The Game By Neil strauss

Geomy

I flicked through that book, it's only applicable for sex addicts, and nerds....

It's a pile of ****e....

Legs.Eleven

You mean if I told them I used to be mediocre with women, so I went out and practiced to get better and read advice off the internet?

That you use PUA to seduce beautiful women in order to sleep with them. Of course the woman in question would have to know a bit about it first, in fairness. Maybe give her a run down on negging, for example. I can imagine that one would be popular!

I don't know is the answer but if I become single in the near future I'll say that for sh1ts and giggles mid chat up and see if I can still get the girl in bed.

I'd be curious to hear the outcome!



Knowing a bit about it myself, I spotted it within seconds of that guy in the park using it and did a runner.

Earthhorse

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I think the fact that someone read it from a book and this specific book which I am reading right now is crucial though. This book doesn't like women or see them as human.

Edit: And to answer your question, feeding a woman a complimentary line is one thing (we've all been on the receiving end of one) but learning your whole behaviour from books and videos and whatever is a whole different story. A lot of what I've read on PUA is sexist crap. I don't think too many women would go for a man who bought into it hook, line and sinker.

That's opening up a whole different vista though. Plenty of people learn much from books; be it how to negotiate a better salary, improving your outlook on life, dressing better, getting in shape etc. Learning things from a book doesn't make a thing good or bad. And, of course, they don't learn "all" of their behaviour from these books, I'm quite sure, just like you don't learn all of your negotiating skills from a book on that topic.

Personally, I don't think The Game does see women as non-human though there is a lot of behaviour in there that is along those lines. The keywords in your response are "hook, line and sinker". If someone has swallowed the poisonous aspect of it wholesale then that's obviously bad. I think most people deserve more credit than that though, they can sift through the positive and negative and something and differentiate between them.

Legs.Eleven

Personally, I don't think The Game does see women as non-human though there is a lot of behaviour in there that is along those lines. The keywords in your response are "hook, line and sinker". If someone has swallowed the poisonous aspect of it wholesale then that's obviously bad. I think most people deserve more credit than that though, they can sift through the positive and negative and something and differentiate between them.

Unfortunately many of the users I've seen discussing it come across as creeps and have a hidden disdain for women. I think it taps into the market of men who haven't had much luck with women and blame them for their lack of success and are quite bitter as a result, so feel no guilt about dehumanising them as much of the language used in PUA does.

I don't personally think this Vitalorange fella comes across that way but I've come across way too many online who've bought into hook, line and sinker and have outright hatred for women and those would be the ones I'd judge harshly. I certainly didn't think the guy in the park that day was in any way sinister but the idea that he was wandering around the park that day trying to seduce women was enough to drive me away tbh.

I'll say it again, there has to be an alternative.


And I do believe it's a numbers game, even if Vitalorange doesn't.

hatrickpatrick

PUA stuff at its root is essentially the mechanics of flirting, but broken down, over analysed and over complicated for people who have low confidence / low charisma / dodgy social skills.

Problem is it doesn't provide enough context. Negging for example - most people know that flirting is about lightly making fun of someone and slagging each other for the craic, but the problem is there's an obvious difference between "Heh I'm suuuuure that really happened, sounds totally legit " and "lol you're kinda chubby, ever think of hitting the gym?"

The former is the kind of light slagging that's part of the whole thing, the latter will earn you a (well deserved) knuckle sandwich, and the trouble is a lot of lads who feel the need to use PUA in the first place might not have the social antenna to realise the difference between the two, and I've found that PUA guides almost never go into proper detail about that kind of thing.

Paradoxically, PUA works but *only* if you already have the social skills to understand it. And if you already have those skills, chances are you probably already know everything in the PUA guide without reading it.

Earthhorse

Oh, there are alternatives, of course, but the sort of extreme way in which the topic is presented prevents them from being discussed. Basically, if you took a lot of the manipulative based stuff, such as negs, which from what I've read (really just The Game and discussions like these online) is only a tiny part of PUA, no one would have any grounds from complaint about the PUA community. But the more people condemn those few techniques the more the community seems to dig their heels in regarding them (this is normal group behaviour tbh).

