Look. When I was young and going to this program for high school drop outs, I remember how they used to have workshops to teach us how to interview. Problem was, after the workshop, all the students came out with the same tired catch phrases that every good interviewer knows comes from those workshops.
“So, what are you weaknesses”
“I work too hard sometimes. I am a perfectionist”
“Do you have the skills for this position?”
“Well, I’m a quick learner and I’m really good with people.”
The firm handshake we were taught is too stiff and awkward. The ‘eye contact’ we were taught was weird and creepy.
When you have a natural swag about you, you kind of just feel comfortable in an interview. You almost relish the chance to have the interviewer see how relaxed and confident you are. The eye contact is perfect…not too psycho, not too shy. The handshake is firm and natural.
It’s the same thing as picking up the ladies, isn’t it? It is an art that one may have mastered but that if one claimed to be able to teach it to a bunch of insecure misfits, I would be skeptical to say the least.
I say it can’t be learned, either. Hell, I wouldn’t want it if it could be. It requires you to be primal - to not give a good goddamn about anyone or anything outside your own essentials for living.
The bad boy has to swim like a shark, always on and focused. A life that limited would drive me out of my skull. Even if I was bagging ass left and right.
Admittedly, at my age this topic is rather academic to me, but Nina Hartley is my same age, and I recall the quote of hers: *“Sex isn’t something men do to you. It isn’t something men get out of you. Sex is something you dive into with gusto and like it every bit as much as he does.” * The fact that this even has to be said proves the viability of a Seduction market.
But I still think it’s a niche rather than a mass market. IME women know they’re the ones who choose whom they’ll favor, and enjoy “seduction” as an added compliment from a guy who’s going to get in anyway but may not know it yet. He can’t really game his way in, but he can screw it up (which I’ve done, and so have you).
These people insisting as if it is an objective fact that people are “born with” confidence are just deluding themselves, I think. Nobody is born with ANYTHING. Every single thing we do is learned.
Right now I’m reading The Mask of Sanity and the psychiatrist who wrote it mentions how many of his male sociopath patients had an otherworldly ability to woo women, e.g. simultaneously being married to many different wealthy women in different states, making women fight over him, or upon arriving in a new town being able to assemble a cult of girls who look up to him and shave their heads for him. Here’s a typical passage:
So if you want a lot of pussy you should stop seeing women as people. Or any people as people.
Maybe it wasn’t Roissy, but I remember several years ago reading from some seedy blog that game is also critical for keeping your wife wanting to have sex with you. If you don’t like a man the sex spigot will be turned off right quick, maybe forever since once you’re seen as unmanly you can’t get back in good graces. It all sounded like such BS, but then again it sounds like BS but is true that women will spread their legs for a fat balding guy in his 60s just because he’s on TV and has high status or has some money, or fuck a known serial killer who escaped from jail, or that their self esteem goes down the more sex they have, so obviously I’m not in any position to comment on women’s sexual inclinations.
Let me qualify this actually: it may indeed be very difficult to teach someone to be the ultimate top-stud, cock-of-the-walk womanizing machine. It’s probably not impossible, but I will concede that maybe the truly great ones have developed the skill on their own.
But I don’t think anyone honestly believes that their techniques can turn any guy into the ultimate stud dick. More likely, they can turn guys with no success getting laid into guys with some, or even considerable, success at the same.
Surely a talented PUA can teach guys something, even if it’s not going to turn them into Ronnie Gardocki. Surely there are some bits of “game” that average guys can incorporate into their laid-getting attempts without dramatically altering who they are, which will bring them more success. And if it’s true, then there’s value in the seduction community. But I think the real value is not in the “master pickup artists”, but in the support that comes from the community of men exchanging ideas and tips online.
I used to watch that Mystery show with my girlfriend. I don’t recall him teaching them to be “primal” douchebags like the guidos on Jersey Shore. It seemed to me that he was teaching them to be more “deliberate”. Like when you go into a bar and see a girl you like, here is what you should open with. Here are steps you should take to get to a point where you make out with her. Here are signs that you should abort because she isn’t interested.
I don’t think their teachings are necessarily bad. Especially for shy or awkward guys who fixate on one particular dream girl. It may help them get into a mindset where they can get to interact with lots of different girls (not necessarily sleep with them) Basically learn to get out of their own head and get to know them in a more real way instead of pining over some impossible fantasy.
Because no matter how well you teach someone to appear “intelligent, educated and professional”, the fact that they are a high school dropout is usually demonstrable contradiction of that.
Same thing with picking up women (or really even getting anyone to like or respect you). IMHO, first you need to fundamentally BE someone people want to be with.
I think the appeal of psychopaths is a bit different. Because they are so unclouded by emotion, they can see you pretty clearly. Most people see others through the lens of their own desires and perspectives, but psychopaths can come pretty close to seeing you straight on as you are. This gives the uncanny effect that they can see straight into your soul, which of course is going to make you feel like you have some sort of special bond.
I think its about as ethical as teaching someone how to be a successful door to door salesman (Always. Be. Closing! :p) The only part I really find objectionable is the lying potential. If your plan of action involves lying to get into someone’s pants (eg., pretending you’re interested in a long term relationship when you’re not) then it’s icky and pathetic.
It’s a fact of life that certain kinds of women attract far, far more male sexual partners than others. In the society we live in, the kind of women who seem to do this most are super-hot young women. To me, the whole women’s makeup-and-push-up-bra movement represents women analyzing what it is about these type of women that gets men to desire them sexually, what it is about men that makes them so attracted to these things like youth, pretty faces and boobs, and then try to use that knowledge to apply it to their own lives without actually being super-hot or young or big-breasted.
I vote that since society is OK with women faking the signals that men react to, it’s OK if men fake the signals women react to.
There’s sort of a difference…the things that men tend to be attracted to are concrete, tangible, specific physical characteristics. Women tend to be more interested in abstract things like status and power.
Men are expected to take a proactive role; women can be active but it’s generally OK for them to be passive. Women can attract sexual (and romantic) partners just by standing there and doing nothing. Men can’t do this. A decent looking woman who is shy - like Natalie Portman’s character in Black Swan - will never lack for male attention. A decent looking guy who has the same level of shyness doesn’t stand a chance.
Note that I’m not complaining about this situation. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just fine. But I do think it’s sort of an immutable fact of human nature.
You can’t really fake good looks. You can emphasize positives and downplay negatives, but really, what you’re born with is what you’ve got.
You certainly can fake having power, status, money, etc. All you need to do is say you have it, to someone who is sufficiently gullible to believe you.
And - to address why it’s relevant to the discussion - you seem to be implying by your post up above that there exists a similar community among women to the community of pickup artists among men - women who are actively, strategically, analytically working at how to go out there and “game” guys. I don’t think this exists at all. Women who want sex can get it by just being their foxy selves, if they’re decent looking. Men have to work at it. Facts of life.
Women have to work at being attractive to men. I don’t see how you don’t see that. And there are tons of books and magazines and websites that discuss how women can make themselves look better. Even if they are not saying so, many of them are doing this to “game” guys’ instinctive preference for attractive women.
I would say that for the bottom 5% of women, no makeup can help them, and for the top 5% of women, no makeup is needed, but for the 90% of women in the middle putting on makeup does improve their looks and their attractiveness to males.
There are plenty of decent looking women out there who aren’t drowning in manly attention. Believe it or not, women do have to do more than just stand there. They have to look inviting and approachable; their body language has to be receptive. They have to radiate all the signs and signals that let men know they’re willing to engage. They can’t look too intimidating, which means they have to smile, look flirty, and maybe even dumb themselves down a little bit so that the guys won’t feel insecure when they try to crack jokes or brag about themselves.
If they come across as being a difficult “mark” (and this could be due to any number of factors), they won’t be approached. Even Roissy attests to this by advising the fellas to go after the least attractive in the bunch.
From what I remember from Mystery’s VH1 show, his “method” is not about putting on an act that you have power, status and money. In fact he is highly critical of men who try to “buy” their way into friends and women. And really, people tend to see through men who try to fake it.
What strikes me about Roissy and his ilk is that his advice is, even on its face, useless for the vast majority of (female-less) guys - whose big trouble is that they can’t get female attention in the first place.
Of what use is advice like “always keep her guessing”, “make her jealous” or “never tell her I love you first”, much less “fuck her good”? The kind of guy suffering from shyness, depression, introversion etc. doesn’t have any contact with a “her” to emotionally manipulate … they are not in a position to “fuck” anyone, “good” or not, which is kinda the problem.
Of far more practical significance is advice on how to flirt effectively - but of course, that lacks the added advantage of playing to comforting stereotypes.
You have just opened my eyes. Truly. I have only ever been harmed by LTRs. And some of those have done profound and lasting damage. The one night stands - though I view them as mistakes - are mistakes that are fun to remember.
I may just have re-written my life strategy in its’ entirety.
