The Game - Neil Strauss
- Thread starter IdleRich
- Start date
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
well nah you've totally missed the point then certainly the problem never was frivolity of all things.
(aside from which, pot-kettle-black times a thousand)
to be honest bro I'm so tired of that tired line of reasoning. that these dudes of all people are claiming greater honesty. as it if weren't entirely possible to just be honest w/o all that guff as if the only way to be "more honest" was to devote yourself to the systematization of delivering glib lines which are, let's be honest, anything but honest. again I'll leave moral judgments to man's own consciences but please enough with the more honest talk, which honestly only ever sounds like assuaging of somewhat guilty aforementioned consciences.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
with all respect statements like this are the reason I struggle to take you at all seriously dude. do you reckon that perhaps there's just a tiny possibility that somewhere in the world there are women who would laugh in the face of that player and his lines...
I reckon quite a few people wound it humorous anyway as quite a few people doubtless find the Game to be humorous (or some mixture of humorous & sad), tho you are of course free to ignore them as well as the humorless xkcd, and go about your business.
no that is exactly what is happening.
when have i ever told people what they're into is sad and stupid? (saying hipster djs suck doesn't count. what would count is if i said djing is sad.)
very clear that it is you who is missing the point by a mile.
i was not talking about honesty of Method. i was not talking about procedural honesty of how to go about it. i was talking about the honesty of directly pursuing that which we all want (by all i mean 99% of men. if you are in the 1% fair enough. but i seriously doubt it) pragmatically, in the real world today.
again, your condescending reduction of what these guys do to "feeding lines" is simple minded. what they actually do is try to maneuver with greater success within the status quo of social contexts, with their given value systems, transactional regulations, rules and structures, however arbitrary, silly, sad, or unfair these values and structures may be.
someone said what is funny is that it works. of course it works. a lot of this stuff is just common sense. people behave in certain patterns, this is undeniable, and if you can discern those patterns, deconstruct them and understand them, you can use them toward your own advantage.
with that said, it is a bit ironic that i'm defending these guys. because my own game is at its best when i'm the least conscious of playing it, when i'm least aware of the rules, and sometimes (often?) when i'm breaking them. i mostly rely on intuition, spontaneity, simple classic charm and wit, and almost never think in terms of The Game.
but my game would certainly improve if i did pay a bit more attention to some of these things lol. i don't know much about it, but just judging from a few youtubes i watched while waiting for my rice to cook earlier this evening, it is nothing more or less than the systematic and logical breaking down of social convention. like becoming a better interviewer, athlete or politician. it is what it is.
what is interesting is the articulation of social dynamics that i have never heard anyone articulate before, but we have all surely experienced (watching a few of these vids i was like OMG i have encountered that scenario a thousand times, and now i kinda see what i did wrong in half of them!)
a simple example: i start chatting up a beautiful woman at the bar, and within the first few minutes she says "buy me a drink?" 9 times out of 10 in the past i would have, in my ignorance, bought her that drink, to show my generosity, whatever. but the reality, however sad or silly, is that by immediately buying that drink (jumping through the hoop she holds out), i have lost respect in her eyes. and what usually happens is at most a few more minutes of conversation, and she walks away.
(of course we are talking about the majority here, there are always people who do not behave in these patterns, who live outside of convention, but they are exceptions. my GF is an exception, and i am very glad/thankful that she is.)
Yeah, your definitely right.
This is an interesting read (apart from some horrible anti-semitism):
http://www.puahate.com/showthread.php?t=6075
Alleges that Neil Strauss' relationship with Lisa Leveridge (Courtney Love's bassist) which was the denouement of the book, was just a big publicity stunt. The whole forum seems to be run by angry blokes who feel they've been conned by PUA companies.
I am finding this stuff compellingly readable.
Warning: vast swathes of that foum NSFW due to porn images posted.
http://www.puahate.com/showthread.php?t=6075
Alleges that Neil Strauss' relationship with Lisa Leveridge (Courtney Love's bassist) which was the denouement of the book, was just a big publicity stunt. The whole forum seems to be run by angry blokes who feel they've been conned by PUA companies.
I am finding this stuff compellingly readable.
Warning: vast swathes of that foum NSFW due to porn images posted.
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
How is it necessarily at a woman's "expense"? If half of what comelately is saying is true, he can make women climax pretty much by winking at them - of course, this is an Internet Sex Boast and all usual caveats apply - but it's stupid and old-fashioned (and, ironically, sexist) to assume that every casual hook-up is a case of a man 'taking advantage of' a woman. Plenty of women like casual sex, you know, or at least have had casual sex without having been 'tricked' into it.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
That sounds to me like something a woman who's into "The Rules" would do - which is basically the female equivalent of "The Game", right? (I'm not convinced most women, even especially hot ones, are than conniving and tricksy - though maybe I'm just being hopelessly naive here). Which would just seem to back up the xkcd cartoon about 'Rules' women and 'Game' men being perfectly suited to each other...
Last edited:
I think the problem with the line Zhao's posted is that it assumes there's some sort of magical key to female responses and behaviour. Some women might feel they're in the presence of someone cool if you don't buy them a drink, some might think you're cheap, someone you buy a drink for might be all over you. That's one of many things wrong with this stuff - it's trying to extract rules about social interaction, but seems to miss the fact that - newsflash - people are different.
There's the odd bit of interesting stuff in PUA material but a lot it is fantasy island bollocks. And the cod-evolution psychology underlying it even more so.
Check out these heros to see some real life MASTER PUAs in action:
Would you take advice from any of these men?
(Warning: those of a low embarrassment threshold, this may be more than you can bear).
There's the odd bit of interesting stuff in PUA material but a lot it is fantasy island bollocks. And the cod-evolution psychology underlying it even more so.
Check out these heros to see some real life MASTER PUAs in action:
Would you take advice from any of these men?
(Warning: those of a low embarrassment threshold, this may be more than you can bear).
swears
preppy-kei
Here's a clip from that Louis Theroux thing, creepy as fuck:
Are those weird little pauses and modulations in his voice part of the routine?
I think what's immoral about all this is the lying to women, telling them you think they're really special or creative, when all you really want to do is put your knob in them.
Are those weird little pauses and modulations in his voice part of the routine?
I think what's immoral about all this is the lying to women, telling them you think they're really special or creative, when all you really want to do is put your knob in them.
Last edited:
all people, men AND women, follow fairly rigid rules of interaction in social situations within any society. there is etiquette, there is perceived value, there is negotiation based on those values. there are multiple layers of largely unsaid and often subtle codes, rules and behavior patterns -- and most of us are so used to them that we don't even see them, or recognize them as such. we simply act accordingly and if we ever stop to to think about these things at all, which is very rare, we think "well naturally, that's the way it is".
like i said, there are many exceptions. but they remain exactly that: exceptions.
9 out of 10 times, 99 out of 100 times, people will behave predictably, and respond predictably (to body language, language, etc.)
do you think it's possible to improve success rate at job interviews?
what do you think the phrase "social skills" mean? or do you think they don't exist, and that the concept was invented by con-men who are out to steal your money?
Last edited:
Tony Flavourmore
Well-known member
pattycakes_
Can turn naughty
make it up as you go along
the book is a good fun read but if you actually have to resort to this shit then i just don't know...
the book is a good fun read but if you actually have to resort to this shit then i just don't know...
slowtrain
Well-known member
Well sure it doesn't have to be at their expense (poor phrasing on my part) let's just say it would be more honest to admit you want a casual fuck and thats that. ...Or is that what the PUA's are saying? (I'm confused)
I agree with that there are codes of behaviour that may go unoticed. I don't agree that these are rigid, and I don't agree with this, as applied to attraction/seduction/pulling:
I think that's quite a narrow view of people. Also, I think a one size fits all approach - which is essentiallly what these people are selling - is doomed to failure. Much as it pains me to admit it, there isn't a magic line or routine I can learn that will make every women I encounter throw herself at me. I can improve my chances, sure, by dressing a bit nicer, approaching more women, developing self-confidence and its expression, even learning the odd canned "routine" or line - but this stuff is pretty much common sense. And I think out of all of these, the "approaching" loads of people is the key, it's pretty much a numbers game. It strikes me that most of the reported successes of PUA material come out of this fact - it gives people a bit of licence and encouragement to go and chat girls up, the rest of it is luck, with a bit of charm/confidence throw in rather than "the material". It really isn't worth paying exorbitant fees to internet rip off merchants to learn some overhyped set of "secrets". Or even worse, paying a grand to go on a "Boot Camp". Or do you think this is good value for money? Take a look at that video above - would you really trust a single one of those people to tell you *anything*?
Further, as in the example you gave above, PUA material sells a mindset where it's all a big competion and the two genders are basically at war. This is all justified with pisspoor references to evolutionary biology and leads to some really stupid arbitary behaviours which might be apporpirate and might not be. When you read a little bit of this material (via forums in my case) you realise for the vast majority of cases. it's American college kids flundering around, and dealing with basic shyness or whatever. For those people who are a bit socially inadequate or fucked up, I wouold argue learning all the stupid shit beyond buying some new clothes would retard any progress, and they''d be better off with a therapist.
In short, I'm not arguing that you cannot improve your chances, however, the idea that the PUAs have access to some set of secrets about human behaviour, and that it's a really deep science, man, is a load of bollocks. The reaons this stuff is written is so they can hype a product to sell. It really is a predatory and horrible business, run by a load of cunts - which is why the forum above, PUAhate, exists.
I have spent too much time thinking about this, but luckily I feel close to burn out.
Last edited:
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I don't know, I'm not a "PUA" and I've not read this book. All I was getting at was, I think it's old-fashioned, sexist and simply untrue to assume that if a man and a woman have casual sex, it's because the man has "tricked" the woman, or "taken advantage" or whatever. It just seems to come from the attitude that when a single man is out on the town, it's taken as a given that he's after sex and that's it, whereas a woman in the same situation is looking for a potential husband, a man who's going to be a good father etc., or at least someone to have a "relationship" with*. Which is clearly bollocks, I mean with the advent of reliable contraception there's no reason why women shouldn't be just as up for no-strings fun as men are, and I think on the whole that's basically the case these days.
Of course, there's honesty and then there's 'honesty' - unless a woman is *exceptionally* 'up front', I doubt she's going to respond well to "Hello, would you like a casual fuck?". But just because you haven't explicitly said that, it doesn't follow that you're misleading her or anything nefarious like that.
*which is all of a piece with the idea that women don't really enjoy sex, and do it as a sort of 'favour' to men in return for emotional/financial security, etc. Again, a stupid and obsolete attitude, and one that's not exactly complimentary to men, either.
Last edited:
im not condoning the PUA techniques but I think its worth noting things like NLP, suggestion, "mind control" etc are things that we do naturally anyway most of the time we just dont realise we are doing it or being affected by it. So these kind of things are just stepping back from it and then taking it to extremes. I havnt read the book but I saw the louis theroux doc, it came across as pretty creepy and the guys all seemed like pretty sad individuals.
Slothrop
Tight but Polite
I'm not sure that this is logical, but it seems that if you're going to step back from something and codify it into a system and so forth you'll get held to higher moral standards than you would if you were just doing something 'everyone does'. I mean, it's actually saying "I've noticed that a lot of flirting actually involves subtle psychological manipulation, and I think that's just great and want to do it more."
Also, just becasue there's a sliding scale from A to B doesn't mean that if A is okay then B must be too.