Legs.Eleven

Earthhorse wrote: »

Oh, there are alternatives, of course, but the sort of extreme way in which the topic is presented prevents them from being discussed. Basically, if you took a lot of the manipulative based stuff, such as negs, which from what I've read (really just The Game and discussions like these online) is only a tiny part of PUA, no one would have any grounds from complaint about the PUA community. But the more people condemn those few techniques the more the community seems to dig their heels in regarding them (this is normal group behaviour tbh).

Taking all the manipulative stuff out of it, you're left with a load of stuff that's entertaining simply for its comedy factor and can't really believe any man would take it seriously. Any man using those tactics on me would give me a laugh and nothing more.

And again, I do believe it's a numbers game. If you're getting out and talking to loads of women, chances are you're bound to hit the jackpot at some stage.

Why not just focus on building your confidence up without all this cheesy (but very often sinister) American PUA garbage?

Vitaliorange

Negging was very popular say between 2002-2005, not so much now. Probably because its so hit and miss and not necessary.

People often mistake negging for insults. What it is essentially is a statement designed to make a woman who gets lots of male attention think that you aren't interested in her. That messes with her ego so she chases you for validation. The thing is once she gets your validation she could lose interest. Much better to just become a cool guy who women want.

Legs.Eleven

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Negging was very popular say between 2002-2005, not so much now. Probably because its so hit and miss and not necessary.

People often mistake negging for insults. What it is essentially is a statement designed to make a woman who gets lots of male attention think that you aren't interested in her. That messes with her ego so she chases you for validation. The thing is once she gets your validation she could lose interest. Much better to just become a cool guy who women want.

That's the only negative you can find to this tactic?

Femme_Fatale

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

dehumanising

This is the really scary aspect - the "get her coat if she asks and you will see the disappointment in her eyes" thing, as if she comes with an instruction manual; "if you have good game, she won't resist" comment. Very disturbing way to operate...

Vitaliorange

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

That's the only negative you can find to this tactic?

From an effectiveness point of view its a negative.

You may not view it as moral but you are hardly Hitler for making a woman think you aren't interested in her.

Legs.Eleven

Vitaliorange wrote: »

From an effectiveness point of view its a negative.

You may not view it as moral but you are hardly Hitler for making a woman think you aren't interested in her.

You've just insulted a stranger for no other reason than the fact that you find her attractive. That's acting like an out and out arsehole. Trying to trivialise it by implying Hitler (of all people!) did worse hardly justifies it.

Earthhorse

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Taking all the manipulative stuff out of it, you're left with a load of stuff that's entertaining simply for its comedy factor and can't really believe any man would take it seriously. Any man using those tactics on me would give me a laugh and nothing more.

And again, I do believe it's a numbers game. If you're getting out and talking to loads of women, chances are you're bound to hit the jackpot at some stage.

Why not just focus on building your confidence up without all this cheesy (but very often sinister) American PUA garbage?

So you say you're interested in an alternative but your alternative is to go back to the way things were before, which clearly wasn't working for a lot of guys.

Have you actually read The Game? Yes, I suppose you can dismiss the openers or whatever you call them as "silly" but that's a bit silly in itself. Like calling boards "nerdy" or something, it just seeks to be dismissive and judgemental of something that may help people and which, at its worst, is harmless. Okay, so those openers wouldn't work on you but what if that opener is just a way for a guy to get talking to you? To settle his nerves? If it works for him and you end up enjoying chatting to him what harm? I know you'll say that "then why doesn't he just come chat to me in the first place" but the whole point is people sometimes need crutches like these to set them off. Just look at the Irish and drink; there is less criticism of that despite the huge and very real damage alcohol can do in certain contexts.

In The Game he also talks a lot about the Alexander technique (which is what actors use to improve their posture and project their voice), hitting the gym, dressing better, having more hobbies and interests (I would say out of all these the Alexander technique is the one he mentions most actually) so no, not everything left behind is silly if you take away negs and what have you.

thegreatgonzo

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Its very easy to be critical,transforming lives isn't easy, PUA has allowed many men to transform their lives. I don't see any other resources for men to learn how to seduce beautiful women. They are pretty much on their own without it. A few people telling someone to "be himself" isn't going to help.

If the only goal is to trick good looking women into thinking you are more interesting than you are than I have a big problem with the claim that this is some sort of 'life transformation programme'. It's shallow. How about these guys really improve themselves so they actually have something genuinely interesting to say to a woman and actually want to hear what she thinks in return?

Legs.Eleven

In The Game he also talks a lot about the Alexander technique (which is what actors use to improve their posture and project their voice), hitting the gym, dressing better, having more hobbies and interests (I would say out of all these the Alexander technique is the one he mentions most actually) so no, not everything left behind is silly if you take away negs and what have you.

I never said reverting back to the way things were for those guys and in fact, I would recommend all of the above. That's all common sense to me and The Game can't take credit for that advice. Boosting your confidence overall will allow you to not have to rely on tricks and crutches (be it alcohol or negging or magic tricks or whatever) and is more sustainable long-term and might even enable you to find long-lasting love (which I'm guessing most men want in the end) as supposed to simply scoring a hot women.

Reekwind

Earthhorse wrote: »

Okay, so those openers wouldn't work on you but what if that opener is just a way for a guy to get talking to you? To settle his nerves? If it works for him and you end up enjoying chatting to him what harm?

It's possible to be comfortable talking to people without knocking their self-esteem (eg negging) or viewing them as a machine to be manipulated

No one has a problem with an advice book that tells people to shower once a day. The issues arise when that book advocates a worldview that sees women as something to be manipulated into bed via cheap tricks

Legs.Eleven

If it's simply a matter of boosting your confidence overall, why not work on that instead? Hit the gym, buy a whole new wardrobe, do things that give you sense of achievement and pride and self-belief and generally get out more...for starters.

Vitaliorange

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

You've just insulted a stranger for no other reason than the fact that you find her attractive. That's acting like an out and out arsehole. Trying to trivialise it by implying Hitler (of all people!) did worse hardly justifies it.

I'm not trying to justify it. I don't even like them. Just don't see the big deal if someone thinks another person isn't interested in them.

thegreatgonzo

Vitaliorange wrote: »

I'm not trying to justify it. I don't even like them. Just don't see the big deal if someone thinks another person isn't interested in them.

Because it's a sign of emotional immaturity. Like if you are a 10 year old boy and you like a girl but you don't know what to do about it so you pull her hair and call her names.

hatrickpatrick

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

That's the only negative you can find to this tactic?

If its done properly, it's NOT the genuinely mean spirited soul destroying tactic it's made out to be, that again is just a bad image caused by hordes of socially awkward guys who take it too literally without context.

In its proper form, negging is used by men AND women and is merely challenging someone in a slightly teasing / play-mocking way. We ALL do this when we're flirting with someone, as I at PUA guides seem to be designed for guys who, for whatever reason, lack these instincts the rest of us are familiar with.

A nice analogy? Humans, just like most animal species, have a mating dance. Some humans lack innate knowledge of the moves, others don't - these guides aim to fill in the blanks. Now the fact is that they use a sledgehammer when precision is called for, but at their core that's what it is.

Vitaliorange

thegreatgonzo wrote: »

If the only goal is to trick good looking women into thinking you are more interesting than you are than I have a big problem with the claim that this is some sort of 'life transformation programme'. It's shallow. How about these guys really improve themselves so they actually have something genuinely interesting to say to a woman and actually want to hear what she thinks in return?

The goal is to actually become more interesting.

