Best pick-up line.
- Thread starter VanillaBean
- Start date
Guys who actually base their entire view of the opposite sex by some half-assed litterature by Neil Strauss about "having game" are pretty stupid and lame as well.WingedIncubus said:
Just worth mentioning.
"Hey baby, If you and I were both squirrels would you let me bust a nut in your hole?"
If she laughs shes a keeper.
If she laughs shes a keeper.
Wouldn't that be sort of an insult to say to someone?badgersprite said:
I mean, I'd like to see a minimum of similarities between myself and a person im interested in.
It is egocentric because it's essentially saying "Hey! Look at ME!" rather than "Hey, I think I like YOU."Housebroken Lunatic said:Egocentric you say?
"Oooh, what an awful man! He just pulled a pick-up line in a humorous and obviously insincere fashion. He should care more about MEEEEE and getting to know MEEEEEEEE! Because the universe revolves around MEEEEEE!!!"
that's not the least bit "egocentric" according to you? (of course I already know the answer to that one, but it's always polite to ask anyway
That makes no sense, because women aren't fish and you CAN ask them what sort of "bait" they prefer. Just ask your lady friends. They'll explain it to you.Oh really?
Tell me, when you go fishing, do you ask the fish what bait you should use to catch it?
It seems we do agree on one thing, anyway: introduction is best done in context. However, it seems you misunderstand what I meant by "friendship." The best and longest-lasting relationships I've seen have all sprouted from friendships. They got to know each other on a casual basis first, and jumped into the "relationship" boat when they realized how much chemistry they had.WingedIncubus said:
Because if you can't be friends, how can you love each other? I see love as the next level above standard friendship.
As you mention the attraction, the chemistry, was already there, and either one or both acted out on that attraction to pursue the relationship. So we are actually in agreement, here.Lilani said:
My comment concerns the many, many, many cases of shy or awkward guys entering "friendships" with women in the secret hope that the girl will "fall in love with them" when they see how so-nice they are, without actually either triggering their attraction or working to attain this attraction. That can't be done, you cannot "convince" a woman to fall in love, as attraction ain't a rational choice, but an emotional and instinctive response.
Guys who put down the opinion of others and flame solely based on their personal dislike of some half-assed literature which doesn't suit with their worldview are pretty stupid and lame as well.Housebroken Lunatic said:Guys who actually base their entire view of the opposite sex by some half-assed litterature by Neil Strauss about "having game" are pretty stupid and lame as well.
Just worth mentioning.
Just worth mentioning. Live and let live.
As you said, if the attraction is already there, then all of the pieces are in play. If it's there, then it won't need any "triggering" at all. That will come naturally. If the attraction isn't on both sides, then it's going to be a no-go. So if two people are attracted to each other, they'll "instinctively" (as you said) pursue the friendship and relationship at their own comfortable pace.WingedIncubus said:
The only difference in my scenario is that the friendship IS the "attention-getter" and lays the ground for further pursuit.
This might be shocking news to you but the large majority of women haven't got the slightest clue what they are attracted to or what turns them on. Im quite sure that my lady friends would know what THEY are attracted to(because I tend to befriend people who have undergone some serious attempts at getting to know themselves) but if I proposed that all women can simply be "asked" what they like, then my lady friends would probably laugh at me for coming up with such an unrealistic idea.Lilani said:
The bottom line is: most women don't know what they want in a partner. They THINK they know what they want, but this is mostly based on romantic crap sold by popular media and not any actual experience.
That's why you constantly find these situations where women say that they look for aspect X or Y in a man, and the guy who desperately wants to be their boyfriend possess all of these aspects and even more, yet that guy always get stuck in the "friendzone".
That's also why you find the numerous instances where a woman says that she wants a "nice guy" but always end up going for a complete asshole who dumps her when he gets bored with her or cheats on her with someone else.
As sad as it might be, women in general have a pretty lousy track record at actually KNOWING what it is they are looking for...
