
Love in the Age of the Pickup Artist - jseliger
http://www.thepointmag.com/archive/love-in-the-age-of-the-pickup-artist/
======
DarrenMills
I almost feel like a good amount of the discussion being had missed the point,
or perhaps most of the commenters stopped reading when the conversation
shifted from the PUA community to the life and works of Stendhal.

To me, the articles clearly had three acts. First, was the explanation of the
PUA method and the argument for it. This has accounted for nearly all the
discussions I've read thus far. Second, was the case of passionate love as
made through the works of Stendhal and his characters. In the third "act" is
where the true point of the article comes to life. The author tries his best
to merry the practices of seduction with natural love as played out through
the characters he has introduced. Ultimately this leads to a discussion of
which way is the best way to acquire the lover you seek.

This is the conversation I sought when I clicked the comments button; so I
suppose I'll just ask the question outright: Which of the scenarios do you
prefer, or do you believe is best?

Letting love naturally occur, all the while you are yourself and your beloved
sees you for that?

Seduction through the art of 'the game' to acquire the target of your love in
spite of the reality that you must "not love her for her to love you"?

Or perhaps you prefer the authors idea of balance through the withholding of
the expressions of love, both verbally and through eroticism until the timing
is proper?

Hell, maybe you've even got your own idea of middle ground? Let's hear it.

~~~
cousin_it
Good question.

I believe that passionate love ("limerence" as the kids call it) is always bad
for me. My best relationships are ones where I'm not in love. Yeah, love comes
with an instinct that makes us want more of it, but the same is true for
heroin.

~~~
sliverstorm
I wouldn't say we are designed to want more heroin, but that heroin is
designed to make us want more...

If you think about it, we crave love even when we've never had it and don't
understand it all that well. Nobody craves heroin until they've tried it.

~~~
rapind
Ahh, but books, tv, and movies are the pushers of love. If heroin were as high
profile and esteemed in most societies as this love thing, then yeah, we'd
probably all want it even before we'd had it.

------
WilliamLP
So women don't think you're a real man. And the solution: throw away
expression of the personality you like and want to be and respect, turn all
interactions with women into a game, and carefully craft yourself and all your
presentation with single-minded purpose into a seduction machine. This is
treating women as completely different creatures from us (albeit ripe for
taking willing advantage of with half-truths and careful conscious
manipulation of human impulse). Yes I know it works, but I'm still sure this
is just horribly wrong, and far from "not putting the pussy on a pedestal" (as
the movie saying goes) this is worship of the game to such an extent that it
makes men willing to transform their whole personality and convince themselves
that insincerity is the only honest form of human interaction.

That these methods work so well makes me sad about the state of humanity and
whatever dreams we could ever have at achieving relations between genders be
on equal terms. Maybe the physical and psychological differences are just too
great for that, because of the pre-historical assymetry with the burden of
carrying and giving birth to a child, I don't know.

~~~
photon_off
It's foolish to have such a narrowminded opinion of "game". It's only called
game; but in actuality is much more an art. Even if you're going to be so
brash as to consider it a game, do you still find it impossible to express
personality and self-respect while remaining in the construct of rules? You
seem to be answering "yes" to that question.

Putting your reluctance to realize that "games (systems of rules)" and "art"
have no fine line aside, the issue of "gender equality" that you pose makes no
sense to me. I suppose it's because I have a much more complicated definition
of a "true self," which to you seems to be "not treating women with what I
consider 'respect' is immoral and wrong and is 'not me'", that I so strongly
disagree with you about virtually everything you said above.

Males and females have two completely different mating strategies, and rightly
so. For you see, women are stuck with the burden of 9 months of having a baby
grow inside them, plus taking care of the child, while men could potentially
sire greater-than-the-human-population children every day. Women will
obviously be more picky. Men, less so. Intersex competition will be very high
and follow a distribution similar to the 80/20 rule, and multiple sexual
partners (when it's possible to go undetected) will be beneficial to both
sexes.

At any rate, I suppose I'm trying to say three things:

* Males and females have different strategies for sorting out an ideal mate. How you present yourself is part of your strategy.

* If you're willing to always be your "best self," or what you would call "throwing away expression of personality" by "carefully crafting yourself" -- how does that make you not yourself? You are still you, and your actions are yours.

