nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Game By Neil strauss

Steo1885

Hi guys, new to boards, just moved to dublin from mayo. read the game by neil strauss a few months ago and was wondering if anybody here has read it and what do they think?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

NoCrackHaving

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Fair enough if it's deliberate leading on (which I know can happen to both sexes indeed) but sometimes what's deemed "leading on" is just being nice. She'd be deemed a bitch if she wasn't nice.

I really feel women have it fairly tough in this aspect, if they're not interested in the lad but don't want to be rude and chat to him, they're a cock tease but if they tell him they're not interested they're told they're a ****ing stuck up wagon or something.

King_Prawn

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

I really feel women have it fairly tough in this aspect, if they're not interested in the lad but don't want to be rude and chat to him, they're a cock tease but if they tell him they're not interested they're told they're a ****ing stuck up wagon or something.

In either case they have options, not the case for a large portion of men..

NoCrackHaving

King_Prawn wrote: »

In either case they have options, not the case for a large portion of men..

I don't really see how that's women's problem though. I'll admit I've never really had trouble talking to women, getting numbers off them in places like coffee shops or quiet pubs and going on a few dates. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but whatever I give it go. Anyway my point is I could just sit and mope about how women are bitches to me or leading me on or else just accept that not every woman in the world is going to be attracted to me and realise, you know what, that's fine. I reckon a lot of men blame women for problems that are really their own fault.

King_Prawn

NoCrackHaving wrote: »

I don't really see how that's women's problem though. I'll admit I've never really had trouble talking to women, getting numbers off them in places like coffee shops or quiet pubs and going on a few dates. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but whatever I give it go. Anyway my point is I could just sit and mope about how women are bitches to me or leading me on or else just accept that not every woman in the world is going to be attracted to me and realise, you know what, that's fine. I reckon a lot of men blame women for problems that are really their own fault.

I agree. However the previous poster was sobbing over the supposed tragedy that someone they don't even like may think bad of them, while I was just pointing out that for many men they can't get someone they would potentially like to take any interest in them.

Furthermore, men who have problems with women don't solely because they expect every women to like them. They do because of anxiety caused by previous experiences. On the topic, PUA is tripe unless you are legitimately socially impaired ala autism.

NoCrackHaving

King_Prawn wrote: »

I agree. However the previous poster was sobbing over the supposed tragedy that someone they don't even like may think bad of them, while I was just pointing out that for many men they can't get someone they would potentially like to take any interest in them.

Fair enough but I think it's a bit of an apples and oranges situation on that point, they don't have much in common.

King_Prawn wrote: »

Furthermore, men who have problems with women don't solely because they expect every women to like them. They do because of anxiety caused by previous experiences. On the topic, PUA is tripe unless you are legitimately socially impaired ala autism.

I'm not sure, I have quite a few pals who think that just because a woman talks to them they're somehow 'in there'. Actually since you mentioned PUA surely it helps with the anxiety a lot of these men face. I'll admit to reading a bit of it in my younger days but realised it wasn't telling me anything I didn't already know, eg you just have to put yourself out there, no easy method. Surely that sort of stuff might be helpful to lads with anxiety about approaching the ladies.

K-9

Daveysil15 wrote: »

This topic has been covered a few times. I remember a couple of years ago there was a similar thread and there was a guy who had aspergers who said it had worked well for him. I think there are some decent guys who can take away the good points from this PUA material (if there are any), and discard the rest. Not everyone takes it as gospel. Then you have guys like balaclava who probably have issues with women before ever picking up a book. You're either a prat or you're not. I don't think any PUA book is automatically going to turn you into a conniving misogynist.

I broke up from a 7/8 year relationship, and my confidence was just shot, plus didn't have much of a clue about dating in the first place, never mind after a serious LT relationship, child and house and all that stuff.

I haven't read much of the PUA myself, but I have seen some videos on youtube of guys practicing their "day game." It just seems very American and not the sot of thing that would work well here where approaching people outside of the pub/club scene is not the norm.

