This series of videos from the show Keys to the VIP demonstrates what really quality game looks like. The guy to watch is Cajun, a protege of Mystery Method, because his game does not rely solely on canned routines or elaborate storytelling to raise his status. He throws out a few pre-rehearsed lines here and there (something I do as well, like the “adorable little sister” line), but for the most part his game succeeds on his confident body language and ability to stay cool under pressure. Also notice that he hits on 8s and above, which gives his game credibility.
-
Pages
Twitter Updates
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Recent Comments
Bucky on Mocking The Globohomo Cor… Mr.Correcto on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… Bob on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… GB on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… KRYST on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… iberian on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… Peter on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… 
Frederick V on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… michaelfury on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… Brian on Cesar Sayoc, “White Male… Top Posts
- Ugly, Misshapen, Tatted, Fat Catladies Hate Trump
- Mocking The Globohomo Corporatocracy
- The Confound Of Silence
- Cesar Sayoc, "White Male" (& Deep State Updates)
- Slutty Women Are Unhappier Than Caddish Men
- "Conspiracy Theory" Conspiracy
- The Great Men On Holding Marital Frame
- Beta O'Rourke
- Manifest Depravity
- The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
Categories
Yeah. Cajun has really perfected the ‘short rock star’ persona agnostic talks about a lot (despite not being rock star of course, but hey, jack sparrow isn’t either – it’s a flexible medium) It’s a great example of how cool the game can make you, but from what I gather he got there by using routines etc in the beginning. Routines etc should be like training wheels, you can to an extent discard them at some point. Unfortunately, some PUA’s, after mastering body language etc, suddenly realize they don’t need to use textbook stuff anymore and everyone is naturally attracted to them, and therefore advise beginners that ‘it’s all about body language, voice tone’, forgetting that they actually got to where they are by, got to that point of supreme confidence, by using routines and the like. Some practitioners of ‘natural game’ strike me as adults advising little kids to instantly jump onto an adult bike and cycle away, copy what they do or whatever. You gotta use scripted stuff to start out, THEN you evolve past it, like Cajun. Cajun, from what I’ve read, is still wedded to the scripted Mystery Method approach for newbies, despite himself evolving beyond it.
FYI – I’ve discovered what Tom Cruise that makes him so his demeanour and body language so infectious. It’s so simple – he keeps his mouth open most of the time! The strange alpha intensity of his manner, the quirky side head movements when listening to people, are all a function of him keeping his mouth open all the time. Watch Collateral, it’s the best example, and you’ll see what I mean. One scene in particular shows his perfect body language – just when he is approaching the Taxi, right at the beginning, he slowly, as if descends upon the window with arms outstreched, exaggerated but subtle. Pure Alpha.
LikeLike
cruise, as a short guy,is kinda like cajun. his eye contact, though legendary, is very easy to mimic. william buckley jr had some good eye contact as well. and also some good hand movements, observe the simple comical alpha hand movement combined with crazy intense eye contact when he informs chomsky ‘i’ll follow you down THAT little digression if you want’
Pure Alpha
LikeLike
2:40 – 2:55 in the above link.
LikeLike
That Cajun guy is a pro. He started out probably with little success, but over time he’s pretty much become the “natural” that women want with a high success rate. The pros are all made, just like stars and celebrities are constructs. Just like artists and musicians who practice every day. Just like the “alpha.”
In related news, dating culture is dead in New Zealand.
LikeLike
Great article!
Cajun’s primarily affiliation is with Love Systems (www.LoveSystems.com)?
You can also read his take on the show at:
http://www.theattractionforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=58691
Also, Love Systems is not reliant on “scripts”. A routine is simply something that’s been done and is proven to work. Like the story you can tell at a party that is always good for a few laughs. No one will succeed just delivering routine after routine…at Love Systems we recognize that people are going to use routines, so we make sure that they are at least good routines 🙂
Again, great post!
LikeLike
You don’t need routines. Routines are old school pick up. All you need is the claw. The claw always wins.
http://blog.realsocialdynamics.com/
LikeLike
These guy’s self assessment was so far off from how they presented. It is what I expected, but it was hilarious to see it in real life. Actually, the whole thing was truly, truly funny as hell.
Roissy, I think this puts it over the top. You are a feminist plant, sent here to expose the inadequate effort to cope with the difficult truth that “other people DO exist, and they DO NOT have to do anything for me,” that is “game.”
LikeLike
The commentators are the biggest fakers/douches
LikeLike
I watched the first one and half the second and that was enough. It’s like watching a game show. All of the guys were about as slimy as the Matador slug on Master Pickup Artist. Guess I just will never be picked up by a pickup artist. Poor pathetic players, they don’t know what they’re missing. They playing life as a stupid reality game show travesty. Hahahahahahahah. I’m with dizzy8. That was so bad, it’s good! Like a horrible B movie that you have to watch over and over.. Thank, roissy! You scored another hit.
LikeLike
Cajun is good. Smooth but not fake smooth. Respect.
LikeLike
^ Who is it that’s lauding Tom Cruise here? You’ve got to be kidding. Jesus, he is the biggest loser in the truest sense of the word, and I hardly care how many women he’s screwed or how much money he’s made. He’s a self-important little troll. Talk about body language! He has bar none, the most horrendous body language. Arrogant, controlling, possessive, egotistical, deceitful…but I repeat myself. Guess him and the players have a lot in common, that is for sure.
BTW you’re not hearing this from a woman who is bad in bed let me tell you.
LikeLike
You don’t need routines. Routines are old school pick up. All you need is the claw. The claw always wins.
WTF is the claw? I’ve heard it talked about in forum after forum, but what the hell is it? Anyone gonna spill the beans?
Anyway Roissy, great links. I’ve been trying to get links to more episodes of the show.
Just make sure this blog keeps posting the truth, and not hyped up feel good seduction bs like the blogs of most pickup artists.
LikeLike
I have to agree with Candy Cane on this one in terms of Tom Cruise (the man–not the actor…I love the “actor” part of him)
He is magnetic but in the way that you wonder if his manic smiling and bizarre gestures will one day happen SO FAST that his head will explode!!
He is also well known in the entertainment industry to be gay..soooo I’ll let you take it from there in terms of him being a Super Alpha.
Just saying.
LikeLike
http://rsdwiki.com/index.php?title=The_Claw
LikeLike
I watched two of the videos, wanting to see what you all call “Game” in action at last.
I was struck by one thing: how much dating “culture” must have changed since I was a part of it, in the 1980s. Nobody whose approach was that needy (the cousin), or whose pace that frantic (Cajun), would have achieved much with me or the women I knew – made us laugh, perhaps, and pat them kindly on the back, but no more.
First problem: a man visibly going through so many women, even successfully, would have been unable to convince us that he saw any one woman as “special”. Back then, to be really successful with women, a man had to look as if he could attract any woman he wanted, but wanted only you. Was it that more of us were looking for “relationships” then, or thought that we had to pretend to be doing so? Accepting random pickup solicitations in public like that would have been damaging to a woman’s reputation. I did see many women get picked up by men they met in my college bar, (things weren’t that different then; it wasn’t the Victorian age), but the man usually had to “work” the woman for most of an evening, preferably on a special occasion like just after exams or before Christmas, to get her to go to his room with him. Plus, the very prettiest women of all nearly always had steady boyfriends already; if they didn’t, it was often because they were looking for someone really special.