* Evolutionary psychology -- it makes sense.

~~~
andreyf
I don't know whether to laugh at or cry for you.

Relationships are not an art, and they are not a game. If you want to out-
strategize someone, go play Starcraft 2. If you want to analyze someone from
an evolutionary psych perspective, go get a degree in psychiatry.

Romantic relationships are about forming deep emotional connections, about
being true with someone in a way that admits a very real risk of emotional
agony. Until you grow the balls to take that gamble, you're simply missing the
point.

~~~
Rod
Of course relationships are a game: two players, several actions available to
each player, and payoffs dependent on both players' actions. That is, by
definition, a game.

But it gets more interesting. Relationships are _power games_ , as the player
with the most power will dictate the _tempo_ and pace of the battle. If you
have more options and are less invested in the relationship than your
significant other, then you have power over her. This power gap translates
into luxuries like avoiding visiting her family (too often, at least), or not
bothering about remembering her girlfriends' names. Moreover, if she's
constantly terrified that you'll leave her if she gets fat, she'll exercize
often and stay in shape, so that she can sexually arouse you for years to
come, thus disincentivizing you from dumping her. You reciprocate by paying
attention to her, by pretending to listen to her illogical / irrational
arguments, and by abstaining from (too much) philandering. This balance of
terror works great for both parties.

~~~
philwelch
What you've described may be how _your_ relationships usually go, but it
sounds a lot like a living hell to me, and is nothing like my experience.

~~~
Rod
Living hell for her, heaven for you!? Not really. My approach makes her
obsession last longer. She never knows when she finally _has_ you, so she
keeps fighting to conquer your heart. Since this is a lifetime endeavor (or,
perhaps, a death march), then the relationship never gets stale, and she never
gets bored with you. Makes marriages last longer, is less traumatic for the
kids, and (ultimately) is better for society.

PS: next time your s.o. forces you to visit her boring family or some friends
of her that you hate, you'll wish you had more power. Enjoy the whipping!!

~~~
philwelch
Your assumptions about my relationship are pretty deeply unfounded--I've never
been forced to visit her family, nor do I hate her friends, nor have I ever
been forced to visit them. There's no "whipping" involved--I'm every bit as
free as I care to be.

It's not a question of power at all--we don't seek power over each other so
much as we work hard to keep our autonomy while sharing our lives together.
It's difficult, but it's worthwhile as well. Building a strong relationship
that respects the freedom of each partner is just as hard as keeping up one
side of a power game, but it's more fulfilling in the end. Knowing that
someone else truly and deeply loves you is a very comforting feeling,
especially when you both know it's mutual. Trying to withhold that
satisfaction and make your partner insecure just to keep her (literally) on
the treadmill is an asshole thing to do, but ultimately it hurts you too.
Winning your power-game style of relationship would be hell to me compared to
the relationship I actually have.

Look, I'll just address you point-by-point:

 _Moreover, if she's constantly terrified that you'll leave her if she gets
fat, she'll exercize often and stay in shape, so that she can sexually arouse
you for years to come, thus disincentivizing you from dumping her when she
hits the magic 30-year-old mark._

Fat girls are underrated in my opinion, but there are plenty of strong women
who can and do keep themselves in good shape for their own benefit. Of course,
a self-starting woman like that is likely far too strong to put up with the
kind of bullshit you're talking about.

 _You reciprocate by paying attention to her, by pretending to listen to her
illogical / irrational arguments_

I would rather not date stupid and irrational women. I prefer women whom I
actually _like_ paying attention to. Especially for a lifetime commitment!

 _and by abstaining from (too much) philandering_

That's not a special favor; that's a basic part of being in a monogamous
relationship. If monogamy is boring, have an open relationship and let the
girl have some fun too. It might even spice up your sex life to have the odd
threesome!

The kind of relationship you advocate might be the best you can get--it may be
genuinely difficult to have a genuinely good relationship like I'm talking
about--but personally speaking, if the best relationship I can get is some
adversarial power game, I'd rather go completely without. I have no fear of
dying alone--I am comfortable with the notion.

My personal suspicion: old married couples who treat their relationship like a
power game are not happily married couples--they're like the couple in this
story: <http://www.violentacres.com/archives/497/happily-ever-after/>

_Watching them was like watching a sick, evil little puppet show. He goaded
her, she attacked him. He ignored her attacks, she escalated. Within minutes,
dinner was ruined. They both looked supremely satisfied with this result._

 _Before I turned to leave, the man reached out with a bony, desperate hand
and clutched my arm._

 _“Never, never get married,” he implored._

 _I looked at his wife. Instead of looking offended, her eyes widened in
tentative agreement. A slight nod of her head was like the period on the end
of his sentence._

 _That couple was trying to save my life."_

