Natural Freedom

You cannot tell a woman what she SHOULD want...doesn't work that way...but they will react to getting what they NEED...that's why the focus is on helping men understand that it is important to make sure they give women what they NEED whether women think they NEED it or NOT.

What do you mean? Isn't that being a push over?

I really really want to be on a level, where I am aware of their motivations in a given situation and can out smart and out manoever them at their own game.

I was talking about the go with the flow part

I don't get Kidd's reference

That's because he brought in a shiticane and you were blinded by it.

If a woman can outhink a man then that motherfucker ain't a man, he's a bitch in men's clothing. People give women way too much credit for having "instinct" and "being able to outgame men", they can't outhink a "MAN", a fuck'n pussy disguised as a man though, sure.

A "man" doesn't play those games in the first place. Many dudes try to play in their arena where they have home field advantage.

Women may not be as weak or fragile as they look; but aren't men
certainly cleverer? Now, now; men the cleverer sex? These creatures
that women fool with a bit of face paint here, some finery there, and a
smile under dimmed lights? These gulls who can be subdued with a
trickle of actress' tears, or confused with a sliver of thigh showing
through a split in the skirt? These fools who, down through history, have
been stuck with clearing the marshes, digging the coal, and getting
bloodied in battle? They the cleverer sex? Ridiculous, simply
ridiculous!
Lest we forget, cleverness is not demonstrated by getting stuck with
the hardest, dirtiest, riskiest jobs in the world, but by dumping them on
others. Even in the routine matter of winning a living, any woman who
doesn't want to be bothered with it manages to dump it on some man:
either her father, or her lover, or her husband, or her sons and sons-in-
law. Yet who are so stupid as to claim that they are cleverer than
women? The very same men who serve women!
In the West, some of these men, especially the brawny robots who
are so easily manipulated by women, will go so far as to speak of the
"dumb blonde" as the ultimate in human stupidity. Yet, to look into the
matter is to discover that the allegedly dumb blonde is no such thing!
She lives rich by expending little more than the yellowness of her hair.
She uses her yellow hair to rule the heart and pick the pocket of some
blonde-obsessed macho with more money than sense. She laughs her
way through an easy life and into a hefty inheritance. If anything, she is
a great maximizer of returns, cleverly getting the best of life with the
least effort. Frankly, the proverbial "dumb blonde" is probably the
cleverest thing in the world.

They are also, as a race, MASTERS at double binds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind)

Phrase examples
Mother to son: "Leave your sister alone!", while the son knows his sister will approach and antagonize him to get him into trouble.

The primary injunction is the command, which he will be punished for breaking. The secondary injunction is the knowledge that his sister will get into conflict with him, but his mother will not know the difference and will default to punishing him. He may be under the impression that if he argues with his mother, he may be punished. One possibility for the son to escape this double bind is to realize that his sister only antagonizes him to make him feel anxious (if indeed it is the reason behind his sister's behavior).

If he were not bothered about punishment, his sister might not bother him. He could also leave the situation entirely, avoiding both the mother and the sister. The sister can't claim to be bothered by a non-present brother, and the mother can't punish (nor scapegoat) a non-present son. There are other solutions that are realised through creative application of logic and reasoning.

Hah yes they are so much more skilled in this dept it's a joke.

I would never try to outplay this game but as men we can set and define boundaries which is the difference. As long as you don't concede them or let them be crossed. Ever. There will be many attempts

It can be enjoyable, if you go with the flow of the river, rather than trying to paddle against it. Try to paddle against it and the river will wash you away like a twig, go with it and the river loses all its power.

A "man" doesn't play those games in the first place. Many dudes try to play in their arena where they have home field advantage.

However, I see what I was saying as more being like a tree with deep roots - continuing the analogy - where the river flows around me and cannot wash me away because of how secure I am in my convictions. So i'm just asking - is there a subtlety in this analogy that i'm missing?

"The only winning move is not to play."