Quote: (03-01-2012 02:55 PM)kimleebj Wrote:
Roosh's essay, "Everything I Know about Women" advocates fitness, reading, and travelling to improve your love life. Isn't this just his mother's game-denialist advice to "be yourself"?
There are basically two parts of "the game":
- Live a life other people would like to be part of (which automatically translates to "being interesting", not being needy and having some confidence);
- Go out often, and be social (no chick will approach you if you're staying at home playing xbox);
That's enough to get results, assuming you're willing to practice, learn on your mistakes and to take the risk.
Thing is, some people think "game" is like science, the more you study the better you become. But it is not.
The "game" is more like going to gym. You can go to gym without reading anything and knowing nothing, look at what other people do, try to repeat it, see what works for you and throw away what doesn't. And just in a few months you'll get visible results. Reading the books/watching the movies about it may allow you to get the results a little faster, but most people would progress fast enough without all that and applying the bodybuilder techniques to a newbie with a weak body might actually do more harm than good. At the same time, just reading the books about getting muscles but only going to gym once a month to practice brings you nowhere. Read them when you hit the plateau or got a specific issue.
Quote:Quote:
I thought the whole point of game was to stimulate interest. There are plenty of guys like me who were educated, travelled, and in-shape. We got rejected wearing pleated khakis, tucked-in polo shirts, and obsequious smiles.
This is a wrong criteria. You will not get rejected less when you get better, quite the opposite - most people seem to start approaching more and in more difficult situations, and as a result they also got rejected more. I have personally seen Tyler rejected more times in one night than I was in the last year. The "game" is not about finding that particular girl you like and make it attracted to you with 100% success rate, so a particular rejection does not matter.
Quote:Quote:
That is probably the biggest proof of game - all the rich, fit nerds who get nothing.
I think this is one of common PUA generalization myths.
Quote:Quote:
Maybe we should discuss the relative importance of screening women for interest versus gaming the marginally interested ones.
The strategy is definitely not for everyone. Personally I enjoy it since my goal is to get laid with as little effort as possible, and I don't want to deal with 18-25 chicks at all, but this is definitely not what everyone else is looking for.
With years my approaching was becoming more and more reactive, and during the last year I stopped doing it completely. If two years ago I'd approach a chick who was smiling and holding eye contact with me, now I will not approach anyone, even a chick who passed by and rubbed her boob on my elbow (seems like American chicks here in Bay Area do it a lot). They should approach me and do most of the work during the first 15 minutes - and then if I'm interested I'd take the initiative and start leading (otherwise it is hard to balance at this fine point of being interested enough for too long). There is no rejection, no resistance, no need to change venues, and typically you can handle it in 30-60 minutes.
The drawbacks of this method, however, are obvious. First you're giving up the quality control to the chicks - you can only choose among those who approached you (or among those who showed interest); there may be a cute chick who didn't show any interest but who'd be open to you. Second, this only works in America and very westernized countries, it will not work in EE/Russia. And of course you waste a lot of good opportunities this way, so this is truly only for the people who don't mind it.