Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"daygaming women" ever heard of it?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Men Allowed "daygaming women" ever heard of it?

    Someone at some pua facebookgroup I follow linked this:

    http://news.dose.com/entertainment/2...m_campaign=mak

    It is almost hilarious in the sense that I absolutely know what she felt like..

    I mean.. I had similar thoughts in the metro in london...

    However.. I did open a guy and he was positive. Unfortunately I just had to get out at the next stop haha

    anyway, my Q to you: have you seen more stories/blogs/ other things like this?

    if so.. link! I am curious

    edit: googled the girl..
    simply LOL

    https://vine.co/v/eejmie0uBjW
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIb6AZdTr-A

  • #2
    haha I got daygamed a couple times by girls.

    the last one I vividly remember was a 9/10 latvian girl. she was heavily drugged/alcohol'd out from the night before from some trance event
    she number closed me on a sunday afternoon but then later forgot or acted to forget who I was.

    she got right in my face and commented on the weather. little did she know I'm a seasoned player, so I quickly took control lol.

    sad times lol

    I'm started to find that women's sexuality is very similar to men's but societal program is brutal on them. for instance one girl I pulled on tinder actually told me that she loved sexuality and was actually swiping on tinder while we were chilling (I give a very non-judgemental vibe)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Jack Gignac View Post
      I'm started to find that women's sexuality is very similar to men's but societal program is brutal on them. for instance one girl I pulled on tinder actually told me that she loved sexuality and was actually swiping on tinder while we were chilling (I give a very non-judgemental vibe)
      Natural vs Social programming, is beyond a point a pua-manufactured red herring, i think. Society is a result of the biology of our species interacting with itself. I was banging a French chick in India sometime ago, and she used to stay in a hostel full of indian girls, and she told me that she wouldn't be surprised if some (many?) of those Indian girls truly and genuinely were asexual. I believe her. Such is the power of social programming. It can blur reality.

      I have a what-is and what-is-not view on female behavior, not so much about whether that behavior is natural or socially programmed. (Except some when it is useful for frame control)

      Men-vs-women's sexuality is an interesting topic and i dont agree they are the same. Here are some differences: Needy guys turn off women exponentially more than needy women turn off dudes (at least for ONS and bail). Also, variety in their partners is a motivation in itself for guys, but its often such a low-level challenge for women. Note that im not saying women can't be promiscuous, but their prime-mover seems different. MM works on women, to the point of creating an addiction in them, but i have a hard time imagining that roles reversed, it would work on me even remotely as well. Some bits, yes, but not to the extent and degree. (lack of) validation is a huge ingredient of female sexuality, but not for men, i dont think. Also i think on an average sex is better for guys than women, but when a woman finally gets fucked by a guy that she craves getting fucked by, her experience of sex is way more intense than that of any guys'. I think chicks are okay with being cheated on more than guys are. That makes evolutionary sense to me, and most of my girls turn a blind eye to my horndog ways, because i am nice to them and fuck them ok.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by hangman View Post
        Natural vs Social programming, is beyond a point a pua-manufactured red herring, i think. Society is a result of the biology of our species interacting with itself. I was banging a French chick in India sometime ago, and she used to stay in a hostel full of indian girls, and she told me that she wouldn't be surprised if some (many?) of those Indian girls truly and genuinely were asexual. I believe her. Such is the power of social programming.
        This is confusing. Are you suggesting that Indians are biologically less sexual, hence a reflection in Indian society? The second sentence of the above quote seems to thusly imply such.

