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

smurgen

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

You're right,gonna delete that smelly wench off me facebook and tell her to go fu5k herself right now.Thanks Wibbs,you da man

Pen.Island

Candie wrote: »

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.

So all women are all saints and men are always to blame and never take responsibility for their actions?

Only on boards.

Pen.Island

Czarcasm wrote: »

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:

Because you can't tell if you like someone the second you meet them.

[Deleted User]

Pen.Island wrote: »

So all women are all saints and men are always to blame and never take responsibility for their actions?

Only on boards.

Give over.

Only in your head.

Czarcasm

smurgen wrote: »

You're right,gonna delete that smelly wench off me facebook and tell her to go fu5k herself right now.Thanks Wibbs,you da man !

Y'know smurgen you could just cut contact with the girl without feeling the need to be an arse about it.

Czarcasm

Pen.Island wrote: »

So all women are all saints and men are always to blame and never take responsibility for their actions?

Only on boards.

Nah Pen, just you.

Pen.Island wrote: »

Because you can't tell if you like someone the second you meet them.

See above.

Most people can tell when they're attracted to somebody, and then most people can tell that person they're attracted to them. There's only a very small minority of people who play mind games with each other like what you're suggesting.

hatrickpatrick

Daveysil15 wrote: »

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

Again it's only my experience. Even when hanging out say after a night out, most of the time (with my mates) the lads will be saying things like "God X was looking incredible last night" (X being someone we all know) whereas the girls would be more like "Who was that lad in the queue behind us? Holy sh!t"

Maybe people I know are unusual and unrepresentative, I don't know, I'm just saying in my own experience, with lads the longer a girl has known him as a platonic friend, the more chance she has with him - with girls, the longer a lad has known her as a platonic friend, the less chance he has.

How often do you hear "Been friends with this person for years, suddenly developing a serious crush on them" from guys versus how often from girls? Even if you look at advice forums online, they're littered with guys in that situation, but girls in that situation are a definite minority. Of course one has to account for the fact that internet forums in general have long been dominated by lads so maybe a smaller proportion of girls are going to be bothered posting in them, but anecdotally this definitely seems to be the case.
TV is another thing - how often do you see a "Ross and Rachel" type situation in popular shows with the genders reversed?

The last thing I said in my previous post trumps all of these though - most people I know who are in serious relationships wouldn't be in them at all if they hadn't both been obliteratedly pissed when they met. Hell, that even goes for my last girlfriend

Alcohol is known to skew how people choose mates and how people experience attraction and so on, so in order to properly measure whether there really is a difference in terms of how men and women develop crushes, you'd first have to somehow filter out every relationship which had its roots in a drunken night out. In modern Dublin, when dealing with young people... That could very easily be an absolutely impossible mission.

All that being said, this stuff is entirely irrelevant to PUA in my view. PUA calls having a crush on someone "One-itis", and makes it pretty clear that if you're there to try and learn how to be attractive to a specific person that you fancy, as opposed to casting a wide net and assuming "It's bound to work on someone" you're wasting your time.

In fact, one of the major issues I have with some (not all, but certainly some) PUA communities is that some of them are seriously condescending and mocking towards lads who've fallen for a particular person. In some of these communities, wanting to find someone as opposed to wanting to simply get laid every night with complete strangers is something to be ashamed of and makes you a "pussy" - as I've said many times, I have absolutely nothing against the type of person (male or female) who does in fact want to have random sex with different people every night, there's nothing wrong with that in my view, looking down on people who want something more than just that is ridiculous and childish. Take "The Red Pill" on Reddit for example - aside from having an extreme persecution complex with regard to double standards against men in society, they seem to regard wanting anything remotely resembling a relationship as "beta" or as they call it "blue pill" (guys who haven't yet been "awakened" to the reality of how gender relations really work, in their view) - and this is something I literally have absolutely no time for whatsoever.