~~~
Rod
I am not trying to preach anyone, nor to force anyone to live according to the
rules that make sense to me. I will never cease to see any relationship
between humans, personal or professional, as a power game. Even if a couple
has a deep emotional connection, the one who feels less intensely will have
power over the other and be able to dictate the rules. It's the way it is.

 _"I would rather not date stupid and irrational women. I prefer women whom I
actually like paying attention to. Especially for a lifetime commitment!"_

I would rather not date stupid / irrational women, either! But the only women
I know who are rational, smart, interesting to talk to are in their mid-30s
and looking for a husband and father to their future children. Since I have
some scruples left, I don't date women who want a family man, because I can't
offer what they're looking for.

In any case, I challenge you to find a rational, smart 25 year old woman. You
know what they say: you can only understand life looking backwards, but you
can only live life looking forwards. You can't have youth and wisdom
simultaneously. Pick something in between. It's a delicate tradeoff.

~~~
btilly
I know lots of counter-examples to your theory. However I'd never be willing
to introduce you to them because your theories about how to treat them repulse
me.

~~~
Rod
Good for you!!! Now I will try to pretend that I actually do care about what
does repulse an internet stranger I never met and never will meet.

------
hnote
Here's Feynman's account:

    
    
      On the way to the bar I was working up nerve to try the
      master’s lesson on an ordinary girl. After all, you don’t 
      feel so bad disrespecting a bar girl who’s trying to get 
      you to buy her drinks — but a nice, ordinary, Southern girl?
    
      We went into the bar, and before I sat down, I said, 
      “Listen, before I buy you a drink, I want to know one 
      thing: Will you sleep with me tonight?”
    
      “Yes.”
    
      So it worked even with an ordinary girl! But no matter how 
      effective the lesson was, I never really used it after 
      that. I didn’t enjoy doing it that way. But it was 
      interesting to know that things worked much differently 
      from how I was brought up.

------
Helianthus16
I wish he didn't try so hard to impress us, instead of writing an exercise in
clear thought.

I was with him up to the "Let's show off what I've researched about the
history of Love," which turned out to be, yes: there have always been pickup
artists of a sort, and yes: there has always been desperate deep love. Thanks.
I skimmed most of that indulgent name-dropping.

Then he tries to get clever with words and it goes downhill. Loads of those
sections could be stripped out for clarity; elegance from simplicity, not
pretense from complexity.

Liked the personal stories, the accounts of modern PUA. Did not like the way
the research felt like name-dropping. He was trying too hard.

Nowhere is this more clear than in the stilted final sentences. "You have no
choice in the matter. Love was hard enough already; it has only gotten harder.
Your love will exhaust you. But it will be worth the trouble."

~~~
jessriedel
Given the solid summary of the PUA mindset and method (considering the space
requirements) I would have granted the author some airs of grandeur if he had
been able to give some insight on marrying the lessons of PUA with a respect
for real romantic love. But he really couldn't, so the article ultimately
disappoints.

------
gruseom
I've been around a couple of the leaders of this community (one is mentioned
in the OP, the other wrote a bestseller) who turned up on separate occasions
at workshops I attended with a former student of Milton Erickson. Erickson,
for those who don't know, was a psychiatrist who was the great 20th century
master of hypnosis; he turned everything about the field on its head.
Presumably these guys were there to pick up some hypnotic tricks to add to
their game. Anyway, my point is: Holy cow, were they creepy. Creepy in a way
that makes you want to stay on the other side of the room. One in particular
seemed to have developed lizard-like qualities. Seeing them in person was, for
me, something of a counterargument to their teachings.

~~~
sliverstorm
Are you female? It could be argued that a male's reaction is completely
immaterial.

Additionally, if you are male- I would like to share an observation. I have
found a strong correlation between guys who set off massive warning bells and
guys that women are attracted to. I'm not sure whether that's because I'm
designed to recognize the most dangerous competitors, or because I can see
through their crap, but it happens nonetheless.

------
tonystubblebine
I read the Neil Strauss book--it's fascinating and fun. But there was one
story in there that really summed up the entire culture for me.

The story is about a new PUA posting to a message board. The first post was
how excited he was and how he had set a goal to approach 50 women in one day.
His second post was about how he had actually accomplished that goal and he
was going to set a second goal of asking for 100 phone numbers in one week.
His third post was about how happy he was with the process and how he was
positive that he would be getting laid within a year. In summary, his
definition of success was that after one year of making picking up women his
full time job he would get laid once.

That story clued me in to the real strength of the PUA method. It appeals to
men enough to turn wall flowers into people actively seeking dates. But the
efficiency of that method is laughably bad (not to mention the outcomes being
shallow).

~~~
jessriedel
> But the efficiency of that method is laughably bad

Based on one anecdote from the book? The PUA methods attracts guys who are
_terrible_ with women. It's not surprising that there cases where the guys
isn't going to improve much. This isn't an argument against the ideas or
methods.

~~~
tonystubblebine
No, not based on one anecdote from the book. I'm using that anecdote to
summarize the entire movement based on reading the entire book. I thought that
there were several cases where a lot of time was spent without much payoff.

~~~
jessriedel
But if you offered a man who was utterly unable to attract woman 40% odds of
acquiring just 1 or 2 partners per year through PUA methods (and a 60% chance
of no returns) I think he would (rationally) invest a _huge_ amount of time
into this.

------
jeb
I've found out one thing that will no doubt annoy a lot of people - if you are
unhappy and depressed, because you don't have many challenges in life, or you
are underchallenged or something (in school, work, etc), then try the game as
a new fun activity. It will cure your depression, because it's so
fundamentally animal, and it has the biggest pay off of any sport you could
try.

~~~
sliverstorm
Not so sure I agree there. I'm no PUA, but when you are coldly manipulating
the situation, I find that completely lacking in challenge. Like, once you
understand some of the rules and know what to say and do, it's just too easy,
and all you're doing is going through the motions.

~~~
jeb
It's absolutely challenging. It takes a lot of training, willpower, dedication
and willingness to fail to be successful at this.

~~~
nostrademons
On a side note, your last sentence has an amusingly ambiguous parse:

"(It takes a lot of training, willpower, dedication and willingness) to (fail
to be successful) at this."

------
yanilkr
As much as "the game" advice is fascinating and very convincing, the many
followers of this are the ones that repel me the most.

Everyone I met associated with this system, so far have been someone trying to
make money off of it, or a misguided person using the system to justify lying,
or someone truly dishonest to them selves.

I spent well over 18 months and thousands of Dollars on perfecting this
system. I have not met someone who can demonstrate a convincing or awe
inspiring performance or at the least a good personality. Most of it is the
hype built around very normal qualities.

The introverts build hype for the socially talkative PUAs whom you might find
very annoying at work or in classroom. The extroverts build hype for those
intelligently speaking PUAs whose ideas might be very questionable. Some guys
build hype for the other PUAs who socially disrespect women. PUA is just a
title that many of these folks are working hard to get to satisfy their egos
and mask their insecurities.

One guy advised me to wear a huge bunch of keys around my pants, because women
think you are in charge of something big. One guy advised me to own the room
when I walk in. The other guy I met introduced himself as someone who goes to
university and also works in a big software corporation full time when he
works at a small restaurant.

Most people who are attracted to this are the ones who lacked male role models
in their lives and those from countries like India where marriage is the only
way and life outside work is confusing still.

Like many other people from my background I felt cheated by the traditional
system, which advised to be a good social norms respecting and social
expectation meeting person and get a good education, good job, life security
etc in exchange for abundant opportunity for sex(remember make love to me
randy from south park). In fact the exactly same things are considered a
boring personality but if you are a romeo, not having a decent job, depending
on friends and family, can have a full time duty talking to women every where,
you are considered Romantic by women. Having seen my friend's wives leave
their PhD husbands for a "leisurely life" guy, and reading a lot about
cheating girl friends, "The game" opened my eyes. It gave a promise size of a
Mount Everest. The results were not that satisfactory but at least I got some
better parts from it like self improvement and being less socially awkward.
Like some one here advised, dating is really a numbers game and the rest is
self-improvement

------
elai
If you look at most people of the 'seduction' community, they usually have
something in their history that stunted their sexual-social development and
basically need instruction/a support group/whatever to help overcome it.
Usually people who grew up in religious households, or families that didn't
let them out of the house much at all or let them socialize, go out or offer
much anything in terms of privacy. Or they imposed it on themselves by being
geeks and only socializing really with male friends. Or they developed various
phobias or incorrect ideas from adults, caregivers and personal heros (Sexual
harassment phobia, taking radical 2nd/3rd wave feminists seriously, etc). It
could be more subtle reasons or other things.

