Anonymous Bosch Gems Thread
Bosch on the Art of Conversation

Quote:"So, you ask about family and she says: "I have a sister."

You might say: "Huh, so do I. Man, we fought like cats and dogs growing up."

Then pause. It sounds like you're sharing something personal with her, but what you're really doing is suggesting an emotional framework for her response. Your statement is really just How do you feel about your sister? Was it antagonistic, like mine?
Now she's thinking of a loving bond with her sister, and if you lead her right you'll trigger other emotions in her: perhaps intimacy, femininity, innocence, youthfulness, nostalgia.
You're encouraging an emotional openness in her whilst deliberately withholding or dripfeeding her yours.
Enngage emotionally in the initial small talk stages, so she's primed to move into the deeper, more personal questions.
You'll know if you're forging intimacy this way: you'll hear some kind of "OMG, I can't believe I just told you that!" statement."

Bosch on How to Write a Rock Song
Quote:"The alpha rap attitude, done right, will make girls sexually-attracted to you.

The sensitive rock attitude, done right, will make girls sexually-obsessed with you.

Both approaches have their advantages.

It's all Game.

1) When writing a song, tap into a core emotional truth of what you're feeling.

2) Make sure the song is emotionally-dynamic: peaks of intensity and quieter valleys that mirrors the emotional unrest that exists at the core of women.

3) Now, replace every "I feel" statement with a "You feel" statement so she feels the song is actually about her, not you. Women don't want to hear about your emotions, they want to hear you reflect their emotions back to them, which makes them ascribe your deep-perception of women to being highly-experienced with them."

RE: "You're Not The Biggest I've Ever Had" 
Oh, this one. There will always be someone bigger than you. Accept it.

Like the bodybuilding standard "You're nice the size you are" / "You don't want to be TOO big", I suspect this is about a fear of losing you if you realise you could do better than her due to your virility. It's an attempt to make you think you're lucky to have access to her, so she'll use Size to attack, because, no matter how big a guy is, he'll still never think he's big enough.

I've always wanted to come out with this, just to see what happens.

"And you're not the prettiest I've ever had. Yet here we both are, rolling in the mud together, lacking better options. So, are we going to fuck or not?"

I think you'd need Forney levels of Sarcasm to pull something like that off.

Realistically though, the worst thing you can do is react negatively to this. If women are trying to wound you emotionally, that's them showing that they're in love with you enough to be starting to fear losing you. They do this by testing the situation, deliberately pushing you away to see if you abandon them. They'll say the most vicious and hurtful things to you out of love. How else would they know your love is true and can weather any storm? Bang enough girls and, trust me, you'll hear far worse than this.

If they're trying to destroy you and burn everything down around both you and her, that means they're angry at themselves for ever loving you because they're so deeply hurt, which means punishing you and punishing herself.

If they don't care enough to do either, they've already mentally moved on. If you're in a relationship at this stage, she's cheating on you.

Get the idea? So when she cares enough to be attempting to prick your ego, refuse to be popped. You need to reply, right away, without missing a beat. One thing that seems to eternally-niggle at women is the Cocky Male Ego, when they're so neurotic and insecure. They're deeply-envious of this. That's why they project and label men's ego as 'Fragile'.

Remember, what she said didn't phase you one bit, and, really, it genuinely-shouldn't.

If she's got a sense of humour and you're used to some amount of playground teasing with each other, just do the metaphorical raise of the quizzical eyebrow at her by saying, very dryly, something like "So, you want to try the fist next time, or what?"


"So, you're a 'Quantity, not Quality' girl? Do you think 'All You Can Eat' is better than Fine Dining?"

I usually just dial up the cockiness even further. I favour this kind of approach: "Yeah, I've heard that before. Yet, I was the guy they were always calling for more. What can I say?" [aww shucks grin]

If you want to go the darker route, and she's a natural Drama Queen, and the relationship is a constant seesaw between screaming fury and makeup sex, trigger the hamster. This means, saying some mysterious, like "So I've heard..." then vacating the vicinity as quickly as possible so she can't probe you for exactly what you meant by that.