Wanting to get laid all the time isn't something people should judge you for, but if you yourself judge people who don't want that just as harshly, you're just as much of an asshole as those who judged you for wanting lots of one night stands.

beks101

48 pages on this muck, really?

I hopped into one random page and humoured myself with one of those hernia-inducing Tyler Durden videos. Is the guy on crack? The way he talks about women and the terminology he uses, their "bambi eyes" etc - it's like he's talking about some kind of exotic species.

I don't know if misogynistic is even the word, as he strikes me as someone who was forced to think of women that way because of a complete lack of contact or social interaction with them in his formative years. And as a result he's built this hilarious manual on How To Chat Up a Woman that wouldn't come across all that different if he replaced the word "chicks" with "giraffes".

What an odd little man. If anyone approached me the way he encourages I'd think they were either on crack or on the autism spectrum.

Jimoslimos

Ugghh 'friendzone' bullsh1t. A term invented and used primarily by immature adolescent teenage boys with little to no actual experience of interacting with anyone without their hormones interfering.

Why is it believed that no-one other than other women and gay men should be able to have a platonic non-sexual relationship with a woman?

smurgen

Czarcasm wrote: »

Y'know smurgen you could just cut contact with the girl without feeling the need to be an arse about it.

I'm only joking,i'd never do such a thing,i've too much respect for her and we've too much history for me to treat her like that.She's moving away shortly anyway so we'll drift apart naturally.

Vitaliorange

beks101 wrote: »

48 pages on this muck, really?

I hopped into one random page and humoured myself with one of those hernia-inducing Tyler Durden videos. Is the guy on crack? The way he talks about women and the terminology he uses, their "bambi eyes" etc - it's like he's talking about some kind of exotic species.

I don't know if misogynistic is even the word, as he strikes me as someone who was forced to think of women that way because of a complete lack of contact or social interaction with them in his formative years. And as a result he's built this hilarious manual on How To Chat Up a Woman that wouldn't come across all that different if he replaced the word "chicks" with "giraffes".

What an odd little man. If anyone approached me the way he encourages I'd think they were either on crack or on the autism spectrum.

Yea, imagine being friendly and cool(how he encourages you to approach and generally be), so weird.He discusses lots of weird ways to approach as its good for your confidence. For example, a good exercise is to approach women with the constraint that you can only say three words, say wallpaper, teddy bear and granulated coffee or you can't say any words whatsoever, communicate with makey up sign language as if you are playing pictionary. These aren't optimal ways to approach, doing these type of exercises builds your confidence. Say women thinking you are boring is your fear, then walk over and bore women until they make their excuses and leaveI, talk about tax legislation in a monotone voice.If you can do these ridiculous exercises walking over and saying "Hello, I'm John" is easy.

Czarcasm

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Exactly. I remember someone making an excellent point on this before, can't remember if it was on here or where it was, but the gist was what kind of man sees becoming friends with a woman as a negative thing?

The kind of man that no woman wants to be friends with!

Fox_In_Socks

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Yea, imagine being friendly and cool(how he encourages you to approach and generally be), so weird.He discusses lots of weird ways to approach as its good for your confidence. For example, a good exercise is to approach women with the constraint that you can only say three words, say wallpaper, teddy bear and granulated coffee or you can't say any words whatsoever, communicate with makey up sign language as if you are playing pictionary. These aren't optimal ways to approach, doing these type of exercises builds your confidence. If you can do these ridiculous exercises walking over and saying "Hello, I'm John" is easy.

Reminds me of a story where some woman was on a radio show about how she got a card from some fellow on a night out saying she was beautiful and she was all impressed with it. Of course, your man is probably shunting out 40 of those cards every night.

That and shunting out paper roses or some ****e

Legs.Eleven

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.

I had what I thought was a good friends here for a couple of years. As far as I was concerned, we were great mates. I had boyfriends all along who he was friendly to and he expressed his interest in other girls to me. Genuinely had no idea 'till he phased out meeting up with me and wouldn't tell me why. I was very hurt because he'd make excuses not to meet up when I really considered him one of my closest mates here and he'd always said the same.

