I find just being me to the
uttermost works best. Subsequently I get all the connections and female attention I can handle, sometimes too much,
and I end up wasting time on constant poon calls.
Alright so awhile ago I
got some of David DeAngelo's material and loved it. Now a few days ago I got ahold of Jeffries
materials.
The biggest points I seem to get are:
DD - Cocky and funny to get istinctual
attraction
RJ - Sensual verbal exploration to get a connection, which leads to an attraction
etc.
Now they both sound like fantastic methods. My question is basicly anyone experince results from
spesific methods better than others? Maybe just a general discussion on comparison.
But my main question
seems as if it would be the ultimate power is to combine the best parts of each into one. How would you combine
hardcore busting balls c&f with these more sensual sounding mental exploration tactics? I mean there's a lot of
stuff you can combine no problem, but the major core of them seem somewhat conflicting.
I find just being me to the
uttermost works best. Subsequently I get all the connections and female attention I can handle, sometimes too much,
and I end up wasting time on constant poon calls.
"I'm just a dirty hornytoad" -Gegogi
Both methods are too focused on
one specific in the entire spectrum of intersexual behavior.
Thus you can probably figure out that youre
massively limited.
People do hook up without being cocky and funny or using words for an emotional
rollercoaster.
Yes, but you seem to be a rather well putOriginally Posted by Gegogi
together guy. There is a lot of discussion on this on the seduction sites. "Just be yourself" is advice that EVERY
guy has gotten on dating since the beginning of time. And, it's great advice if you are a likeable, dynamic,
interesting and sexy person, and can be a gentleman towards women without becoming a doormat. However, most of us
aren't 007. Most guys, lets face it, as "themselves" are DORKS. They need a little help, be it 'mones,
seduction-modelling behavior, or whatever.
What these discussions usually come down to is, yes, "be yourself",
but only if "yourself" is a self that's worth being. Or, put another way, don't just "be yourself", but rather
"be your BEST self you can be."
i'm not sure on the rj stuff
except for his confidance material. a buddy of mines has the home study course. i seen it, it's not worth it except
for the confidence and affirmation material. i'm an asshole and naturally cocky, just didn't know how to harness
it until david d. go with the style the fits your personality naturally. if you're guinuinely c&f it comes off as
charming and charismatic, think deion sanders and michael irvin.
I'm always looking for ways to"...Or, put another way,
don't just "be yourself", but rather "be your BEST self you can be."
tweak myself, be it appearance, lifestyle, education, music or social skills. Once you stop growing, you begin
drifting downhill fast. However, I do it for myself, not for women or society at large. I've not felt a righteous
or pressing need to get help being me or expressing my desires. Of course if you're not sure who you are, a little
coaching may be in order.
"I'm just a dirty hornytoad" -Gegogi
Be yourself applies if youre an
attractive person with attractive characteristics and traits.
It also rectifies the tryhard-syndrome alot of
guys seem to acquire, where theyre trying to be something they arent, thus coming off incongruent. Something
sociallyintelligent(read:women) pickup on easily.
If you gonna fake it, make sure you make it!
Can I get links to these
please?
thx
jc
You've hit the nail on theOriginally Posted by esk6969
head!
Everyone tells you to be yourself. I have a cousin that is a natural (he's married now) and always had
women surounding him (even though he's just an OK looking guy). He was always telling me to "just be yourself". I
took his advice and proceded to have fewer girlfriends than I would have liked and I was always being a wussie (talk
about an attraction destroyer!) with the girlfriends I did have .
I tried RJ's stuff and it was only
minimally successful and I could not get it to sound natural.
Enter David DeAngelo! There is much more to
his material than just c & f, if you only have his Double Your Dating eBook you could get the impression that's
what it's all about. His material is based on the way "naturals" interact with women, evolution, biology and
sociology.
Would I still be hooking up without David D? Sure, but the quality and quantity has increased
since I've been using his stuff.
RJ and Davids stuff stirs
emotions in girls, to be simple thats all its about.
If you can incite excitment, awe, intrigue, happiness,
sadness, anger in a girl and take her through an emotional rollercoaster through your actions and words she WILL be
attracted to you.
Like it or not but women are emotionallydriven creatures, ask any of them. They react to
the emotions they feel in the moment, and then try to throw in logic to rationalize it OR to backrationalize
afterwards with logic. They lie, not only to others but also to themselves in order to bear with the circumstances
they end up in thanks to their emotionally driven behavior.
This is based on theOriginally Posted by seduceme
different ways attraction happens in men's and women's brains.
Men are attracted overwhelmingly by visual
cues. When men are shown photos of breautiful women, activity in the limbic system increases drastically. In fact,
men are so tuned into the visual cues of attractive women, that the activity in the limbic system increases even
before we are consciouce of seeing a beautiful woman.
When women are shown photos of good looking men, there
is much less activity in their limbic system because they aren't as attracted by purely visual cues. When they are
told some (made up) back ground story on these men; ie, they are rich, atheletes, musicians, artists, etc they have
much more limbic activity.
If you approach with the right attitude you can create attraction in women
becuase you're communicating in a way that stimulates a women's limbic system that goes beyond your physical
attractiveness. The right attitude is partly communicated by cocky & funny, but also that you're not impressed by
her looks, that you could care less what she thinks of you and if she doesn't want to be with you have much more on
your plate and she is missing out.
Hmm all this makes sense, but what
are the best asspects of each and how do I get them to work together? Or is more based on the girl and yourself?
Also, ross's tactics seem more geared to meeting a girl/ really new relationship. DD's seem more for all.
links pleeease
Problem is C&F(cocky and funny) is indirect as hell.Originally Posted by phersurf
Sooner or
later(like it or not) youre going to have to go direct, if getting laid is your goal.
There are more subtle and
direct/general ways to build attraction before even approaching.
c&f is only indirect and direct as
you make it be. of course it'll never be direct as sharks "i like you" game. you can take the frame "damn i am hot
and you bow down to me because i am such a cool guy and i will have sex with you but i will play with you 1st".
dress really well and have cocky body language and you're good to go. it's easy to see it than to actually
describe it.
c&f is the way to go if you're not only interested in pick up, but having an attitude adjustment.
taking control of your life and living the way you want to and interacting with people in general. a lot of david d
stuff is inner game based and self improvement beyond women. you need to buy all of his products to "get it".
I listened to some of his advanced
stuff, really good.
Shark/razorjack's attitude is
the way to go.
Direct _is_ the way to go, lets face it, those who came up with indirect game are those who got
blown out, ran away and tried to come up with little schemes to get girls to like them. With direct its assumed they
already DO like you when you approach.
the best method is the method that
you like that gets you results.
TRock subjectively yes,
generally no. The best method is the method that yeilds results for the broadest userbase.
I see alot of
guys on mASF who ditch ross, david mystery and the like and try out direct with great result.
That's the bottom line. Everyone's different.Originally Posted by TRock
(Again with the understatements!)
There's a grain of truth in both approaches, but I can't imagine using
either one verbatim.
Ross is funnier. Dave's more accessible. Meh. To me, their approaches are very
basically one and the same.
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
i'm not actaully against direct.
i'm direct in a way myself but still use c&f, push/pull, frame control when i'm doing my style of direct. i used
to be a semi natural. typical most popular guy in highschool but went to a big university and any semblance of game
i had got destroyed. guys that use direct don't like c&f, push/pull and all that stuff. i'm just saying they can
be incorporated into direct.
i don't really get this get every girl stuff. does that mean you're willing
to go from librarians to party girls? i don't think of pu as game where i have to beat every level. there's only 1
type of girl i like and that's the only type of girl i would attempt to pu.
Last edited by TRock; 03-31-2005 at 12:47 PM.
That's true, but ti doesn't hurt
to get more experience and test around with different types of people. I'm friends with almost ever genre of people
that I'm around. Albiet, I think it's funny classifying peopel by genres, but that's another story. There's punk
girls that I really dig, to SSSSHB prepy girls, to the athletic girls, to the nice generaly beautiful pretty girls.
the more the merrier. Why limit your choices? But if you spread the butter out too much, you end up running out and
getting less powerfull taste. So don't spread yourself thin with the important girls.
Actually I enjoy trying to
pickup the unattainable. Getting laid is easy, so its more of a challenge when you come across the hard ones.
Besides you might meet a woman some day you find attractive and 'your taste' in terms of qualities and traits, BUT
there might be a catch. In anyway if youve got experience in those situations you'll _know_ what to do.
It’s all chatter.
Humans are
hard-wired for sex. Lots and lots of sex.
Humans are also fascinated by the sound of their own chatter.
At best, the chatter coming from your mouth can momentarily break the chatter running through her brain — giving
nature time to work its magic.
If there’s no natural attraction, there’s no game. Period.
There’s a handful of “techniques” that facilitate natural attraction. Smiles, eye contact, kino, proximity ... These
have been discussed ad nauseum, and are probably instinctive to begin with.
Synthetic pheromones are the only
approach that demonstrably ENHANCES natural attraction.
Culture channels natural sex drive towards
strengthening family ties, paternal authority, class structure, consumerism or whatever else reflects the values of
the particular culture.
If you don’t conform to your culture’s standards of masculinity/femininity there’s
very little that nature (or pheromones) can do for you.
The only methods that can legitimately be called
seduction arts, are methods for projecting and manipulating cultural standards of masculinity/femininity.
All
the rest is crap.
I read a pick up guide when I was in my teens. For years, I used to think I had
game.
Then I got old and nothing worked. I didn’t get stupider, uglier, poorer, less articulate, less
cocky, less funny, less direct ... The only thing that changed was my T levels. Less testosterone = less natural
pheromones.
Add a few synthetic pheromones and, surprise, now I can play all kinds of games. Or (here comes the
zen part) I can not play games.
Give truth a chance.
Allright here youre implying that natural attraction is sexualOriginally Posted by a.k.a.
attraction, lust if you will. Yes there IS game if there is ATTRACTION. Not necessarily sexual attraction. Girls do
hook up with guys for other reasons than their sexual attraction, gold-diggers come to mind.
Interesting,
Culture channels natural sex drive towards strengthening family ties, paternal authority, class structure,
consumerism or whatever else reflects the values of the particular culture.
If you don’t conform to your
culture’s standards of masculinity/femininity there’s very little that nature (or pheromones) can do for you.
The only methods that can legitimately be called seduction arts, are methods for projecting and manipulating
cultural standards of masculinity/femininity.
All the rest is crap.
however I'd like to argue that projecting your sexuality by certain standards only defines you more as belonging to
either sex, sure that might create some attraction but in no way teaches you how to behave correctly in social
settings and more specifically social/sexualsituations.
TRock "gets it"!
It
doesn't matter what technique you use if it's comming from the right inner game.
Well if you're inexperienced and
don't have much innergame, then trying these different approches and keeping the things that work and molding them
together to, become, acctualy create your game. Some of us don't have natural known attraction, some of us have to
work on bringingout and devloping our natural attraction. Either way, they're both educational.
i don't think somebody should
game until they spent some time on their inner game. because if you don't know how to spark attraction or have some
sort of natural attraction, you're gonna come off as weird everytime. if you're inner game is weak and you keep
getting hammer, you'll probably just quit all together.
Well don't they both do work on
your innergame? Seems to me they do to an extent, more DD than Ross though.
Also, can you make clear what
your oppinion of innergame is? (anyone) Seems I've been getting mixed opinions about that from different people.
i think you can succeed from
without inner game but it's only superficial. but once a chick finds out you don't have inner, it's all over.
inner game causes what you do to be natural while outter game you actually have to think about tactics. with inner
game you're c&f, push/pull, and do frame control naturally while with outter game it's like playing chess and you
have to plot your moves.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks