Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 438 posts in this discussion
Posted on Apr 25, 2009 7:37:15 PM PDT
D. mckenzie says:
I've just re-read some of these postings, and I have a few more thoughts to add:

It's been my observation that most people seeking dating advice have much bigger problems they need to work on . Booker and Tomsho - these two fellas here are a prime example of what I mean:
They both have the same fundamental problem - they are five year old boys trapped in grown men's bodies. Had they addressed that problem first, then they wouldn't need pua advice to begin with
I imagine they handle themselves with women much the same way they have here - their immaturity sinks them every time, so they turn to pua advice thinking that will help, when what they really need to do is grow up.
Booker started out sounding semi-normal, but it only took him a couple of postings to revert to "I'm a five year old on the playground" mode, at which point I dismissed him as a complete idiot with nothing intelligent to say. Wonder how many people do this to him in real life. Wonder how many potential dates have thought to themselves "this guy is a total moron" and walked off.
No doubt booker will reply to this with another stream of mindless insults and name calling, but that will of course further illustrate my point about him.
Tomsho, to his credit, understood most of the concepts I'm talking about here, such as the difference between seduction "in theory" and seduction "in practice" (booker, unfortunately, has a brain that cannot process this or any other mildly complicated topic) but he's also got a dealbreaker of a problem. He's got this "I'm an emotionally unstable possibly potential serial killer" vibe about him, and this will sink him every time. No amount of dating advice will cover this up for him.
Agnawam is vastly different than these two - he sounds like an actual adult who just needs to overcome some of his fears. He will do quite well, I imagine.
My original posting was on why this stuff doesn't work- but I think anyone who is reading the postings of those defending this stuff can see that, not only does it not work, but you have to be a pretty disturbed individual to get into this stuff to begin with.
This of course backs up the one thing I've learned talking to these guys - guys who get into this stuff have much bigger problems they need to work on before they can even think about a relationship.

In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2009 8:43:53 PM PDT
Hi D. mckenzie,

I'm one of the "anyone elses" who stumbled across this very interesting discussion. I am not part of the Seduction Community and have read no books on the topic, like the above by Mystery. I was on David DeAngelo's mailing list for a while, but I guess he dropped me after I didn't purchase his products.

I agree with a lot, but not all of what you say. I like your bottom line that guys should focus on women who find them attractive. How do we know which girls find us physically attractive, as opposed to being drawn to our "charisma"/social skills? If you can answer this one question without reading the rest of this post, I would highly appreciate it.

I agree that guys tend to be shallow and are way too focused on scoring a "10" who is usually more trouble than she's worth ("no matter how good looking she is, there is some guy out there wondering why he's putting up with her crap"). I also agree with your figures of the 70% of the guys looking for action competing for the 5% of women who have similar interests in mind. We'll have a much better shot and avoid needless drama by going after the girls who think we're a "10"- but that's the hard part I think!

I don't agree that looks and/or wealth are the 2 most important factors, although they are important. I know TONS of really rich *and* good-looking guys who are always complaining about not being able to find a date, and I think it has to do with women's reaction after the first couple of exchanged words. I've seen with my own eyes women's initial expressions of interest fade when the aforementioned gentlemen are too open and "nice." (I've also seen the reverse- women getting turned off by rich guys who are too forward-leaning or obnoxious.)

I disagree that most guys have "game" and that women don't get drawn to that. From my observation most men don't, which I think is why women get drawn to those unique few who do. Women are not drawn to good-looking actors because of their looks but because of the fact that they are stage presences- you'll never see Brad Pitt or George Clooney stumble over his words or exude anything less than total confidence.

Comedian Adam Carolla (I think) once observed that women are extremely good at picking up on fear or lack of confidence (comparing them to wolves!), but in general they're not very good at detecting BS. That is why slick moves like peacocking work (although you're certainly not guaranteed of landing quality on your lap). Women don't talk about attracting charismatic guys, because the source of their attraction is not logical (whereas hitching onto a rich person would be logical). After reading some of David D's emails, I tried goofing on women in a light-hearted way, and I found that it got their attention much better than approaching them in a straightforward and respectful manner (what mom taught me...).

I really liked the 2 websites you posted made by the former PUA. They're probably more valuable than any product on seduction that you have to pay for.

In reply to an earlier post on May 8, 2009 3:53:32 PM PDT
D. mckenzie says:
<I agree with a lot, but not all of what you say. I like your bottom line that guys should focus on women who find them attractive. How do we know which girls find us physically attractive, as opposed to being drawn to our "charisma"/social skills?>

That is one of the best questions I've ever been asked, and as such, It deserves an excellent answer. The answer: You have to know how to read people. Reading people is an excellent skill to develop and will help you in many other areas other than just dating.