Remember, the less you emotionally-react to crap, the more masculine and therefore attractive you'll seem to her.

RE: Miranda Kerr abstaining from sex before marriage to Snapchat founder Evan Spiegel 
(02-07-2017 09:01 PM)Transsimian Wrote:  I see nothing wrong with it. 

A widow honouring her deceased partner isn't a bad thing.

I've stated many times before my belief that women have an unhealthy relationship with fantasy. Most of the miserable women I've met throughout my life have had one huge commonality: the inability to stop comparing what is to what if and assuming the fantasy possibility must be better. Rhyme or Reason started an interesting thread the other day on overcoming Cynicism, and came to the conclusion that people choose to be cynical. In this same way, most women simply choose to be dissatisfied by daydreaming.

With any long term relationship you enter, you will always be fighting what I think of as The Ghost of Possibility with regards to her first love: sometimes an innocent childhood sweetheart, but more often it'll be her first serious high school boyfriend. If she had 'hip' liberal parents, she was probably given birth control and praised for 'taking proactive control of her sexual choices'. What this means for guys: if he came in her, she's pair-bonded with him for life, and will always be wondering about him. He will be her big What If?

What if we stayed together?
What if we'd gotten married?
What if we'd had children together?

This sort of fantasy holds huge appeal to women. You'd be surprised how many marriages I've seen break up due to women hooking up with their high school flames on Facebook.

So, that's your Basic Bitch 'What If?' How could this hold an even greater appeal to the female sex? Add drama and tragedy.

What if my 'true' love hadn't died?

Death tends to blow away the dust of negative perceptions of people. Which means: He's now an idealised fantasy construct, forever wondered about, but impossible to obtain.

If you know women, you'll understand their innate fascinated attraction to such a construct, which is why Kerr is still thinking about some random high schooler even after catching and marrying one of the most sought-after males (Bloom) in the world. As such, I'm not surprised Kerr and Bloom's marriage failed.

Thinking about it, this most likely, explains the appeal of 'Twilight' to the Mommy set: it's a fantasy where their idealised high school boyfriend stays young and brooding forever.


As an aside, I've long noted sex-related differences how death is handled in women's romantic fiction:

When a male character suffers the loss of his wife, the female fantasy is ostensibly about her meeting the widower and helping him to heal and move on. Scratch away that attractive veneer and the fantasy is much more viciously-female: it's a display of her superiority where she's beautiful and attractive enough that she has the power to make a man forget the dead. The dead wife usually features as an abstract conception of the impossible rival, and is kept off-stage.

However, when a female character suffers the loss of her husband, the fantasy is framed very differently. He's very much a main character in the piece. What most commonly seems to happen is the tale is about him teaching her to 'let go' of him, to move on and find 'the happiness she deserves' with another man. Often there's multiple superficially-attractive suitors on offer, but the real romance is the dead husband showing he loves her enough to wants her to be 'happy' again - and the abstract of attainable eternal 'happiness', not diamond, is a girl's best friend.

In this way, the Dead Husband is the Romantic Ideal here. His thoughts aren't upon, say, his death, his loss, damnation, grief or mourning, but purely-fixated upon her happiness.

This total disinterest in the man's wants and desires as being distinct and separate from her own doesn't surprise me in the slightest. It's just girls being girls. This is why, whenever you're deeply-lost in thought, a girl will naturally-assume you must be thinking about them.

RE: The Power an amazing physique has over women 
(03-16-2017 03:19 PM)ComebackKid Wrote:  So who's more attractive to women?

A slim guy with good looking face or a muscular guy with busted face 

I think the slim guy would be widely considered far more attractive by girls.

You're never gaming 'all women', just 'one women', (or a small group of women).