I finally got in touch with him and said to him point blank that the idea of friendship is to see the friend now and then. He wrote back and told me how much of a friend I was to him and how he valued our friendship (we used to meet up weekly for 2 years but in that year, we'd met up once). Finally got it out of a friend that he'd liked me all the time but he was too cowardly to say it, so instead he treated me abysmally and blanked me when I started going out with my current boyfriend.

I don't pity this guy as he gave no indication whatsoever that he fancied me. He waited pathetically 'till I picked up on absolutely no hints whatsoever. No doubt he complained about our supposed "friendship" and being "friendzoned" or whatever cowardly excuse some fellas give to his mates but he was absolutely to blame for it all.

Vitaliorange

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

For ease of reading, disturbing PUA language has been highlighted in bold, while sensible sentences have been put in italics. You're welcome.

If you are disturbed by the English language I recommend you seek professional help.

Vitaliorange

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Reminds me of a story where some woman was on a radio show about how she got a card from some fellow on a night out saying she was beautiful and she was all impressed with it. Of course, your man is probably shunting out 40 of those cards every night.

That and shunting out paper roses or some ****e

It's a bit cowardly really though handing cards out and legging it .

Czarcasm

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Yea, imagine being friendly and cool(how he encourages you to approach and generally be), so weird.

Ahh here Vitali, world of a difference between friendly and cool, and ehh... creepy, deranged, intimidating, or generally just being an annoying pain in the hole.

He discusses lots of weird ways to approach as its good for your confidence. For example, a good exercise is to approach women with the constraint that you can only say three words, say wallpaper, teddy bear and granulated coffee or you can't say any words whatsoever, communicate with makey up sign language as if you are playing pictionary. These aren't optimal ways to approach, doing these type of exercises builds your confidence.

I thought the idea was to attract women, not send them running 500 yards in the opposite direction!

Say women thinking you are boring is your fear, then walk over and bore women until they make their excuses and leaveI, talk about tax legislation in a monotone voice.If you can do these ridiculous exercises walking over and saying "Hello, I'm John" is easy.

Walking over and saying "Hello, I'm Quasimodo" would still get a guy further than any of that crap.

Vitaliorange

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think you're missing my point, presumably intentionally. Your post was full of PUA buzzwords, most notably 'approch' that make it sound more like you're discussing a game of chess or military strategy than basic human interactions. As you may have gathered from this thread, society in general does not view this as a normal way to interact with other people. Hope this clears things up.

Of course it's not normal, who said it was. Doesn't mean it's not a good idea to try to improve with women.

What verb do you say instead of "to approach"?

beks101

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Yea, imagine being friendly and cool(how he encourages you to approach and generally be), so weird.He discusses lots of weird ways to approach as its good for your confidence. For example, a good exercise is to approach women with the constraint that you can only say three words, say wallpaper, teddy bear and granulated coffee or you can't say any words whatsoever, communicate with makey up sign language as if you are playing pictionary. These aren't optimal ways to approach, doing these type of exercises builds your confidence. Say women thinking you are boring is your fear, then walk over and bore women until they make their excuses and leaveI, talk about tax legislation in a monotone voice.If you can do these ridiculous exercises walking over and saying "Hello, I'm John" is easy.

Reminds me of a time about ten years ago when I was working in a record store and a group of students from some speech school came in to practice approaching and engaging strangers in conversation.

An effective lesson no doubt, but one that required patience and an understanding that you're dealing with someone who has a social handicap.

I can't decide if I'd find it incredibly weird and sympathy-inducing to be approached as per the scenario you described above, or if I would feel it was disrespectful to be 1. stereotyped by my sex and 2. have my time wasted by being used as an understudy so that some guy can get over his confidence issues and learn how to effectively get his hole.

Czarcasm

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Of course it's not normal, who said it was. Doesn't mean it's not a good idea to try to improve with women.

Ohh it does Vitali, really, it does.

What verb do you say instead of "to approach"?

To attract.

Vitaliorange

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ohh it does Vitali, really, it does.

To attract.

So say someone is poor or mediocre at chatting up women, and they want to be very good. Are you saying you think they should not try to improve? Sounds a bit defeatist to me.

For a start not every woman you approach will be attracted. To approach is about as succinct as possible to describe the process of walking over to a woman to initiate a converation.

Vitaliorange

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Using sign language?

Not sure what you mean.

Czarcasm

Vitaliorange wrote: »

So say someone is poor or mediocre at chatting up women, and they want to be very good. Are you saying you think they should not try to improve? Sounds a bit defeatist to me.

I'd say to them forget the cheesy chat up shìte, women aren't a foreign species, they're human beings, just the same as men are. Some of them are just as socially inept as some men are.

Actually, how would YOU react if a woman approached you with a Tyler Durden special?

Vitaliorange wrote: »

For a start not every woman you approach will be attracted. To approach is about as succinct as possible to describe the process of walking over to a woman to initiate a converation.

Here's an idea - if the objective is to attract women, then how about making yourself attractive to women, so that they approach you instead of you doing all that cringeworthy dancing bear hidden naggin nonsense?

Balaclava1991

Czarcasm wrote: »

Here's an idea - if the objective is to attract women, then how about making yourself attractive to women, so that they approach you instead of you doing all that cringeworthy dancing bear hidden naggin nonsense?

A roast duck never flew into an open mouth.

[Deleted User]

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Of course it's not normal, who said it was. Doesn't mean it's not a good idea to try to improve with women.

Being good with women implies much more than just gaining access to a (relatively) unresisting vagina.

Which is the raison d'etre of PUA.

Balaclava1991

Candie wrote: »

Being good with women implies much more than just gaining access to a (relatively) unresisting vagina.

Which is the raison d'etre of PUA.

Do you have a moral objection to womanizing? What harm is a man doing if he has learned how to charm, romance and sleep with lots of women? The women are not forced into sleeping with a charmer. They are willing partners.

Femme_Fatale

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Do you have a moral objection to womanizing?

Yup. A guy having casual sex with various women is fine once he's straight with them (and vice versa) that it's only sex and they're on the same page. A guy "charming" (i.e. manipulating) a woman into bed by using fake lines and tactics is not fine, and that is what womanising is. I loathe womanisers.

The women are not forced into sleeping with a charmer.

They are manipulated and fooled though.

Pen.Island

Candie wrote: »

Being good with women implies much more than just gaining access to a (relatively) unresisting vagina.

Which is the raison d'etre of PUA.

You should check out this then.

http://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/

You'll see a lot of lads playing the game with their aim of scoring, and you'll see a lot of lads asking how to make a move on a date or whatever. A lot of lads on nights out have a "game", just not one they got off someone else. They use their own methods of impressing the opposite sex. i.e giving them compliments/buying drinks/laughing at jokes. etc etc.

People should get their facts straight.

Some people use tips said by PUA to improve themselves and with women. But of course you're just seeing the "PUA = wants sex" thing and funnily enough a ot of men are out for the ride.

So is it just PUAs who use PUArtistry to get the ride that are bad or are all lads who want the ride bad too?

Czarcasm

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

A roast duck never flew into an open mouth.

Are you trying to sejuice me Balaclava?

Kinky bastard!

Daveysil15

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yup. A guy having casual sex with various women is fine once he's straight with them (and vice versa) that it's only sex and they're on the same page. A guy "charming" (i.e. manipulating) a woman into bed by using fake lines and tactics is not fine, and that is what womanising is. I loathe womanisers.

They are manipulated and fooled though.

Not that I condone the PUA stuff, but how exactly are the women been 'fooled' into having sex? It still takes two to tango.