Poking The Bear PROPERLY (Lessons From Girlschase Drama)

[trashKENNUT]

I have been guilty of poking the bear.

Poking the bear, is normal.....

But i was doing this unconsciously and i was pretty good at getting high level people to give me more than i deserve.
Chase 'dressing down' of a certain forum member inspires me to help everyone who faced this problem.

If you like to poke the bear, high chances are you have two problems and it is not your fault:

- parenting (asia is more nuts, middle east and india more nuttier)
- first few experiences of collective isn't a pleasant experiences.

Fix this first.

Anyway,

There's a distinction: Poking the Bear versus Finding Out The Dynamics Of the Group. They are 2 completely different things.

If you poke the bear, you need to be more mindful that you are asking. The person who ask, loses. But don't think of this as absolute. It ruins relationships.

For finding out group dynamics, you need to poke and take 3 steps back. You must understand that group dynamics are always dynamic, until it establishes itself. If it is a new group, you can experiment more.

Which new forum members did poke. Which is normal.

 

[DarkKnight]

I get you, but how about, just not poking a bear .

I'm really tired of these flamewars, if everyone would just start focusing on their own development instead of statusjockeying left and right everything would be fine. Because I think that is the root of the problem.

 

[trashKENNUT]

DK,

If you like to poke the bear, high chances are you have two problems and it is not your fault:

- parenting (asia is more nuts, middle east and india more nuttier)
- first few experiences of collective isn't a pleasant experiences.

It's not easy. For me, i been doing this my whole life. I am just doing it "better" than most people.

Maybe it's too much to ask from you on empathy for this guys. But take it from me. growing up and first few bad collective experiences between people, is not fun.

You are right however, that people do statusjockey. often at the wrong time.

 

[DarkKnight]

Alright man, I'll tone down the judging. Glad we agree on the statusjockeying though.

 

[Velasco]

How these heated debates happen is someone makes a general claim that is only true under certain circumstances, but false in others. So what happens is, one side, takes the side where under their circumstance the general claim is true (and they falsely think the opposition is talking about THAT circumstance). While the other is talking about that other circumstance where the general claim is false (and they mistakenly think the opposition is talking about THIS circumstance). What happens is both sides end up agreeing after much heated debate, where the circumstances are clearly defined.

Best way to understand this is via examples of recent debates we've had here.

The first was the claim that broke guys can't get high quality girlfriends past a couple months.

The guys in this corner, where me, RazorJack, and Seppuku

No attractive girl wants to be in a serious relationship with a broke ass nigga (RJ can step in here and clarify if they were in fact their "girlfriends"). She may entertain the idea of being serious with you, after she feels like you really "get her" and's got all feelings for you that she can't even explain (lol)...buttttt (heh butt) thats just the oxytocin talking (after months of repeatedly raw dogging that pussy to death making sweet, ever so gentle, love to her). It may last for bit, but sooner rather than later, she'll snap outta of it when she realizes that she can't really go or do anything with you, and dumps you.

Pretty much in line with what @Velasco wrote.

The "broke ass niggas" that I'm referring to were good looking manic depressives. During their mania phase they were charming, a lot of fun and made you want to be around them. During the depressive phases, they were an emotional mess and a huge energy drain.
I think a lot of the women initially were swept up in the emotional roller coaster ride and thought they could "save" these guys. I'd never seen a relationship go beyond 9 months.

Although the girl can follow you in bed if you exhibit these sexy masculine qualities, through your game and leadership, if you don't have a potential for LTR, they won't stick around. True, no matter your age. It's OK, if you are happy keeping rotating girls. Girls in, girls out. You just need to keep new girls coming all the time.

However, of all these girls, you will eventually find some that you like more than the usual, and would like to keep around for longer. If you don't have other good things going for you in your life, making you at least an acceptable LTR partner, you will have to watch them leave you.

The opposition was Skills.

And it wasn't until Sub Zero, asked the question "what is broke" (the circumstance) where I said

Who is saying this?

If you 1). have your own place. And 2). have enough disposible income to go on dates. Your good. If you dont, have either or, then ur broke.

to which Skills agreed.

velasco is totally right you need to have something going, for me my definition of broke was on the lines of sub-zero more than what velasco was really referring too which is a dead beat for my definition...

End of discussion.

Later on RazorJack and I went at it, on the same topic on how much money you need to be able to stay in an LTR for longer than a couple months. based on the circumstance again. Which Chase was easily able to differentiate

I think Velasco and Razorjack may be talking about different things here.

I suspect @Velasco is talking about "ability to live a basic/decent life", like have a halfway decent apartment, own a halfway decent car if you are in a place that needs cars, be able to go out to eat at least occasionally to places that aren't McDonald's or KFC, and occasionally take a vacation somewhere kind of nice.

Meanwhile I think @Razorjack is assuming Velasco means you've gotta have a high net worth to have a romantic relationship.

I have personally known a few totally broke dudes (of the kind who cannot afford more than a broken-down old pickup truck, and who make all their money by sometimes selling drugs -- I suspect this is the kind Velasco is thinking of) dating attractive career women. However IME most of those guys' relationships are tumultuous and most of them do not last.