The mechanics of Female Sexual Attraction are mysterious, even for an experienced guy like me. Again, and again, I've seen pairings you wouldn't expect.

You only need to get yourself in the door with your physique, then the hard and fast rule I've formed from years of observation of women and hearing them talk about their partners seems to be this:

A woman who you've formed some level of base sexual attraction with will convince herself of her own accord that your physical flaws are charming and interesting to her.

You might have heard her say, 100 times in the past, that she doesn't like men with 'too many muscles', or 'beards', or 'hairy chests', then, suddenly she's dating Paul Bunyan, and now she'll speak of how 'soft' his chest hair is to play with and how his 'beard tickles'.

Nerds. Balding men. Height. Guys with glasses. Foreign guys. Jerks. Broken noses. Guys as ugly as Scooby there. It doesn't matter if that base attraction is formed: the woman will do the rest.

I'll have to think about creating Bosch's Law of Female Desire. Roughly, I think it might look something like this.

1. Women never know what they want.

2. Once they believe they do want something, you can never convince of the obvious flaws possessed by the thing they want.

3. If anything, this only makes them stubbornly-overlook the flaws even more, to a delusional-level, to seemingly-convince themselves why their want is so valued by them.

4. Once they have what they thought they wanted, they'll soon want something else, as time naturally erodes the illusion of perfection they created to justify their desire for their want.

5. As such, they're never happy.

Make sense?

This is why continued game is so important in a relationship. You have to work to keep them wanting you.

There have been multiple psychological studies into female desire over the years, where women's stated tastes about what they like in men has been tracked over a period of years, and what they like in a man changes to match the guy they're currently-seeing.

RE: Miranda Kerr abstaining from sex before marriage to Snapchat founder Evan Spiegel 
Quote:her newfound liberation from sex

Remember how I keep saying women will demand something they believe they Want; ignore your explanations why they don't really need the Want or don't want either the price of responsibility of it; continue to complain until you give them the Want; then once the Want is achieved, eventually decide that the Want isn't what they wanted anyway; and then, somehow, blame a man for their lack of happiness with the Want?

The way to win is to completely-ignore them, as Trump did during the Women's March. They'll then complain that you 'don't listen to them'. I'm guessing this is why every man I remember of my Grandfather's generation had this kind of bemused, non-reactive quality to their wife's nagging. "That's nice, Dear."

Ladies, you can close your legs for a few months all you want, but you can never really get Unfucked.
Bosch was a great poster...but wtf happened to him? He seemed to go crazy just like Roosh did.
(01-11-2020, 12:10 AM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote: Bosch was a great poster...but wtf happened to him? He seemed to go crazy just like Roosh did.

Some good stuff there.

(01-11-2020, 12:10 AM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote: Bosch was a great poster...but wtf happened to him? He seemed to go crazy just like Roosh did.

I wondered that too. He posted great things about game, bodybuilding and just practical life stuff in general for years. I would have thought he was a pretty well rounded, normal guy with a good life. But then he transformed into a Zelcorpion/Leonard D Nubache insane poster obsessed with politics and religion. It was a complete change.

Its not usually happy, healthy guys with a girlfriend/wife, friends, their health etc who suddenly turn to extreme religion in my experience, because they're not looking for answers/excuses for why life is awful. Hopefully nothing terrible happened to him that set him off down that path.
No one else thought this dude was a LARP?
There were lots of wannabes/fakers/overthinkers on that forum. The swing to politics is why I left in 2016/17 or something. The whole vibe changed.
@ Captain Shane

I don't think Bosch was LARPing. I swear he met up in real life unlike some of the more suspect posters. People said he was muscular. But yes he did go off the deep end.

Another gem he wrote up that I unfortunately never saved was when he commented to someone's post that when you ignore a girl it makes her want you even more. In moderation the tactic can work.

He said he missed signs from a girl back in high school that asked for relationship advice.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)