@dirtymikeandtheboyz

dealing with flakiness

So recently i have dealt with a situation that was a bit confusing to me.

Went on a date with a woman I met at an art gallery event to a rooftop patio for drinks.

Date went the standard way -> drinks, flirtation, escalated as we were leaving bar and ended up making out/fooling around in the elevator as well as to a park we went nearby.

I end the date because i had to go to another thing i had to do that night.

She texts me back saying she had a nice time, we chat a bit and set up another date in a few days.

Morning of the date she hits me up with standard BS excuse.

I say i understand things happen outside our control and leave it there.

She proceeds to double text later that night apologizing and asking to reschedule.

I entertain the conversation but dont ask for another meet up. She proceeds to text all the niceties and BS a woman would stating that the she missed me (weird after one date?) and asking me when I am leaving for my work trip

She asks when I am free to which I give a vague response. She pushes me harder for a response and I give her a day.

We text a few more days setting up the date and 2 days before the date she ghosts. I leave it there.

Obviously I am a bit confused as to why she would pursue so hard only to flake both times.

My thoughts: I should have close the night of the date, or asked her to simply come over instead of setting up another date (at no point had she mentioned she wanted a relationship). Guessing the second date set up gave too much boyfriend vibes?

In the unlikely scenario she reaches out I think my response would be something along the lines: "This date thing isn't working so well for us haha, just come over and bring something nice".

Thoughts >?

Study the book. While you handled the situation well enough, the texting sessions after she canceled you should've replied with, "Busy, can't talk now." If it continued, you then place her on block and move on with your life. As far as I can tell the time you've spent chatting with her since then was a waste of time better spent on other things.

@Mate1212 back in 2000-2002 when I was learning PUA from Roosh and his forum, Mystery was the big dog.

And I thought he was a total faggot. Fucking fuzzy hat, eye makeup, nail polish, feather-boa-wearing fruity faggot.

I dismissed him out of hand.

Years later, when my marriage was in the rocks and I looked Roosh back up and found the Red Pill through him, a lot of my reading while unplugging made me realize that Mystery was far more influential than I had thought, and without him it would have taken much longer for anyone to discover the Red Pill.

One such thing I learned better about was peacocking. I had previously refused to peacock in the PUA days of the early 2000s, thinking it was faggy. I mocked the dudes wearing stupid looking hats, or worse, makeup. I wore crappy, cheap clothing and frequently even flip-flops everywhere I went, dressing like a total slob. I was still able to get chicks, thanks to muscles and ZFG. But when I was unplugging in 2013 or so, Athol Kay better explained what peacocking actually was and what it accomplished, and I'd inadvertently been doing it through my steadfast refusal to do it.

I've since watched/listened to interviews of Mystery done by Owen Cook (aka RSD Tyler Durden) and Rollo Tomassi and I forget who else, and the dude is far more intelligent and wise than I had previously given him credit for. Of course I don't agree with everything he says, but he deserves a ton of credit for shaping the discourse about intersexual dynamics over the last 3 decades.

@alfon335

Puer Aeternus - criticism on the Red Pill

Today I came across an interesting video by HealthyGamerGG which discusses aspects of young people today never fully growing up and always striving to live a fantasy life - puer aeterni - or in English - eternal boys, a concept developed by Carl Jung.

Some of the remarks did resonate with me and my own behavior, especially when I was younger.

This person criticizes the Red Pill and even mentions terms like spinning plates, non-committance, as basically just being the inability to take responsibility for life and not accepting that life is not always fun and games. In other words, he argues that what guys do with “spreading the seed, being an alpha male” is basically just a rationalization for being psychologically stuck in childhood. He touches upon a term called Don Juanism, which was described in a psychology book 100 years ago, which basically, as I understand, means catching oneitis for new girls, which would be the opposite of red pill though.

I think that he accurately explains the majority of people initially coming to places like this forum here, however, it misses the mark of the end goal of red pill that people teach here - complete self-reliance and absence of seeking external validation/detachment.

In summary, he argues that the red pill is actually blue pill, since we live in fantasy land, while the real red pill is to work a boring life and accept that that is what life is.

Rant begins around 47:00:

https: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=e0ec2-E5Xq8