Very much so.

And that brings me to the nights out, and this is the bit I don't get. How do you employ these techniques in a crowded noisy envoirnment where people are pissed and you almost have to resort to shouting in someone's ear to have a conversation? And yes I'm aware of the saying, "if its too loud you're too old" so don't bother pointing that out.

Tbh, that's where some of the tricks works well. PUA is superficial, clubs are largely the same with an overload of alcohol involved, deep and meaningful conversation isn't really going to sit well, so a few party tricks will work.

Someone mentioned earlier about guys using PUA to lie and manipulate women into bed, but plenty of men do this anyway, and they're not all pick up artists. As I said, you're either a prat or you're not.

Nail on head, just because you might pick up a few tricks from PUA doesn't make you a prick, just as women reading 50 shades makes doesn't them nympho sado masochists, or the last time I got involved in this discussion, reading that popular book about positive thinking, the fad at the time, makes you a Californian self help freak!

What's worrying to me is that women are starting to become more aware of this which may make them even more defensive and wary of a guys intentions. This in turn could make things more difficult for the decent men who actually want to meet women and are not just treating them as objects. But I suppose the attraction is either there or it isn't.

I suppose it might increase the men are bastards types, but as you rightly point out, they've always been around.

Anyway, there's far too much emphasis on getting a woman into bed with this stuff. The best line I ever gave was spontaneous, the woman was giving out about a previous date and his fixation on sex. "It's just fecking sex" I replied and I knew where it was going!

seenitall

King_Prawn wrote: »

I was just pointing out that for many men they can't get someone they would potentially like to take any interest in them.

Hilarious. You think many women don't have the same problem?

No, it's just poor neglected and lovelorn men, obviously.

Czarcasm

King_Prawn wrote: »

Furthermore, men who have problems with women don't solely because they expect every women to like them. They do because of anxiety caused by previous experiences. On the topic, PUA is tripe unless you are legitimately socially impaired ala autism.

Intellectually disabled people, or those people that register on the autism spectrum, while I understand what you mean and all, in my experience I've met a good few intellectually disabled people that aren't necessarily all that socially impaired. By that I mean that there are those that aren't severely intellectually disabled that would buy you and sell you and they can be incredibly manipulative, not always necessarily in an insidious way, but in the way that, well, they're intellectually disabled, not impotent, they experience the same sexual arousal and sexual frustration the same way as you or I would.

The bigger issue though is actually their capacity to consent to a sexual encounter, and many of them have expressed frustration about the fact that in many countries they are effectively prohibited from having sex because of the legalities surrounding their capacity to consent.

In Ireland, with the recent publication of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013, it was hoped these issues would be addressed, but clearly, alas, they were not:

This appears to exempt a large portion of existing laws from the impact of new Bill – which is disappointing, as many of these existing laws apply more restrictive approaches to capacity which would not be compliant with Article 12 of the UN Convention.

One particular concern is section 5 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993, which in effect, criminalises sexual intercourse with a person with ‘mentally impaired’ persons – regardless of whether or not the person gave free and informed consent. While it may not be possible to address all the many areas of law which touch upon legal capacity in the present Bill, it would be important for government to commit to a process of reforming these crucial areas – especially since Article 12 of the UN Convention makes clear that persons must enjoy legal capacity ‘in all areas of life.’

I know we're obviously talking in this thread about people who are, well, adults in full control of their faculties, but even when we talk about intellectually disabled people or those people registered on the autistic spectrum, I personally felt it was just worth mentioning that while they might be intellectually disabled, that doesn't necessarily mean they would be dumb enough to buy into the whole PUA ideology either!

Wibbs

smurgen wrote: »

this is absolutely spot on,you just described my ex girlfriend to a t! she has a new boyfriend for about a year now and she is constantly looking for attention off me still,even though she was the one that sent me on.

It's scarily common S. I can think of many many mirror examples of this kinda thing. I had a similar one to yourself. Kept me in the background like your situation. At first I played along, but sooner or later you cop on. In the end I kept her around as a constant reminder for me of what type of woman to avoid like the very plague. There are a fair amount of them about too. A minority yes, but a large enough one to get caught out. I subsequently discovered her last relationship went south(always in the same pattern). So she got another one and replaced me, the bloke in the background. Unreal.

It's a weird situation but I've her figured out pretty well at this stage.any time she gets bored I guess she messages me,she loves the attention and I guess it gives her an ego boost.

Ego boost and yep attention and no doubt support. All about her. She requires emotional stimulation at all times((bad and good) and will go to her sources to get it.

I've gone a fair bit to distance myself from her but she's such a lasher and a laugh that it's hard to ignore her. A few months ago she asked me to come to her house party but warned that the new guy would be there. I snapped and told her I still fancied her, told her that I wasn't some gay best friend or anything like that and would never want to see this dude hanging off her she just apologized and said sorry for suggesting it.

No offence S but you ain't distancing yourself and she has zero respect for you. She knows you still fancy her. You didn't need to tell her. The fact she "warned" you he'd be there should have told you that. She expected you to be a good little boy and suck it up and acquiesce to her needs. Even you flipping out about it was a boost for her as it confirmed you were still fully on the hook. That's why she flipped when you snogged another woman. Not out of jealousy, but because another woman for you means less attention for her. Plus another woman who isn't a muppet would have told you what's what

I guess her own insecurities make her seek compliments from other men.we broke up because she had been messaging her ex,it seems to be an ongoing thing with her. she only gets away with it because she's a knockout.

She only gets away with it because the men let her get away with it and she picks those kind of men. This narcissistic type is very good at choosing. Just like abusive men can zero in on a vulnerable woman across a crowded room. And like you say it's an ongoing pattern. I've never seen one grow out of it either.

As for her being a "knockout"? I'll bet the farm she's above average at best and I'd further bet that in any nightclub there are a significant proportion of women who are better looking and non muppets. The day you see that is the day you'll scrape her off and be better for it. Better yet, preempt that day, scrape her off now. The scales will fall from your eyes a lot more quickly.

seenitall wrote: »

Hilarious. You think many women don't have the same problem?

+1.

Czarcasm

Eesh, I'm reading the above and it's just a thing with me that for the fcuking life of me I can't say anything bad about women, and it's not a white knightey or flouncy feminist thing I have, I'm probably as far removed from both as you'd get, but honestly Smurgen, Wibbs might as well change his username to "Nail On The Head" at this stage the way he's been kickin' it in this thread!

I can often see certain ways people go on myself and I'd have no issue telling a guy "You're an out and out cnut!", some such as that anyway, but a girl - I'm surprised I have a tongue left at this stage the amount of times I'd bite down hard to keep it in and say nothing! :pac:

Wibbs

Czarcasm wrote: »

Eesh, I'm reading the above and it's just a thing with me that for the fcuking life of me I can't say anything bad about women, and it's not a white knightey or flouncy feminist thing I have,

To be fair to you CZ I think a lot of men can be like that. I used to be similar waaaaaay back in the day.

Why did I change? Experience(good as well as bad) yes, but a larger part of it was I had a wee think and realised I was actually in a roundabout way being very sexist. Think about it. I was automatically giving women as a group a free pass simply because of their gender. I was not regarding them as individuals the way I did with men and expected others would regard me. I wasn't acknowledging their capacity for change the way I did with men and expected others would do for me. I was not acknowldeging that they could be responsible adults and should be called on crap the way I did with men and expected others would do for me. When I see actual self reported "male feminists" do this, the irony both baffles and amuses me.

Essentially, by not saying anything "bad" about women I was seeing them as somehow less personally responsible than men. By my silence I was protecting them from themselves the poor dears, sure they're women. TBH I couldn't have been any more sexist.

It's also a good way to filter out muppets. The women who take umbrage at genuine honest interaction meant in kindness because they expect that free ride because they have boobs are ones to avoid(actually a small minority). Personally I prefer to see eyeball to eyeball with someone regardless of the contents of their pants.

but I'm probably as far removed from both as you'd get, but honestly Smurgen, Wibbs might as well change his username to "Nail On The Head" at this stage the way he's been kickin' it in this thread!

Ex PI mod here. Came withe the territory. Interesting experience actually as you did rapidly start to feel out repeated patterns across the forum even if people's individual emotional hassles they were going through appeared different on the surface.

April O Neill II

Candie wrote: »

'I got friendzoned' = I fancied her and didn't tell her, now we're friends and she has no idea how resentful I feel, but still - it's HER fault!

I reckon a lot of these women know full well the guy fancies them though, you can tell a lot of the time when someone does. But they can only take some of the blame if they encourage it, if they don't, it's in no way their fault.

I'm sure you've had a time in your life when you know a fella has fancied you? It's how you deal with it that matters!

Vitaliorange

Czarcasm wrote: »

Eesh, I'm reading the above and it's just a thing with me that for the fcuking life of me I can't say anything bad about women, and it's not a white knightey or flouncy feminist thing I have, I'm probably as far removed from both as you'd get, but honestly Smurgen, Wibbs might as well change his username to "Nail On The Head" at this stage the way he's been kickin' it in this thread!

I can often see certain ways people go on myself and I'd have no issue telling a guy "You're an out and out cnut!", some such as that anyway, but a girl - I'm surprised I have a tongue left at this stage the amount of times I'd bite down hard to keep it in and say nothing! :pac:

So you can't say anything bad about women, can you say anything bad about men?

Czarcasm

Vitaliorange wrote: »

So you can't say anything bad about women, can you say anything bad about men?

Well I wouldn't go out of my way if that's what you mean? I mean, if a guy's being an ass, I've no issue with saying it to his face. If a girl is, well, more faces than Mount Rushmore, I can think a lot of things (among them indeed would be attraction tbh, a certain perverse admiration almost

), but I bite my tongue...

Scarlett O' Hara would be the epitome of my ideal woman, and Rhett Butler would be my ideal of, well, he ain't perfect either :pac:

Is it sexist? Absolutely, but is it harmful? Jury's still out on that one, I myself wouldn't say it is, but wider society would probably disagree and point out that sexism is a no no...

Regardless of their gender though, I'll always give credit to a person where it's due, so like I said, I wouldn't go out of my way, as in I wouldn't actively seek to say anything bad about men, but when I see a guy act like a prick, it does indeed kick off an instinctive reaction to pull him up on it.

RDM_83 again

Been attached for a long time now but its an interesting thread. So I will add my 2 cents worth.

I dislike the whole idea behind the PUA thing but thats coming from a dislike of a "mechanistic" view of people and human interactions, whether or not its successful is completely different to whether or not its a good thing or not. Not many people would argue that the behavior of car sales men is ineffective at achieving its goal even though many people dislike it.

A while back I was working with two lads and would head out drinking with them a fair bit, one guy was sort of into the idea of PUA, I say sort of because he was interested in group dynamics etc among men so it wasn;t just applied to one gender. The other guy was quiet naturally charming and good fun to be around.

Anyway the two guys both seemed to pull quiet regularly though the first guy seemed to get a lot more bad reactions and when my GF met him she took an instant dislike to him. The other guy didn't seem to arouse the same response at all and would probably be thought of as what the posters in this thread would like guys to be like.
The thing I found ironic though was that the first guy was actually being quiet open about what he wanted and so on but was judged as being a sleaze etc, the other guy however actually had a GF back home he kept quiet about but came across as the nice fun guy.

I do think that its all about confidence, but I think the point is missed by some people is that its a very particular type of confidence, from a personal view point my confidence and happiness with my life hadn't actually improved at all in general, all that had changed was I was more confident with woman due to having a thing with a girl I was surprised I had a chance with. For that reason I tend to view the general life improvement advice people give as well meaning but probably not actually that understanding.
In fact though I hate the word its probably a good example of the "privilige" concept.

Daveysil15

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Is the idea of PUA to score very young women i.e. under 23, say?

I don't think so. Take a look at the women in this video. They don't appear to be that young and they're generally been approached in a non creepy way during the daytime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCoWkLZQ5yQ

K-9 wrote: »

Tbh, that's where some of the tricks works well. PUA is superficial, clubs are largely the same with an overload of alcohol involved, deep and meaningful conversation isn't really going to sit well, so a few party tricks will work.

In situations like that where both people are pissed and hitting it off, any auld shyte can work. A simple "hey gorgeous, wanna shift" can often suffice. I don't think I'd be able to memorise those silly negging routines and opinion openers while drunk in that sort of environment. I'm just going with the flow at that stage.

Pen.Island

Wonderful how when generalisations about women are made on the site all hell breaks loose, but when it's on the other side it's all agreed upon. i.e the friendzone is a phrase used by men when he thinks he has a right that the woman fancies him..

My interpretation of it would be a lad becomes friendly with a girl, have fun together, do things together but when the lad comes out with his feeling the girl rejects him, all the time knowing that the guy fancied her more than a friend.

Muise...

Pen.Island wrote: »

My interpretation of it would be a lad becomes friendly with a girl, have fun together, do things together but when the lad comes out with his feeling the girl rejects him, all the time knowing that the guy fancied her more than a friend.

Whenever a man so much as says hello to me, I reject him outright, so he doesn't get his poor little hopes up. Because it is so much more polite to assume he wants to throw me to the floor and ravish me than it is to carry on a terribly misleading chat.

hatrickpatrick

Pen.Island wrote: »

Wonderful how when generalisations about women are made on the site all hell breaks loose, but when it's on the other side it's all agreed upon. i.e the friendzone is a phrase used by men when he thinks he has a right that the woman fancies him..

My interpretation of it would be a lad becomes friendly with a girl, have fun together, do things together but when the lad comes out with his feeling the girl rejects him, all the time knowing that the guy fancied her more than a friend.

In my own experience, for a lot of men and women (again these are just generalisations) familiarity is a turn on for guys and a turn off for women.
In other words, a guy is more likely to find a woman attractive if he's known her for a long time, even if he didn't see her that way at all when they first met - whereas a lot of women seem to find strangers far more attractive in general than guys they've been friends with for a while. It's just one of those things, a bit like how a lot of teen girls prefer guys a few years younger than them, leading to a lot of unrequited crushes from guys within their own circle of friends. Happens all the time.

This is why the friend zone thing is so one sided - in general it's guys who fall for platonic friends after knowing them for years rather than the other way around.

That's just based on my friends and people I know though, so not exactly a scientific observation by a long shot

And of course, in Ireland the water is severely muddied by the amount of drink which inevitably gets mixed into the courtships of teens and young people in particular

EDIT: that's quite a username you've got there, sir

Czarcasm

Pen.Island wrote: »

Wonderful how when generalisations about women are made on the site all hell breaks loose, but when it's on the other side it's all agreed upon. i.e the friendzone is a phrase used by men when he thinks he has a right that the woman fancies him..

Come again?

My interpretation of it would be a lad becomes friendly with a girl, have fun together, do things together but when the lad comes out with his feeling the girl rejects him, all the time knowing that the guy fancied her more than a friend.

So the guy has ulterior motives from the beginning, but blames the girl because he thinks she should have been able to read his mind?

I'm not a fan of the whole "friendzone", "friends with benefits", etc, terminology myself, but if a guy wastes time fannying about with his feelings and searching for his balls instead of being straight up with a girl, and then when he eventually comes out with it and doesn't get the result he expected, yet still decides to hang off the girl because a sniff is better than nothing, that's friendzone, and that's his own fault if he doesn't want to accept she isn't attracted to him and move on.

