[QUOTE=UncleHOwie;39955]Let me tell you some real world personal examples of why I think foreign women are better!
1. I have yet to cold approach a foreign woman at a bar and get blown out. I am batting 100pct success on that and the conversation's always flow nicely. Its a lot easier when you have something to work with who doesn't think shes better than you from the start! I think it has to do with education and a genuine appreciation for good conversation. These american bitches would rather sit in the corner and talk to no one than have a convo with some random guy.
.
.
.
.[/QUOTE]
Wow you have put some serious thought into this. I can't help but find it at least a little ironic you guys dislike American girls and are from America yourselves (Lazarus excepted). Is the grass always greener etc.
I can 100% speak from personal experience when I say it has been easier for me to pull foreign birds (at least as I was learning the craft - much less difference now). I put some of that down to a subconscious desire to mate with "foreign" genes, as evidenced in evolutionary biology (Dawkins et al good place to start for the beginner btw). How easy to make myself look different than the "typical [insert USA city here] douchebag". Maybe some would say that's just a method but it works like dynamite and is a great example of methods I build around due to their having basis in proven biological fact. Look at that I am going "off topic" for the thread but "on topic" for the forum. Hmm.
Not news though as Hollywood spoofs the accent guy I am constantly reminded of the "advantage" by losers who are annoyed and need something to blame. The flashbacks bring anger and haters one of my pet pieves. Bunch of excuse makers. Unfortunately sometimes wonder if those guys aren't the same ones asking for advice on how to tie their shoes in this very forum..
Dallas PUA
The Pickup Artist Playground
The Law and Divorce
by Guest » Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:34 pm
[QUOTE]If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater the effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders--what would you tell him to do?[/QUOTE]
What happens if men stop adhering to traditional marriage? What happens if he tells the woman," I will never marry, I do not mind spending time with someone for the rest of my life, but ..."
What can she say? She can't automatically claim common law marriage because the couple still has to hold themselves out to the public as married to be considered common law married in Texas. If she wants to stay with you then, she has to adhere to your rules and, if you are the catch that you think you are, she will stay. If not... C'est la vie. Better to have loved and lost than to have loved at all.
Women are still women. Women, who for all purposes, still go for the alpha man at their own peril sometimes. They want the provider. They want the protector. They want their loins pleasured, but they want their freedom also. So give it to them. Let them be free. You be free also.
Marriage itself is just an arbitrary word attached to some arbitrary concept... Why not change your definition of "marriage"? What is stopping you from applying the rules of marriage, rather the one's that actually work, to a relationship without the traditional definition of "marriage"?
Note:
[QUOTE][B][SIZE=3]mar·riage[/SIZE][/B]
[SIZE=3] [I]noun[/I] \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\[/SIZE]
[B][SIZE=3]Definition of [I]MARRIAGE[/I][/SIZE][/B]
[SIZE=3]1[/SIZE]
[I]a [/I] [I](1)[/I] [B]:[/B] the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law [I](2)[/I] [B]:[/B] the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage [I]b[/I] [B]:[/B] the mutual [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/relation"]relation[/URL] of married persons [B]:[/B] [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wedlock"]wedlock[/URL] [I]c[/I] [B]:[/B] the [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/institution"]institution[/URL] whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
[B]:[/B] an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effect%5B2%5D"]effected[/URL]; [I]especially[/I] [B]:[/B] the [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage#"]wedding ceremony[/URL] and attendant festivities or formalities
3
[B]:[/B] an intimate or close union
[/QUOTE]
The only ones that have a legitimate definition of marriage are the first and the last one.
[QUOTE]...the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law...
an intimate or close union[/QUOTE]
Not one of us is espousing that the last one is a problem, in fact, it's quite the opposite. The problem is with the first one, and everyone has stated it. "Contractual relationship."
We all recognize there is no longer a valid contract that the law upholdsfor both parties, so why are we still recognizing this version of the definition? Are they holding a gun to our heads and forcing us too? Rather we, most times in our lives, adhere to arbitrary societal rules and regulations because we have been brought up, mostly as beta's in nature, to willingly accept the definitions as they are fed to us. Are you no longer hungry? Hungry for the truth, hungry for the knowledge, hungry for better?
You can have a fulfilling relationship, you just have to shrug.
What happens if men stop adhering to traditional marriage? What happens if he tells the woman," I will never marry, I do not mind spending time with someone for the rest of my life, but ..."
What can she say? She can't automatically claim common law marriage because the couple still has to hold themselves out to the public as married to be considered common law married in Texas. If she wants to stay with you then, she has to adhere to your rules and, if you are the catch that you think you are, she will stay. If not... C'est la vie. Better to have loved and lost than to have loved at all.
Women are still women. Women, who for all purposes, still go for the alpha man at their own peril sometimes. They want the provider. They want the protector. They want their loins pleasured, but they want their freedom also. So give it to them. Let them be free. You be free also.
Marriage itself is just an arbitrary word attached to some arbitrary concept... Why not change your definition of "marriage"? What is stopping you from applying the rules of marriage, rather the one's that actually work, to a relationship without the traditional definition of "marriage"?
Note:
[QUOTE][B][SIZE=3]mar·riage[/SIZE][/B]
[SIZE=3] [I]noun[/I] \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\[/SIZE]
[B][SIZE=3]Definition of [I]MARRIAGE[/I][/SIZE][/B]
[SIZE=3]1[/SIZE]
[I]a [/I] [I](1)[/I] [B]:[/B] the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law [I](2)[/I] [B]:[/B] the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
2
[B]:[/B] an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effect%5B2%5D"]effected[/URL]; [I]especially[/I] [B]:[/B] the [URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage#"]wedding ceremony[/URL] and attendant festivities or formalities
3
[B]:[/B] an intimate or close union
[/QUOTE]
The only ones that have a legitimate definition of marriage are the first and the last one.
