Video on how to get a woman?

[Al B. Sure!]

Thanks aneeshm but I'm aware of stuff like this (sosuave.net for example) but that's not what I'm looking for. I want to see it applied. I can read about such and such but that's not going to help me understand body language cues from a female, how a guy says things, what expression he has on his face, etc.

Anyone know of a video of this being done with commentary or something? Maybe like a pause and it saying in voiceover, "notice how he smiles and touches her shoulder when he makes the snarky quip" or "notice how he nods slightly as he doesn't ask if he could take her out to dinner but assumes the sale and asks, "Do you prefer Chinese or Italian?". Something like that has got to exist on the internet.

[aneeshm]

Thanks aneeshm but I'm aware of stuff like this (sosuave.net for example) but that's not what I'm looking for. I want to see it applied. I can read about such and such but that's not going to help me understand body language cues from a female, how a guy says things, what expression he has on his face, etc.

Anyone know of a video of this being done with commentary or something? Maybe like a pause and it saying in voiceover, "notice how he smiles and touches her shoulder when he makes the snarky quip" or "notice how he nods slightly as he doesn't ask if he could take her out to dinner but assumes the sale and asks, "Do you prefer Chinese or Italian?". Something like that has got to exist on the internet.

That can be a bit more difficult to arrange. (Check your PMs.)

One of the best places I have found for observation is the real world. I do it as I would an exercise from any other textbook. One mode of operation is to read a chapter from, say, the body language book I mentioned, and test it out in the real world. It works for all the other information and links which I mentioned, too. The culture here is very different, so I have to do pretty much everything in a by-the-bootstrap way, so this is the method I developed to learn on my own.

An example would be the one on the positions of the hand. Having read it, you can go to a place where you will find lots of social interaction going on, say, a cafe, or something similar, where you normally hang out, have a coffee (or whatever), and try to see how what you have read works out in the real world, and how you can learn from it. Don't stare, of course, but let yourself just look around and judge what each person in the cafe is saying to their group with their body language. Try to judge the relative social positions of different people in a group based just on what you can see. Keep doing this regularly, and you'll find it becomes second nature as time progresses. You won't even have to try.

At the same time, you can start to observe yourself (you don't need a camera) and see how your internal state correlates with the body posture you find most comfortable at that point in time. That way, you'll be in complete control, as even your unconscious reactions will become known to you, and you'll know what they mean.

[Jon Miller]

Why does it matter what 'females' do? Just find out what the girl you are interested in does.

JM

[aneeshm]

Why does it matter what 'females' do? Just find out what the girl you are interested in does.

JM

This would be good advice if we were living in the 50s or 60s. The problem is, the sexual marketplace has changed beyond recognition since that time (feminism, the sexual revolution, the emergence of the state as a third party in all intersexual relationships, the emergence of the extensive welfare state and its effect on the negotiating positions of different participants in the sexual marketplace, the acceptance and celebration of promiscuity as normal, and other such changes), and what worked then does not work now. Enduring relationships have become ephemeral if not non-existent, and exposure to sexual competition no longer has any end. Women's basic sexual nature - compromisationist hypergamy, with infidelity on the side - has re-asserted itself. Recognising this changed reality is the key to success with women today, distasteful as it may seem to you.

Your idea of "love" is dead, JM, and I don't like it any more than you do, but that's the truth of the matter.

[Al B. Sure!]

Wow aneeshm, you sound like you could write a term paper on this! I'm impressed. Compromisationist hypergamy!

[MikeH]

What a load of sexist bull**** aneeshm.

[MikeH]

Wow, can't believe that isn't censored.

[aneeshm]

Wow aneeshm, you sound like you could write a term paper on this! I'm impressed. Compromisationist hypergamy!

I edited that post. It now has a little more information.