Daveysil15

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In my own experience, for a lot of men and women (again these are just generalisations) familiarity is a turn on for guys and a turn off for women.
In other words, a guy is more likely to find a woman attractive if he's known her for a long time, even if he didn't see her that way at all when they first met - whereas a lot of women seem to find strangers far more attractive in general than guys they've been friends with for a while.

I would have taught it was the opposite tbh. What's the old saying, "The neighbors wife always looks better."

Pen.Island

Muise... wrote: »

Whenever a man so much as says hello to me, I reject him outright, so he doesn't get his poor little hopes up. Because it is so much more polite to assume he wants to throw me to the floor and ravish me than it is to carry on a terribly misleading chat.

You're missing the point. :rolleyes:

I'm saying that if someone knows someone is interested then they shouldn't be acting like they are interested in more.

Pen.Island

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But maybe she wants to be friends with him? What should she do? Maybe she doesn't want to be too presumptuous that he fancies her?

It's obvious when a lad is into a girl. Some girls just love the benefits of having a guy that's into them as a friend, because they get things done for them.

How people don't see that this happens I don't know.

Pen.Island

Czarcasm wrote: »

Come again?

So the guy has ulterior motives from the beginning, but blames the girl because he thinks she should have been able to read his mind?

I'm not a fan of the whole "friendzone", "friends with benefits", etc, terminology myself, but if a guy wastes time fannying about with his feelings and searching for his balls instead of being straight up with a girl, and then when he eventually comes out with it and doesn't get the result he expected, yet still decides to hang off the girl because a sniff is better than nothing, that's friendzone, and that's his own fault if he doesn't want to accept she isn't attracted to him and move on.

No, he fancies the girl obviously, but it's also obvious to the girl that he's into more than friends and when the guy lets his feelings be known the girl rejects him.

[Deleted User]

Pen.Island wrote: »

It's obvious when a lad is into a girl. Some girls just love the benefits of having a guy that's into them as a friend, because they get things done for them.

How people don't see that this happens I don't know.

Or maybe she thinks he's an actual friend? Not some guy hanging around waiting for her to realise she's gagging for him?

Maybe she even thinks he hangs out with her because he likes hanging out with her?

Radical as that is.

Pen.Island

Candie wrote: »

Or maybe she thinks he's an actual friend? Not some guy hanging around waiting for her to realise she's gagging for him?

Maybe she even thinks he hangs out with her because he likes hanging out with her?

Radical as that is.

If I know a girl is hanging out with me because she's interested in more than friends, then I wouldn't hang out with her or I'd tell her the deal.

[Deleted User]

Pen.Island wrote: »

If I know a girl is hanging out with me because she's interested in more than friends, then I wouldn't hang out with her or I'd tell her the deal.

Where do you get the idea that all these girls can read a guys mind?

Why do they have be psychic instead of him telling her the score?

Czarcasm

Pen.Island wrote: »

No, he fancies the girl obviously, but it's also obvious to the girl that he's into more than friends and when the guy lets his feelings be known the girl rejects him.

Yeah I get what you're saying and all Pen, but what's the guy waiting for if he fancies the girl?

You're effectively blaming the girl for the guy not being able to be straight with her. What's a girl supposed to do in that situation-

Her: "You fancy me, don't you?"

Him: "Jesus, you're not half full of yourself, are you?"

Friendception :pac:

[Deleted User]

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

And, surprisingly enough, that works both ways.

This isn't going to be popular, because it requires people like Pen.Island to take responsibilty for their actions.

It's much easier to blame the girl than yourself.

Muise...

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yes, if you know. If she doesn't tell you, how does she know? And, surprisingly enough, that works both ways. I've recently discovered women can't read minds. Shocking, I know :eek:

Edit: Beaten to it with the mind reading comment. That's what I get for making tea mid-reply.

Candie is lying - she can read minds! :eek: