorry, you're the overly arrogant guy here. You think you are wise, but despite your meticulous grammar your logic is seriously leaking.

 

Huh, your saying that about the guy who has always been described as too logical and a "master" of logic. You're saying that to the guy that has been told by more then one female that he understands women perfectly.

 

That is alone a very good reason not to listen to you, as it's completely against what you preach about arrogance.

 

Voicing my opinion and saying what I have observed work more times then I can count. That's not arrogance, thats repeating facts.

 

But as I have said before, this goes beyond relationships/dating/etc. This is about the kind of person you want to be. When I say be a nice guy, its not even about girls. It is about the person. The fact that people like those who are nice, respectful, and doesn't try to mess with them or play games with them... thats just common sense.

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

Shy I find your attitude very arrogant. Women say you understand them because you worship them. What they say about you and how they behave are totally different.

When you talk about women being more reasonable and logical while talking to a male and then call him boy (even joking) of course he is going to find you patronizing and irritating whether or not you are joking.

He hasn't insulted you. He has reacted torwards you insulting him.

When you start talking about how other people laud you of course it is pompous. It is a retalitory hubris however. One that is based less off legitimate self-confidence and more based off low self-esteem turned into sudden self-approval.

I am NOT attacking you.

I am pointing out however that you have very inspired beliefs that depicts a safe and secure world view for you and after having suffered from self-doubt you suddenly are overpleased with yourself for your special wisdom.

However you need to start paying attention less to what people say and more of what they do.

Words are cheap.

What you see working (not sure what your examples are) hasn't actually worked until the results are in. And this ain't florida.

[ShySoul]

Bonus points for the Florida line. Hope you don't mind if I use that one some time. 8)

 

Shy I find your attitude very arrogant. Women say you understand them because you worship them. What they say about you and how they behave are totally different.

 

I don't worship anything or anyone (ok, I pray to the football gods that the 49ers will win more then 2 games this year and to the parking gods that there will be a good parking space ). I'm perfectly reasonable. My best friend and the smartest person I know is a man, so I'm not some man hater who sucks up to women. I'll stand up when a women is wrong, I have plenty of times. I can't help it if I naturally get along great with women. They say I'm a great guy who understands them, and like being around me and trusts me with personal stuff. Where's the difference? Are you going to bring up that they haven't gone out with me so theres some difference between what they say and how they act? Has nothing to do with that. Until recently I just hadn't found someone I had enough in common with to go out with. But the facts are: women tend to agree with me more, they compliment me on how nice I am and say I understand them. Most are actually stunned to find out I haven't had a relationship before.

 

When you talk about women being more reasonable and logical while talking to a male and then call him boy (even joking) of course he is going to find you patronizing and irritating whether or not you are joking.

He hasn't insulted you. He has reacted torwards you insulting him.

 

If I wanted to go back I'm willing to bet good money he threw the first punch. But no matter who swung first, my blows have been soft and light hearted, his has aimed below the belt. And when you've had guy after guy doing that, can ya blame a guy for getting annoyed every once in awhile?

 

When you start talking about how other people laud you of course it is pompous. It is a retalitory hubris however. One that is based less off legitimate self-confidence and more based off low self-esteem turned into sudden self-approval.

 

My self esteem is pretty high. I've had to deal with plenty of stuff over the years. But no matter what I kept to my values. I didn't give in or back down. And I have always been complimented on the person I am. It's not bragging, I've always been one to want out of the spotlight. But when I constantly hear ideas that are hurtful to the person using them and to others, I have to voice my opinion because I don't want to see them hurt. And if I can use personal experience to demonstrate why what they are saying is a bad idea and why what I say is better... I will. Everything I say and do is based off a desire to help others, that has always been the one thing I've wanted to do in life.

 

I am pointing out however that you have very inspired beliefs that depicts a safe and secure world view for you and after having suffered from self-doubt you suddenly are overpleased with yourself for your special wisdom

 

My world is anything but safe and secure. I know full well that at any second something bad can happen, it has before and it will happen again. But I believe that you have to stick to your values, to ethics and moraity, or else your life doesn't about too much. And I happen to have a strong sense of what is right. I will not play games, I will not tease. I will be polite, respectful, and a gentleman. And in the end, for all the troubles and criticisms I have endured, I will end up fine... because I have stayed true to myself and to being a good person.