I agree with everything you just wrote, except that part. Attraction doesn't exist in a void, it needs to triggered by stimuli, either physical, intellectual, emotional, social, etc. It can happen spontaneously (i.e. the so-called love at first sight) or progressively over the course of an interaction. But if it doesn't come fast, chances are that it will never come unless something earth-shattering happens.Lilani said:
That said, I think we agree that it remains fundamental in working toward relationship. *shakes hands*
I put it down due to altruistic reasons, since I know where all this "game"-bullshit comes from and I know that the marketing of that half-baked philosophy comes froma cynical bunch of people out to take advantage of insecure guys involuntary celibacy and genuine wish to find a girlfriend.WingedIncubus said:Guys who put down the opinion of others and flame solely based on their personal dislike of some half-assed literature which doesn't suit with their worldview are pretty stupid and lame as well.
Just worth mentioning. Live and let live.
"Playing the game" isn't a science, and it's filled with misconceptions, misogynism, self-fulfilling prophesies and downright idiocy.
But since it falsely promises lonely guys that they will get laid if they buy this or that book and follow these "simple guidlines" they are gonna score. This is all cleverly disguised with platitudes about "this isn't about getting laid at all, but transforming yourself into a better person and reaching your true potential and blahblahblahba" *insert random salespitch here*
And frankly, im disgusted by this. Now I might me a misanthropic lonewolf by nature who've never experienced a particularly urgent need to get a girlfriend (even if it has happened to me, ever instance was more by accident than premeditation), but filling insecure and lonely guys with false hopes and trying to get them to change into some stereotypical "bad boy" and basically killing their own identities in the process, just so they can hawk some badly written books or get paid for their "pick up courses"? That's a REALLY low watermark in my book. It's downright fucking cruel.
So, now you know why im not shying away from being vocal about my low opinion of the "game"-bullshit, and why I recognize it when it's coming out of the mouths of others. Not only is it incredibly bad (if one actually decides to look at the "science" behind it all), but the motivation behind it is just so rotten and cynical that it makes me sick...
That said: men are overall not much better at staying consistent or getting to know themselves. Both sexes escape this maturing process when they can.WingedIncubus said:
That's why I tend to become more interested in women who have undergone this vital process, but these people are rare.
I hear you, but you are being a little unfair. For one, I've never cited "The Game", and I have never pretended it was based on science. Nowhere seduction is a science, it is a an interpersonal interaction and a social dynamic, as much as neither self-help is science (and a LOT of self-help is quackery anyway). Any pretense that this is a science is of course totally bogus, because aside from empirical testing there is no methodology behind it, and it grossly missuses or oversimplifies the results of sociobiological research made on the subject of animal and human sexuality.Housebroken Lunatic said:
My personal comments are anecdotal, it comes from personal experience way even before I've read "The Game", which isn't a self-help book, remember, but a non-fiction of an author's foray into the world of pick-up artists and the seduction community. If you read the book as a non-fiction, you can see very well how many "PUAs" are in fact loathsome, narcissistic human beings in a dog-eat-dog world. Yet, Neil Strauss got laid. A lot.
I feel the misogyny comes more from the frustrated losers who seek these people because they don't understand women and see them as scary, shiny objects to be tooled, manipulated, or "conquered" rather than human beings to interact with. But yeah, I agree with you with the cynicism of some of the more snake oil dealers in there.
But I'm not as hard on the so-called "seduction community" as you are, because it fulfills a need. Plus I've found some golden gems in that see of turd. My big beef with that community is that many so-called "PUAs" are in fact advertising easy "magic pills" that will help them seduce any woman they want with a minimum of change. That's a load of horseshit: if you are bald, fat, ugly, socially awkward, poor with crooked teeth, no amount of PUA-shit will lend you hot chicks. Arguing the contrary, that results will happen without fundamental change, is plain dishonesty.
Self-improvement requires a lot of work, and without buying the whole gimmick reading "The Game" does help awakening to the fact that we ought to improve ourselves and get out of our comfort zone.
Might I add also, the community is changing, and has been moving away from the routine-laden, NLP-bullshit, Mystery-method and so on from the past toward a more natural way of approaching woman, of self-improvement to become a better man. I can only approve of that mutation, as it shirks away from the "easy pill" snake oils of before.
Which is more caused by cognitive dissonance and intellectual laziness than anything.Housebroken Lunatic said: