So what if a woman actually shows tenacity or discipline that you actually DO admire?The correct way to respond is exactly in the same way you would respond to a man. Most men make two mistakes:
1. They praise a woman for normal male behavior. "Hey, you changed the oil, wow, you must really know a lot about cars!" The fact that a woman knows that Tom Brady is the quarterback of the New England Patriots no more merits gushing over how cool she is than your male friends knowing that Charlize Theron was in, um, whatever movie she is in these days does.
2. They laugh when girls aren't funny. This is a specific example of a much broader phenomenon and is one reason why women tend to overrate themselves. Men tell plain girls they are pretty and pretty girls they are gorgeous all the time. No wonder women look down on them! Does she look like Kate Beckinsale, Marisa Miller, or Sandra Bullock? No? Then she's not gorgeous, and more importantly, she knows it. And you've just displayed your low value by trying to suck up to her by offering up the BS as a toadying supplicant.
But that doesn't mean not laughing when a girl actually is funny. By way of example, although she doesn't ever display it in public, Spacebunny has a very dry wit that can be downright hilarious at times. If she says something funny, I laugh. If it's not funny, I don't. Which happens to be exactly how I treat everyone else, including the little talking people inside the magic box. This isn't rocket science.
Consider the manufactured heroism of Jessica Lynch. The story of her heroics was pure Pentagon propaganda, but suppose she really had armed herself with a machine gun and saved a squad of Marines while shooting down ten enemy combatants. How could you ever justify not granting her due respect for that? When contemplating applied Game, it's necessary to keep in mind that these concepts are intended to be applied to social situations, which by definition are fluid, and therefore there are very, very few hard and fast rules which apply the same way in all situations. That is why its application is an art even if the underlying theories are increasingly based on science.
22 comments:
That's about what I'd figured. I probably give up compliments to women far more begrudgingly because it's becoming instinctive to keep Game going and preserve hand, even with those I have zero intentions on.
I bet SB is a hoot to hang with. Her online style reminds me of my sister-in-law, she's the only woman I've ever met that can semi-regularly shut me up with cutting remarks out of nowhere with so few words and - the cool part - without being bitchy.
Sandra Bullock? Get real, she's a masculine 6 at best.
What on earth would you want to tell her you admire her tenacity or discipline? Why do you feel the need?
Because you interact with men that way? Because women are so turned on by men who reliably provide them with accurate, actionable, concrete data about reality? Because women appreciate men who treat them as equals?
Appreciating her is one thing, when she tries to please you -- if you keep it a bit random and playful and don't overdo it. Admiration, never. The only thing to do with a woman who feels admired is take her down a peg until she doesn't. Women enjoy being admired the way a mean drunk enjoys liquor.
You're treating her like a man. She isn't one. Don't.
Now you're trying too damn hard.
It's not kissing ass to show compassion for a woman that's hurting and having a very rough time. She shames me as a Christian without seeming to try, but I can tell life is straining her right now.
It's easy to lose sight of goals when things get hard. She's doing things for others that sure as **** don't deserve it. And it costs me nothing to point it out from time to time.
If I were so classless to explain her business, you'd be less than a man if you weren't ashamed of yourself and your "advice".
I remember a woman making a funny joke once, when she proposed combining two reality TV formats to Who Wants to be a Bachelor?
I didn't laugh for some reason. I guess I was mentally preoccupied with something else. But I might have.
Sandra Bullock? Get real, she's a masculine 6 at best.
Masculine? On what planet, Noodle-Armed Limpwristia? She's about as attractive as a woman can be without becoming outright threatening to other women. Great cheekbones, great eyes, great smile, good hair, only the body leaves much to be improved.
She still looks pretty good for a woman about to hit 50.
The Pentagon has done some self-serving PR work during the recent Mid-East conflicts (the circumstances of the death of Pat Tilman is example number one) but the Jessica Lynch mythology was created primarily by the MSM.
And what's even sadder is by using almost always unreliable preliminary reports they managed to ignore the heroic action of a male soldier, Sgt. Donald Walters.
It's what Roissy calls Internet Nerdboy Syndrome (INS).
http://www.yusrablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Sandra-Bullock-Hollywood-Celebrity.jpg
She's no less than a 9, to think otherwise is retarded.