 

Yes, there has been self doubt. Everyone doubts themselves. You carry those same doubts and your doubts run much deeper. You won't like me saying this, and its not an attack. It's simple what is evident from your posts and I don't think I am alone in seeing this (I'm just the only one thats going to say it). You have experienced bad things, and it has convinced you that the world is a bad place. So to maintain some kind of control you look to instigate fights, though you disguise them as debates. You need to come up with as far out there and outrageous things as possible so the spotlight is on you. I doubt you'll listen to anything I say, but in your heart, you know it. Thing is, you already revealed yourself to me when you told me you were rooting for me and my girl to work out. You said you wanted to believe in what I was saying and doing, and that you were my biggest supporter. If this blows your cover on here and demonstrates that you aren't as committed to the things you post about as you want to come off.... fine. Lets be completely honest now.

 

However you need to start paying attention less to what people say and more of what they do.

Words are cheap.

What you see working (not sure what your examples are) hasn't actually worked until the results are in

 

I'm not going into it cause I don't like to reveal my friends lives without permission. But when would you consider the results to be in? When you spend the night with someone? When they move half way accross the country to be with you? When they have been together 4 years? When they are married? When they have been married for over 10 years? Those results are in, so its not just words. It's fact.

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

You won't like me saying this, and its not an attack. It's simple what is evident from your posts and I don't think I am alone in seeing this (I'm just the only one thats going to say it). You have experienced bad things, and it has convinced you that the world is a bad place. So to maintain some kind of control you look to instigate fights, though you disguise them as debates. You need to come up with as far out there and outrageous things as possible so the spotlight is on you. I doubt you'll listen to anything I say, but in your heart, you know it---------------

 

 

Shy on the contrary I don't mind anything you have to say about me.

Trust me, I actually stop well short of most of my attacks, ESP with you, cuz I find you slightly innocent. This is kids gloves.

Yes I think the world is a bad place and yes I do so not just because I have experienced bad things but also cuz I have seen them, read about them, and noticed them. That is called an observation.

Do I think there are good things in this world? Usally. Unless I am in a bad mood.

Do I enjoy the spotlight? Yeah, I am a total maverick.

Most the ourageous stuff though is very much me being me and cuz it is fun.

 

 

You said you wanted to believe in what I was saying and doing, and that you were my biggest supporter. If this blows your cover on here and demonstrates that you aren't as committed to the things you post about as you want to come off.... fine. ------------

 

I am not nor have I ever been tempted to believe in anything you have had to say.

I might have pondered it. I usually consider everything anybody says cuz I like trying to have an open mind. But that wasn't because your viewpoints were espcially tempting.

I said I was your biggest supporter because I do indeed want you to get this girl you want. I am not sure how you think that is inconsistent with who you think I want people to believe I am. I have always been honest with who I am. I have never claimed to be anything different.

I am aggressive. Provocative. But I never claimed to be a bad guy.

I argue cuz that is how I learn and disect. It works better than simple debate. And usually I find myself censuring myself.

I disagree shy. I don't think you are very confident. Not sincerely. You don't argue or present yourself confidently. You are too threatened by viewpoints that are not your own. Not just passionatly opposed but outright threatened.

I do however think you will be condfident one day and I do believe things will turn out very well for you. But right now you are posessed of a slightly artificial arrogance.

[ShySoul]

Shy on the contrary I don't mind anything you have to say about me.

Trust me, I actually stop well short of most of my attacks, ESP with you, cuz I find you slightly innocent. This is kids gloves.

 

Take off the gloves and bring it on then. I've sing with the angels and I've played chess with devil, you can't do anything to me. You know how to reach me if you want to do it in private. Let's dance...

 

Yes I think the world is a bad place and yes I do so not just because I have experienced bad things but also cuz I have seen them, read about them, and noticed them. That is called an observation.

 

I could give you a head spinning list of horrible things I have observed. It's astonishing I ain't bitter, but I'm strong and I still hold high hopes for something better. Why? Cause without that hope, we doom ourselves to the same cycle of problems we see now.

 

Do I enjoy the spotlight? Yeah, I am a total maverick.