        Comment


        • #5
          I can only truly speak for myself hangman, but I don't really give a fuck if a girl is non-sexually monogamous towards me
          and I actually do get turned off when a woman is needy. there are girls who I was going to add to my rotation but because of their neediness I opt out.

          a lot of quote unquote female sexuality is because they're conditioned to be passive and because of that men become sellers. as buyers their going to experience insane abundance which leads to their said behaviour. I probably have the same abundance that women do now so my behaviour becomes more similar to a girls sexuality.

          jeffy was alluding to the same thing, that the better you become at game, the more you become like a girl lol

          there definitely is a more biological part to it as well though. indians are genetically less promiscuous, it's shown by their smaller penis size average, and successful marriage rate.

          congo for example is almost the opposite, extremely large 7 inch average penis size, rape is commonplace, tons of kids out of wedlock etc

          Comment


          • #6
            On the phone, so responses in bold...

            Originally posted by Jack Gignac View Post
            I can only truly speak for myself hangman, but I don't really give a fuck if a girl is non-sexually monogamous towards me
            and I actually do get turned off when a woman is needy. there are girls who I was going to add to my rotation but because of their neediness I opt out.

            Neediness turns off women even in ONS situations. But even guys with options would be happy to bang and bail on a clinger, if she is hot. And your claim is consistent with that. I said bang and bail, not get her into rotation.

            a lot of quote unquote female sexuality is because they're conditioned to be passive and because of that men become sellers. as buyers their going to experience insane abundance which leads to their said behaviour. I probably have the same abundance that women do now so my behaviour becomes more similar to a girls sexuality.

            Have you ever gone out clubbing with hot girls who claim to be horny and sexually frustrared and looking to get laid? In some cases, even with all that, they will go back home alone. They might even kiss a couple of guys, but it is crazy how quickly they get turned off because the guy gets super-into it and wants it more than her. Neediness or not being a challenge is a MASSIVE attraction killer for women. I dont think women often know this consciously, but they experience it.

            This is simply not the reality of any guy i have ever known. Guys who are horny, dont hold themselves to some exalted standard, they go bang some reasonably bang-able club chick, to get it out of theur system. Hot chicks can sometimes go for months without getting laid, because most guys just dont do it for them. Are all women like this? Of course not. But the point is, NO guy with options is like this.



            jeffy was alluding to the same thing, that the better you become at game, the more you become like a girl lol

            Not a big fan of appeals to authority, but i highly doubt jeffy is talking across the board. Post a link, if you want. I generally agree with most of his opinions when i have heard them, he is no proponent of no-game-game bullshit. So i suspect it is not as black&white as you are suggesting.

            there definitely is a more biological part to it as well though. indians are genetically less promiscuous, it's shown by their smaller penis size average, and successful marriage rate.

            congo for example is almost the opposite, extremely large 7 inch average penis size, rape is commonplace, tons of kids out of wedlock etc

            Sorry dude, im going to go with economic/political stabiliry as the most straightforward cause of violence in a country, not some bro-science about penis-size and whatnot lol

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Circulator View Post
              This is confusing. Are you suggesting that Indians are biologically less sexual, hence a reflection in Indian society? The second sentence of the above quote seems to thusly imply such.
              Im saying that the line between biology and sociology is blurry in these things. They feed back on each other and it is not too meaningful to distinguish them. Eg: if you measured testosterone levels of these chicks, it will pbbly be lower. Whether that came first or whether the brainwashing made it happen is anyone's guess.

              Another eg: Girls getting attracted to you because of social proof. Is that biology or sociology?

              Explanations are largely irrelevant, it is observations that matter in PU. Social proof can get you laid, old school indian chicks are hard to bang. Those are observations and therefore meaningful. Whether it is a result of biology or society is not always a distinction that can be meaningfully made.

              To say that women are like men sexually is BS because any guy who has talked to girls knows they are wired differently for whatever reason. Thats it. Heck, thats why this forum exists, ffs! Mental masturbation gymnastics about natural vs social programming and why that difference is not real, is ultimately meaningless. Just as much as the adamant claims by some nutty feminists that men and women are same except for social prigramming.

              It is fine for men and women to be dufferent, it doesn't mean better or worse, which is good because thats the truth. Sorry about typos, im writing this in public transport.

              Comment


              • #8
                penis size isn't bro-science.

                read sex at dawn.

                penis size is correlation to promiscuity because it plunges another man's seamin out, it's a direct correlate to promiscuity, and denying it is almost as absurd as being a creatinist.

                regardless. you probably know a lot of shit I don't know and I probably know a lot of shit that you don't know. so whatever, that's why we're here.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by hangman View Post
                  Im saying that the line between biology and sociology is blurry in these things. They feed back on each other and it is not too meaningful to distinguish them. Eg: if you measured testosterone levels of these chicks, it will pbbly be lower. Whether that came first or whether the brainwashing made it happen is anyone's guess.

                  Another eg: Girls getting attracted to you because of social proof. Is that biology or sociology?

                  Explanations are largely irrelevant, it is observations that matter in PU. Social proof can get you laid, old school indian chicks are hard to bang. Those are observations and therefore meaningful. Whether it is a result of biology or society is not always a distinction that can be meaningfully made.

                  To say that women are like men sexually is BS because any guy who has talked to girls knows they are wired differently for whatever reason. Thats it. Heck, thats why this forum exists, ffs! Mental masturbation gymnastics about natural vs social programming and why that difference is not real, is ultimately meaningless. Just as much as the adamant claims by some nutty feminists that men and women are same except for social prigramming.

                  It is fine for men and women to be dufferent, it doesn't mean better or worse, which is good because thats the truth. Sorry about typos, im writing this in public transport.
                  yeah that's true. it's a chicken or egg kinda thing.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by hangman View Post
                    Sorry dude, im going to go with economic/political stabiliry as the most straightforward cause of violence in a country, not some bro-science about penis-size and whatnot lol
                    actually, if I remember it right, indian men had lower levels of testosteron.. than say europeans or africans.

                    Testosteron levels are related to violence (levels in a country) as far as I know.. Too high testosteron levels are also related to being more promiscuous.


                    Also I think you don't make any distinction between sex and gender.. even though there obviously is one. (if you dont know how they often are distinguished you can look it up)
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIb6AZdTr-A

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jack Gignac View Post
                      penis size isn't bro-science.

                      read sex at dawn.

                      penis size is correlation to promiscuity because it plunges another man's seamin out, it's a direct correlate to promiscuity, and denying it is almost as absurd as being a creatinist.

                      regardless. you probably know a lot of shit I don't know and I probably know a lot of shit that you don't know. so whatever, that's why we're here.
                      On average Asians and Indians have smaller dicks, lower testosterone, etc, and yet Japan, Kambodia and China have some of the most violent histories.

                      Cherry-picking facts to rationalize a narrative, is different from having a useful theory, man. This sort of thing is not even in the top 10 list of reasons why Congo is a violent shit hole, sorry

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by hangman View Post
                        On average Asians and Indians have smaller dicks, lower testosterone, etc, and yet Japan, Kambodia and China have some of the most violent histories.

                        Cherry-picking facts to rationalize a narrative, is different from having a useful theory, man. This sort of thing is not even in the top 10 list of reasons why Congo is a violent shit hole, sorry

                        you make excellent points but you've been really bad at sniffing out my agenda. I give zero fucks of a narrative, I am a truth seeker. Understand that.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jack Gignac View Post
                          you make excellent points but you've been really bad at sniffing out my agenda (I don't have one). I give zero fucks of a narrative, I am a truth seeker. Understand that.
                          What you said is a narrative, whether it belongs to something mainstream or not. I totally believe that you are a truth seeker, because you can be reasoned with.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            perhaps I'm misusing semantics. as what I'm trying to say is 'I'm not attached to any particular narrative' and my sources are diverse. all good.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jack Gignac View Post
                              perhaps I'm misusing semantics. as what I'm trying to say is 'I'm not attached to any particular narrative' and my sources are diverse. all good.
                              Cool

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X