Because they're nerds, men, usually young and are dealing with sexual problems
the machismo goes to 11 and they do various socially stupid things. And most
of the people who started these courses are not the most healthy of people.

~~~
jessriedel
> If you look at most people of the 'seduction' community, they usually have
> something in their history that stunted their sexual-social development...

So you're saying that the people looking for help in understanding and
attracting women are more likely to have been bad at it in the past? And that
people who already have a lot of experience and success are unlikely to be
interested in PUD methods? Isn't that obvious?

------
sliverstorm
> At the height of his “gaming” activity he had eight steady sexual
> partners—who all knew about each other—and was maneuvering himself into
> threesomes on a regular basis.

Love it or hate it, that's pretty darn impressive. (Assuming they are
attractive)

------
holdenc
If a girl says somthing like: “Remember, as you walk home through the night,
be bold,” there are problems afoot. Condescending poetry is a death knell.

As an aside -- I've always preferred superficial girls to bad poets. At least
the terms are more clearly defined.

------
todayiamme
Maybe all that women want is someone they can talk to as human beings and be
with?

No, that isn't true either.

It might be true for me, but it isn't true for someone else. The problem with
such generalizations is something rather simple; nature is not absolute. This
works if women are absolute beings who care about nothing more than finding a
secure man to breed with. There are women like that _and there are men like
that too_ , but it isn't a hard and fast rule.

Gender is in fact _a spectrum_ and the idea of women you have in mind for whom
such stuff works is only _a portion_ of the total population. There are so
many beautiful women and hawt men out there who want more to life than
mindless pickups and sex.

Where do evolutionary generalizations come into over here? Think of it this
way; you are beating billions of years of evolution every time you use a
condom.

Yes, male and female brains are different, but there are fundamental
differences _within_ those sets as well (I am living breathing proof of this).
So, maybe just maybe such things don't work in the longer term. As it assumes
that both parties are in the "game" for something or the other.

What happens when you mature and you realize that you want _more_?

If you treat most women as objects of desire sooner or later your relationship
will crash and burn. After all s/he is nothing more than a fancy toy for you.
Emotions have to be _felt_ not reasoned with.

I think that the most important discovery any of us can ever make is that;
_love is not a noun but a verb_. It is something you have to work for. It
simply doesn't "just happen". It takes years of emotional intimacy and mutual
respect to have a relationship that can be classified as "true-love", and
perhaps that is something worth the while in the longer run...

[edit: forgot grammar and spell check]

~~~
tome
_Think of it this way; you are beating billions of years of evolution every
time you use a condom._

I used to think this, but I'm not so sure any more. Isn't it just a more
specific version of "you are beating billions of years of evolution every time
you see a women you don't want to have sex with"?

I wouldn't be surprised if evolution and condom use can be seen to fit
togething in an interesting and compatible way.

~~~
todayiamme
>>>I wouldn't be surprised if evolution and condom use can be seen to fit
togething in an interesting and compatible way.<<<

Most of my ideas on evolution have been shaped by Richard Dawkins. If you've
read his books then you probably know what is coming.

His proposal to look at evolution from the gene point of view is something
that is simple and logical to me. He points out that individuals are temporary
collections of genes, and it is these genes that play games with us not the
other way around. I love it how he puts; we are survival machines built by our
genes.

However, for some reason some of those machines have developed this ability to
talk to one another over things they have created. They seem to be able to
reflect upon their own decisions and instincts in order to improve their
response to the environment. There is no doubt that the gene/s that enable
this became wildly successful in the gene pool. So, in a quirky way we have
this ability given to us by genes that prevent us from carrying out the sole
purpose of our existence to those genes; replication.

On the other hand we can argue for the-men/women-you-don't-have-sex-with
example by pointing out that each time we mate there is a finite cost attached
to it, and in order for the genes to be propagated most efficiently we have to
take that into account. To a gene what is the use of having 30 descendants if
none of them live long enough to reproduce?

What I am trying to say is that we aren't governed by our gene programming to
the extent suggested in pop-culture. The genes themselves have given us a
backdoor, and we exploit that backdoor a lot. It is an extremely strange
recursion that boggles my mind.

So, at the end, yeah, you are right. There is nothing for which we can be 100%
sure, but you have to admit _this_ is a fun game. ;)

------
jonp
I was intrigued by the reference to "Ovid’s frank advice on meeting women at
the theater". This seems to refer to the "Ars Amatoria" which is an
interesting read in its own right.

Wikipedia article: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_Amatoria>

Full text (English
translation):[http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/Artoflovehome...](http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/Artoflovehome.htm)

------
nerme
The more you interact with women, the more you get to know women.

There is no method.

Think about throwing a baseball. No professional pitcher looks the same. They
each have their own peculiar windup, delivery, and follow-thru. They each have
a different selection of pitches. Some are taller than others. Some are from
the Dominican Republic. What do they have in common?

They've all been pitching for a long ass time.

Sure, they have insights on the process. They'll show you their grip on their
change-up or how they flick their wrists out before they release their
curveball. They'll show you little bits of technique but they'll never be able
to teach you how to pitch.

You've got to figure it out on your own.

Confidence is absolutely key. You're up on the mound. Your entire team is
behind you, waiting for you to deliver the ball. It's just you and the batter.
You're on the spot. You can't undo what is about to happen. There is no proof-
reading. There are no mentors to run things by.

It's all up to you.

The first pitch might be off target. That doesn't matter. You've still got at
least one more pitch to throw. So what are you going to do, fret about what
just happened or think about how having a 1-0 count can work to your
advantage? What was that last pitch, a fastball, and you missed up and outside
with it against a left-handed hitter? Perfect time to throw your slider in for
a strike, just nabbing the upper right corner. Now it's 1-1. The hitter is
left thinking if the first pitch, way outside that it was, wasn't just some
sort of psychological test, a setup, a prelude for the rest of the at-bat.

Congratulations, you've just gotten through a single batter. There are at
least two more to go, and that's just for this inning. If you're lucky, you'll
get to face 27 or more of them. If you're not up to par, you might only see a
dozen or so. The point is you are hungry for the chance to show off your
skills.

It doesn't matter if you're a knuckleballer, a crafty south-paw, or a fire-
brand young all-star. You're all experiencing the same thing.

However, the method used to succeed is your own.

~~~
swolchok
> The more you interact with women, the more you get to know women.

s/women/people/

However, a little instruction about body language and psychology can go a long
way if you need it. It's useful to know where you stand. Incidentally, I've
started playing poker most nights for the past week, and together with some
reading about tells, I feel as though my ability to read people to some degree
has improved.

------
philk
If offered the choice between empty meaningless sex and deeply meaningful
unrequited love I'd take the first without hesitation.

The former might be shallow and empty but the latter is just _horrible_.

~~~
philwelch
If I was offered the choice, I'd ask, "come on, am I absolutely required to
choose one? This is almost as bad as election year."

Then, if I had no other option, I would choose the sex.

------
guelo
I wish there was a manual like this for business relationships.

~~~
stanley
There is. It's called The 48 Laws of Power. Combine that with game and you
have a potent combination. I practice game to gain a better understanding of
female psychology, but it's taught me volumes about human psychology as a
whole.

------
tmsh
The last section is a bit pretentious ('darkened dorm room', 'do not lament
your condition'). I do sympathize with the difficulty of learning how to love
in modern times, etc. And I did enjoy parts of the retelling of The Red and
the Black. However, there is a more sustainable alternative to PUA, which is
also not naive (like blind Romanticism).

And that is, consciously, be awesome and find awesome common ground.

------
Shorel
I think we all are ignoring the other side of the coin:

There are lots of girls who want to have uncompromising sex but that are tied
by the gossip of their own female friends, by the gossip of the 'righteous'
men around them, and by the double standards of society in general.

Those girls deserve to have fun if they want, and not being discriminated
against. 'Pickup' artists just fulfill the need, that's why their method
works.