Second problem: touching. Social life in the early 1980s was still slightly more formal than today; you did NOT touch people you didn’t know in such an aggressive way, at least not until you had already engaged them in conversation for several minutes – and then it might be only a brush of hand on arm, or a lingering handshake. In fact, there was a little less social touching in general, even between friends. A touch like those men gave the women they pursued – a firm grip on the shoulder just as the men began to speak – would have elicited a “who do you think you are?” reaction from most women I knew, and from me.
Third problem: this stuff could only ever work in bars and clubs, it seems to me, even today, and only in those where you weren’t likely to run into people you knew. What about campus bars in which many people know you? Men are less willing to take risks that would make them look like idiots in front of their casual acquaintances; women are less willing to accept offers in front of people who know them. Or is that just how it used to be?
I admit I’m mostly thinking of my university years here; after that, I never spent much time in bars or clubs so couldn’t watch the game being played.
And I can’t help but wonder, too, how useful this approach is even now to the man who wants a relationship; the man who has a crush on an attractive co-worker or fellow-student, for example? Surely he would have to modify his technique?
LikeLike
Clio — pickup programs have a separate plan for “day game” (there’s a nice Spoonerism waiting to happen).
Campus bars or dining halls could work, but only if you don’t see the same people time after time. Otherwise, a girl will wonder why it’s taken you so long to approach her. It’s the long-term version of “hovering” around a girl, too nervous to just start talking to her.
I identify with your concern about having a crush on someone you’ve already met and been around several times — I wish circumstances had gone differently, but I may have to not approach her at all now. Again, it’s like hovering, and the window of opportunity is almost closed.
I just spent a few hours strolling around the nicer part of my neighborhood to get exercise and take pictures. However, there were intermittent cloudy periods where I couldn’t take the picture I wanted: the image looked great, the perspective was perfect, and so on, but forces beyond my control wouldn’t let me take a good picture. So it was either force the shot and end up with an awful picture, or keep moving on with my eye open to other beautiful scenes for when the sun came out again.
We get too terrified of missing “the one that got away,” but if we are more realistic, we recall that there are plenty of other wonderful and unique things to pursue and capture.
LikeLike
http://cajunsspice.blogspot.com/
LikeLike
Interesting, Agnostic. I thought there must be some separate way of approaching women during the day.
But that doesn’t alter my impression that things must have changed a great deal since I was in my early 20s. A wide and above all obvious scattershot approach like that would not have impressed women as “smooth” or “confident” – such a man would have appeared to be egotistical but also desperate. “Laid-back” was the approach men tried for in those days. You can’t look laid-back when you are “working a room” in that way.
My memory of having strange men approach me at campus pubs or dances is that they would smile or send over a drink (that was still acceptable back then), and if I responded positively, they would walk over nonchalantly, sit down, and talk to me, and me only, for at least half an hour – or however long it took me to make it clear but that I wasn’t interested in a casual pickup. If they wanted more than that, the conversation might last a whole evening – and only then would they ask for my number.
Oh, and they would usually look around to see if there was a mutual friend who could introduce us, too.
I did see a few men practise the scattershot approach, usually at parties where there were many strangers around, but they were rarer then, and the women who would say yes to them also rarer.
It was all much more low-key and less frantic than today, if those videos are accurate. The kind of behaviour these men show I would have associated back then with older divorced men, not single young men in their 20s.
LikeLike
‘they would smile or send over a drink’.
purchasing your attention. that never works anymore. did it really ever? the general strategy today appears to be to get her to buy you a drink, so she is more psychologically invested in the interaction. even juggler, a pretty nice guy pua, doesn’t buy girls drinks. here’s what he does (absolutely hilarious) On a subconscious level women feel better buying a guy a drink than vice versa.
‘“Laid-back” was the approach men tried for in those days. You can’t look laid-back when you are “working a room” in that way.’
This is one of the first things pua’s warn against. The ‘too cool for school look’, scoping the bar like a sniper, looking really serious, it all conveys neediness and creeps women out. Women are a thousand times more attracted to the life of the party. Mystery Method gives you a strategy to become the most social guy in the room. The phrase you use, ‘working a room’, has some negative connotations, instead use ‘being the friendliest, most open guy in the room’. Also – other people don’t know you didn’t know everybody beforehand. They see you talking to everybody and just assume you know them.
One story I heard on pickup podcast on itunes – one of the guys opened a 10 set at a table (introducing yourself to 10 people and starting a conversation with them), got talking to 4 of them at one end of the table, and moved around gradually. Near the end of the evening he had opened most sets in the room, and got talking to a guy from the 10 set again. ‘I forgot to ask’ the guy inquired, ‘how do you know [whoever he first started talking to]?’ ‘oh, i just met them tonight’ he responded. the guy looked at him flabbergasted.
LikeLike
kassy
tom cruise is the most alpha guy in hollywood, no debate. and his body language is astonishing. whatever about the scientology crap. the only thing almost impossible to mimic is his smile. i think a part of it stems from contrast, he usually has this intense open mouthed look beforehand, then gradually breaks into his giant smile. i think he must have more face muscles than average or something.
LikeLike
I like this Cajun guy. He affirms what I’ve always suspected — that women can also use game/charisma/body language/etc. to become “irresistible” (in his words). His advice isn’t just written for men.
cuchulainn, I think Brad Pitt in Fight Club did that vibe you’re talking about better than Tom Cruise. It’s more laid-back, relaxed, with a quiet intensity. When I saw him in that (which is a killer movie), I got a ton more respect for him, even though it was just a role. The body language was perfect.
LikeLike
omg robots omg
is this what cars and social isolation have done to us?
LikeLike
C., I see what you mean – but I also don’t think I made myself clear so I’ll try again.
“Laid-back” in the late 1970s/early 80s didn’t mean looking grimly serious or “cool” in that detached-from-it-all way. It meant someone who sat back in his chair, laughed easily but not too often, walked with a certain deliberate slowness, and smiled at everyone. And he talked, but not too much. He had to give the impression of listening as well as talking – egotism wasn’t yet seen then as synonymous with confidence, which many people now appear to believe. When listening to a woman, such a man would lean in and bend his head attentively, but never seeming over-eager. Even life of the party types (which is only one form of alpha manhood) kept it at a lower key than today: the effect was of a genial host…
It’s hard to come up with an example – but think of Jack Nicolson in some of his more likeable parts. He was definitely one of the male role models of the day. Or Denzel Washington, who’s from my generation (well, some years older than I am) and who radiates very quiet confidence every time he’s on screen. That’s the kind of effect men tried for then – not that all that many of them achieved it, especially not when still very young.
LikeLike
that women can also use game/charisma/body language/etc. to become “irresistible” (in his words).
hope, i think i’ll set up a “wishful thinking” alert for every time you and clio write about the magical powers of makeup and female game for raising a woman’s sexual attractiveness more than 1 point on the 1 to 10 scale.
trust me on this, i speak as a man who has seen women in all their natural and unnatural states — makeup will not turn a 5 into a 7, let alone a 9. and there is no game in the world for a woman that will win her the attentions of an alpha man if she doesn’t first turn him on physically. game for a woman will, at most, intrigue a man a little bit more than he is already intrigued from seeing her physical form.
ps: i’m gonna buy you a drink that i think you would like: whole milk!
LikeLike
cuchulain–I know what you mean about Tom C and the smile, its amazing…but he is scary still!
Its like what Hope mentioned…the quiet seduction that Brad Pitt has in Fight Club is more Alpha.
