I disagree with Assanova assertions... Here is what I think. Just like a woman a man is the sum of various factors and looks are just one of them. For example:
Man 1: Looks (8) + Personality (4) + Status (4) + Game (4) = 20
Man 2: Looks (6) + Personality (6) + Status (2) + Game (6) = 20
Both will have an equal chance of pulling the same woman, IF everything else is equal.
Man 1: Looks (8) + Personality (4) + Status (4) + Game (4) = 20
Man 2: Looks (6) + Personality (6) + Status (2) + Game (6) = 20
Both will have an equal chance of pulling the same woman, IF everything else is equal.
Quote: (08-11-2012 03:59 PM)Juan Antonio Wrote:
There seems to be an increasing trend towards "game denialism" in the seduction community. Guys are increasingly emphasizing "looks" over "game".
Assanova:
"One of the things that you'll see PUAs doing, is insisting that game works. I'm going to tell you why it appears to work in theory, but won't, in realistic situations. The biggest flaw in game, is that it fails to take into account competitors that are more physically attractive than the guy that uses game as most PUAs know it. This is probably the defacto reason why women are so flaky; there is a more physically attractive competitor in the picture somewhere.
When trying to prove that game works, what a lot of game theorists will do, is try to use examples of a girl with no social life, who most likely never goes to nightclubs, and therefore never really gets the opportunity to interact with physically attractive men. In other words, if a PUA does get one of those girls, usually in day game type situations, it's simply because the woman in question isn't interacting with physically attractive competitors.
Game theorists also like to selectively pick situations as examples of why game works. The most common examples are when the more physically attractive men are completely clueless and lack common sense, they aren't approaching the woman in question, or the more physically attractive man is the exception to the rule and is completely wimpy and beta because he is some kind of momma's boy.
That's just not the way things naturally work. Most physically attractive men do develop common sense, they eventually become self aware of their appearances, and they do eventually develop enough confidence to not be totally beta, simply because more muscular men and taller men are placed into alpha positions, are jocks, and are generally looked up to by other men. And on top of that, women fawn over their appearances, and they eventually get the hint; the more women that fawn over you, the less you value them.
You will never find a woman that will choose a physically unattractive guy with game, over a more physically attractive guy that has basic common sense and confidence. And if you do, it is the exception to the rule, and just isn't a likely scenario in everyday life. Unattractiveness and game will never out-perform looks with confidence. Never."
Is he right?