Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
because I read it in a Game book, I see the signals.
But here is a run down of a few of the signals and how they FAIL.
She smiles at you - WELL, if you do not know her, you do not know how much she smiles at ANYONE else, she may just be a happy person for all you know.
She dresses nicely - see above.
She comes over and talks to you - maybe she is just forward with everyone.
She touches your arm - maybe she is just touchy with everyone.
She jumps on your lap, puts her arms around you, and gives you a big smooch - maybe she is just this way with every guy.
She unzips you and gives you a lewinsky - see above.
SO you can see the approach above has its limitations.
Are there other approaches then that DO work? Remember, unless the guy is TRAINED in The Game or REALLY likes her in return from the beginning, he will miss most of the above signals.
Also note, I had the problem that even if and when I did receive a signal when I was younger, and I did recognize it for what it was I was thwarted by a combination of:
- doubt - I was shy and did not want to make the wrong assumption
- lack of skill at flirting
- lack of ability or confidence to know what to do next
other things I am sure.
anyway, today is move day for me: Houston BACK to AUSTIN. Hooorah!!!!
later...
True. "I'm available for love" (though, "love?" ... how's about "like" for starters?) isn't the same as "I'm available for sex." This is the ultimate irony of sexual relationships, though, isn't it? Generally speaking, women want "love" first (to be then celebrated with sex), and men want "sex" first (which might deepen into love).
But t the same time, women are still regarded as the world's moral gate-keepers. She should be willing to sleep with a particular guy at the drop of a hat, but if she's "too" promiscuous she's "slutty."
Following BS's logic, if women simply behaved like rhesus monkeys, and gave out whenever anyone asked, in the name of "friendliness," they would quickly be branded as "skanks" and then avoided (at least when clothed). And the ones who refuse to "give out" would still be lonely, and probably labelled as "frigid." Ah, paradise!
Many years ago, a friend of a friend was a college girl at a pretty nifty college. Her family suffered serious financial reverses, money for tuition and living expenses was suddenly needed; as she was already screwing around freely, she began turning tricks. This wasn't streetwalking -- everything was arranged discreetly through a third party. She noticed that she was spending a lot of time not doing sex acts but talking to, petting, reassuring and instructing her clients, who came to her with a wealth of sexual and other problems. She likes helping people, and so it all came together (heh): she changed her major to clinical psychology and became a licensed sex therapist. Now she was providing the same services but the clients could pay for them with medical insurance or a credit card. She became quite successful in the field and began to lecture and write books, while phasing out most of the physical stuff which, after all, can be emotionally wearing, in favor of counseling, especially couples. (Although she says she isn't afraid to "get her hands dirty" if necessary.) She loves her work and she's probably more successful in life than most of you. And that's as it should be: she is a useful and productive member of society working in an important field.
And ignore how she dresses.
I have had quite a few male friends who have talked to me about the signals women send along the lines of "What does it mean when she wears this?"
Forget it. Nothing a woman wears is a signal of availability. Women choose their clothing for various personal, fashion, and aesthetic reasons.
Also, when I read "The Game" I was struck by how wrong they got it in terms of signals. Women are almost never signaling that they want to have sex until almost the moment that they want to have sex, which is usually signaled by undressing.
The signals I suspect that Juliebird is talking about are the signals of availability to DATE.
DATING is not SEX. Many women will date men that they:
1. Want to have sex with.
2. Think they might one day want to have sex with.
3. Have no idea if they want to have sex with or not.
4. Never really want to have sex with.
Women will date men simply because they enjoy their company and the mutual activities of dating.
What most of the whiny guys around here complain about is not getting sex. However, not many of them claim an eagerness to date or a real interest in the rituals of dating.
Look at Brightstar's reply to me about younger men that I DATED. He assumes that because I must have dated them that I had sex with them. He couldn't be more wrong. I have dated guys for over four months and NEVER had sex with them.
My daughter has been dating a guy for six months. They have yet to have sex. In fact, she has no idea yet if she even wants to have sex with him. But she likes and respects him and enjoys his mind and his company. She simply hasn't decided if she wants to take the relationship to the next step. So far, he hasn't complained at all.
Before I married, I dated guys for well over a year and never had sex with them.
It's called DATING. It is not called a guarantee to sex. If men don't want to bother with dating and their main goal is sex, then perhaps they should be seeking Ms. Beech.
If a man has been seeing a woman for awhile without sex, the best way to figure out what she really wants is to ask her.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