I think the most Alpha guy in Hollywood would be the product of a George Clooney-Colin Farrell baby.
LikeLike
[…] aback a little bit by this ‘Cajun’ character I saw videos of. I got them from here: videos. To read this blog post below, you at least have to watch this video here: awesome video. […]
LikeLike
“wishful thinking”
Well, maybe so, but this guy mentions women who exude the same kind of seduction body language that men do and tells men to even study what they do. There’s gotta be something there, yeah?
i think you would like: whole milk!
I’m Asian, so lactose intolerant. I like to drink water. ^^ Also, isn’t it typical for the PUA to get the girl to buy the guy something?
LikeLike
I can’t wait for the female equivalent. Women competing to see who can get a man to spend the most money on them in one night. More serious competition might involve the most marriage proposals in the shortest amount of time, or even getting pregnant the fastest by a man they just met!
LikeLike
You cannot be serious!!!!!!! This is what you’re so preoccupied with? Not good enough, mate. Pull finger.
LikeLike
candy cane:
I can’t wait for the female equivalent. Women competing to see who can get a man to spend the most money on them in one night.
That’ll be a short wait. “Wanna buy us a drink?”
Try again with the nightmare scenario. That one isn’t scary.
LikeLike
A great book on SEX:
http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Matters-Superconsciousness-Osho/dp/0312261608
LikeLike
30 Steve.
I said the MOST money. It’s a competition; remember? TRY to pay attention. 🙂
LikeLike
Also I’m not just talking about a bar scene here. It could be a whole night’s or day’s scenario. Moving from bar to restaurant to jewelry store to auto dealership to travel agency….
LikeLike
a couple important things to note in video #2:
cajun at one point tells the girl to “shut up shut up”. rude? asshole-ish? one second later she’s happily giving him her number.
also, pay attention to the part where he says “these two girls came up to me in a sexual flirty way and asked me if i had any weed.” another dude (the cockblock) steps in and yells “hey dude, you have any weed?” cajun acknowledges and high fives him. the cockblock laughs. now, look closely at the CB’s body language. see how his head tilts forward and backward as he laughs? that is very beta body language. cajun’s alpha posturing was so effective that he beta-tized the CB. the CB was, in effect, crouching down on his haunches in deference to the alpha wolf.
this body language stuff is absolutely fucking amazing.
LikeLike
Good stuff, roissy. Cajun is a pickup master. But even the retard “protege” was very successful overall, I’d say. Seemed like there were lots of attractive women at whatever venue they attended, which also helps.
LikeLike
@Hope
“Well, maybe so, but this guy mentions women who exude the same kind of seduction body language that men do and tells men to even study what they do. There’s gotta be something there, yeah?”
I think women can absolutely increase their ability to sexually entice men. There’s only so much looks can do for you of course, but as you mention, body language and talk will most definitely pique a man’s interest. If you’re a 5/6 and have tight female game, you can “land” most men (land = sleep with).
LikeLike
Clio, I think you’re mostly observing a faster pace of the dance, but almost all the steps appear the same (signaling confidence rather than sheepishness, telling you entertaining stories, etc.), and in roughly the same order (touching the arm before touching the face).
So nearly all aspects of “game” would’ve applied in the early ’80s, just spread out over a somewhat longer time.
LikeLike
36 “If you’re a 5/6 and have tight female game, you can “land” most men (land = sleep with).”
Are you serious? LMFAO. You guys are actually serious about this stuff. Jesus H. man, it’s becoming too much for me. The so-called alphas are basically chimps and goons. Is this a lifestyle you guys seriously aspire to? LMFAO!!!
LikeLike
Roissy: Where were you when I was a young man! Man, I could of done with all this advice.
Alias Cleo: Boy tells girl to shut up and gets her number. Treat them mean to keep them keen.
LikeLike
Agnostic, the effect was very different. Trust me.
One impression I get from all this – I looked at some of the comments by “Cajun”, too – is that a great many men today lack even basic social skills. I don’t know if I knew anyone like that back when I was a young thing. It’s computers that have done you all in, I think, computers and, for middle class men, over-protective parents.
When I was in high school, computers took up the whole of a room or a building and no one had heard of PCs. They did exist – I think Jobs et al brought one out in 1977 – but were not widely available and cost the equivalent of a decent used car, just over $2000.
So even nerds couldn’t spend all their time in their rooms alone with a computer. They had friends and hung out in groups because if they wanted, for example, to play Dungeons and Dragons, they had to do it in person; if they wanted to play the early computerized games like Pacman or Donkey Kong, they had to go to a bar or an arcade. They had to learn to deal with people, in other words. And they wouldn’t have spent their childhoods going from play dates to supervised playgrounds to organized sports, always driven by parents.
Once again, the techniques used by this man would have said “cute loser’ or “desperate wannabe” (the latter expression wasn’t current yet) to me and my girlfriends in the late 1970s/early 80s. Not altogether a failure, in other words, but not someone to be taken seriously as a possible date.
LikeLike
Alias,
These retarded PUA “game” videos didn’t work in the 1980s and they don’t work now because all the people in the videos are paid actors, including the girls getting “gamed”. The videos are taken from websites that are selling a product. Nothing more.
LikeLike
I can’t wait for the female equivalent. Women competing to see who can get a man to spend the most money on them in one night.
Except men don’t like to give out their money, it’s just a price that they grudgingly pay to get try to get what they want (sex). But presumably women, as human beings, like to feel sexually attracted to someone and like having sex with someone they are attracted to.
So PUAs are adding something beneficial to the female: sexual attraction/excitation/sexual pleasure. This is like GIVING her money.
While gold-digging skanks are TAKING something beneficial away from the male: money/resources.
So, your equivalence is fallacious.
LikeLike
I can’t wait for the female equivalent. Women competing to see who can get a man to spend the most money on them in one night.
I don’t think anyone here gets women. Remove society from the equation, and women just want the man with the most testosterone. Testosterone is the chemical of ambition and no-looking-back. larger amounts of it also makes men look more masculine.
Eventually, the social context forces a woman to use her brain more and make decisions that are good for her future. That’s where money and even in many respects charm comes to play more strongly. Women, at least most women, have no inherent attraction to money or status-whoring. It’s just what we come to know as ‘alpha’ in our culture.
LikeLike
Except men don’t like to give out their money, it’s just a price that they grudgingly pay to get try to get what they want (sex).
It’s rather typical for males of many species to give gifts to females. They may be fake, but it’s still a primal encoding in the male-female dynamic for most of the animal kingdom. There are other valid research results about mating psychology/biology than just alpha/beta.
Women will always be gold-diggers about men’s outward resources, just like men will always be superficial about women’s outward appearances. To rail against this behavior is laudable, but ultimately as futile as trying to get cats to stop chasing small objects moving rapidly along the ground.
LikeLike
42
Sorry, Rain And. Until you actually become a healthy feminine woman you will apparently not understand that they do not like to be used for sex and no one in fact likes to be used simply as a means to an end. No one likes to be tricked into anything. You think the sex is worth it? Women don’t like to be taken advantage of. I’ve already had a huge discussion with U.L. on the dating “subpar” women post and am running out of energy. Guys like you are not going to get the objection many women have to “game” because you don’t want to, or because you’re only interested in bedding women who know they’re being used and don’t care.
I watched all the vids from start to finish and my opinion is the same. Because I know body language, even the master “Cajun” would not get to first base with me. The turn offs? Pointing and hugging around the neck. The pointing is aggressive and the neck hug is controlling & possessive . Instant red flags as both indicate masked insecurity. I don’t care how many women he has sex with, to me he is insecure and immature.
LikeLike
Savoy reads your blog?
/head spins
//chugs some more diet green tea
LikeLike
@candy cane
“The so-called alphas are basically chimps and goons.”
Call them what you will (I disagree with your assesment), but they get results with quality looking women.
LikeLike
sara:
The pointing is aggressive and the neck hug is controlling & possessive . Instant red flags as both indicate masked insecurity.
so tell me, sara, is uber alpha colin farrell masking insecurity?
hope:
To rail against this behavior is laudable,
i don’t think it is laudable. after all, why create psychic distress battling against your biology? the commies tried that and failed. and practically speaking, convincing men of the virtues of banging less attractive girls would pollute the gene pool with ugly dna. just as it is risky for women to get pregnant by men with no resources to help them raise their kids. of course, you’ll say that women make their own way in today’s society, but that matters little when their sexual impulse is still the product of a much longer epoch of time when men were the primary resource gatherers.
rina:
Women, at least most women, have no inherent attraction to money or status-whoring.
this is false.
LikeLike
i don’t think it is laudable
What is laudable is whatever society says is laudable. Nothing more.
LikeLike
@45 candy cane
“I watched all the vids from start to finish and my opinion is the same. Because I know body language, even the master “Cajun” would not get to first base with me”
How do you look? He may not bother walking into your ballpark swing at any pitches.
But assuming look decent, he tried his pickup and failed, he’d just move on to the next woman. That’s part of “the game” too.
LikeLike
What is laudable is whatever society says is laudable.
was the overrunning of europe laudable? after all, german society at the time said it was.
LikeLike
roissy, how is it false? is my desire for a wealthy lawyer genetic? i think not
LikeLike
your desire for a man with power is. a wealthy lawyer is a proxy of that power.
LikeLike
but that’s the mistake that your readers oft make. it’s just a proxy. it’s in no way = to a man’s desire for an attractive female. the two cannot be compared in the same way. the definition or power changes cross-culturally, but the definition of female power does not. we operate differently
LikeLike
Sorry, Rain And. Until you actually become a healthy feminine woman you will apparently not understand that they do not like to be used for sex and no one in fact likes to be used simply as a means to an end. No one likes to be tricked into anything
Candy, just because you are a woman does not mean you understand women or speak for them, so spare me. I know far more psychology and sociology data than you, which means my understanding of women is more objective than your anecdotal theories or personal feelings.
Only a very slightly larger percentage of women than men say they engaged in a short-term sexual encounter with the belief that it would lead to a long term commitment. The overwhelming majority are fully aware that such sexual encounters are just sex. And they are not “damaged” by those encounters.
Your idea that modern women are being “tricked” into sex by deceptive Pick-Up Artists is false and it infantilizes women to a shocking degree.
If you believed women were being “tricked” into sex, then you would predict that PUA techniques would involve deceptively signaling investment and long-term commitment. But PUA techniques do the OPPOSITE of that prediction. PUAs signal sexual desire and pick-up philosophy specifically instructs NOT to make investment signals (e.g. don’t buy drinks).
Is there anything about Cajun’s method of aggressive flirting and physical touching that would lead those women he was kissing within MINUTES of meeting them, that he was really looking for a good wife to settle down with??
LikeLike
but that’s the mistake that your readers oft make. it’s just a proxy. it’s in no way = to a man’s desire for an attractive female. the two cannot be compared in the same way. the definition or power changes cross-culturally, but the definition of female power does not. we operate differently
that’s true in the particulars. power is context-dependent in a way that female beauty (which is a proxy for fertility) is not. so for instance, if there existed a society that relegated the practice of law to the level of garbage collection, there would not be so many women clamoring to hook up with lawyers. (although the smarts and fortitude required to become a lawyer would still make such a man somewhat attractive even in a lawyer-hating society).
but aside from the particulars, power itself doesn’t change at all cross-culturally or temporally. it is, as it has always been, the pinnacle of the status heap, whatever that heap is constructed of. and so successful status-whoring will win a man the love of many women. and since i don’t see money disappearing from human societies any time soon as a proxy for power, the massive accumulation of it serves as an especially enduring and accurate gauge of a man’s attractiveness to women.
LikeLike
Ahem. Those women were not 10’s. The commentators were being generous I believe. The one is blue was the closest to a 10. Do you guys really think all the women Cajun hit on were 10’s?
At the end Cajun was drunk and acting like a total clown, which is what he is–in my humble opinion of course. 🙂
The main reason, he scores? The bedroom eyes and faking true confidence. Only an expert would see the difference and most women are clueless as far as seeing the finer indications of true confidence and the dead give-aways when a man is faking it. Cajun is an expert faker. He knows how to get laid, and that is probably as far as it goes. But hey, if that’s good enough for most here…..,
LikeLike
was the overrunning of europe laudable? after all, german society at the time said it was.
Wars that are important are almost always recorded meticulously. Even if not admired, the war was given great significance.
LikeLike
You guys seem shocked that the women posters here would take an opposing viewpoint. Here’s a big heads up.
WE ARE THE OPPOSITE SEX.
LikeLike
that they do not like to be used for sex and no one in fact likes to be used simply as a means to an end.
No one is being “used”. This is ludicrous and despite your posturing, it certainly isn’t feminist. This is just the old-fashioned sexist view that sex is something that women have, and that men take.
I went to the store yesterday and bought a candybar with 2 quarters. Did the shopkeeper “use” me, or did I “use” him?
I went to the park yesterday with a friend and we convinced some guys already on the court to let us join in their game. We did this by being friendly and looking experienced enough to not signal that we’d lower the quality of play.
So did we “use” those guys for basketball or as a means to an end? How is that scenario more or less sociopathic than convincing a girl to have sex with you by being sexually desirable?
Sex is not a zero-sum game. Both parties benefit from the transaction.
LikeLike
Should be “… within MINUTES of meeting them, to believe that he was really looking for a good wife to settle down with??”
LikeLike
Candy Cane, despite being a member of the ‘opposite’ sex is incidentally one of the more sexist posters here – not because of her views on men, but because of her views on women. Two points:
1. Women being tricked into having sex? Our society regards anyone of sound mind above the age of 18 as being legally capable of giving consent to join the armed forces, giving consent to marriage, freely entering into commercial contracts, etc. If a normal adult woman is incapable of not being tricked by a smooth talking guy with game in a club, then feminism has truly failed. This is especially the case since these women intentionally went out to a club most likely for the very purpose of being hit on.
2. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the first thing they teach you in “womyn studies” is that men are women are NOT opposite sexes (anymore than blacks and whites are opposite races). Feminists have taken great pains to point out that women have historically been defined as being ‘opposite to men’ meaning they lack the positive characteristics men have, and that this is bad.
In any event, I find it more helpful to think of men and women as ‘complimentary’ and not opposites, but then again, the fact that you view men and women as opposites likely explains why you have such an adversarial stance towards dudes.
Furthermore:
1. You are viewing Cajun’s performance through the lense of a reality television show on pick up rather than somebody who was just there who didn’t realize it was being filmed. This means that those of your ilk are already predisposed to finding him sleazy no matter what he did or how he presented himself for no other reason than the fact that he was on that show. This is a well known psychological bias (see ‘hindsight = 20/20’).