Earthhorse

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I never said reverting back to the way things were for those guys and in fact, I would recommend all of the above. That's all common sense to me and The Game can't take credit for that advice. Boosting your confidence overall will allow you to not have to rely on tricks and crutches (be it alcohol or negging or magic tricks or whatever) and is more sustainable long-term and might even enable you to find long-lasting love (which I'm guessing most men want in the end) as supposed to simply scoring a hot women.

Yes, but you didn't propose anything else either. The Game can't take credit for a lot of things (though it gets blame for a lot it would seem) but it can take credit for disseminating, them can't it? You might say something is common sense to you, that's all well and good; 90% of self-help and improvement books are common sense. That doesn't mean they don't help people or that that common sense is common to them.

Reekwind wrote: »

It's possible to be comfortable talking to people without knocking their self-esteem (eg negging) or viewing them as a machine to be manipulated

No one has a problem with an advice book that tells people to shower once a day. The issues arise when that book advocates a worldview that sees women as something to be manipulated into bed via cheap tricks

But the book advocates (actually, I'm not even sure the book does advocate anything given that it's an auto-biography) lots of other healthy stuff that never gets discussed. Of course it's possible to be comfortable talking to people without knocking their self-esteem, I explicitly said that if you take out negging, the one technique where that's done - though honestly, I'm not sure I buy it - then you really don't have much of that nature left in there.

Muise...

Vitaliorange wrote: »

I'm not trying to justify it. I don't even like them. Just don't see the big deal if someone thinks another person isn't interested in them.

Yet it was a big enough deal for you to buy some magic beans off the internet and attribute your lucky day to a dodgy formula. :pac:

Earthhorse

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

If it's simply a matter of boosting your confidence overall, why not work on that instead? Hit the gym, buy a whole new wardrobe, do things that give you sense of achievement and pride and self-belief and generally get out more...for starters.

Again, you can say the same about improving your career, your finances etc. Sometimes people are poor at a particular area in life and need a bit more detailed help than simply "hit the gym". Surely you can see that?

Legs.Eleven

Earthhorse wrote: »

Yes, but you didn't propose anything else either. The Game can't take credit for a lot of things (though it gets blame for a lot it would seem) but it can take credit for disseminating, them can't it? You might say something is common sense to you, that's all well and good; 90% of self-help and improvement books are common sense. That doesn't mean they don't help people or that that common sense is common to them.

No, I didn't suggest an alternative because that's not what were discussing here but it doesn't mean I haven't got one. My posts weren't about alternatives, they were referring to the points you raised and answering questions you asked.

Czarcasm

Vitaliorange wrote: »

People often mistake negging for insults. What it is essentially is a statement designed to make a woman who gets lots of male attention think that you aren't interested in her. That messes with her ego so she chases you for validation. The thing is once she gets your validation she could lose interest.

Nah, there's no mistaking it Vitaliorange. Whatever you want to call it, it's juvenile, it's insidious, and yes, it IS insulting. You're insulting another person in an attempt to bring them down to your level of insecurity.

That's actually what I find most insulting about the whole PUA ideology - it's insulting to the intelligence of grown men, exploiting their desperation caused by their insecurities, and filling their heads with nonsense that doesn't work.

And before you say it does - manipulating and intimidating naive young girls is no great boast, even the most clueless gobshìte can do that. If you need a book, or some immature "frat boy" to tell you how to do it, then what does that say about your own level of intelligence?

Legs.Eleven

Earthhorse wrote: »

Again, you can say the same about improving your career, your finances etc. Sometimes people are poor at a particular area in life and need a bit more detailed help than simply "hit the gym". Surely you can see that?

I can indeed see that. Course I can and I can understand that many men need help.

Earthhorse

So then you have the answer to your question.

Legs.Eleven

Earthhorse wrote: »

So then you have the answer to your question.

My original question on how would a woman feel if she knew the man talking to her was using PUA to get her into bed?

Something tells me we're going round in circles here.

Earthhorse

No, the question that I put my post up in response to; this one.

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

If it's simply a matter of boosting your confidence overall, why not work on that instead?