Quote: (07-06-2014 03:00 PM)conservative Wrote:
Think of game as driving, looks as your car model and money as gas. You have money, you can go more. If you have looks, you can get more attention. But if you don't have game, you won't really go anywhere. (and trust me, you'll feel miserable for wasting such resources).
I don't agree with that. A good looking man doesn't need game. Period. Just as long as he doesn't have negative game, i.e. does shit that repels women. If you're a good looking guy, all you really need to be is socially normal and at least somewhat confident and you'll have no problem getting laid. I've met plenty of guys in that situation.
The game industry was basically devised for average looking men to try and punch above their weight class using push/pull tactics, false time constraints, negs, DHVs, magic tricks in some cases, hypnosis in the case of Ross Jeffries and other really technical shit. The industry in recent years though has been moving away from this structured game that was spawned by Mystery Method. And now people are talking about "natural game" which doesn't seem to have any clear definition. "Having game" means knowing how to talk to women in a way that leads to sex rapidly. But I contend that this is a very difficult thing to teach. PUA gurus can outline the fundamentals, but making that actual chemistry spark and a real emotional connection with a girl is something everyone has to figure out on their own time in their own way.
As for game being a necessity for long-term situations, I get what you guys are saying. But to me that's not game, that's just being a man that is sure of himself that dominates over his woman. That's the way all men used to be before feminism. And the way it is now in countries where there is no feminism. I don't see that as "game", I just see it as men being men.