3 months fwb probably done, got me fucked up

[Emerald]

Just now, flowboy said:

It all depends how he frames it. He could have convinced her that it was awesome that he was working on himself to be more attractive and less creepy. We don't really know how that seminar went, but it could have changed a lot.

That's one thing if he frames the RSD stuff like that. But it's a totally different thing how he frames his feelings toward the woman. So, he can tell her all about what he gets from RSD, but if he doesn't make it clear to her that he's interested in more than just sex... she's going to think he's only into sex. And the RSD stuff will seem to be more confirmation of that. Women have to filter guys out for that all the time. 

2 minutes ago, flowboy said:

While that may be true that most women today would be judgmental about it, what choice does he have? Are you suggesting he pretends to not go to RSD things? Because he's already been doing that, that's a given. So he can be dishonest about it, or not, or even be inviting.

Bringing her along at least has the potential to flip her preconceived notion. Lying about it (or quitting RSD) would be inauthentic and make her lose respect for him, rightfully so. And not bringing her just leaves her behind with all these taboos still in her mind.

No. I'm suggesting that he communicates his feelings for her and also communicates why he does RSD. And if she still doesn't feel comfortable with it and decides she doesn't want to be with him, then he should accept that.

So, I'm suggesting an abundance of communication and honesty, not the opposite. But it appears the OP wasn't honest about his feelings for her and was trying to not seem too needy... which is a classic mistake that so many guys make. And so, even if he was open and honest about the RSD event and what it gives him, she will naturally read a certain subtext into it in lieu of him expressing his genuine feelings for her. And she will probably put him in the fuck boy category and think he sees her essentially as someone to sleep with and not be with longterm. 

 

 

 

[flowboy]

@Emerald  So we agree that he should have been upfront and authentic about it, and held nothing back concerning his feelings nor his activities with RSD. Because any attempt to control her opinion/reaction would probably have been transparent and off-putting. At least caused incongruence (thoughts, words, actions not aligned)

Then I don't understand why you claim that I don't know anything about how women function.

I do agree that he might have given her too little approval and not communicated genuine interest. Seems plausible. I sometimes make that mistake too. You've given me something to think about.

But what girl would say that thing about the sleeping late, if not for being annoyed with someones neediness?

Edited May 27, 2019 by flowboy

[Emerald]

39 minutes ago, flowboy said:

@Emerald  So we agree that he should have been upfront and authentic about it, and held nothing back concerning his feelings nor his activities with RSD. Because any attempt to control her opinion/reaction would probably have been transparent and off-putting. At least caused incongruence (thoughts, words, actions not aligned)

Then I don't understand why you claim that I don't know anything about how women function.

I do agree that he might have given her too little approval and not communicated genuine interest. Seems plausible. I sometimes make that mistake too. You've given me something to think about.

But what girl would say that thing about the sleeping late, if not for being annoyed with someones neediness?

She might have slept late...

Like, there's nothing about her text that really seems to even indicate clearly that she was put off. And even if she were, it's probably not because of some kind of neediness. Nothing about his text seemed needy.

She was talking about how she slept because she didn't set an alarm. This doesn't seem like a code to me. 

That said, if it's true what the OP said that she's been distant since the RSD thing, then this means she probably felt disposable because of the nature of that event. Most women would probably feel that way. 

The reason why I'm saying that you don't know anything about women, is that you're looking at this through the lens of neediness, which isn't even relevant... instead of looking at it from a woman's perspective. The fact of the matter is that women are always having to sort and filter out players. So, after being taken to an RSD event, the OP probably pinged on her radar as a potential player who's just interested in sex. 

So, you're not really putting yourself in the woman's shoes and seeing the most obvious answer. Imagine there was an RSD for women talking about how to approach and seduce men... how would you feel if you FWB took you to that. You'd probably assumed that they were just really into sex and not really interested in an exclusive relationship.

 

 

[flowboy]

21 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Imagine there was an RSD for women talking about how to approach and seduce men... how would you feel if you FWB took you to that. You'd probably assumed that they were just really into sex and not really interested in an exclusive relationship.