2. Even if your arguments were logically consistent or sound (which they aren’t) the fact that your name is Candy Cane (a stripper name) creates a strong presumption against taking anything you say seriously.
“People of Eternia! I stand before the Great Eye of the galaxy. Chosen by destiny by the powers of Greyskull!”
P.S. to Alias Clio:
Cajun’s game seemed frantic to you perhaps also because the show imposed a 3 minute time constraint on how long participants could be in set.
LikeLike
I find it more helpful to think of men and women as ‘complimentary’ and not opposites
I agree with this, and I talk about the ying/yang swirling around each other, the parts mixing to form the perfect whole circle. The union of the ying (feminine) and the yang (masculine) exists even in heterosexual relationships.
LikeLike
Oops, I mean homosexual relationships.
LikeLike
Cajun SUCKS. He uses other people’s lines from 5 years ago.
Just one of the many stereotypical “gurus” that pop up like weeds and impresses nerds enough for them to pay him.
Anyone who thinks he’s any good is a nerd who’s been brainwashed into believing the hype of the pick up cult.
LikeLike
“Candy, just because you are a woman does not mean you understand women or speak for them, so spare me. I know far more psychology and sociology data than you, which means my understanding of women is more objective than your anecdotal theories or personal feelings.”
Stars above. Would anyone here take a statement like this about social sciences seriously in any other context? Did Margaret Meat know more about Samoans than the Samoans did?
It’s quite true that being part of a group can help to blind you to some of that group’s general characteristics, and make you too partisan to judge it objectively in certain situations, but still…I would be very cautious about making statements like this.
LikeLike
Did Margaret Meat [sic] know more about Samoans than the Samoans did?
In fact, your chosen example is, ironically, an excellent proof of my point! Margaret Mead simply wrote down whatever the Samoans told her about Samoans and sold it to gullible Western intellectuals as fact: There is no rape in Samoa, adolescence is not a stressful time for Samoans. When in fact, As Derek Freeman showed, the real observed data even available at the time showed these fantastical Samoan claims were false.
http://www.amazon.com/Fateful-Hoaxing-Margaret-Mead-Historical/dp/0813336937
So to answer your question, yes, when it comes down between quantitative data and what a someone from a group asserts to you about their group, the data wins, hands down.
LikeLike
1) love the staches.
2)what do you recommend to improve to body language? (ie read/do)
LikeLike
On the contrary, the Mead story is an excellent proof of MY point: In this particular case, the information was warped, mind you, because of Mead’s own ideology: she wanted to hear that the Samoans lived in a pre-Edenic paradise of sexual guiltlessness.
The Samoans still knew more about themselves than Margaret Mead knew about them – a point which you neatly evaded, I see. They weren’t self-deceived – as you imply women are – they were deceivers, out of a desire to please or impress their interviewer.
Where do you think quantitative data comes from in the social sciences? Yes, some of it comes from observable statistical fact, like age at marriage, birth rates, illness, and death rates. Nearly everything else in the has to come from what people tell the researchers who are investigating them.
And what kind of scientific data do you rely on? How broad are the studies of “game”? How are experiments set up, and what kind of control groups do the researchers use? Do they try to investigate other cultures (I mean really different cultures, not just going to Thai bars to check out how they operate there)? Have they tried to consider the issue in historical terms – something often neglected by social scientists who are not historians?
I’m perfectly willing to accept that there is some truth – perhaps a great deal – in the theories of evolutionary psychology and their impact on the mating game, but the claims made for those theories here are just too sweeping.
LikeLike
55 “Candy, just because you are a woman does not mean you understand women or speak for them, so spare me.”
“it infantilizes women to a shocking degree.”
Oh, right! Some are being tricked, some are not. I am speaking for the ones who are. Eventually they learn not to be tricked, if that is their feeling. I hope anyway. I did!!
Obviously I cannot speak for all women anymore than you can speak for all men, but I can probably speak for more of them than you can.
60 “I went to the store yesterday and bought a candybar with 2 quarters. Did the shopkeeper “use” me, or did I “use” him?”
Uh sure, Rain And, and exactly the same ramifications too. You’re being intellectually correct, but dumb nonetheless in my estimation. Missing the spirit of what I’m saying to argue semantics. Ho hum.
“So did we “use” those guys for basketball or as a means to an end?”
See above.
Yet another idiotic correlation, but I get your point. I have no doubt that you’ll forever miss the point because it cannot be proven with logic and you and those like you refuse to believe anything that is not purely logical….apparently.
See my Love-vs-Lust comment on the “Subpar” post, not that you’re bright enough to get such an esoteric concept.
“Is there anything about Cajun’s method of aggressive flirting and physical touching that would lead those women he was kissing within MINUTES of meeting them, that he was really looking for a good wife to settle down with??”
Some are in fact that naive. Does that mean men shouldn’t take advantage of their naivete? Or their lack of asserting themselves? No. Mostly they are asking for it, so to speak. But as a woman, I can still protest, same as you would about a naive guy being used by a woman for whatever purpose she found necessary.
62 Skeletor
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the first thing they teach you in “womyn studies” is that men are women are NOT opposite sexes.”
I do not take women’s studies, nor to I intend to. If you listen to “In Sync with the Opposite Sex” Allison Armstrong will make a much stronger case for my statement than I could ever do here IF you’re open minded and curious enough, and that is a big IF. IF you don’t hear it, you can continue to call me out if you like, but I stand by my opinion. Not that there aren’t varying degrees of oppositeness. Listen to them and we can discuss it some more, otherwise let’s just drop it.
LikeLike
On the contrary, the Mead story is an excellent proof of MY point: In this particular case, the information was warped, mind you, because of Mead’s own ideology: she wanted to hear that the Samoans lived in a pre-Edenic paradise of sexual guiltlessness.
This doesn’t prove your “point” at all. Mead relied on anecdotes and personal beliefs like Candy Cane, when she would have done better to rely on the quantitative data available at the time.
Nearly everything else in the has to come from what people tell the researchers who are investigating them.
If the women are lying this can be investigated in various ways. But either way, such data is still superior to one woman’s unsupported and sweeping claims about how women “really” feel.
If you want to set the bar three times higher for my standard of proof than another persons, then you’ve gamed the system so they are right by default. I didn’t say relying on scientific data makes you automatically right or omniscient, but it DOES mean one is on the intellectual high ground when they are arguing matters of fact.
And what kind of scientific data do you rely on?
Sociology papers that have explored sex differences in sexual behavior and attitudes. As I stated above, there is no evidence that women are widely being tricked into short-term sexual encounters under the mistaken belief that a long-term relationship is imminent. Women don’t report such a thing on surveys where they can report this, to a much larger extent than men do.
I’m perfectly willing to accept that there is some truth – perhaps a great deal – in the theories of evolutionary psychology and their impact on the mating game, but the claims made for those theories here are just too sweeping.
I didn’t say anything about evolutionary psychology.
LikeLike
Yet another idiotic correlation, but I get your point. I have no doubt that you’ll forever miss the point because it cannot be proven with logic and you and those like you refuse to believe anything that is not purely logical….apparently.
Hah, this is absolutely correct. I won’t believe your arguments because they aren’t logical. That’s pretty much how it works!
And nothing about the example had to do with “correlation”.
Some are in fact that naive. Does that mean men shouldn’t take advantage of their naivete?
Again, you haven’t demonstrated that PUAs are “taking advantage” of them in any meaningful sense. A small minority of men and women have impulsive sexual encounters they later regret because they thought it would lead to something more involved relationship.
Misunderstandings lead to hurt in far more areas of human interaction than in short-term sex, and just because someone gets hurt, that doesn’t mean that someone else is necessarily at fault.
What you are asking for is something really unreasonable and quite reactionary: that men and women stop seeking out short-term sexual relationships, a perfectly fine and enjoyable activity for adult human beings to engage in, lest a much smaller minority consent to a behavior they will later regret.
But adults regret all kinds of choices they make: from making unwise friendships to starting failed businesses to drinking too much. The only reason to single out sex, is if you personally have huge hang-ups and extreme conservative notions about adult sexuality.
And this is obviously the case from what you have written here.
LikeLike
Rain And, I was writing under the assumption that your posts embraced not only “sociology papers”, but all the rather broad assumptions about women that appear regularly on this blog, in their entirety. There are many posters besides you who insist that women can never be trusted to understand their own experience. It was sloppy argumentation on my part, and I apologise, but you were not very clear, before, about the sources of your assumptions about women. I still don’t have chapter and book – but I am willing to take on trust the fact that you have data to support you, at least for now. I would like to know more about it, though.
Meanwhile, I don’t think it’s quite true to say that Mead “relied” on her own personal beliefs in her work in Samoa, which suggests a conscious kind of manipulation on her part . She’s no heroine of mine – but I believe she thought she was conducting a scientifically verifiable study of Samoan culture – scientifically verifiable, at least, by the standards of social science, which must always be rather different from those of chemistry or physics.
I don’t think there were many statistics about Samoan sexual behaviour in Mead’s time, but even if there had been – what kind of statistics could anyone have obtained with regard to such matters, without interviewing people and quantifying their answers in a statistical summary, giving them every opportunity for deception? “Mead pried; and people lied” covers it nicely.
LikeLike
Dear Candy Cane:
“I have no doubt that you’ll forever miss the point because it cannot be proven with logic and you and those like you refuse to believe anything that is not purely logical….apparently.”
I realize that you weren’t directing this statement at me, but I like how you seem to think that the rules of logic are simply “guidelines” and don’t necessarily apply to you. That takes cajones.
“I do not take women’s studies, nor to I intend to. If you listen to “In Sync with the Opposite Sex” Allison Armstrong will make a much stronger case for my statement than I could ever do here IF you’re open minded and curious enough, and that is a big IF.”
It must be pretty awesome to not have to defend your own point of view. Whenever anyone disagrees with me, I just tell them to go read the internet without providing any reasons whatsoever – argument solved.
More than anything, I’m just a little taken aback by your dual combination of:
1. Being so intellectually lazy as to not even provide the slightest justification for your view while at the same time being very vocal and shrill about it.
2. Suggesting that I read/listen to some book tape when you’ve neglected to type even a couple sentences to back up your position.
Apparently further invitation to not take you seriously.
LikeLike
74 Dear Skeletor
“2. Suggesting that I read/listen to some book tape when you’ve neglected to type even a couple sentences to back up your position.”
I’ll do better than that. Simply click on this and see if it piques your interest:
http://www.amazon.com/Sync-Opposite-Sex-Understand-Conflicts/dp/0974143553/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204598587&sr=8-1
And you are right if you want to call me “intellectually lazy” especially as compared to the posters here; men AND women. My God! As if nothing exists besides logic and reasoning. You are a deprived human being! Good grief, I can use logic when I want and it’s great to a point. I mean even Albert fucking Einstein hit a wall on this intellectual understanding, and I’m sure he was a helluva lot smarter than you. Is there nothing poetic about you whatsoever? Do you dance? Do you make love, or just fuck?
LikeLike
Candy Cane, if I may be so bold: why do you have a problem with pick up? Since it obviously allows men to attain the so called poetry of love. Why are you opposed men trying to improve themselves so that they can sleep with many beautiful women?
Would you rather consign men to be forced into monogamy from lack of choice? Governments in generations long past, have tried to do this and it always ends in bloody conflict. So why would you try to suppress mankind through artificial scarcity?
Thanks for your reply in advance.
LikeLike
Dear Rain And
“What you are asking for is something really unreasonable and quite reactionary: that men and women stop seeking out short-term sexual relationships, a perfectly fine and enjoyable activity for adult human beings to engage in, lest a much smaller minority consent to a behavior they will later regret.”
Well, I never really said that they should not seek short term sexual relationships. It would be nice though, if men would just come right out and say that is what they are looking for: CASUAL SEX. (And of course women who really only want casual sex hardly need GAME to get it) How many men do you know who would come right and tell a woman? How would it effect their odds of getting sex? You can argue I suppose that it’s “just not how it’s done.” Why not? What are they afraid of?
It’s not done for the same reason that women who want to be married, have babies, and be a stay at home mom don’t say it! It might ruin their chances of getting what they want! So some end up feeling used, abused and rejected simply because they don’t have the courage to even be honest with themselves. Now think about it. Isn’t that insane? It’s like playing Russian Roulette with their feelings. Let me tell you, women do not take repeated rejection well. We are by nature, bonders. Don’t think we can overcome our biology that easily. Can you?
So the answer for them is to #1 be honest with themselves and say “fuck society” and whatever IT says you SHOULD want or not want. Society says women don’t need men, and at the same time asks why they don’t have a man.
“But adults regret all kinds of choices they make: from making unwise friendships to starting failed businesses to drinking too much. The only reason to single out sex, is if you personally have huge hang-ups and extreme conservative notions about adult sexuality.”
Well, how could you know, but I am probably one of the most sexually uninhibited women you will never meet! But I require respect, so few qualify.
LikeLike
76 Anon
“Why do you have a problem with pick up? Since it obviously allows men to attain the so called poetry of love. Why are you opposed men trying to improve themselves so that they can sleep with many beautiful women?”
I’m all for the poetry of love, but I think that is a quantum leap and am not sure roissy could handle the shock! 🙂 Perhaps my response to Rain And would clarify my viewpoint.
I feel we are responsible to each other as human beings. For example, I would never take advantage of a man for money. I could! I could cruise match.com, flip through the 500 men who have been there for a year or more, play on their loneliness and needs and get my bills paid. I could justify it by saying well, I never SAID I wanted anything but money! So what’s the big deal?
Would you rather consign men to be forced into monogamy from lack of choice? Governments in generations long past, have tried to do this and it always ends in bloody conflict. So why would you try to suppress mankind through artificial scarcity?”
Freedom, joy, love, appreciation are the highest emotions a human can feel. I am all for freedom, more than you realize. I just want men to have the freedom to be 100% honest with women and tell them if all they want is casual sex! It needs to be O.K. for them to say that, as much as it needs to be O.K. for a woman to say she does not. True freedom takes tremendous courage, and courage means no more victims!
LikeLike
P.S. to 77. BTW I am not suggesting that all men want is casual sex and all women want a husband, babies, and to be a homemaker; or should want that. Was just pointing out the extremes. Pretty much anything a person wants is O.K. A woman might want a boyfriend, someone to go on dates with, casual sex, group sex, bondage… Hell, I even know where you can find a good dominatrix. Would give her name, but you may find me as a result, not that I’m into that.
U.L. points out that he doesn’t even know what he wants until he gets to know a girl. Personally, I find having a defined goal is preferable. If a person has no goal, maybe they should just say that too! “I have no goal and am just playing it by ear.”
Anyway, that’s my opinion.
LikeLike
How many men do you know who would come right and tell a woman? How would it effect their odds of getting sex? You can argue I suppose that it’s “just not how it’s done.” Why not? What are they afraid of?
If you have to ask someone for sex, then sex isn’t going to happen, because that’s not subtle or seductive, and therefore does not build attraction or the desire to have sex.
The grand majority of people are not socially retarded. They communicate fine with indirect signals, touching, body language, euphemisms, and situational context. (e.g. “Do you want to come up for coffee?”, does not mean “coffee”, and everyone knows this) Now, a significant minority (of both males and females) understand these things fine, but make decisions they are ambivalent about and later regret. And a very small minority really can’t understand these things for diverse reasons. These are people with social handicaps: unassimilated immigrants, people with autism, people with emotional disturbances, home-schoolers.
The majority has no moral obligation to change its behavior or radically re-engineer society to “protect” the ambivalent minority of people. These people are adults who are fully capable of making good decisions. It’s unrealistic and irrational to want to cleanse society of casual sex or normal communication in order to save a minority of neurotic adults from themselves and their own bad choices. Just as it would be ridiculous to ban alcohol to protect the minority of adults who can’t consistently moderate their own drinking.
Even more insane is wanting to alter society to protect the small handicapped minority. If we are going to ban all normal subtlty and indirectness from our sexual communication, in order to protect a small minority of socially handicapped women from the “dangers” of emotionally uncommitted sexual pleasure, then we might as well cut out all our eyes, just to make things fair for the blind.
LikeLike
@79 candy cane
“I feel we are responsible to each other as human beings. ”
Stop trying to come off as noble. You’re not fooling anyone. 🙂
“For example, I would never take advantage of a man for money. I could! I could cruise match.com, flip through the 500 men who have been there for a year or more, play on their loneliness and needs and get my bills paid. I could justify it by saying well, I never SAID I wanted anything but money! So what’s the big deal?”
If a man wants to pay you for sex or your company, I’d say he’s an idiot/loser, but more power to you! It’s a free market economy and you are adults. I don’t have a problem with this.
“Freedom, joy, love, appreciation are the highest emotions a human can feel. I am all for freedom, more than you realize. ”
OK, no more noble talk in this thread, OK? I’m getting physically ill now… 🙂
“I just want men to have the freedom to be 100% honest with women and tell them if all they want is casual sex!”
I’ll make this simple. If you’re at least somewhat attractive, 99% of heterosexual men are interested in casual sex with you. This is biology. Nothing needs to be said.
“True freedom takes tremendous courage, and courage means no more victims!”
What? Who’s being victimized?
LikeLike
80 Rain And
“If you have to ask someone for sex, then sex isn’t going to happen, because that’s not subtle or seductive, and therefore does not build attraction or the desire to have sex.”
Personally I do not need to be “seduced” to enjoy sex. Quite the contrary actually but I doubt a person of your mentality would understand even if I tried to explain it. Personally I am highly anti-seduction, but very sexual. See if you can wrap your limited analytical mind around that. This will make you wretch probably, but seduction is actually a form of betrayal. Can I prove it? No way, but I know. Go ahead and wretch!
Where exactly do you get your “majority” this and “minority” that statistics? Being analytical, I’m sure you can prove your point with charts and diagrams.
“It’s unrealistic and irrational to want to cleanse society of casual sex or normal communication…”
Tsk, tsk. Did you not read my 79 post or were you composing your response whilst I was posting mine? Check it out. You’ll find you are wrong. As far as “normal communication.” “Normal” is certainly a subjective concept
“Even more insane is wanting to alter society to protect the small handicapped minority.”
Actually that would be quite insane. Nowhere do I mention legislation of any kind. Unlike many of the posters here I do not want to alter society at all, though you might think so. I’m just mainly letting you know what I think might make it better, but it’s a subjective opinion, just like yours.
81 I.P.
““I feel we are responsible to each other as human beings. ”
Yes, well our definitions of responsible are probably quite different. Most have taken the word responsible and made it synonymous with duty or obligation. The word literally means “ability to respond”. From latin it means ‘to pledge.’ Call it noble or whatever negative (?) spin you want to put on it, but I try to behave in as honest a way as I can with people.
“If a man wants to pay you for sex or your company, I’d say he’s an idiot/loser, but more power to you! It’s a free market economy and you are adults. I don’t have a problem with this.”
So you don’t have a problem if I deceive a man knowingly to get his money? Do you not have any minimum standard of human behavior or are you more Machiavellian?
“I’ll make this simple. If you’re at least somewhat attractive, 99% of heterosexual men are interested in casual sex with you.”
This is true of course, but some are looking for much more because they’ve either already had as much casual sex as they can stomach or they never saw the value in it in the first place. Call me noble, but sex has NEVER, EVER been casual for me. Cannot relate to that concept at all. Never could, never will, never want to.
LikeLike
@82 candy cane
“Most have taken the word responsible and made it synonymous with duty or obligation.”
We’re talking about guys learning how to meet attractive women and maybe having sex with them. You’re spinning this into guys being irresponsible to mankind. Get over yourself, please.
“So you don’t have a problem if I deceive a man knowingly to get his money? Do you not have any minimum standard of human behavior or are you more Machiavellian?”
“Deceive” him how? I really have no idea what you’re talking about. I said I have no problem with you trading your sex for his money. I don’t see the deception here. He’s paying for your vagina.
“This is true of course, but…”
Stop. I was answering your point about men being “honest” about wanting casual sex with women. I answered that by saying YES, they do. There’s no need to even ask the question. The answer is ALWAYS yes.
But that doesn’t mean it can’t lead to more…
“…some are looking for much more because they’ve either already had as much casual sex as they can stomach or they never saw the value in it in the first place.”
Just because men enjoy having casual sex does not mean they wouldn’t enjoy a long term relationship with a great woman. These are not mutually exclusive things. You, like a lot of women (and men), hold sex on FAR too high a pedestal.
Furthermore, you’ll never meet a “great guy” if you have this attitude about sex. Other attractive women, will offer sex without such expectation and they’ll hold his attention and you’ll be forgotten.
LikeLike
candy cane:
Let me tell you, women do not take repeated rejection well. We are by nature, bonders.
and that, my young friend, is why women are, and always will be, the gatekeepers.
your philosophy boils down to two points:
1. men are responsible for men’s behavior.
2. men are also responsible for women’s behavior.
troubling indeed.
So you don’t have a problem if I deceive a man knowingly to get his money?
straw man.
deception comprises 0% of solid game.
Personally I do not need to be “seduced” to enjoy sex. Quite the contrary
what excites you, then?
your points about your own sexuality have precisely zero validity without the answer to that question.
#80 rain and:
you are an amazing writer.
that i happen to agree with every word you’ve written is irrelevant to that assessment.
LikeLike
U.L. points out that he doesn’t even know what he wants until he gets to know a girl.
Candy, I was responding to a point that you were trying to make. The point that I was trying to make was that I could not know if I wanted to marry a Girl before I even met her.
#80 rain and:
you are an amazing writer.
that i happen to agree with every word you’ve written is irrelevant to that assessment.
Damn Straight. As Chris Rock once said, “He speaks so well.”
LikeLike
83 I.P.
“Furthermore, you’ll never meet a “great guy” if you have this attitude about sex. Other attractive women, will offer sex without such expectation and they’ll hold his attention and you’ll be forgotten.”
Not true. Virtually every man I’ve had sex with has wanted me back. And I’m going back to the one I lost my virginity to. That’s because we had relationships that were based on more than sex. Otherwise why don’t they just go on to the next pussy ad infinitum and forget all about me? I had a man pursue me for over a year before I would even go out on a date with him. He could have easily gotten pussy elsewhere and not “wasted” his time on me.
84 Johnny
“2. men are also responsible for women’s behavior.
troubling indeed.”
You obviously don’t have very good reading comprehension. We are ultimately responsible only to ourselves. Being responsible for my own life experience involves caring for others.
“what excites you, then?”
Love and authenticity. I like to feel like more than a receptacle for a good sneeze, and prefer to be with a man who considers being with a woman more than a really good sneeze. Nothing turns me on more than lust turned to love. Any animal is capable of lust, but to transform it to love is something else. Am I speaking a foreign language here? An orgasm can be more than ejaculation. Not that you don’t know that. So, you’re not one of those who calls women “cum dumpsters”, “club sluts”, etc. EVER?
LikeLike
^ What else excites me? A great kisser, 6 to 8 inches of beautiful pulsating cock. oral sex giving and getting, warm strong hands, smooth, clean skin, passion, passion, passion, moaning, being carried to bed, sweating, sex in the hall, sex in the family room, outdoor sex, shower sex, blow jobs in every conceivable position, skillful breast sucking and kissing, neck kissing, being on top (it’s the most relaxing position for me) being on the bottom, being sideways, breakfast in bed, latin music, fine wine, foot rubs, foot kissing and toe sucking before and during sex, changing tempos….
LikeLike
^ P.S. I’m not really into anal.
LikeLike
“Not true. Virtually every man I’ve had sex with…”
Were they great guys? And why’d you break up? I’m talking about great guys, not necessarily guys you had sex with.
“I had a man pursue me for over a year before I would even go out on a date with him.”
I’m sorry, if this guy really pursued you and only you (dubious), to the exclusion of all other women, he is a loser. Not picking on you – I’d say this about any woman or any man. He is not a “catch”.
Women love the idea of men dropping their lives and going after them and only them. This is generally a B.S. Hollywood fairytale for men who have options with among quality women.
“He could have easily gotten pussy elsewhere and not “wasted” his time on me.”
There’s a lot to doubt about this story. Not the facts per se(though undoubtedly rose colored), but more the circumstances. It all really depends on this particular guy in this particular case. I’m guessing he’s a loser who also happened to be in your proximity over the course of the year via school(read: no breathless pursuit after seeing you once at Starbucks).
LikeLike
candy cane: We are ultimately responsible only to ourselves.
if you accept this statement, then your previous claim that the ‘victims’ of seduction have been ‘betrayed’ is, a fortiori, 100% bullshit.
please stop contradicting yourself. thank you in advance.
also, please stop trivializing words like ‘victim’ and ‘betrayal’. your use of those words is an affront to actual victims (especially those of betrayal) everywhere.
LikeLike
89 I.P.
I was just countering this:
“Other attractive women, will offer sex without such expectation and they’ll hold his attention and you’ll be forgotten.”
I think I did a good enough job of doing just that. Sorry if you disagree.
90 Johnny
“if you accept this statement [we are all ultimately responsible to ourselves] then your previous claim that the ‘victims’ of seduction have been ‘betrayed’ is, a fortiori, 100% bullshit.”
Not really. Only those who ACCEPT responsibility, are never victims, or rather don’t feel like victims. But true victims do not exist in all the world. We all get what we ask for whether we know we’re asking for it or not. It doesn’t mean that betrayal, exploitation, and deceit don’t exist. Only some realize their own part in that. I’m a bit of a defender type. I defend animals, children, the “innocent”. If you see a contradiction there, well, it probably won’t be the last one. I am not always in perfect compliance with whatever you think I need to be in perfect compliance with. Apparently you are. I actually believe in “gray areas.”
LikeLike
“I think I did a good enough job of doing just that. Sorry if you disagree.”
Not disagreeing, necessarily. I just said he’s likely a loser and wasn’t turning down anything chasing you. I was just trying to get you to flesh out this former suitor of yours.
LikeLike
I defend animals, children, the “innocent”.
as do i.
in my world, though, innocence has an expiry date, which coincides with the onset of whatever can truly be called adulthood.
LikeLike
92 I.P.
“He could have easily gotten pussy elsewhere and not “wasted” his time on me.”
“There’s a lot to doubt about this story…I’m guessing he’s a loser who also happened to be in your proximity..”
Here’s the deal with this guy. He pursued me (and only me as far as I knew) for a year in the smallish town where I live. A mutual friend kept telling me he was a “good guy” and I should go out with him. He kept asking me out, but I didn’t think we were compatible. He is a very masculine built-to- the-nines builder/carpenter/contractor who owns his own business and is highly successful and is also a great dancer and music lover–like myself. He was very generous with me AND my daughter. We dated for 3 months before I had sex with him, had some rough spots, looooong story, but we only dated 3 more months and at the end of it? He admitted he only wanted me for sex! Exactly one week later he was banging another woman and has been with her for over a year. Is that a great guy? I think not, but you may disagree.
The other guys who wanted me back? Another is a highly successful builder and also owns a recording studio. Another owns his own insurance business, another is retired from the Navy (much older than I), another is a genius software engineer… There are a few more, but are these great guys? I don’t know what you consider a great guy. The only one who didn’t want me back is the jerk who used me for 3 months because a.) He knew better than to even ask. b) He’s afraid of me now, cuz I got pretty damn pissed.
LikeLike
93 Johnny
So you’re a defender too? Good for you. I am admittedly old fashioned. I still have this silly notion that men should also protect women, if for no other reason than for the good of society. We all come from women after all. And by and large they are the ones raising the children. BTW, would you want your sister or daughter if you had one, fucking the players or a guy like you?
It’s amazing how some men who actually have daughters, still womanize and justify it, though they’re the same ones who would by out with the shotgun when dates come to pick up their daughter. I ask where the hell their conscience is? It’s a very selective conscience apparently.
Don’t they realize that all women are someone’s daughter, mother, sister, aunt, etc.? I know, I know….when they reach a certain age of consent it’s every man and woman for themselves and I just don’t go for that philosophy myself.
LikeLike
I’m puzzled by one thought expressed in this thread — that a man who is charming and fun and sexy and succeeds in bringing a girl home for a nice lay somehow is a bad guy if he’s more interested in sex than snuggling and watching “Friends” on Friday night?
As long as a man doesn’t lie, coerce or force a woman to sleep with him, and she does it of her own free will, then what is the “deception”? Women know that men like sex, a lot, with lots of women. Nearly every married guy I know would bang another woman if he could be 100% sure his wife would never find out. We’re wired that way. This is a surprise to some women? Quite frankly, I’m flabbergasted.
If a woman is afraid of a guy sleeping with her and never calling her again, then for God’s sake, girls, make the guy work like hell before you kiss or sleep with him. I guarantee you that will weed out the “players” who will move on to greener pastures long before you put out. Unfortunately, however, you will be left with guys who don’t have other options and hang around hoping for crumbs. It’s your choice.
LikeLike
I have struggling with girls for a long time. Im looking for help and I found a site called http://www.rockstar-dating.com and they say I can be a Rockstar with girls. I have never heard of such a thing. But it caught my attention.
LikeLike