[Samseau]

(06-18-2014 08:21 PM)DLuzhin Wrote:  

I had a date with another girl last Thursday. I'd say she was also a 7, a Latina with long curly hair, a tight waist, and a sculpted ass. We met at a bar and chatted for three hours, where in the course of conversation I admitted some unseemly and pathetic shit about myself that the PUA handbooks tell you never to do. Then we went for Chinese food, then back to my place where we watched stupid animal videos on youtube, smoked weed, and fucked.

You used game whether or not you want to admit it.

"I admitted some unseemly and pathetic shit about myself that the PUA handbooks tell you never to do."

Actually, that's exactly what the PUA's tell you to do.

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/01/...lity-game/

You think Mark was the first to come up with that shit?

Also nice job luring her back to your place with weed. Straight out of the first-date bang recipe.

Anyone else on Mark's payroll who wants to come out of the woodwork?

[Tigre]

(06-18-2014 10:48 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Anyone else on Mark's payroll who wants to come out of the woodwork?

So the premise is that anyone who posts on RVF and recommends the book is Mark Manson's paid shill?



You and MikeCF are both smart guys with a body of great contributions. But I don't think you're convincing anyone here. You just lose credibility by being seen to deny an obvious and demonstrable truth.

Look on page 1 of this thread and you'll see Beyond Borders and WIA saying they got value from it. Are you going to accuse them of being paid shills too?

There are multiple threads recommending the book, not just this thread.

I vouch for Wedo as a legit forum member. I've briefly met him a couple of times in Medellin. Wedo is a frequent international traveler on a baller budget. If you need to believe that he only started this thread to score a 10 dollar payday from the author... go ahead and believe that, I guess.

I also recommend the book and got value from it. You can look in my rep points and check the list of people who say they've met me personally. Am I on Mark Manson's payroll too?

[Truth Teller]

(06-18-2014 11:29 PM)Tigre Wrote:  

So the premise is that anyone who posts on RVF and recommends the book is Mark Manson's paid shill?

As I've said in the past, I think it's a good book with some good concepts. I think there are some issues with it, and I have detailed them in this thread.

[Samseau]

(06-18-2014 11:29 PM)Tigre Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 10:48 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Anyone else on Mark's payroll who wants to come out of the woodwork?

So the premise is that anyone who posts on RVF and recommends the book is Mark Manson's paid shill?

Nah man, that last line was a joke. Tried to make it obvious with the but internet humor is tough to convey.

[DLuzhin]

(06-18-2014 10:48 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 08:21 PM)DLuzhin Wrote:  

I had a date with another girl last Thursday. I'd say she was also a 7, a Latina with long curly hair, a tight waist, and a sculpted ass. We met at a bar and chatted for three hours, where in the course of conversation I admitted some unseemly and pathetic shit about myself that the PUA handbooks tell you never to do. Then we went for Chinese food, then back to my place where we watched stupid animal videos on youtube, smoked weed, and fucked.

You used game whether or not you want to admit it.

"I admitted some unseemly and pathetic shit about myself that the PUA handbooks tell you never to do."

Actually, that's exactly what the PUA's tell you to do.

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/01/...lity-game/

You think Mark was the first to come up with that shit?

Also nice job luring her back to your place with weed. Straight out of the first-date bang recipe.

Anyone else on Mark's payroll who wants to come out of the woodwork?

Strategic vulnerability as Roissy alludes to here is not vulnerability, it's performance.

Performance does get you laid, but it has costs.

Vulnerability also gets you laid, but it has no costs; it's just more difficult.

[Samseau]

(06-28-2014 04:26 AM)DLuzhin Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 10:48 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 08:21 PM)DLuzhin Wrote:  

I had a date with another girl last Thursday. I'd say she was also a 7, a Latina with long curly hair, a tight waist, and a sculpted ass. We met at a bar and chatted for three hours, where in the course of conversation I admitted some unseemly and pathetic shit about myself that the PUA handbooks tell you never to do. Then we went for Chinese food, then back to my place where we watched stupid animal videos on youtube, smoked weed, and fucked.

You used game whether or not you want to admit it.

"I admitted some unseemly and pathetic shit about myself that the PUA handbooks tell you never to do."

Actually, that's exactly what the PUA's tell you to do.

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/01/...lity-game/

You think Mark was the first to come up with that shit?

Also nice job luring her back to your place with weed. Straight out of the first-date bang recipe.

Anyone else on Mark's payroll who wants to come out of the woodwork?

Strategic vulnerability as Roissy alludes to here is not vulnerability, it's performance.

Performance does get you laid, but it has costs.

Vulnerability also gets you laid, but it has no costs; it's just more difficult.

Game is game doesn't matter what your intentions are

[blacknwhitespade]

Well, I am a relative newbie to Game, but FWIW, I read Models thinking it would be a solid, comprehensive guide to getting in the game, and I did get some strong insights out of it, most noteably the sections on Vulnerability Game, Demographics, and True Confidence.

What trips me up though is Manson's strong, repeated assertion that women are aroused by male desire. I can see this tactic working for really good-looking/successful men where the attraction was already there, but is this arousal from male desire a universal truth of female psychology? I get that vulnerability = true confidence, and that women are attracted to emotionally present men, but are women really turned on when they simply detect that a member of the opposite sex wants to stick his penis in her, per se, even if she was not otherwise attracted to him??

[WEDO]

(07-09-2014 01:36 PM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  

but are women really turned on when they simply detect that a member of the opposite sex wants to stick his penis in her, per se, even if she was not otherwise attracted to him??

No....they will be attracted or creeped out if American.

Attracted or indifferent if Colombian. jajaja

[Samseau]

(07-09-2014 01:36 PM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  

Well, I am a relative newbie to Game, but FWIW, I read Models thinking it would be a solid, comprehensive guide to getting in the game, and I did get some strong insights out of it, most noteably the sections on Vulnerability Game, Demographics, and True Confidence.

What trips me up though is Manson's strong, repeated assertion that women are aroused by male desire. I can see this tactic working for really good-looking/successful men where the attraction was already there, but is this arousal from male desire a universal truth of female psychology? I get that vulnerability = true confidence, and that women are attracted to emotionally present men, but are women really turned on when they simply detect that a member of the opposite sex wants to stick his penis in her, per se, even if she was not otherwise attracted to him??

I can only imagine how frustrating it is as a newbie to have Manson's book as your first game book. It will set you down the wrong path on so many levels it may take a year or more to correct the bad habits the book will instill in you.

Male desire means shit without her being attracted to you first. You would know this had you read the Mystery Method, or Bang.

[blacknwhitespade]

(07-11-2014 05:21 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 01:36 PM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  

Well, I am a relative newbie to Game, but FWIW, I read Models thinking it would be a solid, comprehensive guide to getting in the game, and I did get some strong insights out of it, most noteably the sections on Vulnerability Game, Demographics, and True Confidence.

What trips me up though is Manson's strong, repeated assertion that women are aroused by male desire. I can see this tactic working for really good-looking/successful men where the attraction was already there, but is this arousal from male desire a universal truth of female psychology? I get that vulnerability = true confidence, and that women are attracted to emotionally present men, but are women really turned on when they simply detect that a member of the opposite sex wants to stick his penis in her, per se, even if she was not otherwise attracted to him??

I can only imagine how frustrating it is as a newbie to have Manson's book as your first game book. It will set you down the wrong path on so many levels it may take a year or more to correct the bad habits the book will instill in you.

Male desire means shit without her being attracted to you first. You would know this had you read the Mystery Method, or Bang.

"The Book of Pook" was my first Game book, lol. Not bad, Pook is kinda quirky but a little repetitive. I'm reading Day Bang now and plan to read Bang next.

Yeah, I sensed the male desire = female arousal theory was horse shit. That said, I did draw some solid insights from Models, tho. Like someone else said earlier in this thread, Models is basically a good get-your-shit-together guide, which is where I've been at for the past several months. I'm getting a lot more specificities out of Day Bang now and really enjoying Roosh's blunt writing style and results-oriented indirect game tactics. His coffee shop tactics I had already been learning on my own, but it's nice to now have some more specific, escalation/close pointers.

[WEDO]

(07-11-2014 10:40 AM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  

Yeah, I sensed the male desire = female arousal theory was horse shit.

WOW! I don't know where you live but I'd think about moving.
And if male desire doesn't equal female arousal then what does?

Now, I agree that male desire does not equal female attraction. But if you think that acting like a perfect gentleman is going to get you anywhere it won't.

Just like the book says: get physical fast and often. Let your desire be known right from the start.

Now when it comes to BUILDING attraction I guess the Mystery method is just as good as any....I personally have never used any method other than just normal conversation....and moving to another table as soon as I felt there wasn't any attraction. I personally agree with the book that moving on is preferable to trying to get a girl to like you that wasn't open to you initially.

But then again...it isn't like I'm waiting days or weeks before I find a woman that is open to me. If I was someone that had a hard time with that.... I guess I would spend my time using the Mystery Method or whatever method I could find to try and get women to like me.

But before I when to that extreme I'd take a hard look at my dress style, looks and lifestyle to see what could be done to see if I couldn't increase my attractiveness somehow.

If you are getting blown right out of the water...right out of the gate no matter what you do.....God made a place where everyone has game...it's called the Philippines.

[Truth Teller]

(07-11-2014 05:21 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

I can only imagine how frustrating it is as a newbie to have Manson's book as your first game book. It will set you down the wrong path on so many levels it may take a year or more to correct the bad habits the book will instill in you.

Male desire means shit without her being attracted to you first. You would know this had you read the Mystery Method, or Bang.

I don't really want to get into a huge debate about this, but I think that Mystery Method can cause its own problems for some guys. It's so obscenely mechanical that some guys will ignore the fact that she wants to fuck for the sake of the model. Much like any other game book, there are good and bad parts to it.

Models has good and bad parts. I would strong advise against what Manson recommends in terms of approaching and I firmly believe that he defines far too much as performance. He's right that some women simply aren't open and that you subconsciously screen for certain types.

[Kish]

Honesty is the best policy!!!!!

[Samseau]

(07-15-2014 08:51 PM)Kish Wrote:  

Honesty is the best policy!!!!!

Holy fuck that is hilarious

[Vaun]

I have read a lot of game books going back over 20 years. The paperback ones from the 1970's are hilarious, check them out. I have read most of the major books, and now a lot of ebooks people put out, including many being promoted on this board.

Seeing that this thread is still alive, and being astounded at that, I got to thinking. For the life of me I have no idea what this book is about. I read it when it came out. I have read these posts, I have thought about it. There is nothing actionable or even tangible in this book, let alone a coherent thesis. Thats just my review, I am not bashing anyone and I gave this author a chance, I may read more of his work.

When you read a good game book, it changes your view significantly. Sometimes you walk away with an entirely new world view. At a minimum you have some tactics to put in your toolbox. I can honestly say I walked away with neither. Can anyone distill this book into one or two sentences? It would really help. Thanks.

[WEDO]

(07-16-2014 07:42 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

When you read a good game book, it changes your view significantly. Sometimes you walk away with an entirely new world view. At a minimum you have some tactics to put in your toolbox. I can honestly say I walked away with neither. Can anyone distill this book into one or two sentences? It would really help. Thanks.

The Book is a philosophy on attracting women.

I think the one thing the book stresses that is somewhat counter intuitive is that what you actually say to a chick.... is probably the least important thing when it comes right down to whether or not a chick is going to fuck you.

[Vaun]

(07-16-2014 08:35 PM)WEDO Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 07:42 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

Can anyone distill this book into one or two sentences? It would really help. Thanks.

The Book is a philosophy on attracting women.

I think the one thing the book stresses that is somewhat counter intuitive is that what you actually say to a chick.... is probably the least important thing when it comes right down to whether or not a chick is going to fuck you.

Cool, so we are on a roll here! The book is about how words and what you say to women is completely meaningless??

Lets keep it going, we'll figure it out!!

[Stun]

(07-16-2014 07:42 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

When you read a good game book, it changes your view significantly. Sometimes you walk away with an entirely new world view. At a minimum you have some tactics to put in your toolbox. I can honestly say I walked away with neither. Can anyone distill this book into one or two sentences? It would really help. Thanks.

It's more an inner game book than an outer game book. Guy's that are socially fearless, and just game-uncalibrated will learn from it, but may not learn not much.

Guys who have emotional trauma or emotional issues with women going way back, guy that have over-sized egos, have built up walls, have massive amounts of fear an insecurity around women, it's a good book for them. It helps you to un-fuck your head, and incorrect beliefs you've had about women due to whatever past or childhood issues you might have had.

I was more so the latter guy, so the book helped me. I never focused a lot on tactics, because women have always been physically attracted to me, even here into my late 30s. In spite of genetic favor tho, I still massively fucked up a lot of potential sets in my 20s because of fear, feelings of inferiority, and other wrong-headed emotionally deficient reasoning.

[Vaun]

(07-16-2014 08:49 PM)Sugar Wrote:  

I was more so the latter guy, so the book helped me. I never focused a lot on tactics, because women have always been physically attracted to me, even here into my late 30s. In spite of genetic favor tho, I still massively fucked up a lot of potential sets in my 20s because of fear, feelings of inferiority, and other wrong-headed emotionally deficient reasoning.

I would say you and I are in the same boat.

But so far I have two drastically different explanations of the book;

One is - Words and what you say to women dont matter(of which I agree with, but not with what you say, but how much of it you say)

The other - Helps guys with insecurity around women

See?? I am still confused! What is this Models philosophy? I have read the book.

[Stun]

(07-11-2014 10:40 AM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  

Yeah, I sensed the male desire = female arousal theory was horse shit.

"The desire to be desired" isn't a Mark Manson theory, it's a scientifically validated fact.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mayb...women-want

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/02/the_trut..._ravenous/

Reading a lot of different books I understand can be frustrating, because some information seems to clash with other information.

But try showing interest in a few different women, who you assume didn't notice you, or noticed but you assumed were 'whatever' about you.

You'll find what most players who've done a lot of cold approaches already know - that sometimes the very act of showing interest with confidence will cause a girl to light up and become attracted, and you'll be able to begin qualifying her.

[Vaun]

(07-16-2014 09:00 PM)Sugar Wrote:  

(07-11-2014 10:40 AM)blacknwhitespade Wrote:  

Yeah, I sensed the male desire = female arousal theory was horse shit.

"The desire to be desired" isn't a Mark Manson theory, it's a scientifically validated fact.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mayb...women-want

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/02/the_trut..._ravenous/

Reading a lot of different books I understand can be frustrating, because some information seems to clash with other information.

But try showing interest in a few different women, who you assume didn't notice you, or noticed but you assumed were 'whatever' about you.

You'll find what most players who've done a lot of cold approaches already know - that sometimes the very act of showing interest with confidence will cause a girl to light up and become attracted, and you'll be able to begin qualifying her.

I appreciate your explanation but I still can not see a clear philosophy or thesis behind this book.

So now I have a third thesis - that if I approach a women and she "lights up" it means its good to "qualify her." Mind blowing stuff man.

[WEDO]

(07-16-2014 08:47 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 08:35 PM)WEDO Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 07:42 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

Can anyone distill this book into one or two sentences? It would really help. Thanks.

The Book is a philosophy on attracting women.

I think the one thing the book stresses that is somewhat counter intuitive is that what you actually say to a chick.... is probably the least important thing when it comes right down to whether or not a chick is going to fuck you.

Cool, so we are on a roll here! The book is about how words and what you say to women is completely meaningless??

Lets keep it going, we'll figure it out!!

No...the words you choose are not meaningless....They are less important compared to looks, attitude, how you speak, physical escalation and lifestyle.

I mean I guess you could make (what you say) the most important thing if you are prone to breaking social norms and are just obnoxious. But assuming you aren't actively sabotaging yourself in everyday conversation (like the guy in the video) then it is the least important.

At any rate there are 134 reviews on Amazon if you want to get a further education on the book without actually having to reading the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Models-Attract-Wom...ewpoints=1

[Vaun]

(07-16-2014 09:11 PM)WEDO Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 08:47 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 08:35 PM)WEDO Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 07:42 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

Can anyone distill this book into one or two sentences? It would really help. Thanks.

The Book is a philosophy on attracting women.

I think the one thing the book stresses that is somewhat counter intuitive is that what you actually say to a chick.... is probably the least important thing when it comes right down to whether or not a chick is going to fuck you.

Cool, so we are on a roll here! The book is about how words and what you say to women is completely meaningless??

Lets keep it going, we'll figure it out!!

No not meaningless....least important compared to looks, attitude, how you speak, physical escalation and lifestyle.

I mean I guess you could make it (what you say) the most important thing if you are prone to breaking social norms and are just obnoxious. But assuming you aren't actively sabotaging yourself in everyday conversation (like the guy in the video) then it is the least important.

At any rate there are 134 reviews on Amazon if you want to get a further education on the book without actually reading it.

http://www.amazon.com/Models-Attract-Wom...ewpoints=1

alright, so I have three different interpretations, from two different guys, and now you are suggesting I read the comments. Point taken.

[Stun]

(07-16-2014 09:12 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

alright, so I have three different interpretations, from two different guys, and now you are suggesting I read the comments. Point taken.

I'm not trying to get you or anyone to read the book, so I don't know what to tell you.

I can only tell you what my takeaways were and how reading it helped *me personally*:

- Women are attracted mainly to two things - status, or indicators or status, and the desire to be desired.

Status creates long term, or general attraction. Showing desire with confidence creates a more immediate physical attraction.

- Your status is determined by your behavior, not what you say: Attractive behavior is perceived as a culmination of how you treat yourself, how you treat others, and how others treat you.

- The 1-10 "number system" is basically, in and of itself, a pedestal.

Personally: - Trying to be the alpha tough guy all the time was getting me some bangs, but was generally holding me back, because more often than not it was a front

- I had foolish incorrect beliefs about women that I needed to examine and challenge. For example, hot women don't like guys this age, or with this length hair, or that job, or this kind of clothing.

-The core of vulnerability is assuming attraction without being needy or outcome dependent. I was obsessed with the idea that my "perfection" meant every girl I wanted should be automatically attracted to me.

- I was trying waaay too hard to be invulnerable and come across as perfect. People are attracted to each others rough edges. Giving up on ego preservation and self-preoccupation did me more good than doing 1K approaches as a guy who thought he had to be perfect.

I would have to think about it, but I'm sure there's more I took away.

[WEDO]

(07-16-2014 09:12 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 09:11 PM)WEDO Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 08:47 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 08:35 PM)WEDO Wrote:  

(07-16-2014 07:42 PM)Vaun Wrote:  

Can anyone distill this book into one or two sentences? It would really help. Thanks.

The Book is a philosophy on attracting women.

I think the one thing the book stresses that is somewhat counter intuitive is that what you actually say to a chick.... is probably the least important thing when it comes right down to whether or not a chick is going to fuck you.

Cool, so we are on a roll here! The book is about how words and what you say to women is completely meaningless??

Lets keep it going, we'll figure it out!!

No not meaningless....least important compared to looks, attitude, how you speak, physical escalation and lifestyle.

I mean I guess you could make it (what you say) the most important thing if you are prone to breaking social norms and are just obnoxious. But assuming you aren't actively sabotaging yourself in everyday conversation (like the guy in the video) then it is the least important.

At any rate there are 134 reviews on Amazon if you want to get a further education on the book without actually reading it.

http://www.amazon.com/Models-Attract-Wom...ewpoints=1

alright, so I have three different interpretations, from two different guys, and now you are suggesting I read the comments. Point taken.

Well...wish I could be of more help....but you said you read the book and really don't know what it is about.

Everybody's interpretation of the book is going to be different based on their on personal life experiences....and I agree the book will be completely irrelevant for some.

That is why I like Pick up books as well. Guys that have no looks, high pitched voices, no style, with no lifestyle can get laid once in a while by learning game and making hundreds of approaches.

Mark's book just suggests another way that will work for some guys.