Actually, no. I would be supportive and happy for her. Because it's 2019 and I don't buy into the bullshit that you have to be exclusive for a relationship that means anything.

Believe it or not, I have many female friends that are taking workshops in being seductive. The thought to judge them for it wouldn't even enter my mind. And if my polyamorous girlfriend did it, I would love it.

21 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Like, there's nothing about her text that really seems to even indicate clearly that she was put off. And even if she were, it's probably not because of some kind of neediness.

Yes, EVERYTHING does!! How do you really not see it... All the things I named before. The "like a normal person". That's clearly frustration. And everything else I named.

21 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The reason why I'm saying that you don't know anything about women, is that you're looking at this through the lens of neediness, which isn't even relevant... instead of looking at it from a woman's perspective. The fact of the matter is that women are always having to sort and filter out players.

Do you even have any experience building romantic relationships with women, or are you just projecting yourself onto all women?

Edited May 27, 2019 by flowboy

[Shadowraix]

I always find it amusing when a guy thinks he fully understands the entire female population. 

[flowboy]

I always find it hilarious when women think they know something about game, just because they're a woman.

It's like thinking you're a good salesperson, because you've made a few purchases.

Edited May 27, 2019 by flowboy

[Shadowraix]

12 minutes ago, flowboy said:

I always find it hilarious when women think they know something about game, just because they're a woman.

It's like thinking you're a good salesperson, because you've made a few purchases.

They inherently do. Such interactions have a duality perspective. Guys know theirs and women know theirs but we can only project to understand the other side. 

[flowboy]

15 minutes ago, Shadowraix said:

They inherently do. Such interactions have a duality perspective. Guys know theirs and women know theirs but we can only project to understand the other side. 

Not true. One side has actual experience of what works, the other can only project.

I am no exception: I will readily admit that I'm bad at predicting which kind of marketing I would actually fall for, as well as what a girl could do to get me.

Being the object of a pursuit doesn't make you understand how to pursue.

[Psychonaut]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

So, you're not really putting yourself in the woman's shoes and seeing the most obvious answer. Imagine there was an RSD for women talking about how to approach and seduce men... how would you feel if you FWB took you to that. You'd probably assumed that they were just really into sex and not really interested in an exclusive relationship.

To me it seems women really buy into this grand disney fairy tale of exclusivity. I really don't know why. 

To me a girlfriend is not the special person with whom I have a much deeper and intimate connection than with my other friends. Is it just me that has deep friendships? Because the only difference between a friend and a girlfriend is the sex. I find it a bit offensive that exclusivity is a requirement for a deep relationship.

[Shadowraix]

4 minutes ago, flowboy said:

Not true. One side has actual experience of what works, the other can only project.

I am no exception: I will readily admit that I'm bad at predicting which kind of marketing I would actually fall for, as well as what a girl could do to get me.

Being the object of a pursuit doesn't make you understand how to pursue.

It means you understand what it's like to be pursued. That's the other side of the dynamic. 

[flowboy]

2 minutes ago, Shadowraix said:

It means you understand what it's like to be pursued. That's the other side of the dynamic. 

That doesn't mean you understand how to do it. Or that you have a lot to say about how it should be done most effectively.

Try going to pick up women with your bisexual girlfriend. You'll be shocked how clueless she is, and she'll be shocked how hard it is.

[Shadowraix]

4 minutes ago, flowboy said:

That doesn't mean you understand how to do it. Or that you have a lot to say about how it should be done most effectively.

Try going to pick up women with your bisexual girlfriend. You'll be shocked how clueless she is, and she'll be shocked how hard it is.

I never said it does. Just thinking holistically

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, flowboy said:

Actually, no. I would be supportive and happy for her. Because it's 2019 and I don't buy into the bullshit that you have to be exclusive for a relationship that means anything.

Believe it or not, I have many female friends that are taking workshops in being seductive. The thought to judge them for it wouldn't even enter my mind. And if my polyamorous girlfriend did it, I would love it.