What I was trying to say was that the basic nature of women is not monogamous, as is assumed. Men are naturally polygamous, to a far greater extent. Women are hypergamous. That is, their nature is to always attempt to attract a "top dog", and then try to make him "commit". This is because the top dog of any social context always represents the greatest ability to provide for her, protect her, and so on. Though these traits may be misleading indicators in a modern society, that is what women are wired to be attracted to.

Of course, the top dog doesn't like to commit in any case - he's the top dog, and has options at his disposal. So he either runs a "harem" - today we would call it a stable of friends with benefits, f***-buddies, affairs, that sort of thing - or simply hunts whenever he wants to. This is why the "compromise" part comes in. The woman would rather "settle" for a provider as opposed to an alpha male, because she has to get resources somehow to support her children (even if she doesn't need such resources today, that doesn't change the fact that that is the strategy wired into the brain, much the same way polygamy is into that of the male).

The infidelity on the side comes in when the woman realises (not consciously, most of the time) that the best of both worlds would be to get a provider-type to commit to her, and provide her with resources for her children, and then to actually have an affair with an alpha on the side, so that she gets the resources of the provider and the genes of the alpha who she is so attracted to.



A more detailed description of this (written in a way which would be called very misogynistic, but whose assertions about women's sexual nature are pretty much spot-on) can be found in the works of F. Roger Devlin. The links can be found here. I suggest starting with "Sexual Utopia in Power", and ignoring whatever strikes you as misogynistic (there will be a lot of it) and focusing on what is relevant. The next one should be "Rotating Polyandry".

[aneeshm]

What a load of sexist bull**** aneeshm.

I analyse humans as I would any other animal, and I don't spare men either. What I said is not a moral judgment, nor is it meant to be. Instead of looking at ideas which are used as rationalisations for whatever happens to be one's instinctive behaviour, wouldn't it be more instructive to look at the behaviour pattern itself, and see why they may have arisen, and what benefit - real or perceived - they provide to the one engaging in them?

[MikeH]

You've completely ignored the benefit of a loving relationship with someone else and in fact claimed "it does not exist". So don't try and suggest you're being perfectly logical.

Just more scientific phrasing of justification to treat women like crap. David Floyd-esque.

Jon Miller FTW.

[ZEE]

at silly little Albert

[aneeshm]

You've completely ignored the benefit of a loving relationship with someone else and in fact claimed "it does not exist".

I haven't ignored any benefits, because we aren't discussing the benefits, we're discussing the sexual nature of humans.

Secondly, I asserted that the type of relation JM is talking about can no longer exist, as neither the economic, social, cultural, or sexual context which made it possible remains any longer. I did in fact note that for an older time, it would be a good attitude to have.

So don't try and suggest you're being perfectly logical.

I may not be "perfectly" logical - things are always more subtle than they seem at first sight - but I'm correct insofar as fundamentals are concerned.

Just more scientific phrasing of justification to treat women like crap. David Floyd-esque.

No, none of what I have said means that you should treat women like crap.

Humans are animals. That is not a criticism, that is fact. Women are human. Therefore, women are animals. (So are men, if that is what you want to hear to "even out" the discussion.) Understanding that, and understanding what motivates women, is a way to better find whatever it is you want, as it allows you to separate women you are looking for from the others. Basing your hopes and dreams on lies is not a very good strategy.

Have you ever wondered, though, that if DF behaves in such "crappy" ways to women, as you suggest, why he seems to be able to have sexual access to such a large number of them?

[ShaneWalter]

So, just to be clear aneeshm, you are arguing that it is impossible for a woman to stay faithful in a monogamous relationship? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean when you say "the type of relation JM is talking about can no longer exist"?

[Maniac]

I want to see it applied.

Heraclitus once recommended The Pick-up Artist.

[MikeH]

Have you ever wondered, though, that if DF behaves in such "crappy" ways to women, as you suggest, why he seems to be able to have sexual access to such a large number of them?

Have you wondered why, if DF behaves in such "crappy" ways to women, as I and he suggest, why he seems to be unable to have a meaningful relationship with one?