amaysngrace Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 You are both right. People tend to add missing POSITIVE genes actually. Perhaps but I don't see how a confident individual is going to seek out an insecure cling-on. I think the strong stay with the strong while the weak attract the weak. Again, just my observation.
alphamale Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 I think the strong stay with the strong while the weak attract the weak. Again, just my observation. yea well you're incorrect....the strong seek out and dominate the weak.
Art_Critic Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 You are both right. People tend to add missing POSITIVE genes actually. We add NEGATIVES as well.. that would explain the guy who has it all going on and he dates an extreme wacko drug addict
amaysngrace Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 yea well you're incorrect....the strong seek out and dominate the weak. Don't you mean really that two dysfunctional people (one stong, one weak) get together? Aren't they both emotionally damaged equally though?
DanielMadr Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 We add NEGATIVES as well.. that would explain the guy who has it all going on and he dates an extreme wacko drug addict He has a messiah syndrome. these people end up crucified. tough ****.
alphamale Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 Aren't they both emotionally damaged equally though? everyone's emotionally damaged to some extent, sister...
DanielMadr Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 yea well you're incorrect....the strong seek out and dominate the weak. Only azzholes seek out to dominate;) azzhole = alphaman wannabe
alphamale Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 He has a messiah syndrome. these people end up crucified. tough ****. so what? so did Jesus an Moses and Mohammad
amaysngrace Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 everyone's emotionally damaged to some extent, sister... Possibly but the extent of that damage determines who one hooks up with. Or stays with if they didn't see the signs in the first place. Then there are some who aren't interested in relationships at all because they can't attract the one they think they mesh well with so they just play the field. Which is cool too. We all need sex.
DanielMadr Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 so what? so did Jesus an Moses and Mohammad I dont blame them Im explaining it. I actually adore these three. They had big balls and some good points. But I think 3 is enough.
alphamale Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 We all need sex. I wouldn't put sex in the same class as food, water, air and shetler
amaysngrace Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 I wouldn't put sex in the same class as food, water, air and shetler Dude if I was a dehydrated, starving homeless person gasping for air I know where MY hand would be.
DanielMadr Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 Dude if I was a dehydrated, starving homeless person gasping for air I know where MY hand would be. in your mouth? trying to bite off a little?
Pyro Posted March 9, 2007 Posted March 9, 2007 From by observations, we tend to attract that which is opposite of what we are Not all the time. Opposite of me would be a controlling insecure bytch.
Pyro Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 Emotionally stable....you can cope with ups and downs.no serious drama. Emotionally unstable....you want to run. She is emotional junkie. That is correct.
Pyro Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 Only azzholes seek out to dominate;) azzhole = alphaman wannabe Dominate? Thats the last thing on my mind when I meet a possible mate.
Pretty Fly Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 The stuff in this book will only drive a man up the wall. Game playing is never a good way to start off a relationship. I would say just be yourself and be natural so when you do find a guy the relationship will have a good start. My issue with the rules is this "never phone back" thing. If a girl doesn't call me back after I've called her, that communicates non-interest to me, not that I should call her again! I get the impression that some girls interpret the rules as being "give the guy a hard time and see if he sticks around". Whereas I think it should be interpreted as "I'll subtley let him know I'm interested, but I have value and I want to see that you recognise that before this goes any further"
Pretty Fly Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 If he is sincere about you your games will hurt him, because he will think you are not sure about him. Or if he is experinced he will see it as childish games and loose respect for you....and leave. I agree with this. I feel messed around and disrespected if I feel a girl is playing games with me. And I think that's because I've been out with some great girls who didn't use "the rules" (ie would call me out of the blue, or ask me out) and we had some great times!! The you meet a Rules-Girl, and it's like, "dating shouldn't be this difficult!" I think as ever with these things, it's the insincere hit and run guys who mess it up for the rest of us as girls assume ALL guys are like that until they prove otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent
Pretty Fly Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 That is more due to the emasculation of men than anything else. If men acted more like men then there would be no problem. And women should act like women too. We are equal, but we are different.
Island Girl Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 And women should act like women too. We are equal, but we are different. That is why I never - NEVER - volunteered my phone number to the man. I would subtly, or sometimes not so subtly, let the guy know I am interested and that his answer - if he asks - will be "yes you can have my phone number with a quick exchange of the digits". I am a strong very confident woman. But I also know how to make a man feel like a MAN not a masculine woman. I am the female. I am always treated as the female. He is the man. I treat him as a man - until he shows himself unworthy and then we are over. --- Well now I am married so one finally proved himself completely worthy. And I didn't think The Rules said don't ever call back -- ? If I got a message, I'd certainly return the call if I was interested. That is just common courtesy. But that doesn't mean we'd get together that night either.
Pretty Fly Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 And I didn't think The Rules said don't ever call back -- ? If I got a message, I'd certainly return the call if I was interested. That is just common courtesy. But that doesn't mean we'd get together that night either. I believe the rule is... "Don't call him and rarely return his phone calls"
Island Girl Posted March 10, 2007 Posted March 10, 2007 I believe the rule is... "Don't call him and rarely return his phone calls" That part is stupid. Absolutely ridiculous. And I do know what I am talking about. I have the track record to prove it. If the girl doesn't call back whether she is just rude or she is following that stupid advice (some of it I do agree with but not THAT) then you should definitely let her go and move on to someone else. You are way to intelligent and would get bored very quickly with an idiot. So look at it this way - better to know before much is invested!
so gutted Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 I dont think they work at all. One of them states dont call the man..when u have missed 3 of his calls u can give him a call back...isnt this mind games? and tell me which man would hang around for you to call him back after you missed him 3 times??? The concept is good in theory but does not work in practice. Yes dont be a door mat - but each "case" is different you cant have hard and fast rules.
monkey00 Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 The concept is good in theory but does not work in practice. Yes dont be a door mat - but each "case" is different you cant have hard and fast rules. True. Personally I've never read this so called book, but based off the major points you guys stated it seems reasonable and normal human behavior. As long as each individual has different needs, this book's market will continue to remain very narrow (not for those who buy but those who apply it). If i were in a relationship or was dating a girl I would want it to be equal. It's great that the guy gets to be leader and chooses what to do/where to eat...but i wouldnt mind if the girl participated and made suggestions also. A girl taking on the passive role in the relationship such as waiting for hte guy to call or letting him call the shots in date activities is old fashioned imo. In such a case, who knows the girl could be unhappy in the relationship but isnt assertive enough to speak her opinion such as Guest stated.
norajane Posted March 11, 2007 Posted March 11, 2007 The point of The Rules is not to chase after a guy who isn't interested in you. The details of how to do that are debatable - hence this thread - but in reality, I don't see anything wrong with saving your attention for a man who is attentive.
Recommended Posts