I will say if you are skirting the edges of "not having money", and it is to the point that your financial constraints are visible to the woman you are with, and especially if she is engaging in a lot of social comparison (e.g., she's following her old classmates on social media, and all their men have better jobs and more money than you do), she is going to bring the heat down on you at some point.

End of debate.

The latest was the general statement you can/can't flip reds for a same night lay. Which what should have immediately happen to avoid further 20 pages of back and forth debate, is identify the circumstances. In this case, by defining "what is a red?"

The debate reached agreement between the participants once we all agreed that there are different types of reds on page 17 of the attraction thread

dude I agree, much much earlier in this thread I said and I quote "you can seduce any girl that will give you the opportunity"

As mentioned to chrance he is right that you can't assume, but ultimately she's a red in that moment and it doesn't matter why. You're not wrong to "assume" she's a red when she's acting like one. Not all reds can be turned and it's up to you if you want to try or that you think it's worth it.

Velasco summed it up when he said not all reds are equal and that both sides of the argument are right.

and then further agreement on the specific circumstance where the general statement "you can flip reds for a same night lay" is false (barring luck being in your favor, Chase's field report).

In order for her to see your personality & behavior , firstly you need to be vetted as "deemed" for her attention => it is not enough have the best personality and behavior out there without meeting the minimum entry requirements , because she will never see them

@BigPapa your point has already been addressed earlier in this thread. Yes, you have to have a certain level of “base attraction”.

At this point there isn’t much to discuss. We can all agree you have to be a certain level of attractiveness

Nuances in general statements make for complicated time consuming debates. That's part of the game. The problem is that sometimes these debates can get to the best of us. It's the job of the debater, on each side of the argument, to practice self control and attack only what the debater said. Not go after the debater himself. After all we are all on the same side here

 

[Chrance]

@Velasco

It took 20 pages because “what is a red” can’t be defined, because it can’t be observed clearly. The agreement was based around a theoretical “base attractiveness”, which is also something you can’t observe clearly (hence why theoretical). There is agreement, but there’s also a reason why it took 20 pages. No one will agree as to what the real signs are for a red!! At the end of the day we can all agree they exist, but as to the signs? Well, “it depends”(TM) ToddV. I don’t want to bring this shitstorm up again lol. Also, in the discussion I know there was some mention of SNLs but don’t think it was restricted to that; don’t see why it would have been. Maybe someone made that point but I can’t remember and I will not lol read all that again

Another way of looking at it is this: defining the term “red” would’ve gone nowhere, since it would only beg the question “well what makes that a red?” so on and so on. This is where you get your different types of reds, and then the silliness of using three labels falls apart except for its practical usage.

Another format of the issue is this:
GuyA: you can’t pickup a girl exhibiting signs X
GuyB: I picked up a girl who exhibited signs X
GuyA: some reframe to discount X as being the true signs OR creates new more clearer signs
GuyB: Repeat

 

[Velasco]

here we go....

 

[BigPapa]

Another story , I am just too lazy to look for the quotes .

I started a debate based on a technic that velasco posted , something about giving and STD to your fwb to increase her lifetimespan . I told him that is the most stupid thing that I ever heard in my life and asked him why he is writing this kind of things . He defended his post in reasonable terms , and even though I still think is stupid what he wrote there ( I just do not agree with doing bad things to girls , because they are quite sensitive creatures and if you do something too much on the dark side they might never fully recover) his reasoning made total sense .

Then I started to see that most of his posts are quite good , and started to have a good impression about him

 

[Chrance]

fml

 

[trashKENNUT]

I think if you guys believe in a particular model,

You guys need to agree on fundamentals of what is the definition of "red".

Otherwise you guys will just talk past each other.

This is of course, after you try to fix most of the underlying issues. That is parenting and early experience or experience that wasn't pleasant.
Example: Indian girls don't like me.

Otherwise it is just resuscitating the problem. And you are not aware of it.

 

[BigPapa]

@Velasco

It took 20 pages because “what is a red” can’t be defined, because it can’t be observed clearly. The agreement was based around a theoretical “base attractiveness”, which is also something you can’t observe clearly (hence why theoretical). There is agreement, but there’s also a reason why it took 20 pages. No one will agree as to what the real signs are for a red!! At the end of the day we can all agree they exist, but as to the signs? Well, “it depends”(TM) ToddV. I don’t want to bring this shitstorm up again lol. Also, in the discussion I know there was some mention of SNLs but don’t think it was restricted to that; don’t see why it would have been. Maybe someone made that point but I can’t remember and I will not lol read all that again

Another way of looking at it is this: defining the term “red” would’ve gone nowhere, since it would only beg the question “well what makes that a red?” so on and so on. This is where you get your different types of reds, and then the silliness of using three labels falls apart except for its practical usage.

Another format of the issue is this:
GuyA: you can’t pickup a girl exhibiting signs X
GuyB: I picked up a girl who exhibited signs X
GuyA: some reframe to discount X as being the true signs OR creates new more clearer signs
GuyB: Repeat

Look man , if you think there are no signs that "reds" give , then by all means just go in and do the trench work , and you will see that after a while you will be able to differentiate quite easily between a green, yellow , flappable reds and unflappable reds .

 

[Chrance]

@BigPapa

there are guys with more experience than me on this very forum who still don’t agree about the “signs” of a red. Don’t take it up with me lol. You don’t need to experience something directly yourself to know what’s possible, unless you think leaving the atmosphere is impossible lol

Edit:
Also, I have about 3 years of night game experience and have personally seen girls change from 0 interest to a lot of interest, so maybe take it easy there bud.

 

[Bacchus]

and then further agreement on the specific circumstance where the general statement "you can flip reds for a same night lay" is false (barring luck being in your favor, Chase's field report).

Where is this further agreement that "you can flip reds for a same night lay" is false?

Luck plays a role in every successful seduction regardless of her initial receptivity, simply because it is impossible to control every factor in seduction. So using "luck being in your favor" to dismiss the very real probability of a SNL with a red. . . is a fallacious argument.

 

[Train]

I used to get involved in debates like these. I realized I was just stocking the fire. Making it worse. Now I just do this:

 

[BigPapa]

@BigPapa

there are guys with more experience than me on this very forum who still don’t agree about the “signs” of a red. Don’t take it up with me lol. You don’t need to experience something directly yourself to know what’s possible, unless you think leaving the atmosphere is impossible lol

Maybe it makes more sense to talk from your experience , than from what you hear other people talking , since you are not at their level yet and for sure you do not understand exactly the subtleties. At least this is what the rest of the guys here are doing

Edit:
Also, I have about 3 years of night game experience and have personally seen girls change from 0 interest to a lot of interest, so maybe take it easy there bud.

I am too lazy to go and start quoting you from the previous thread where you were giving examples , and after you were saying that they were reds I would explain you why they were not reds and you would agree with me. Why this discussions again ?

The truth is that my parents were quite harsh with me , because they are harsh people , so I had to develop from an early age non verbal reading ( to not cross their paths when I sensed they are angry ) & manipulation ( so I can get what I want from them since just asking them for things never worked ) proficiency . Since I learned naturally this skills , it is very difficult for me to explain you some things . Maybe it makes more sense to ask someone else that had to learn to decipher the body language from books or something , that guy would be more helpful than me for sure .

In the same time I would really appreciate to mind your tone , since you are starting again a discussion that ended in another thread where me & velasco explained you a lot of things and you agreed on

 

[BigPapa]

Luck plays a role in every successful seduction regardless of her initial receptivity, simply because it is impossible to control every factor in seduction. So using "luck being in your favor" to dismiss the very real probability of a SNL with a red. . . is a fallacious argument.

Depends on how you see things , case by case (micro perspective) yes it is a matter of luck . If you look at things from a macro perspective it is not about luck anymore ( macro perspective removes the luck factor - you can not be lucky all times to pull out a certain type of girl based on how receptive she is to you initially , unless you are a super lucky guy then kudos to you )

 

[Skills]

Nuances in general statements make for complicated time consuming debates. That's part of the game. The problem is that sometimes these debates can get to the best of us. It's the job of the debater, on each side of the argument, to practice self control and attack only what the debater said. Not go after the debater himself. After all we are all on the same side here

There you go... It seems people here are unable to do that! there is also a lot of heighten sensitivity...

 

[Chrance]

Maybe it makes more sense to talk from your experience , than from what you hear other people talking , since you are not at their level yet and for sure you do not understand exactly the subtleties. At least this is what the rest of the guys here are doing

Its irrational to disregard other people’s experiences. And I did provide my own experiences. You can always use both.

I am too lazy to go and start quoting you from the previous thread where you were giving examples , and after you were saying that they were reds I would explain you why they were not reds and you would agree with me. Why this discussions again ?

You are misconstruing what i agreed with you on, which is understandable since the thread was so big.

FYI i was elaborating on what @Velasco posted above to provide context

In the same time I would really appreciate to mind your tone , since you are starting again a discussion that ended in another thread where me & velasco explained you a lot of things and you agreed on

Like I said, I was elaborating on a post made above. Whatever “tone” you’re perceiving is up to you.

 

[Ree]

I get you, but how about, just not poking a bear .

I'm really tired of these flamewars, if everyone would just start focusing on their own development instead of statusjockeying left and right everything would be fine. Because I think that is the root of the problem.

I havent been around for a while but it seems that there have been a lot of flame wars,this must be something very new,in the olden days,there was little or no moderation and I cant even remember a flame war happening

 

[Lover]

I havent been around for a while but it seems that there have been a lot of flame wars,this must be something very new,in the olden days,there was little or no moderation and I cant even remember a flame war happening

Maybe not flame wars back then. But I'm sure you remember that just two years ago or so, this board had like 5,000 posts about insecurities regarding interracial dating and the college-FOMO trend. That is, until the users had to be banned for not taking/following/appreciating advice over and over and over. And even new race threads got banned too after a vote.

I rarely enter the debates these days, too time-consuming for me personally. But I appreciate a discussion where things get heated much more than victim mentality posts.