That's good on you. But the reality of the matter is that most men and women don't work that way. They are mostly monogamous and don't like the idea of their partner being with other people. So, you can find 10% of people who are okay with open relationships and polyamory... but 90% will balk at it.

4 hours ago, flowboy said:

Yes, EVERYTHING does!! How do you really not see it... All the things I named before. The "like a normal person". That's clearly frustration. And everything else I named.

Do you even have any experience building romantic relationships with women, or are you just projecting yourself onto all women?

That text is super normal. If a guy text me that, I wouldn't think anything of it. Now, if his behavior was otherwise needy, then that's a different story that happened outside of this text. What I got was that she went cold after going to the RSD event... and most women would.

Also, I am bisexual but I don't have very much experience with women. But I can tell you, that most women will register the FWB situation coupled with going with a guy to an event that's essentially about meeting, dating, and having sex with women. And many times, the focus is on sleeping with MANY women. Most women don't like that. Most men don't like that. 

Now, there is that 10% of the population... but the aforementioned woman doesn't seem to be in that 10%.

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, Psychonaut said:

To me it seems women really buy into this grand disney fairy tale of exclusivity. I really don't know why. 

To me a girlfriend is not the special person with whom I have a much deeper and intimate connection than with my other friends. Is it just me that has deep friendships? Because the only difference between a friend and a girlfriend is the sex. I find it a bit offensive that exclusivity is a requirement for a deep relationship.

Many women might find men's primary attraction to their looks a bit offensive as well, but it doesn't make it not so. 

The fact of the matter is that most women prefer an exclusive relationship. Most men prefer exclusive relationships as well. Maybe you're an exception and you don't mind if your girlfriend sleeps with and dates other men, but most men and women are not oriented this way. So, relative to what I was saying before, you can bet that the OP's partner is probably in the majority.

But there are several reasons why this is the case that women prefer exclusivity. Number one, our biology around pair-bonding and a general preference skewing toward depth and stability over excitement that stems from this biology. Number two, there are a lot more consequences on the physical, social, and biological level for women relative to having a non-exclusive partner. Number three, because we don't want to feel disposable, and it weeds out men who aren't very serious and just want a fuckbuddy more than a partner. This is like one of the main things you have to watch out for when you're a woman who's looking into dating.

Plus, in my opinion, unless you're just experimenting with your sexuality, there's next to no reason to sleep with a guy if you don't feel a special connection to him, as there's not really a lot of emotional pay off otherwise. The desire for emotional intimacy with that one particular man is the main driver for sexual connection.

Also, exclusive relationships feel much more stable, which women tend to value. This makes sense for biological reasons as well, as a stable environment and a committed partner are good for child rearing. That's not to say that polyamorous relationships aren't stable. But if one partner's just out having one-night-stands with a bunch of people or getting romantically involved with a ton of people, it can be a major destabilizing factor. It can also indicate that he has issues with self-control, which is also a major destabilizing factor.

So, yes. Most women are going to want a deeper connection to their partner than to their their friends. Not to say that friendships can't be deep, but there's just a different dynamic at play in a romantic relationship that goes beyond just the sex. So, they're not just friends you have sex with. It's something more that that.

Perhaps you've not yet experienced that, but one day you might and you'll see what I'm talking about. The level of intimacy is just different. And as a woman, it's not even worth it if that isn't present.

 

 

[flowboy]

15 hours ago, Emerald said:

But the reality of the matter is that most men and women don't work that way. They are mostly monogamous and don't like the idea of their partner being with other people. So, you can find 10% of people who are okay with open relationships and polyamory... but 90% will balk at it.

 

15 hours ago, Emerald said:

Also, I am bisexual but I don't have very much experience with women. But I can tell you, that most women

 

15 hours ago, Emerald said:

Now, there is that 10% of the population... but the aforementioned woman doesn't seem to be in that 10%

@Emerald What makes you the authority on all women? I respect that you are one, okay, but that makes your statements on "most women" just a projection. As you say yourself, you don't have much actual experience pursuing women romantically.