[QUOTE]...the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law...
an intimate or close union[/QUOTE]
Not one of us is espousing that the last one is a problem, in fact, it's quite the opposite. The problem is with the first one, and everyone has stated it. "Contractual relationship."
We all recognize there is no longer a valid contract that the law upholdsfor both parties, so why are we still recognizing this version of the definition? Are they holding a gun to our heads and forcing us too? Rather we, most times in our lives, adhere to arbitrary societal rules and regulations because we have been brought up, mostly as beta's in nature, to willingly accept the definitions as they are fed to us. Are you no longer hungry? Hungry for the truth, hungry for the knowledge, hungry for better?
You can have a fulfilling relationship, you just have to shrug.
- Guest
by Guest » Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:41 pm
[QUOTE=Finesse;39959]What happens if men stop adhering to traditional marriage? What happens if he tells the woman," I will never marry, I do not mind spending time with someone for the rest of my life, but ..."
What can she say? She can't automatically claim common law marriage because the couple still has to hold themselves out to the public as married to be considered common law married in Texas. If she wants to stay with you then, she has to adhere to your rules and, if you are the catch that you think you are, she will stay. If not... C'est la vie. Better to have loved and lost than to have loved at all.
Women are still women. Women, who for all purposes, still go for the alpha man at their own peril sometimes. They want the provider. They want the protector. They want their loins pleasured, but they want their freedom also. So give it to them. Let them be free. You be free also.
Marriage itself is just an arbitrary word attached to some arbitrary concept... Why not change your definition of "marriage"? What is stopping you from applying the rules of marriage, rather the one's that actually work, to a relationship without the traditional definition of "marriage"?
Note:
The only ones that have a legitimate definition of marriage are the first and the last one.
Not one of us is espousing that the last one is a problem, in fact, it's quite the opposite. The problem is with the first one, and everyone has stated it. "Contractual relationship."
We all recognize there is no longer a valid contract that the law upholdsfor both parties, so why are we still recognizing this version of the definition? Are they holding a gun to our heads and forcing us too? Rather we, most times in our lives, adhere to arbitrary societal rules and regulations because we have been brought up, mostly as beta's in nature, to willingly accept the definitions as they are fed to us. Are you no longer hungry? Hungry for the truth, hungry for the knowledge, hungry for better?
You can have a fulfilling relationship, you just have to shrug.[/QUOTE]
Thank you. Spot on. And as Tolle would no doubt cheer (in his demented-sounding kind of way). Just shrug.
And since we are quoting.
Tolle writes in the introduction to his second book, [I]Stillness Speaks[/I], that "A true spiritual teacher does not have anything to teach in the conventional sense of the word, does not have anything to give or add to you, such as new information, beliefs, or rules of conduct. The only function of such a teacher is to help you remove that which separates you from the truth ... The words are no more than signposts
What can she say? She can't automatically claim common law marriage because the couple still has to hold themselves out to the public as married to be considered common law married in Texas. If she wants to stay with you then, she has to adhere to your rules and, if you are the catch that you think you are, she will stay. If not... C'est la vie. Better to have loved and lost than to have loved at all.
Women are still women. Women, who for all purposes, still go for the alpha man at their own peril sometimes. They want the provider. They want the protector. They want their loins pleasured, but they want their freedom also. So give it to them. Let them be free. You be free also.
Marriage itself is just an arbitrary word attached to some arbitrary concept... Why not change your definition of "marriage"? What is stopping you from applying the rules of marriage, rather the one's that actually work, to a relationship without the traditional definition of "marriage"?
Note:
The only ones that have a legitimate definition of marriage are the first and the last one.
Not one of us is espousing that the last one is a problem, in fact, it's quite the opposite. The problem is with the first one, and everyone has stated it. "Contractual relationship."
We all recognize there is no longer a valid contract that the law upholdsfor both parties, so why are we still recognizing this version of the definition? Are they holding a gun to our heads and forcing us too? Rather we, most times in our lives, adhere to arbitrary societal rules and regulations because we have been brought up, mostly as beta's in nature, to willingly accept the definitions as they are fed to us. Are you no longer hungry? Hungry for the truth, hungry for the knowledge, hungry for better?
You can have a fulfilling relationship, you just have to shrug.[/QUOTE]
Thank you. Spot on. And as Tolle would no doubt cheer (in his demented-sounding kind of way). Just shrug.
And since we are quoting.
Tolle writes in the introduction to his second book, [I]Stillness Speaks[/I], that "A true spiritual teacher does not have anything to teach in the conventional sense of the word, does not have anything to give or add to you, such as new information, beliefs, or rules of conduct. The only function of such a teacher is to help you remove that which separates you from the truth ... The words are no more than signposts
- Guest
by Guest » Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:02 am
[QUOTE=Lion;39962]Hey jealous johnny maybe I'm unemployed and live in my moms attic.[/QUOTE]
Oh sorry. I read that to mean you didn't work by choice (like in a normal real world kind of way). My bad.
And jealous of what exactly? Although god knows one should be I'm sure.
Oh sorry. I read that to mean you didn't work by choice (like in a normal real world kind of way). My bad.
And jealous of what exactly? Although god knows one should be I'm sure.
- Guest
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests