[Basil Ransom]

His book is full of sentiment along the lines of "when I started to be honest with women and opening up to them, the quality of the women I dated went up."

I'm saying that Manson isn't real with his audience about the hard knocks, like Roosh, Roissy or say MikeCF (who does more non-game material).

You could say Manson's material is more suited to quality girls, but if I only pursued quality girls, whatever that means, I'd be getting a lot less sex.

Be fluid. Manson's approach definitely has value, but it must be deployed selectively to maximize its value. If you have a low libido or a very low tolerance for women lacking integrity, sure, go the Manson route. Maybe I'll change my mind down the line.

[aphelion]

What Mark Manson has to offer isn't for everyone.

It's seriously weapons-grade life empowerment stuff. But you have to be a black belt of your own brain-fu in order to make use of it. If you're a guy who's struggling with confidence, still stuttering in conversations, whatever - you need the lower-level stuff. You need to go through the motions first. As Bruce Lee said, 'I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks, but the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.'

And second, it's probably better for initiating healthy long-term relationships than for cycling through a bunch of one nighters.

The biggest breakthrough in the book for me was changing my perspective away from 'how do I con a girl into sleeping with me' and into 'how can I be attractive, and communicate it'. Once I understood that, it was a huge turning point.

[Cobra]

Honestly was ready to buy this book.

However, after reading some of the comments here, I'm gonna pass.

I consider myself a beginner so I'll stick to basic game stuff atleast for now.

[Basil Ransom]

Roosh's 'Why can't I use a smiley face?' is a great contrast to Manson's book. is not a game book, but it flatly contradicts the veiled sanguinity about the state of romance in America. Manson himself has written off American women if his actions are any guide, but that's not what he peddles.

I just read Roosh's .

[DarkTriad]

Great thread guys. A lot of forums don't have this kind of high level analysis by guys that actually get their dick wet.

My take on Manson - He made his bones in big city that was part college town and moderately international. He had access to a Day Game spot that ALL visiting foreign girls hit as soon as they got to the city (a spot he himself described as one of the best in the US). When he aged out of the college scene (and the never ending stream of hot ass coeds to the city), he just straight up left for greener pastures. They call that "voting with your feet".

He says stuff that we WANT to be true. We wish it were true. But if it were true, this forum would likely not exist.

[DarkTriad]

(04-27-2014 02:17 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

His book is full of sentiment along the lines of "when I started to be honest with women and opening up to them, the quality of the women I dated went up."

I'm saying that Manson isn't real with his audience about the hard knocks, like Roosh, Roissy or say MikeCF (who does more non-game material).

You could say Manson's material is more suited to quality girls, but if I only pursued quality girls, whatever that means, I'd be getting a lot less sex.

Be fluid. Manson's approach definitely has value, but it must be deployed selectively to maximize its value. If you have a low libido or a very low tolerance for women lacking integrity, sure, go the Manson route. Maybe I'll change my mind down the line.

Any system that only works for low libidos is not the system for me.

[PapayaTapper]

(04-27-2014 03:26 PM)aphelion Wrote:  

The biggest breakthrough in the book for me was changing my perspective away from 'how do I con a girl into sleeping with me' and into 'how can I be attractive, and communicate it'. Once I understood that, it was a huge turning point.

That there is the nugget

[Stun]

(04-20-2014 12:25 PM)pitt Wrote:  

Honesty is just something that doesn't work with women.

I am sure some of you guys received some value from this book but honesty and women don't go together.

I also think a big part of the game is being able to act. If you are an international player, you need to be able to fit in with different types of personalities and understand culture differences. By having a standard approach you will be limited, sure some women will like you and you will get laid but your game won't be so amplified.

Women like liars. It's not like I walk to every women and start lying to them straight away. But I try to have a more amplified personality where I can blend in with all types of personalities.

Guys that write these type of books actually ''destroy'' the lives of natural betas. Natural betas will believe that they will find the right girl just by being them when in reality she wants the asshole guy.

Anyway, just my two cents.

This is only true of guys who haven't learned charisma IMO. Maybe I'm in the minority, or maybe it only works for "good looking guys" but I improved massively after reading Models. I don't see how anyone couldn't.

When you're a charismatic guy with social skills that people want to be around, the number of girls that need you to be an asshole shrinks dramatically. To about 10-20% IMO.

I wonder how many guys read the book and actually applied the principles consistently instead of giving up the first time they got blown out by a needy/narcissistic girl.

[strengthstudent]

I never understood the 'honesty' or 'vulnerability' as being pussy with your emotions, never lying etc, but being direct and firm with your intentions, giving chicks a chance to reject you. After the approach phase, showing intention(either through words or actions) is the next big obstacle where many struggle. Models gave me a little bit of more balls(maybe 5% more!) which I am grateful for.

[Basil Ransom]

"I wonder how many guys read the book and actually applied the principles consistently instead of giving up the first time they got blown out by a needy/narcissistic girl."

Maybe you should check out Roosh's Why Can't I use A Smiley Face. Roosh describes the deadness of modern Western women. With a state like that, opening up to a girl in earnest, just strikes me as futile, even self destructive.

[banafly]

I have downloaded this, and will see...

Western women are fucked though, so I don't hold out much hope... but when I travel that is restored by other women out of US and UK

[Samseau]

Opening up to a woman too much is like a woman putting out on the first date. Make her work to get to know you and you will be rewarded.

[Stun]

(05-03-2014 08:21 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

"I wonder how many guys read the book and actually applied the principles consistently instead of giving up the first time they got blown out by a needy/narcissistic girl."

Maybe you should check out Roosh's Why Can't I use A Smiley Face. Roosh describes the deadness of modern Western women. With a state like that, opening up to a girl in earnest, just strikes me as futile, even self destructive.

I understand what you're saying. I just think the % of women you're referring to is far lower than what you suggest.

I admire and respect Roosh. I learned a ton from 'Day Bang' esp about conversational escalation. But one area he can't teach me anything is re the way to sexually turn on chicks. I've put in the hours and done the approaches. I am in the 4-digit number of cold approaches. At least.

At strongest estimate in the most cunty US city, the % of women who need you to be a complete asshole is at best 10-20%. 20% is generous.

If you're finding 50% of women you approach need you to be asshole-ish to get turned on, the problem isn't the women the problem is you. This isn't a personal attack. I'm referring to the rhetorical you, not you personally.

I can't defend the Americunt. I won't. But it's a facade. It's not real. It's a front they use to weed out betas, and guys without confidence, and unattractive men. If you're attractive (vs. 'doing attraction') it won't phase you.

I won't lie. It bothers me emotionally occasionally when a girl is a cunt. But then I remind myself it's not real, and it doesn't matter. No matter how fine she is, I have banged a girl = or finer. I've had a better girl eating out of my hand, so amused mastery.

I don't think of honesty and openness as earnestness. That was not my takeaway. I think it's about when you're confident it's nothing to make the first move, or to share something about yourself. Not some emotional sappy BS, just something. By being open, that confidence and leadership inspires openness in others. The belief system that the girls are emotionally dead is a cop out, and not real, and will hurt your progress more than do you good.

[TheFinalEpic]

A lot of this pickup information is written first with a personal style in mind, and then trying to translate it to as many men as possible.

I take everything I read with a grain of salt and as Roosh says in "Bang," practice many different methods and see what truly works for me. There is something to be said for studying many methods and incorporating what works into your own game, making it nearly bulletproof.

That being said, I enjoyed Models, and Mark Manson has some solid points about being honest, setting your intentions on the table, and arousing a woman with the fact that you do in fact want to have sex with her. All of which I have incorporated to some degree of success.

Nothing better than learning in the field and grinding it out until you find what works.

[reaper23]

(04-20-2014 01:14 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

The perfect player is an effortless liar in all that comes to fact but who is emotionally honest or "present". That does not mean someone who is "emotional" in the conventional sense -- very often the basic emotional state of a man is a vast indifference. Betas hide their indifference; alphas and naturals are shameless and let it show. Betas also hide their enthusiasms when they do strike them; alphas and naturals always display them.

When a woman tells a guy "just be yourself" she means it -- women are horrified and fascinated by men who are relaxed enough to be emotionally honest in every context. Very few men are. Women are shameless liars, but men are usually uptight and emotionally dishonest because they are ashamed both of their basic cool indifference and their occasional hot enthusiasms.

best advice i've read on this forum.

its the secret sauce to all my game..being present. soaking it in, observing her, observing yourself, being in touch with what you want and expressing it in a non creepy way.

women who aren't able to deal with themselves wont be able to handle this approach though. they'll call you 'too intense' or ask 'why are you looking at me all the time'

just let it be a filter to get rid of them anyway. they are scatter brained and unable to think.

eye contact lets them know you are present and observing them as well as contemplating your own thoughts.

it also offers an instant intimacy.

its been the center piece of all the lays i've ever had since i can remember. and thinking about before i was aware of this, it was there too...its what got me laid before i knew what i was doing.

[reaper23]

(05-12-2014 12:36 PM)Sugar Wrote:  

I can't defend the Americunt. I won't. But it's a facade. It's not real. It's a front they use to weed out betas, and guys without confidence, and unattractive men. If you're attractive (vs. 'doing attraction') it won't phase you.

--snip--

I don't think of honesty and openness as earnestness. That was not my takeaway. I think it's about when you're confident it's nothing to make the first move, or to share something about yourself. Not some emotional sappy BS, just something. By being open, that confidence and leadership inspires openness in others. The belief system that the girls are emotionally dead is a cop out, and not real, and will hurt your progress more than do you good.

Excellent observations and reply. I'm pretty much open right away as soon as interest is observed by the other party. being confident enough to share (just about) anything is extremely effective. but, and this is a big but, you have to already be projecting confidence and 'alpha' in other ways that are just felt and accepted by the woman. then you become the perfect balance. if you're not, then you are just kinda weird and pathetic.

i dont experience the americunt. i've been in establishments where people have written about how cunty the women are, and have had no issues at all. exact opposite really. as someone said, if everyone you meet is an asshole, you must be the asshole. come across confident and respectful and you'll largely get it back in return.

[Truth Teller]

Emotional honesty is good and necessary. Like it or not, the fact that you approach her indicates that you're interested in her. I don't want to get into the "direct vs. indirect" pissing match, because it's really not worth the time. I have my opinion, and I don't believe that arguing about it is worth the time or energy.

I will say, while I did like the book, I have a few qualms with it. First, it's redundant. There are sections of it that are restatements of other sections. Second, while he talks a lot about "vulnerability," it isn't actually defined, as far as I can remember. Third, rejection is not (always) incompatibility. I've approached a girl one night and gotten nowhere. I approached her a week later and had a good interaction with her.

Just because you got rejected doesn't mean that you're incompatible with her. There are literally hundreds of reasons why you get rejected, and only one of them is incompatibility.

I also think that he really overstates what "performance" is. I don't believe that back and forth banter with a woman is performing, and I actually think that his thing about a woman who enjoys banter being manipulative is wrong. In terms of "shit tests," I think they're misinterpreted. Most "shit testing" is normal behavior, and perfectly normal women do it as a natural defense. It's their form of qualification.

Personally, I find that the more I work on becoming attractive, the less "shit testing" I have to deal with. It may simply be that I don't notice it, or maybe I simply don't get it as much. Either way, you would be surprised what looking her in the eye, standing up straight, and having enough balls to tease her does.

Finally, I think that he artificially depresses his success rate by the way he tells men to approach. Personally, I don't believe that "I think you're beautiful, how about a date?" is going to work with women who aren't already attracted to you. Although he talks about "polarization," I believe that standard day game models (see Krauser's Daygame Nitro) are good in terms of polarization.

However, I really think the inner game, True Confidence, body language, and outer game parts are good, as is the demographics portion. Thoughts do have an impact on reality, whether or not some people want to accept that is their business. Overall, this book isn't really for people who are just starting out, in my opinion. There are better books out there for that. This book is good for developing the correct inner game.

I would say 7.5-8/10. It's better than a lot of stuff out there, but I think there are some limiting factors.

[Krauser]

I think the book is worth reading but over time my tolerance for Manson has declined a lot and I'm considering Models more like a stepping-stone book that you discard after absorbing the few key ideas. As a practical guide it is utterly hopeless - it's just blind filtering for strong Yes Girls. The actual game advice is worse than useless and will retard the development of a noob who hasn't already begun to get laid.

The value of Models is in the meta-level and not taking shit. There are a handful of very good ideas/frames in there which have definitely helped me...... because I knew enough to discard his feelgood pablum. Be very wary of the Purple Pill content, though.

[Truth Teller]

(06-14-2014 04:31 PM)Krauser Wrote:  

I think the book is worth reading but over time my tolerance for Manson has declined a lot and I'm considering Models more like a stepping-stone book that you discard after absorbing the few key ideas. As a practical guide it is utterly hopeless - it's just blind filtering for strong Yes Girls. The actual game advice is worse than useless and will retard the development of a noob who hasn't already begun to get laid.

The value of Models is in the meta-level and not taking shit. There are a handful of very good ideas/frames in there which have definitely helped me...... because I knew enough to discard his feelgood pablum. Be very wary of the Purple Pill content, though.

Can you expand on what you consider to be "feelgood pablum?"

[Saladin]

(06-14-2014 04:31 PM)Krauser Wrote:  

I think the book is worth reading but over time my tolerance for Manson has declined a lot and I'm considering Models more like a stepping-stone book that you discard after absorbing the few key ideas. As a practical guide it is utterly hopeless - it's just blind filtering for strong Yes Girls. The actual game advice is worse than useless and will retard the development of a noob who hasn't already begun to get laid.

The value of Models is in the meta-level and not taking shit. There are a handful of very good ideas/frames in there which have definitely helped me...... because I knew enough to discard his feelgood pablum. Be very wary of the Purple Pill content, though.

Mark Manson is pretty much a mainstream sellout.

[All or Nothing]

(06-14-2014 04:34 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

Can you expand on what you consider to be "feelgood pablum?"

I can expand on this a little.

When reading Mark Manson's current work, it is important to know his previous work and how he has progressed as a writer.

A few years ago, Mark used to have a blog called "Practical Pickup". At that time, a lot of the ideas and advice that he espoused were actually quite similar to what Roosh would write about.

At some point in time, he became dissatisfied with the rate at which his readership was growing and felt limited by only talking about girls and giving pick up advice.

This led to him transitioning over to "Postmasculine" and then finally to his current self-named blog "Mark Manson".

This ultimately reflected his transition from PUA to Life Guru in order to appeal to as wide of a base of people as possible. Now he discredits his previous line of thinking on "Practical Pickup" as "misogynistic".

It is important to know this history because originally Mark Manson gave advice on how to pick up women without any filler. As he progressed, he added more and more feel good vibes to his writing to obfuscate his views that may or may not appeal to a wide audience.

This is why people should take Manson's advice with a grain of salt. He may have good things to say on how to relate to women, but he also has a strong desire to appeal to the average person for the sake of having as many readers as he can. Thus, "feelgood pablum" is added liberally to the underlying points that he is making.

[Basil Ransom]

I perused his forum and page briefly and I quickly got the sense that his site catered to men who were dissatisfied with their sex life, but are hesitant to have any beliefs or practices that would fall afoul of some corporate HR manager's dictates, or that of a garden variety white American career woman. These are men that want pussy, preferably monogamous long term pussy, but without taking on any socially dangerous ideas.

[MikeCF]

(06-16-2014 05:12 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

This is why people should take Manson's advice with a grain of salt. He may have good things to say on how to relate to women, but he also has a strong desire to appeal to the average person for the sake of having as many readers as he can. Thus, "feelgood pablum" is added liberally to the underlying points that he is making.

Correct. He is mainstream/blue pill to appeal to the masses.

If I wanted to learn how to sell out and appeal to a massive audience, then I would mimic him.

He has nothing to offer anyone here about dating.

IN fact, my assumption is that the person who started this thread is on Manson's payroll.

Astroturfing (paying people to post reviews of your books on forums) is a very common method used by Internet Marketers like Mark Manson.

[MikeCF]

(06-16-2014 05:52 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

I perused his forum and page briefly and I quickly got the sense that his site catered to men who were dissatisfied with their sex life, but are hesitant to have any beliefs or practices that would fall afoul of some corporate HR manager's dictates, or that of a garden variety white American career woman. These are men that want pussy, preferably monogamous long term pussy, but without taking on any socially dangerous ideas.

That is the trick.

This thread was started by someone who is likely on his payroll.

That is what those Internet Marketers do. They post threads like this knowing that 90% of us know that the book is full of shit.

But then they ensnare enough people into reading/buying the book.

I reported the guy who started this thread as spam.

All he said was, "I agree with 90% of book."

That's a garbage post. Post a full review.

Most likely this thread was started by a person on the payroll.

[cooledcannon]

(06-16-2014 06:01 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

That is the trick.

This thread was started by someone who is likely on his payroll.

That is what those Internet Marketers do. They post threads like this knowing that 90% of us know that the book is full of shit.

But then they ensnare enough people into reading/buying the book.

I reported the guy who started this thread as spam.

All he said was, "I agree with 90% of book."

That's a garbage post. Post a full review.

Most likely this thread was started by a person on the payroll.

Its also recommended by most of reddits r/seduction(more so than any other book). Do you think the mods were probably paid off?