I do. Not a lot, but at least some. And I'm saying that if he had framed it correctly and held that frame, he could have gotten her to be really supportive about his RSD work. In my experience, if a woman likes you, she'll shift her interests and values to fit yours, to some extent. What she says to herself and friends about her likes and dislikes, suddenly doesn't matter, because she's in your frame.

So, I believe you that you don't like the idea of a man going to RSD seminars. But I think it's possible to meet a man (or woman) who is so attractive, that they make you forget all about that. (Also the reverse could happen, we all know guys throw their principles overboard for sex all the time)

Also, I suspected that these 90%-10% percentages, you're just pulling them out of your ass. This is just your uneducated guess, extrapolated to "all women".

So, I tried to find some actual numbers: guess what, the number of people likely to be open to non-monogamy is over 40%.

Source: https://openpsychometrics.org/research/demographics-of-polyamory/

Edited May 28, 2019 by flowboy

[Emerald]

25 minutes ago, flowboy said:

 

 

@Emerald What makes you the authority on all women? I respect that you are one, okay, but that makes your statements on "most women" just a projection. As you say yourself, you don't have much actual experience pursuing women romantically.

I do. Not a lot, but at least some. And I'm saying that if he had framed it correctly and held that frame, he could have gotten her to be really supportive about his RSD work. In my experience, if a woman likes you, she'll shift her interests and values to fit yours, to some extent. What she says to herself and friends about her likes and dislikes, suddenly doesn't matter, because she's in your frame.

So, I believe you that you don't like the idea of a man going to RSD seminars. But I think it's possible to meet a man (or woman) who is so attractive, that they make you forget all about that. (Also the reverse could happen, we all know guys throw their principles overboard for sex all the time)

Also, I suspected that these 90%-10% percentages, you're just pulling them out of your ass. This is just your uneducated guess, extrapolated to "all women".

So, I tried to find some actual numbers: guess what, the number of people likely to be open to non-monogamy is over 40%.

Source: https://openpsychometrics.org/research/demographics-of-polyamory/

I did pull the numbers out of the air, obviously. But I'm going off of what I've observed of people. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to put together that most people don't like the idea of their significant being with other people. Also, I'm telling you what I know about the experience of being a woman and being friends with other women who are dating and have dated. And one of the major things you have to filter out is guys who are lukewarm and looking only for sex. And you can imagine that a lot of guys who are into pick up are that way. So, it's not something to just overlook like it doesn't mean anything. The fact of the matter is that it might mean something very significant to the guy's viability as a stable partner. 

So, it's not such a far stretch to put it together that the girl probably went cold after the RSD event because she felt uncomfortable about that. Why wouldn't you think this is probably why she got colder directly after the event? I mean, if it quacks like a duck... it might indeed be a really unusual goose. But chances are, it's a duck. I just don't see why you're putting your bet in on the quacking bird being a goose, when it's a lot less likely.

You're missing the most obvious answer because you're falling back on the lens that you've applied in your ventures into dating women, as well as your personal moral compunctions against judging those who are polyamorous.  So, you have a mental framework that's getting in the way of you seeing reality as it is.

Consider that most people don't have the same level of open-ness about polyamory that you do. And that most women, even if they're okay with others being polyamorous, don't want to be and don't want their partner to be. And on a separate note, even polyamorous people are not okay with cheating. So, even a polyamorous woman might be on guard about a guy bringing her to such an event. Consider the things that are deal-breakers for women in general. 

Also, keep in mind that RSD and PUA stuff works mostly for finding someone who will go for it. So, you're really learning how to attract a very specific type of woman who's open to cold approach. It's not really women in general that you're attracting.

So, if a woman falls outside of that range, the things you've learned and employed will not work on them. So, you're not really getting a clear idea of how women actually work. You're getting an idea of what works for a very specific type of woman, and then taking your success as an indicator of the truth of what you've learned.

But from the female perspective, you just look at it and see how inaccurate that paradigm is. It will work for your purposes. But it's not a very effective paradigm for having any kind of depth of understanding into how women in general actually work psychologically and how they actually respond to situations. So, falling back on your knowledge of dating and attracting women is not sufficient to understand female psychology. It's like looking at the flight patterns of a particular type of butterfly to understand the brain structures of butterflies in general. You're working with a very limited, specialized type of practical information to try to understand something that's a lot more complex and only vaguely related. Then, thinking that you understand because you know what kind of works in that very limited context. 

