of all the things that you've done wrong

[lauralh]

Friends qotd: "I like him so much I feel like I've had ten drinks. And I've only had six!"

best post on 4/20 so far

So anyway.
I've been reading How To Succeed with Women because, well, I'm bored and my PKD books haven't gotten in yet. It's pretty funny stuff obviously. I mean it all falls under one of three categories: shit that is valid for both men and women, shit that is valid for most women, and shit that would work on me. I have to admit that I like it when guys say "Hi" to me, for example. Even if that's all they say, it's nice. What's really funny reading this book, though, is the "women are difficult, just deal with it" shit. The whole "Yes, the double standard is in place, no, it's not fair, but you want to date women, don't you? Then pay for her fucking dinner."

The thing which still astonishes me is the "If she stands you up, don't take it personally, she's just testing you" shit. I mean that's a total double standard if there ever was one. I would never ever ever stand a guy up. The closest I've come is calling a guy to tell him I wasn't gonna be there. And the whole "don't worry if she doesn't call you" crap. I first learned about this behavior from talking to Jim, and it totally blew my mind. "Wait, even if a girl says no to a date, she might still like you? What the fuck kind of insane troll logic is that?"

The other thing which amused me is the whole "planning romance" thing. I mean, not that there's anything wrong with that at all, but it still seems like a fuckload of effort to go into to get a girl to put out or like you or whatever. And what do guys get in return? I dunno, I just think things should be more equal. If I like a guy, I mean, I'm gonna put forth some effort into having a nice time with him. Actually I think it seems weird to me because I like to plan the dates. I like to be more in control of what's going on in that department. Granted, I'm also used to it because of dating total unromantic jackasses. But I'm not all that romantic myself. I dunno. I'm probably too hepped on on caffeine to make any sense. But the book goes into elaborate detail on how you should spend time making a four+ hour long "seduction date" - it just seems like so much overkill to me.

Comments

[hotcrab.livejournal.com]

what are you talking about?
i plan your dates

[scooterboy1234.livejournal.com]

i <3 insane troll logic.... *sigh*

[katyakoshka.livejournal.com]

The idea of a seduction date creeps me out. It sounds so manipulative and, well, skeevy. Plus, schmaltzy and artificial. Scripted. Bad. Some girls apparently get off on that shit, though. Freaks.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

well, of course it sounds artificial. The whole point is to make it seem natural though. And the descriptions were more focused on creating a romantic state than a sexual one. It's not as bad as it sounds, is my point, but it is still a little off.

Re:

[katyakoshka.livejournal.com]

Maybe I just lack any experience with a really suave seduction date planner; either that, or I've only dated the sucky seduction date planners and the non-planners. Not being a romantic myself, I'm not sure what sort of romantic state they'd be aiming for with me. But I'm really not in a place to be reflecting on that, mentally. ;P

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

If you were on a date with a really good seduction-date planner, you wouldn't know it, would you? You'd just fall for the guy at some point, according to plan, and that would be that. Possibly, someone that is seems to be bad at it might be using that as a step toward an ultimate goal, actually. Wheels within wheels.

Personally, I find that when a woman in any way consciously sets out to "test" me, or anyone else, she presupposes certain actions to be indivisible from certain motivations, which isn't necessarily so. In fact, in my life, tests like that tend to be in essence a failure of a test by the girl -- not a consciously arranged test, but an accidental test of her willingness to be straightforward and honest with me. My philosophy on the matter boils down to "Say what you mean and mean what you say, or expect to be disappointed when people think you mean something else."

This sounds like it might mostly be a guide for dealing with "typical" women, of whom there are far too many. I'm looking for "atypical", individualistic women that don't play the stupid games.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

That's what I was trying to say. You wouldn't know it.

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

Actually, I kinda got that from what you were saying, but I have a tendency toward long-winded paraphrases when I agree with things.

Re:

[katyakoshka.livejournal.com]

If you were on a date with a really good seduction-date planner, you wouldn't know it, would you? You'd just fall for the guy at some point, according to plan, and that would be that. Possibly, someone that is seems to be bad at it might be using that as a step toward an ultimate goal, actually. Wheels within wheels.

Sadly, referring to that old thread, I tend towards precipitate connections with people, to be followed by dating. Spontaneous interaction precedes more formal meetings and preempts the possibility of seduction dates, generally. *sigh* Then I'm in a relationship, and... everything goes downhill.

Personally, I find that when a woman in any way consciously sets out to "test" me, or anyone else, she presupposes certain actions to be indivisible from certain motivations, which isn't necessarily so. In fact, in my life, tests like that tend to be in essence a failure of a test by the girl -- not a consciously arranged test, but an accidental test of her willingness to be straightforward and honest with me.

I don't get that "testing" thing. Of course, when people first get to know me, they frequently comment on my bluntness. Mind games are a waste of time.

This sounds like it might mostly be a guide for dealing with "typical" women, of whom there are far too many. I'm looking for "atypical", individualistic women that don't play the stupid games.

Yeah. Well, the typical aspect would be indicated by the excessive hordes of them simpering and giggling and otherwise being emotionally fucked in the head. If they were rare, not typical. Speaking as a more-than-likely atypical woman, I really don't understand how all that crap is supposed to work anyhow. Saying what one means is a lot easier. ;P

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

Agreed; in and of itself, divorced from other concerns, being straightforward involves considerably less effort. On the other hand, deprogramming is a bitch, and most people would have a helluva lot of that to do . . . starting with enough deprogramming to realize they're in need of deprogramming, which creates a kinda catch-22 situation.

Re:

[katyakoshka.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

Too true. And while receive society conditions most women to engage in internal and external dishonesty, manipulation and misdirection, society conditions most men to accept this behavior even as it irritates them -- and to engage in their own variation of deception and manipulation. Pfft.

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

Bah. Screw it. Buy a gun.