 

For a maverick you certainly cater towards the same tired stuff that is normally said. A real maverick would be overturning the ideas that you have to play games or assuming that things will continue like they are. Be a real rebel, don't accept the way the world is, fight it.

 

I disagree shy. I don't think you are very confident. Not sincerely. You don't argue or present yourself confidently. You are too threatened by viewpoints that are not your own. Not just passionatly opposed but outright threatened.

I do however think you will be condfident one day and I do believe things will turn out very well for you.

 

I'm confident enought to say you have no clue who you are talking to. I am not threatened by anyone or anything. God himself could come down and challenge me and I would still question him if I didn't agrue. I've been to hell and back countless times. Why would I feel threatened by a bunch of instigators trying to stir up trouble cause they need to have the spotlight thrown on them or cause they need to convince themselves they are in the right? Please, threatened? More like disturbed and disgusted. And amused to.

 

Isn't it interesting? One post says I'm arrogant. Another since I lack confidence. People, people, people, make up your minds.

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

Shy I said artificial arrogance. And I explained in detail what that meant.

If i recall the last time we went to a private chatroom you yelled at me and left abrupty and I had been playing it sensitive. And honestly, I am not gonna try to hurt you shy. There would be no point in it. I am trying to save you from what I see as self-destructive.

As far as seeing what something bad is and holding on to your beliefs -- I believe in calling a spade a spade. Why hold on to a belief you held prior to new evidence?

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

Why I gotta admit I was surprised about the catering torwards the normal stuff that is usually being said.

Many of my viewpoints as you yourself know are not traditional or what is usually being said.

I don't cater torwards anything. I am pragmatic. I do what works. Whether it is what everybody thinks is wrong, or whether it is what is popular.

[ShySoul]

I don't cater torwards anything. I am pragmatic. I do what works. Whether it is what everybody thinks is wrong, or whether it is what is popular.

 

How exactly is it working? I believe you've said you are bored. I don't believe you are in any kind of a relationship, though you are free to correct me if I am mistaken. In fact, you seem to get your jollies from starting trouble on here. Is that what you mean by success.

 

If i recall the last time we went to a private chatroom you yelled at me and left abrupty and I had been playing it sensitive

 

Other issues have left me on edge in the last few days. I didn't have the energy nor the desire to correct a guy hell bent on picking fights just to entertain himself. You can't say anything I haven't heard before and shot to pieces. Your welcome to try though. And once I have dealt with whats on my mind, your feel what its like to meet someone you can't defeat, upset, intimidate, stir up, overwhelm, etc.

 

As far as seeing what something bad is and holding on to your beliefs -- I believe in calling a spade a spade. Why hold on to a belief you held prior to new evidence?

 

So do I. Question though, why change by belief when everything I have seen has just supported my belief to begin with. I don't see these people succeeding. I see these people hiding up obvious pain. They deserve our pity and sympathy, not to be emulated. All the evidence points to what I say. If you can't see that, I feel sorry for you.

 

I am trying to save you from what I see as self-destructive.

 

Right, and I'm going to marry Tyra Banks. The path I am on is leading me to something you haven't even dreamed of. The path you are on is one to self annilation.

 

Many of my viewpoints as you yourself know are not traditional or what is usually being said.

 

Accept, many of them are. And even the ones who aren't are predictable given your general attidude. Your trying to be unpredicatable, which is when you can often become the most predictable.

[Screenplay]

I dunno, after reading all of this, I'd have to agree with Shy more than anything else. Though granted some of his posts in this thread have been fairly pointed and driven, and I'll give you he definitely rides a high horse here and there, the underlying bits I agree with. The nudging crap is nonsense; you can't alter emotions, you can only develop the ones that already exist. I'm no stranger to relationships in general, both good ones and bad, and would be the first one to tell you no amount of nudging is going to change the way a person genuinely feels.

[Markers]

Screenplay - "The nudging crap is nonsense; you can't alter emotions, you can only develop the ones that already exist" Yes yes! I have never claimed that anything can create attraction out of nowhere. Nudging is developing emotions to the direction you want them to go. If a girl in general thinks you're okay, you can do a lot with nudging. If a girl loaths you, there's nothing you can do but to stay away and hope she forgets you..

 

 

Shy - couple of more things, I could quote everything Napoleon has said and agree, but there's somethings I want to clear up myself:

 

"If I wanted to go back I'm willing to bet good money he threw the first punch".

 

It wasn't me. First comment here that was offensive here (other than the obvious fact we disagreed, which can offend some people, not me though), was the famous "But I'm pretty sure most of the people who so fiercely fight against me actually get my point and agree. It's their foolish proud that won't let them admit to it".

 

Which leads me to the second point I want to make: Shy "Master of Logic" Soul, could you please explain me, that by using WHAT logic you can explain away this: why I seriously would bother writing any of these essays in a foreign language unless I strongly felt you're wrong? Why would I?

 

I find that comment not only arrogant but rude as well, I find it to be a cheap trick of argumentation, it's goal is to annoy others and fool the ones who don't bother thinking themselves. It's not logical, as you could notice if you could objectively re-read what you've written. This obviously shows you're not what you think you are - not master of logic nor that humble. Your self image is apparently skewed. As Napoleon told you, "having suffered from self-doubt you suddenly are overpleased with yourself for your special wisdom." I daresay the latter probably is created by the former. Both can exist the same time.

 

Proof for that insecurity? You're tearing down every line here, making sure you're always here to comment.. you can't give this a rest, you're always bringing up "my stuff works" even though others' tone says: "let's end this discussion, neither can convince eachother". One that I'd keep the most obvious proof is the fact you have more than twice boasted with the fact you have so and so many girls flirting and having crush on you and how women say you understand them perfectly.. that is a sign of major insecurity.

 

Proof for the overpleasement with your wisdom: "God himself could come down and challenge me and I would still question him if I didn't agrue. I've been to hell and back countless times." I can answer you with a quote: "you know nothing of hell". No matter what you've seen, your petty problems with anything you might have possibly confronted are really small compared to what you can see in this world. And while most here haven't seen the really bad side of this world, some have seen as bad or worse than you. Also the God -part of it.. who could dream of even questioning God if God came to challenge you?

 

I could bring in loads of quotes like that..

 

Also, you accuse of Napoleon trying to start this all over again, even though he didn't.. infact, you tried to start it over by asking "how exactly is it working?" (read the whole paragraph below)

 

"How exactly is it working? I believe you've said you are bored. I don't believe you are in any kind of a relationship, though you are free to correct me if I am mistaken. In fact, you seem to get your jollies from starting trouble on here. Is that what you mean by success. "

 

the fact that he's not in relationship shouldn't matter, to you least of all, as you have never had a girlfriend and still do this - feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken though.

 

 

 

I'm not gonna debate much here anymore, I don't care, you can do whatever you want Shy, but don't feed your ideas to everyone, rather tell people to think themselves. If you're trying to argue over that as well, you're really self-centered and arrogant. Thanks.

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

Markers very well put. You said what I was about to and you articulated it very well.

Shy I have yet to personally attack you. I made it clear that I want you to get the girl. I have no intention of trying to hurt you. I am in fact trying to be nice while giving you constructive criticism.

And me being single is not because of the advice I have given out here.

I know what I have done that works overall and what hasn't.

[MetallicAguy]

I definitely agree with Markers and Napoleon. Markers last post, I thought was great.

[darkblue]

Markers last post was a piece of debating genius.

 

Shy - agree to disagree; I can't see you coming back from that.

[ShySoul]

Markers last post was a piece of debating genius.

 

Shy - agree to disagree; I can't see you coming back from that.

 

DB, you're right. Even I know that you can't always get by alone. Which is why I've decided to bring in the big guns. I was talking this over with a smart, insightful, and dear friend of mines who has read the ongoing debates. She said several things which really get to the heart of what all of you are saying and why you are saying it. I don't expect any of you to agree with it, but she said I could use it and I think it should be said.

 

That "real" men have to play games. If there's really something "there", that's what keeps the relationship alive not games...

games are meant to confuse and hide the lack of personality, compability, etc. ...games are enacted out of fear and need to control... and that's why guys also have this attitude love = war...they're really afraid of women and how badly we can hurt them...so they try to control us, confuse us...yes but i was speaking more along the line of controlling women... they belittle us, emotionally abuse us etc. to make sure we don't leave... that we think we can't do better...when all along it's them that's frightened of losing us.

 

ME: of course, not like they'll listen to the truth

 

Her: lol they do, they have to everytime you argue with them, they have to acknowledge your point and then come back with something... one more thing...so when things are ending...that's why men treat women the worst...it's like we betrayed them, we actually put ourselves first for a change...and decided that what ever they're offering is hurting us so badly that we have to leave..and so i read post after post here... by women who don't understand...how can be so cold?..how can be so mean? and just start sleeping with other women right away? etc. it all goes back to love = war. and if you're not with me, you're against me.

 

but back to your detractors. they love to fight you for the same reason they like to fight women ... manhood. you advocating "no games" hits them right where they define who they are as "men" They've defined their manhood by their "success" with women. a numbers game. so they're not likely any time soon to agree with you even though what you advocate is more meaningful and fulfilling in the long run. and of course how do you convince someone that the sun exists when all they know is darkness?

 

In other words, "success" (loads of women and control over them, because control ensures the most needs being met with the least amount of effort) with women is more important to them than love.

 

Love is risky. Love makes us vulnerable. Love can't be controlled.

 

So (although you don't realize it because you see all the benefits love can bring) what you're asking them to do is to make themselves vulnerable to being hurt.

 

And when you consider that most men define manhood by 'that which isn't female (sissy)', you can see why being rejected by a female is so humiliating and emasculating. Hence the overwhelming urge to turn women into the "enemy" when a relationship ends. Women are the (castrating) enemy!

 

It's no wonder to me that these guys choose "games." Games get them all the superficial things (sex, attention, ego boosts) they want at the least amount of risk to themselves.

 

I already know what everyone else is going to think of that, but I want to know your opinion darkblue. You seem more reasonable. Think that was a fitting comeback? Another piece of debating genius?

[ShySoul]

Nudging is developing emotions to the direction you want them to go. If a girl in general thinks you're okay, you can do a lot with nudging. If a girl loaths you, there's nothing you can do but to stay away and hope she forgets you..

 

If a girl thinks your ok, then what you were doing before the nudging was just fine, no need to try anything else. Just keep being yourself and if shes going to like you, she will. Anything is manipulating to get what you want out of it. And thats, as my last post stated, is all about control.

 

"But I'm pretty sure most of the people who so fiercely fight against me actually get my point and agree. It's their foolish proud that won't let them admit to it".

 

Actually it goes back much longer then that. This isn't the first disagreement, it won't be the last. Seriously, there's no point in a who stated it argument. The simple fact is, you guys make posts about how you need to game play/tease/ be a bad boy/etc in order to have "success" and "increase your odds" with women. I disgree so I voice my opinion in an effort to make sure all sides are heard, reach the nice guys who are frustrated and considering this stuff, and to warn the ladies of your real motivations. You feel like it hits you where it hurts (see last post), so you have to come roaring back, usually attacking my right to say it or the fact that I so fiercly defend it, rather then actually find anything wrong with what I say. And the fact that I don't give in and back down annoys you more, cause you can't convert me or get rid of me. I'm a physical form of the doubts you all have that maybe, just maybe, your not really doing the right thing.

 

why I seriously would bother writing any of these essays in a foreign language unless I strongly felt you're wrong? Why would I?

 

Curious, whats the native language? To answer your question, see everything my friend told me in the last post. Then find a secluded spot and mediatate on it. What do you see?

 

One that I'd keep the most obvious proof is the fact you have more than twice boasted with the fact you have so and so many girls flirting and having crush on you and how women say you understand them perfectly.. that is a sign of major insecurity.

 

Actual, its called proof. Back at the start of the year I was being told I couldn't comment because I didn't have any experience in relationships. So I got experience. Now I am being told that I shouldn't use the experience that I have to back up what I say. It isn't insecurity, I was just giving people what they had asked for originally... proof that what I say works.

 

You're tearing down every line here, making sure you're always here to comment.. you can't give this a rest, you're always bringing up "my stuff works" even though others' tone says: "let's end this discussion, neither can convince eachother"

 

No one is making you post in response to me. Which makes you guys just as guilty of that as me.

 

you know nothing of hell". No matter what you've seen, your petty problems with anything you might have possibly confronted are really small compared to what you can see in this world. And while most here haven't seen the really bad side of this world, some have seen as bad or worse than you.