------
Jun8
I was captivated by this book and (since I didn't allow myself to buy it)
stood for hours in Borders perusing the pages. The game approach to
relationships is discussed to death in these comments.

My question is: Can you generalize the PUA approach, e.g. use a form of it for
angel investors, prospective customers, etc. For a prospective customer the
"neg" could be: "here's where your business fails" and then, when their
curiosity is piqued you tell them how to fix it, etc.

~~~
noss
It is the feeling I got from reading it, so yes. I think lots of people are
offended by the end goal of "the game", so they do not even analyse what the
means to get there are.

In lots of ways its strategies to show that you are interesting. To learn how
you can captivate someones brain for a while. How you break through the normal
filtering of the world. To understand when something similar is done to you. I
even enjoy it when I know it happens to me, so it is a bit of a game.

There are things like body language saying yes, while words are saying no. Or
several stories are being told simultaneously, unsuccessful ones being dropped
and new one are started, to keep listeners. Or how to show that you are
successful without appearing to be bragging.

------
joecode
It seems to me that a lot of the comments on here are written by folks who
didn't bother reading the whole article. True, the stuff about Stendhal gets
pretty thick at times---I had to skim over some of it---but it's worth it in
the end.

There's something ironic about this. The thesis of the essay is along the
lines of: love is a very hard road, but worth it in the end. But it is
presented in such a fashion that only folks who are persistent will follow it
(the essay itself) to the end.

------
Super_Jambo
No mention that Strauss' girl who he fell for and stopped 'playing' then later
left him? How odd.

------
jobob222
Is Game really just acting confident and being flrity? Ross Jeffries and other
people like him talk about using Neuro Linguistic Programming and covert
hypnosis to make a girl sleep with you. It sounds REALLY exploitative and I
don't believe that it works because what he says to say are these LONG and
really weird sounding things that you just sound like an idiot for saying. But
SO MANY PEOPLE follow him that I don't understand it.

------
inrev
"Your website has been suspended!"

Hacker News effect? :-)

Still in Google's cache
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?client=ubuntu&#...</a>

------
alexyim
Game is like the Force. The choice of being Sith or Jedi lies with you.

------
endlessvoid94
Love is a verb, not a noun.

~~~
hugh3
It's also a noun.

edit: Hey, I'm just out here fighting for linguistic accuracy in bumper
sticker slogans!

------
DotSauce
15 romantics (votes) or did you all just want Cliffs Notes on "The Game"?

------
plainOldText
Yet everything fades away in the face of death.

~~~
philk
Yeah, but if you're going to believe the whole "ultimately we're just dust on
the wind" point then _everything_ is meaningless and you may as well kill
yourself now.

The better alternative is to find what pleasure and satisfaction you can while
you're here.

~~~
Shorel
I don't really understand that line of reasoning at all. And probably never
will.

Ultimately we're just dust in the wind. That's a fact. Our life is very short,
as proved by all the research in longevity and how much we want it to succeed.

In my mind this 'you only have one shot at it' aspect only makes life way more
important than if there were reincarnation, or life after death or any of
those things.

It makes life infinitely more valuable. We don't enjoy life 'despite' its one-
shot-itis, we enjoy life MORE because of it.

~~~
philk
_We don't enjoy life 'despite' its one-shot-itis, we enjoy life MORE because
of it._

I'm sorry, but nothing I've seen out there bears this out.

For the most part, people get through their days by ignoring their mortality
somehow. If this wasn't the case there would be nothing to explain the
plethora of people out there working dead end jobs they hate, stuck in
relationships they don't enjoy or telling people they have plans to do
'something else' at some unspecified point in the future.

I know that's a remarkably pessimistic take on it, but really, look at your
average person out there. If they were actively conscious of their mortality
(and trying to make the most of their one shot) why would they be living the
way they do, without trying to change something?

~~~
Shorel
They are not conscious of their mortality because they have been denying it
all their life.

'Your grand pa did not ceased to be, he just went to a better place' is the
lie they tell to their children, and in a minor grade, to themselves.

All those 'life after death', 'angels', 'ghosts', 'zombies' and reincarnation
movies and TV programs also help accomplish that.

Now, you are not being pessimistic, just stating a fact. However, whatever the
most average person can think should not and does not affect the way I see
life.