You guys are delusional. She's a high 6 tops. All the s@it Vox mentioned are fillers, collagen, etc. She's part tomboy and too masculine.No doubt she has to shave that mustache. Maybe in 94 when Speed came out, but now. Here's reality for Sandy,
flickr.com/photos/39844923@N04/3861279227/
Maybe you guys could take her and her washed up famous white actress/entertainer African accessory , Ubuntu, out cat shopping.
TLM - you are getting hung up on the dress, which is, indeed, a Lovecraftian horror. But getting distracted by ladies' fashion is a girl thing to do when beauty is the question.
She's unquestionably beautiful, and, as far as I can tell, almost shockingly un-melted for upper 40ish H-wood actress.
Maybe you are bad at math. She's a 6 only if the scale goes to 7.
That isn't to say that there aren't pretty/beautiful women who don't trip triggers for some guys, but beauty is surprisingly objective.
Don't make me break out the protractor, but I'd bet a dollar that her facial proportions are approaching phi.
I think Bullock is undeniably cute, a 7. GREAT smile and pretty much the archetypal
"girl next door".
But I tend to almost never say 9 or 10, so I'm a harsh grader on the higher side.
Maybe I should re-think my ratings...
I think Bullock is undeniably cute, a 7. GREAT smile and pretty much the archetypal
"girl next door".
She is... in the movies. Just think about the implications of that. We're not talking about how she happens to look this very moment, but at peak.
That wouldn't be how she "is" now though. It would be how she "was".
I am not sure I agree about that complementing a woman is bad. I find my wife very attractive, though I am sure many would disagree. I am married to her, not all of you, so I really don't care what you all think!
Attitudes are another thing, but we are working on that.
I actually WAS thinking of her peak, say "Love Potion #9" days, but to each their own.
Jessica Lynch wasn't Pentagon propaganda. She was Washington Post propaganda Please get your facts straight.
http://mediamythalert.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/the-militarys-fabrication-no-jessica-lynch-was-wapos-story/
I've got an alpha mail question for you, but I don't see a button or anything so I'll leave it here.
Virtually every divorced man I know has custody of his children (myself included). The story is the same for all of us: after the divorce and our "blind justice" automatically hands our children off to these women. They then use the children like pawns, with-holding visitation, threatening to go for sole custody, not to mention the anal raping we receive from the lovely child support services; but then, something happens, and we become the primary custodial parent.
Afterwards, the mothers just... Give up. They (in all the examples I've personally seen) never visit, never call, and quite rapidly sign over their parental rights. Statistically speaking, there's a higher percentage of women who are dead-beat moms than there are dead-beat dads.
You seem a hell of a lot smarter than me, so I was hoping maybe you could help me understand it, possibly in a way I can explain to my boys when they're older. They ask me why their mom doesn't love them anymore, and "because she's a cunt" isn't an acceptable answer for 7 & 9 year olds...
That wouldn't be how she "is" now though. It would be how she "was".
What aspect of the reference point concept do you fail to understand? This isn't a post concerning Sandra Bullock's rating. I'm only surprised that someone isn't beating on their chest and claiming that Kate Beckinsale is a 3.
No wonder so many guys need Game spelled out to them in a series of immutable laws even though it isn't optimally applied that way.
I assumed the picture was from now, which I didn't find that compelling.
All the comments about here didn't refer to her "in the past" until yours. They just said what she was, implying now.
Perhaps you need to be a bit more thoughtful about what other people think. Though it is your blog and you can be as obnoxious as you want to be. It is more motivating for you that way I am sure.
I fully admit I am still trying to form a completely comprehensive viewpoint in this area and I am not the master as some claim to be, but that is my way. You don't learn without any questions and comments, even if a few seem odd.
"Perhaps you need to be a bit more thoughtful about what other people think."
And perhaps you need to be a bit less of an aspie.
In this case, the conversation in these responses all seem to be on her present state, not here past state, but noting that is aspie or being an idiot.
It seems a relevant issue, as two sides can talk past each other otherwise, if they are talking about different things.
But hey, believe whatever you will.
Perhaps you need to be a bit more thoughtful about what other people think. Though it is your blog and you can be as obnoxious as you want to be. It is more motivating for you that way I am sure.
Or perhaps you should pay attention to the entire point of the post rather than focusing pedantically on a totally irrelevant example of the point.
You're wrong. It not only doesn't seem relevant, it's not relevant at all. If you don't like the example of Miss Bullock, then substitute any other woman who qualifies as legitimately gorgeous in your book.
Kate does have very large hands though. Still rates high.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.