 

And my humble side tells me that as well. I'm the kind of guy who feels guilty about thinking I have it hard and have voluntereed plenty of time to making the world a better place. I've said it for years, I want to things in this world. One, to help others. Two, to be loved. That is what my life is about. I help others as much as I can. And I believe in true love the likes of which your not even considering right now. You don't know my life outside this issue, so don't comment on it. But suffice to say, that I still believe in love to the extent I do, it is outstanding.

 

Also the God -part of it.. who could dream of even questioning God if God came to challenge you?

 

I do. If God was to come here and tell me something that violates my soul, I wouldn't do it. The God I believe in wouldn't do that, but if he did, I would have to follow my heart. Say God came here and said I had to kill a baby cause he would grow up to be an evil dictator. It's not in me to kill, so I would have to go against God cause morally, I would be opposed to it.

 

Though Markers, I do remember that you are religious so I don't expect you to get that idea. But if I remember correctly, you were against gays. What if God came to you and said he was in favor of it? Would you automatically change your mind just cause God said to? And if you did, what does that say? That you can't make up your own mind but have to blindly follow what ever this being says? God gives free will, and its not free will if we have to follow what God says without being able to challenge it for ourselves.

[darkblue]

I already know what everyone else is going to think of that, but I want to know your opinion darkblue. You seem more reasonable. Think that was a fitting comeback? Another piece of debating genius?

 

Maybe more reasonable - probably just more open-minded.

 

Congratulations - a very worthy set of come backs.

 

I spoke too soon.

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

"and that's why guys also have this attitude love = war...they're really afraid of women and how badly we can hurt them...so they try to control us, confuse us...yes but i was speaking more along the line of controlling women... they belittle us, emotionally abuse us etc. to make sure we don't leave... that we think we can't do better...when all along it's them that's frightened of losing us."

 

I understand you said your friend has been following some of your discussions but perhaps this wasn't one of them, she isn't adressing the debate itself or what is being argued..

It is okay that your friend is angry at men and past relationships and she probably has a reason to be.

I also understand why she might feel the need to let go of some of this negativity. I would like to help your friend let go of her anger but that would be more appropriate in a private message since it would be off topic here.

Either way I am glad that she has a friend like you shy to share in her resentment and disgust of men. This is probably part of your role for her and I think that could be very healthy.

 

That "real" men have to play games. If there's really something "there", that's what keeps the relationship alive not games...

 

I agree something has to be there to keep a relationship alive. Games can't do it.

However whenever a woman start talking about what specific behavior defines a real men I start to doubt the argument before it has even begun. Why? Because it is manipultive and based on the persons validation rather than debating the argument.

Heck women don't even know what being a man is like, and many of them fail just as often as men in choosing good mates, so why should they decide the criteria?

 

games are meant to confuse and hide the lack of personality, compability, etc. ...games are enacted out of fear and need to control...

 

These are sometimes why games are meant to control and they are of a more specific variety. What we are talking about here is not always being available when you are not even in a relationship with that person. What we are talking about here is wooing a mate that you already have a lot in common with, can talk to for hours and hours, there is a basic attraction -- basically we are discussing not overwatering a flower. Nobody has said anything gender speicic and the advice cited was from a female for both sexes.

 

What is more controling? Letting go a little and taking your time to get back to them, keeping a distance "somtimes" or always being available because you think every moment you are with them is an opportunity that they might fall in love with you as shy's behavior has repeatedly demonstraed?

 

I am not always available to my male friends. I often take days getting back to them.

Why should a woman who I am not in a relationship with (esp one who just considers me a friend) be any different?

Furthermore, (and off topic) the emotional abuse she details are types of behaviors common among both genders (esp borderline personalities, more likely to be found in women).

I think everybody is worried about being rejected by somebody they fall in love with. And we are discussng wooing the opposite sex. Not rejecting them.

We are talking about being available and then less available to give them time to digest the meaning of the relationship.

 

 

 

ME: of course, not like they'll listen to the truth

Her: ---everytime you argue with them, they have to acknowledge your point and then come back with something...

 

 

I think your friend just made a very intelligent statement shy. She just defined the word debate better than the websters dictionary.

Debate means understanding the persons viewpoint and when you disagree with it or think it has too many holes in it you respond with what you consider a superior argument.

I consider debate to be a positive thing.

What is not a debate is making broad statements that I am right and they are wrong, bypassing the whole rebuttal, and then proceeding to circumvent the persons logic by denigrating his present circumstances while overemphasising every thing you've recently perceived as positive in your own present life.

 

 

 

 

but back to your detractors. they love to fight you for the same reason they like to fight women ... manhood. you advocating "no games" hits them right where they define who they are as "men" They've defined their manhood by their "success" with women. a numbers game. so they're not likely any time soon to agree with you even though what you advocate is more meaningful and fulfilling in the long run. and of course how do you convince someone that the sun exists when all they know is darkness?

 

Ah shucks, once more, has your friend really been reading this shy or are you just putting us on? Perhaps she just assumes we define our success with women as a numbers games because we are men (which would be a very egregious prejuduice and generalization on her part).

After all, as I recall the topic has been romantic love and avoiding being 'just friends ' -- a position I believe you yourself shy have often in the past found yourself in.

Nobody has mentioned women as a numbers game.

Nobody has mentioned manhood.

The advice I offered was written and cited by a female author as much for womens practical use as for the men.

The difference between you and I shy is you see this as a fight against us. Good verse evil. A war as your friend mentioned.

We see this as a rejection of your arguments, not you.

You and your friend discuss people being threatened of your viewpoints.

I attacked your viewpoints. You attacked me. That is the difference between how we argued. The former disagreed, the latter fights because he is afraid of being wrong.

 

Love is risky. Love makes us vulnerable. Love can't be controlled. --- Once you fall in love you are right, it can't be controled. This isn't about controling somebody who loves you.

It is about controling yourself enough so that somebody can love you.

 

Love isn't magic and there are different way it can happen. Sometimes they just fall in your lap but rarely. Usually you have to put some kind of effort into getting there which in this instance means expressing yourself, effort, and then letting go a little and drifting.

Nothing suggested is a substitute for personality.Nothing is being suggested that can create an attraction that was never there to begin with.

It's only making it possible for that attraction to grow into something more.

And first you have to be able to emotionally (and probably physically) connect.

Another disagreement we have: you see me as advocating games. I don't view this as a game at all. First, this is serious. Second of all it isn't about dominating the other person. Third, I am advocating being LESS controling because you aren't smothering them and you are letting them put in at least half the effort.

Nothing I or Tracy suggested causes feelings to develop in anyway other than their own. '

That would be magic.

 

Shy's second post:

 

Anything is manipulating to get what you want out of it. ---- this doesn't make any sense shy. If i get something I want it is manipulation?

The advice suggested by Tracy isn't suggesting you not be yourself. It is suggesting self control if anything.

 

Actually it goes back much longer then that. This isn't the first disagreement, it won't be the last. Seriously, there's no point in a who stated it argument. The simple fact is, you guys make posts about how you need to game play/tease/ be a bad boy/etc in order to have "success" and "increase your odds" with women ----

I haven't mentioned being a bad boy or teasing anybody and I don't recall markers every saying anything of the sort.

 

Actual, its called proof. Back at the start of the year I was being told I couldn't comment because I didn't have any experience in relationships. So I got experience. Now I am being told that I shouldn't use the experience that I have to back up what I say. It isn't insecurity, I was just giving people what they had asked for originally... proof that what I say works.

 

------------ shy nobody here has asked you for proof of anything. We are all happy that you have been cuddling and holding hands with a woman. I'm proud of you. But it isn't proof of anything. And you aren't in a position to question anybody's relationship experience. Esp somebody who has been in a relationship that lasted yrs and continues to last.

 

You don't know my life outside this issue, so don't comment on it. But suffice to say, that I still believe in love to the extent I do, it is outstanding. -------- honestly no one would have commented on your life if you hadn't kept bringing it up every two seconds while trying to convince us everything is going great, you are wise and we know how right you are we just are too afraid to admit it. I mean c'mon. You want to believe that because it is important for you to be right. More important that you believe you are right than actually finding out whether or not you are wrong. This is the same reason why when the other night you said our principals will last forever and I said well what about when the human species die instead of admitting there was a flaw in your logic you started rambling on about aliens and time travel.

