Relationship + game = soon to be single

It's not just a simple case of being beta AFC in a relationship and alpha when you're single. Mix it up to keep her guessing.

A few years ago, I was much more active on this forum. It was a much different environment then, but then PUA has always been cyclical. Anyway, one poster shared a link to Tal Ben Shahar's Positive Psychology lectures. I was still in college then and watched the entire year. One of the interesting things I took away from that class was what the professor called something like "Tip of the steam statistics."

Basically what he said is if you do a twin study and find that 90% of the twins report the same level of happiness, it shouldn't be then determined that happiness is predetermined. Instead, the interesting question is: why isn't that 10% like the other 90%?

Relationships follow that same pattern. What I've noticed is that some people consistently are in good, healthy relationships. Others are in consistently bad, unhealthy relationships. We could just accept that fact that some people are lucky -- but I prefer figuring out what each group does that makes them different.

It's been my experience that the views often shared on the Relationship subforum is the kind that would be given by the 90% of twins. I try to take the contrarian stance and present what I view as the 10% way of viewing things. Over the years we've had a few posters in this 10% camp (870, Locke, etc) but they never stick around. The problem is that if 90% of the posters in this forum all agree, it makes the 10% look like they are nuts because they are always disagreeing.

I personally am very fond of relationships -- I don't mingle with the opposite sex unless I've determined she will be a good GF. But some problems that hurt relationships are easier to fix when you are single -- so it's a Catch 22, as the problem isn't obvious until you are at the point least able to fix it. This is why reflection upon failed relationships and a block of single time to improve on those reflections is so important.

The forum (excluding this subsection) has changed drastically in culture over the years and continues to do so, based on what the PUA Trend is. Right now, it's all about seduction and fighting the PUA establishment. But interestingly, this subsection always seems to remain the same. I hope one day it'll change as well and take a healthier direction, but I don't know if it will. My hope is that at least some people here learn about the 10% point of view and adopt it.

Basically what he said is if you do a twin study and find that 90% of the twins report the same level of happiness, it shouldn't be then determined that happiness is predetermined. Instead, the interesting question is: why isn't that 10% like the other 90%?

Not sure I follow your train of thought though. My personal understanding is that if such is the case that 90% of identical twins have the same level of happiness, then happiness is genetic and predetermined -- much like depression is hereditary. And if that's the case, then there isn't much we can do to improve our level of happiness. What am I missing?

What they really should be doing is instead of saying "NEVER SPEND MONEY IN EXCESS OF $34.83 ON A DATE" is find out why they were spending that money in their AFC past. Probably had to do with buying acceptance or something -- this issue should be worked on and not just covered up with a band aid rule about spending money on dates.

That pretty much sums it up..

I took my girl to the cinema and didn't pay for her because I thought it would be a DLV to pay on a first date because back in the AFC days I primarily paid for dates. Looking back the real reason they probably left me was not because I was over-providing but rather displaying AFC traits. Anyway now I think not providing is actually a DLV especially to a girl you have already fucked if your wanting to get serious with her.. so after taking her to the cinema, letting her pay and then fucking her again she flaked on dinner the following week. I froze out on her as a punishment and it doesn't look like she is going to bother making contact again.

I see where I went wrong.. onto the next one

The Lover-Provider Frame dichotomy's main flaw is that it goes against genetics. What works infield is to project a Lover Vibe instead of maintaining a rigid Lover Frame. Girls always reciprocate generously when they're with a good lover but to bait them into sampling your bedroom skills, you'll have to get them into your bedroom first. You still need to get coffee or beer or something so she has a valid reason to isolate with you.

Once that's done and when you're awesome in bed, girls don't mind spending money and putting in a lot of effort to please you. If she's flaking on dinner, this can be a feedback loop that you need to polish your bedroom skills some more.

Girl's don't mind spending $10 on you for every $1 you spend on them as long as you're better in bed than the average Joe Schmo. Since the majority of girls don't cum at all with their sexual partners, you'll be a rare breed of man if you can.

Many girls can't cook and the best chefs are men. Thus, the best way through a man's heart is through his stomach. On the other hand, majority of men can't make girls cum. Hence, the best way through a woman's heart is through her pussy.