The Rules

[joetechParticipant]

I’ve never heard of this book, but I’ve witnessed the tactics. Beware young men.

"Don't follow in my footsteps...I stepped in something."

[ghostParticipant]

I couldn’t help but click on this video while watching the above.

Smart, successful women

Who the F~~~ is this dumb C~~~ why is she still single if she has all the right answers?

[ChangedParticipant 588]

This is like the PUA books. Then the other sex gets to know the rules and they fail miserably. Zero F~~~s Gigen.

Number one rule for men:
Reject any job interview with a woman.
Contact the boss and tell him you did not interview because all people in their HR are women.

But some men send messages with their penis to these HR dits.

Beware of the other people with a vagina who read politics, manipulation and war. Those are not women.

Matriarchy taxes us. Patriarchy taxes us. No Fucks Given! If they give us pains, lets give them pains. Daily.

[MonkParticipant 16988]

Changed wrote:

Number one rule for men: Reject any job interview with a woman.

This has been my policy for a long time. As soon as I saw a job advert that ended with ‘Contact Chantelle in HR’, I binned it.

HR c~~~s are a plague and cost industry millions.

Story:

Many years ago a supermarket chain opened a new store with an in-store bakery. It was used machine, rather than hand made goods, and also used a lot of bake-off items.

They needed two bakers, so the HR c~~~ advertised. The bakery manager (a qualified baker), suggested that he should sit in on the interviews, but was told rudely by the HR c~~~ that he couldn’t because he ‘wasn’t a REAL manager, he was a TRADESMAN’.

So the know-it-all-but-know-nothing c~~~ went ahead and hired two bakers. Neither were shown the workplace and the equipment. When they started, both looked at the machines and said ‘I’m a craft baker, I’ve never used this equipment before’.

One agreed to train, but the other wouldn’t. Unfortunately, both had signed contracts, and it cost the company several thousand to get released.

Needless to say, it was all hushed up.

[Anonymous 0]

The book that is being discussed in the video is “The Rules.” “The Rules” is actually pretty old stuff. “The Rules” was written in 1995 and was a bestseller back then. Though even today, most women are aware of the book.

Basically, it’s PUA for women. It’s a rulebook telling women how to “play hard-to-get.” Critics claim that it’s anti-feminist; basically it’s trad-con. Also, some say that the publication of “The Rules” back in 1995 led to the birth of the men’s PUA community. Basically, I guess men read “The Rules” and said, “We need something like this for our side too.”

From the Wikipedia article on “The Rules”: Psychology lecturer and therapist Dr Meg-John Barker claims that the emergence of seduction communities happened “almost as a direct response to this hard-to-get femininity.”

I read “The Rules” once upon a time. It’s still around and the authors have written a number of sequels over the years. Basically it just reads pretty much like a PUA manual, but written for women. And instead of teaching women how to get men into bed, it teaches women how to get men to propose to them.

It’s not overly insulting toward men; mainly it teaches women how to prey on men’s conceits and insecurities in order to attract their attention and get them to the altar. And as a trad-con book, it actually tells women to play a subservient role to men in a relationship: No nagging, no whining, let the guy do what he wants, make sure to provide regular sex, etc.

[OldBillParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

Critics claim that it’s anti-feminist; basically it’s trad-con.

As you note, it’s not anti-feminist as much as it is pro-lying.

Feminists with their “Slut it up 24/7/365” approach are going to take umbrage at a book telling women to ration access to their meat holes. What the feminists overlook, mostly deliberately, is that by rationing that access women can more easily strip men of their assets.

Remember, The Rules only advises women on increasing their chances of marrying. It is entirely silent, however, on the subject of divorce.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Anonymous 0]

Yep. A trad-con marriage is easier on the man than a feminist marriage. But either way there’s still way too much chance that any marriage will end in divorce.

That’s ultimately what most women marry for: To get their hooks into a decent provider (and his bank account). And then, when they eventually get bored with the arrangement, they know they can always cash in their chips and walk away with a big settlement. They win either way.

[OldBillParticipant]

Anonymous wrote:

A trad-con marriage is easier on the man than a feminist marriage. But either way there’s still way too much chance that any marriage will end in divorce.

Exactly. In a trad-con marriage the man is relatively pampered before being led to the slaughterhouse. They’re Kobe beef as opposed to the beef raised in crowded feed lots.

To get what they want, trad-con women pledge they won’t go for the Cash & Prizes. To get what they want, feminist women threaten they will go for the Cash & Prizes. Both groups, however, always have the Cash & Prizes as a fallback position.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Anonymous 0]

The thing that always tickled me about “The Rules” was the fact that it was the first real PUA manual. In other words, women complain about the men’s PUA community, but really, they did it first.

Anyway, back to what you said:

I agree. With women, it’s always comes down to your provider status and landing that marriage contract. Dr. Phil McGraw wrote a book in 2005 similar to “The Rules” called “Love Smart.” And he’s pretty open about what women look for. In Chapter 6, he says:

“When responding to anonymous surveys, men confess that one of the first things that goes through their mind when they meet a woman is what kind of sexual partner she would make. But women confess to jumping to conclusions as well—instead of sex they report that they consider what kind of a husband, partner, or provider a guy might make. In the first split second, men take in chest, waist, hips—in other words, curves—whereas women see hair, clothes, posture, grooming, and other external markers of stability and success.”

Women s~~~ on men for looking at all women as sex objects. But women look at men as pretty much just a wallet. Women are into financial security, in other words, prostituting themselves for money. And then they’ve worked the legal system so that they can continue taking the man’s money even after they tire of playing the whore and the relationship peters out. Again, a bad deal for men all around.

[Author]

Posts