It is important for you to be right, just as it is important for you to believe you are more moral and courageous than everybody else because you think it makes you in some kind of way superior and unique and thus allows you to make sense of your past bad experiences.

This is not a criticism. We all have behaviors we could work on. I am simply pointing out why you immediately follow your gut feelings in debate and then going on and oin about yourself. I can understand how somebody can become so self -absorbed (I'm sure you;ll take me to task for that comment) but it makes you especially vulnerable to not understanding another person's viewpoint.

[Markers]

Shy - I must admit, I'm disappointed. Why did you again tear up my post, even though I said I won't debate against you anymore?

 

Napoleon - well said, I agree with you. Keep up the debate for me, if Shy can stop quoting my posts, I'll stop posting here. I'll try to make my meanings so plain that Shy can't misunderstand them.

 

 

 

Shy - My native language is Finnish, English is taught at school here. But now I need to clear my christian views here a bit first: God has already told us in Bible what we need to know about gay-marriages. God will not come and tell me the other way. Also, God will not tell us anything that violates our souls, it's only us who violate God. If we assume "God" is what "God" in christianity means, it would be extremely foolish not to do as God tells us, and following whatever God says sounds like a very good idea.

 

So give me an example about God I can relate to, please. But not in this thread, you very well turned my comment of your overpleasement into a whole new argument about God. I don't have unlimited leisure time to debate, and I don't think people in general want to have a debate about God here, since this thread is about dating.

 

 

I would have hoped you to bring in your friend to debate instead of just quoting, there's no much point at debating of it since the author won't be answering. Also, I don't think, just as Napoleon, that your friend has read this thread - I can't believe your friend would have misunderstood my points as badly as you did.

 

The quote itself was quite interesting and would have provided some fresh ideas to the debate.. if it just had had something to do with the debate itself...

 

You see, nobody in this thread defined success with women by numbers, other than you. You boasted with your success and personal life, which is why we commented on it. Nobody in this thread suggested that men should be "cold and mean" to girls. In short, nobody suggested in this thread the things you and your friend assume us to suggest.

 

Nobody suggested that I'm about games, manipulation or any kinds of heart breaking.. other than you. I don't have to hide my personality - by doing what I do, I'm just making sure everyone comes and finds out what I'm really like. You will never understand my principles because you're so determined not to do so. I dare say this, since you keep constantly misunderstanding my points and ignoring me when I correct you about my views. Or then you simply skew my words until they mean what you want them to mean - until they mean I'm after "horrible manipulation and emotional abuse".

 

I would never abuse anyone in any way. I would never manipulate anyone, especially the ones I love.

 

I find it very insulting of you or your friend to even doubt such.

 

 

I couldn't even abuse anyone.. it's sick.

[Napoleon Bonaparte]

Marker as always, you put it great. Never doubt your english my friend. Most people in american can't articulate themselves in English nearly as well as you.

[darkblue]

Just one point that I want to raise, Markers.

 

I need to clear my christian views here a bit first: God has already told us in Bible what we need to know about gay-marriages. God will not come and tell me the other way

 

It was also in the bible that Christians should fight off oncoming religions other than Christianity, much the same as is still in the Quran.

 

This was 'modified' or 'modernised' to accept other faiths.

[Markers]

 

It was also in the bible that Christians should fight off oncoming religions other than Christianity, much the same as is still in the Quran.

 

This was 'modified' or 'modernised' to accept other faiths.

 

well, this is my fault that we're discussing this here. I'll keep this short - I haven't modernised christianity at all. I take it as it is, and why I don't fight against oncoming religions with weapons.. there's so much else in Bible that says: Don't hurt anyone. Same goes to gays, I do understand them, gay people are just like everyone else - I do accept them just as they are, of course. Still, I don't agree with those who say "it's justified in Bible" because it isn't.

 

Let's drop this subject from this thread, feel free to PM me about religions if you want.

[darkblue]

Very well, Markers.

 

You're stance on the religion aspect of the debate is now perfectly clear, so there isn't any need to bring it up any further.

 

I won't PM you about religion because we Will never see eye to eye on the subject, but of course; we're both entitled to our opinions. We'll leave it there.