And you're thinking about how people should think based on your prior knowledge about dating women and your moral code in general, as opposed to the way that most people DO think. So, the mental framework you've created is getting in the way of your awareness of how reality works.

Also, none of this had to do with my moral compunctions. It just comes from an intuitive awareness of how people generally function and what would likely put people off. And as a woman, I know that I'd at least be a bit guarded about the RSD thing, and watching for red flags. So, that's probably what she was doing... like most women would. And this is not a projection but an observation of how people generally work.

 

 

[flowboy]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

RSD and PUA stuff works mostly for finding someone who will go for it. So, you're really learning how to attract a very specific type of woman who's open to cold approach. It's not really women in general that you're attracting.

So, if a woman falls outside of that range, the things you've learned and employed will not work on them. So, you're not really getting a clear idea of how women actually work.

@Emerald This is just nonsense you tell yourself to feel above it.

Making good eye contact, being able to manage your emotions and be in a good mood, speaking clearly and having your life together in a way that brings you happiness, only works on a specific type of woman? Really??

Because this is what RSD teaches. Clearly you have no idea and didn't bother to find out.

You're pretending that it's about "tricks" and one night stands, while actually, it just teaches men (and women) how to be themselves in the most attractive least creepy way, and relate to women optimally, whether it is a cold approach at the bar or meeting someone through their social circle, or online dating.

It makes you feel safe to consider yourself "not that specific type of woman", not a target, so you can keep believing that it wouldn't work on you.

Guess what. It works on everyone. Sorry to burst your bubble, but every time in your life you have met someone who became your boyfriend or girlfriend, it could have been thanks to them following RSD teachings.

Edited May 28, 2019 by flowboy

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, flowboy said:

@Emerald This is just nonsense you tell yourself to feel above it.

Making good eye contact, being able to manage your emotions and be in a good mood, speaking clearly and having your life together in a way that brings you happiness, only works on a specific type of woman? Really??

Because this is what RSD teaches. Clearly you have no idea and didn't bother to find out.

You're pretending that it's about "tricks" and one night stands, while actually, it just teaches men (and women) how to be themselves in the most attractive least creepy way, and relate to women optimally, whether it is a cold approach at the bar or meeting someone through their social circle, or online dating.

It makes you feel safe to consider yourself "not that specific type of woman", not a target, so you can keep believing that it wouldn't work on you.

Guess what. It works on everyone. Sorry to burst your bubble, but every time in your life you have met someone who became your boyfriend or girlfriend, it could have been thanks to them following RSD teachings.

I'm generally aware of what RSD teaches. And I'm also aware of what works seduction-wise. You keep projecting that I'm anti-RSD but it's not the case. I'm just telling you how it would be interpreted by most women to be brought to such an event. That should be pretty obvious. Yet you seem to still think it's impossible that she could have been put off by being brought to an RSD event. It's really strange to me that you're not even seeing that as a valid possibility, when it's as simple as 1+1=2. 

But what I'm saying is that cold approach doesn't really work on most women... it only works on certain women. Most women are not responsive to that unless it's happening in the context of a club where it's expected.

All of the traits you mentioned above are universally appealing, but that's not all they teach in RSD. But what I'm talking about are things like cold-approach and techniques like negging and push and pull. These will hook women with certain sensibilities, but won't have an effect on others. But many men take these techniques working for their purposes practically to indicate a truism about all women. But it's really just an indicator that it works on some women.

But the RSD guys do a good job of marketing it out as though it works on everyone. They even have that marketing technique where they tell you that women don't know what works on them, and that you should listen to the RSD guys instead. Super evil genius marketing.

But the fact that it will work on some women, this is why I said that men try these techniques and get good results, and they take their good results as an indicator that what works practically indicates an absolute truth about women and that all women will respond to it. Neither of those things is true. You can't understand women by understanding what works for practical purposes with them in the dating scene even if you had some surefire techniques that DID work on every woman. And you can't understand women by understanding what works for practical purposes with a fraction of women who will be receptive to things like cold approach, as they won't work on most women.

So, no. It doesn't work on everyone. Most women can see men using techniques like I mentioned before from a mile away, as they get it all the time. I want you to realize this is coming from someone who's been cold approached probably a thousand times since I was in middle school like 17 years ago. So, this is coming from someone who's been on the receiving end of it for a long time. Consider that there might be wisdom in what I'm saying.

Now, I do generally like the teachings about general self improvement and what works seduction-wise as those work pretty well. I wish more guys knew that. But most of the more pick-up-like techniques are off-putting as most women are so used to it and can smell it from a mile away. I'm sure you've seen pick up demos where the guy gets cold shouldered by a lot of women. This is how most women naturally respond because they're used to avoiding it, and they would avoid it with anyone. So, it doesn't matter how good is game is, he's not going to get with those women. The techniques simply won't work on them.

Now, I understand why men must do them, because they have to try with a lot of women before they get to a yes. So, I'd be doing it too if I were a guy. But do understand that your idea that it works on ALL women is false. Women don't fall in love with techniques, they fall in love with men. 

So, most women don't need or care for cold approach, as they have their eyes set on John at the office who doesn't know they exist. And that guy's definitely not doing any RSD techniques at them. Female attraction doesn't really have a mechanism, other than intuition and chemistry. 

But one thing I do think is going on is the all the PUA/RSD stuff is a lot like a placebo, at least in part. Men assume that they won't do well with women, so they don't. But once they learn these great techniques, all of a sudden they're getting success. So, the placebo effect of that makes it more comfortable. But it's not really the technique at play that's helping, it's the confidence that the guy gets through employing the technique.

 

[whoareyou]

@flowboy @Emerald I totally agree with flowboy, and can see even the neediness even in texts. How? Because at one point in my life I was that guy, and only the people who have been that needy guy can see this crystal clear. 3/4 of his texts convey neediness/supplication and that is the reason why that woman lost interest in him.

To OP, I recommend to read the book "The Way of Superior Man" by David Deida.

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

@flowboy @Emerald I totally agree with flowboy, and can see even the neediness even in texts. How? Because at one point in my life I was that guy, and only the people who have been that needy guy can see this crystal clear. 3/4 of his texts convey neediness/supplication and that is the reason why that woman lost interest in him.

To OP, I recommend to read the book "The Way of Superior Man" by David Deida.

So, probably just totally overlook the more obvious reason that you'd be able to see much more clearly if you weren't so learn-ed about what women want and don't want. Like I said, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck... then it probably is just a really weird goose with a vocal chord problem. Sounds like a good bet. 

Also, can you point out the neediness in the text? I literally cannot see it. It just seems like a normal text. Like, he's not writing huge paragraphs or saying anything weird. What are you picking up on, that I am not. And I know what neediness in a man looks like. It's really uncomfortable to be on the receiving end of it. And this would not ping on my radar as needy, AT ALL.

Now, if his vibe is needy in person, that's a different story. But none of that's conveyed in the text. Seems pretty normal.

I think it's one of those situations like women who think men are not going to be attracted to them because of some small flaw that no man would notice. And they notice it on other women too. For example... imperfect eyebrows. 

This text is the imperfect eyebrows of texts. Women aren't going to notice anything weird about it. But men are somehow hyper-tuned into it because they've learned to hyper-focus on neediness because of what they've learned and been empowered by. So, everything looks like a nail when you only have a hammer.

If any ladies on the forum can help me out here, I'd appreciate it because the guys here are really not believing what I'm saying. What would your impression be if you were FWB with a guy and he took you to an RSD event? Would you think he was interested in anything serious? Also, do you see anything needy about the OP's text?

Also, do you think the OP's girlfriend went cold because of the neediness conveyed in the text (and presumably out) or because the guy brought her to an RSD event and didn't make it clear that he's interested in her? Or perhaps some other reason like just wanting an FWB and not anything more serious?