If there was a list that I could post here of the positive cues that people give off when they want to get with you, I would post it, but there isn't, you just have to be smart and know how to read people. You can do it well by looking to see if she is taking the initiative in moving things forward. Some of my positive cues have been calling me after the first date, initiating physical contact, and if I'm really lucky, she just straight up tells me what she is thinking. I'm sure other guys have hundreds of other cues that I've never encountered, but to read cues, you just have to pay attention and see if she is trying to move things forward.

As far as good looking, rich nice guys who blow it by being too nice, I've always believed that self described "nice guys" and "jerks" are two sides of the same coin. Guys who describe themselves as "nice" and then complain when their niceness doesn't pay off are really just jerks putting on an act. If you really were nice, then you would be nice for it's own sake, and not really care about the results.

Looks and money matter, but they won't help you if you are a complete twit. Take Joe Francis - he is the guy that started "Girls Gone Wild" - not a bad looking guy, and he has plenty of cash, yet he complains in interviews about how he can't land a date. Why do you think that is? How many women do you think want to have a kid with a guy like him? Hugh Hefner at least has some class, but Francis is just an all around frat boy. Ergo, despite his looks and income, he can't land a date.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2009 7:07:43 PM PDT
A. Tomsho says:
"My original posting was on why this stuff doesn't work- but I think anyone who is reading the postings of those defending this stuff can see that, not only does it not work, but you have to be a pretty disturbed individual to get into this stuff to begin with."

I'm disappointed to see that's what you still think of those who disagree with you.

I understand that you do not place any value on my opinion, so I will respectfully withdraw rather than continue to waste your and my time alike. However do remember that should you wish to drop this desire to paint me as the bad guy, my offer of peace and respectful conversation still stands. If you accept, great. If not, you keep doing your thing and I'll do mine. If nothing else, at least keep in mind that a live-and-let-live attitude would be much more persuasive and much more beneficial to your cause. You cannot convince people to join your side when you belittle them.

Posted on May 15, 2009 11:16:06 AM PDT
D. mckenzie says:
To tomsho:
If people want to paint you as a bad guy, then they have their reasons for it, and you can do yourself a big favor by learning what those reasons are. Go reread my previous postings, and if you think I'm wrong on any of my assessments of you, let me know.

A few more of my random musings on this topic:

Most guys pick this stuff to read it thinking it's probably mostly BS, and they can scan through it for whatever kernels of good advice might be in it. I think this stuff is nearly entirely BS, and the few kernels of good advice contained within it are themselves so riddled with BS that they're rendered useless. For instance, take "be confident", on the face, good advice, but once you get into the details, you wind up with some variation of "cocky and funny". Cocky and funny, in theory, is trying to make yourself seem more comfortable socially than you really are, but it comes across terribly. Remember that when you first meet someone, they expect you to be putting on your best face, so if you act "cocky and funny" (translation from pua to real life: arrogant and weird) she will think that you are a huge prick. Despite what seduction guru's may tell you, this is not attractive to women.

I think a lot of socially awkward guys have built up a lot of anger and frustration over the years, and it comes out without them noticing it when they try to handle women.

The guys who fantasize about hooking up with random women are the ones who can't really do it, and I'll bet that most of the pua "gurus" writing and selling books fall into that category. Guys who actually can pull it off learn it's a bad idea and that you're better off with a steady girlfriend. Guys who actually do live "The lifestyle" running around with multiple questionable women will quickly discover the ugly parts of it and get out.

The purpose of being a pick up artist is not to do better with women, it is to impress other men by having them think you are doing better with women, and that is why pua advice is always geared towards telling men what they want to hear so they can pass it on to their buddies and impress them. The misogyny element comes from the fact that men who would be impressed with your stories about hooking up with random women don't much care for women themselves, so you can gain more points if you talk about how you mistreat women yet still get them in the sack.

A lot of guys have the line of thinking: If I could land a hot woman, it wouldn't matter how she treated me, all my friends would think I'm a stud for hooking up with her. In reality, your friends would be thinking you are a schmuck for putting up with someone who takes you for granted.

Here is a site that I think explains the "nice guy" phenomena quite well


No asterisks, of course. The main idea of this site is that nice guys don't see themselves the way the rest of the world does, and their shortcomings are actually much worse than the shortcomings jerks have.

Mr Bowler: remember that "attention" and "attraction" are two different things. Slick moves like peacocking create attention, but that kind of attention is a couple of miles removed from the "I wanna sleep with you attraction". Discerning attention from attraction goes back to knowing how to read people - if she is taking steps herself to move things forward instead of you having to talk her into everything, then it's a fair shot that she is actually into you.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2009 8:31:36 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 15, 2009 11:13:26 PM PDT
A. Tomsho says:
I know you have reasons for criticizing me in the irrational and unfounded way that you do. My concern is that you won't actually listen when I speak in my defense. You have not given me any reason to believe that you would. Every time I provided you with information you asked for, you either attacked my character or went off on some weird tangent. This is further evidenced by the fact that you invite me to speak in my own defense... and then proceed to talk about your own ideas and the shortcomings you perceive to be the common failings of every single member of the pick-up artist community. And your "musings" are filled with the same strawman arguments and twisted ironies as always. Let me explain.

You say most of us build up frustration from our lack of success. The community acknowledges and tries to support guys who go through this phase so they can get through it quickly and in a mentally and emotionally healthy manner. In this regard, you're preaching to the choir.

You then go on to say that most guys would be better off with a steady girlfriend. But that's what a lot of guys want and we try to help them reach that goal. Again, you are not actually disagreeing with the community.

You claim that the entire goal of the community is only for men to impress each other. That's a strawman argument because you have absolutely no proof to justify that claim, yet you state it as if it were fact. You then accuse us all of misogyny with the same flippancy as someone invoking Godwin's Law. That's also a strawman argument because misogyny is actively discouraged in the community. The concept that all pick-up artists are misogynists is an accusation leveled at the community by those who have not actually taken the time to learn who we are, and thus don't know what they're talking about. This is the source of a lot of the criticism against you. You define the community by hearsay and stereotypes, not real information. This is not uncommon, but it is no less demonstrably wrong.

Furthermore, you go on to state that we don't care how women treat us, when in fact one of the first lessons all the teachers in the community try to communicate is that you tolerate no disrespect of you, your friends/family, your time, or your property. If a woman treats you badly, it doesn't matter how good-looking she is, she's gotta go.

And to conclude you give your link and your take on the "nice guy" phenomenon. Again, you're preaching to the choir because this is common knowledge in the PUA community. In particular, it is frequently referenced in the works of David DeAngelo who runs Double Your Dating. This is the source of the criticisms that you have not actually read the teaching materials you profess to condemn. Had you actually taken the time to familiarize yourself with the DYD material, you would have already known this. And since you appear to support the article that you linked to, then you should also at the very least support David DeAngelo's observation and teaching of the same.

You're really not as different from us as you may think you are. The problem is that you are intent to condemn us, as my above illustrations have shown, despite the fact that you actually agree with the community on numerous points. It is that vitriolic absolution and willful ignorance that leads me to believe you are being too emotional about this to show the intellectual honesty needed to listen to me when I explain why your attempt to profile me as a person is wrong.

I suggest you read the book I recommended earlier, Meeting the Shadow. It is not a PUA book, just a good idea. However, if you do want to actually have some credibility in this debate, then you need to start reading the books that you so categorically hate. Again, I am willing to extend to you my offer of a truce. If you will temper your hostility and promise to listen, I will provide you with the information that you ask for. It's entirely up to you. What do you have to lose?

In reply to an earlier post on May 16, 2009 2:46:18 PM PDT
D. mckenzie says:
You want to call a truce, and you want me to go read some book of yours and then have an "intelligent debate" on it. What do I have to loose? Well, nothing of course.

It's just that I don't care.

You see, I'm only interested in the practical end of things and what works in real life. You tomsho, still seem to want to sit around and argue seduction theory, but theory to me is irrelevant unless it can improve practice. The practice end of seduction is worthless, and that is why I come out so strongly against it.

On the theoretical side, most of what the "community" says is true. In the community's perfect world, where large numbers of women are open to the idea of sex with some strange man, and only cares about his level of "game" everything the community says would work every time . In the real world, the teachings of the community fall apart for two reasons - first, it leaves out the fact that half the equation is whether you are her type and she is actually into you. Practically, though, whether you are her type is probably 80% of the equation since women have higher dating standards than men. Men date to have a good time. Women date to husband shop. Secondly, the community ignores the numbers game - I've explained that one several times previously.

If you want a steady girlfriend, you are wasting your time with the community. To do this, you just need to improve your basic social skills, and there are many other better, socially healthy ways to do this.

I'm listening to you perfectly well, Tomsho. You are doing a better job than I ever could of illustrating the sort of unstable guys who get into this stuff, and why normal guys, if they want to stay normal, should keep away from this stuff.

Posted on May 16, 2009 9:13:36 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 16, 2009 9:31:53 PM PDT
A. Tomsho says:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. I try to be civil with you, and you respond by attacking my character. I'm starting to think that, "What do you have to lose?" wasn't the right question to ask. A better one would be, "What are you so afraid of?" If you were truly secure in your beliefs, you wouldn't act this way.

I have no doubt you'll deny this, but when you get right down to it, we're all in this for the same reasons. Humans need human contact; platonic, familial, and romantic. What do we have to gain by cutting each other's throats?

I'm sorry we wasted one another's time. Once again my offer stands. But if you respond with the same condescending hostility, understand that you will be talking to an empty room. I'm only speaking to you now because I believe you to be intelligent, and you would give far less poisonous advice if you were able to temper your emotions and think objectively. However if you are telling the truth when you say that you don't care, then I have to back down because that would mean I have not been talking to a person who cares about the truth. Only about being right. And there is nothing so profoundly arrogant as that.


Posted on May 18, 2009 1:40:19 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 18, 2009 6:57:23 AM PDT
D. mckenzie says:
I attack your character, tomsho, because you are immature and are convinced that seduction techniques will allow you to assemble a harem of playboy bunnies. Anything that doesn't forward this goal of yours just will not register with you.

Are we in the same boat? Not really. I started reading this stuff because like all single guys (and probably a fair number of attached guys) the notion of learning some better moves with women was appealing - and I was appalled at how terrible all the dating advice for men I came across was. This stuff will at best get a drink thrown in your face and at worst make you a sex offender. I was able to see the BS in this stuff because I've had plenty of success in this department before reading my first pua book, so I could compare seduction advice against real life.

At the end of the day, positive relationships are about taking care of other people, but you only seem to want to take care of yourself.

Also, I find your "offer" not very relevant. There is no point in having a discussion on male/female relationships with someone when their entire premise on relationships is based on assembling a personal harem.

Posted on May 18, 2009 12:18:07 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 18, 2009 6:45:04 PM PDT
A. Tomsho says:
Again, you attack me out of ignorance. I have no interest in assembling a harem, though I also think it's very small of you to belittle polyamory just because it doesn't work for you. I'm looking for a steady, long-term girlfriend, but I have to actually meet women in order to do that. And dating experience definitely helps when I find a girl I'd like to be exclusive with. The fact that you chose to believe a stereotype seldom seen outside of Hollywood and apply it to me does not bespeak an open mind or emotional stability.

You also make the repeated logical fallacy that the community is trying to give relationship advice. Very few actually are. There's a reason David D calls his work "Double Your Dating." He openly states that he believes steady, long-term relationships are great. But what he specializes in is helping guys meet and attract women. Dating and relationships may be used interchangeably, but they both entail different things. For you to continue criticizing the community for not giving adequate relationship advice is akin to criticizing a chef for not giving you proper exercise counseling to compliment your diet.

And I sincerely doubt you have read a single one of these books as you routinely demonstrate a complete and utter lack of knowledge of even the most fundamental lessons and respond to explanations of these facts with more ad hominem attacks. My guess is that you watched an episode or two of The Pick-Up Artist on VH1 and thought that was enough. Unfortunately, no it isn't.

Your repeated attacks on me only serve to imply a case of Jungian projection. You are exactly the same as I was 6 years ago. Everything you accuse me of being is everything you either are now or have repressed. You are not advancing your cause by acting this way. And in fact it is people like you that drive more men toward the community. You make sweeping generalized statements and damn everyone who does not agree with you without question. In doing so, men look at what you deem to be the dark side and find its honesty far more appealing than the duplicity of your world of light where the seemingly normal people who profess to want to help are in reality hostile, holier-than-thou and immature.

I am not qualified to help you. I'm not a therapist. And I'm not the virtuoso of debate who can convince you to stop acting in such a rude, condescending manner. For that reason, I respectfully withdraw to allow you to continue preaching in the hopes that you will eventually realize that you're only wasting your time and alienating people with your attitude.

I hope you find what you're looking for in life. And that you some day come to terms with your demons and forgive yourself.

In reply to an earlier post on May 19, 2009 5:48:38 PM PDT
D. mckenzie says:
Your meltdown there speaks for itself.

Most curiously, you speak of "actually meeting women" as if it is something that hasn't happened. So basically, none of this stuff has worked for you, yet you still defend it so vigorously.

The idea of seduction is so important to you that you don't care if it actually works. You were the first person to use the word "pathetic" on this forum, and I don't think you would have introduced such a strong word if you didn't already know everything I'm telling you.

Posted on Jun 18, 2009 2:37:57 AM PDT
J. Beumont says:
I reccomend the book The Art Of Mackin' by Tariq Nasheed

Posted on Jun 21, 2009 12:33:53 PM PDT
Brett G. says:
I must say this has been an interesting thread that I enjoyed reading except towards the end here. This subject fascinates me and I can talk about it for hours. I think it's a subject that delves into sociology and psychology both. I would say I disagree books like this are only for guys that want one night stands, the techniques can be used to get your foot in the door and work towards acquiring a date with her. I don't think you can argue with the kings these guys have used these techniques for years with successful results.

Posted on Jun 22, 2009 1:09:00 PM PDT
M. N. Nguyen says:
I recommend you guys read: Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking

Posted on Jun 23, 2009 7:09:04 PM PDT
D. mckenzie says:
This stuff fascinates me, too, but for a different reason: selling average guys material on how to seduce hot women is one of the most impressive scams I've ever seen.
I drew a parallel a while back about how this stuff is the same as those infomercials you see at 2am on basic cable - yes, you too, insomniac, can make millions in real estate with no money and no credit. Financial freedom is just one step away! Now call the number at the bottom of the screen so we can set up an auto draft on your bank account.
Of course, anyone with experience in real estate or lending knows what a bunch of BS this is. The guy on the infomercial (who always claims to have made millions himself) will tell you whatever he thinks he has to for you to give him your money, and will gloss over or totally ignore the realities of real estate investing. PUA gurus are running the exact same game; the only difference is that their focus is women instead of money. A good chunk of pick up advice is designed to get you the temporary attention of women you don't have a shot with, and now that you think it is working, you will rush back and give the guru more money.
Are these guys the kings who have been successful at this stuff for years? If I was trying to sell books and expensive seminars, then I wouldn't claim to be anything less. But if I was really running around with a lot of hot women, then I would want as little competition for them as possible.


If landing a date with her requires a lot of "work" then it's a near certainty she's not into you and you're wasting your time. If she is the least bit interested in you and is looking for a date, she will make it easy for you. If she is making it tough, then it's time to take the hint and move on.

Posted on Jun 24, 2009 12:31:16 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 24, 2009 1:13:48 AM PDT
Brett G. says:
Dmckenzie I read all your posts and I do agree with a lot what you say, especially your numbers crunching with regards to men vs. women in the mating dance. Some of the other posters made some decent points as well. Very few women are interested in just hooking up especially once they approach their mid-twenties or so when they're probably looking for a husband. So it's true there's basically 50 guys trying to bed the 5 women that are sexually promiscuous, and if you don't have some good combination out of looks, status, wealth, and personality you're pretty much out of luck. It is also true women care about looks probably just as much as men do, especially the ones that would be open to having a one night stand. If she's open to casual sex she has plenty of options so why would she choose someone she isn't physically attracted to? The better looking she is the more options she has.

I'm taking it as your overall belief is that if she's really interested in you, you won't need to play all these games and you should just be straightforward, approach her with confidence and be honest. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that does make total sense to me. At the same time though like another poster pointed out women are not attracted to guys that "appear" to be needy, desperate, or have a certain body language about them. Is it not possible these books could help in that area in some way? There are things guys do that ruin it for themselves I believe and they don't even realize they are doing it. For the record I've never read any of these books but I know the overall gist of them, and I'm looking for long term with a woman not just a one night stand.

What about the stereotypical nice guy dilemma? The guy that has a good soul who wants to find a woman for long term and has the right motives, but never seems to get anywhere. Is it just him projecting some sort of a lack of confidence that turns the woman off? Or is it just that she wasn't physically attracted to him?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 26, 2009 4:24:04 AM PDT
A. Tomsho says:
"The better looking she is the more options she has."

Very true. But it works the same way when looking for relationships. A beautiful woman living in a decent-sized city gets approached by guys anywhere between 20 and 40 times a day on average. She's got a lot of options. McKenzie is right to a point, but I disagree with his assumption that a woman who is interested in you will make it easy for you. The more options a woman has, the longer she'll want to draw out the flirting and comfort-building to see if you're on the level. Which isn't a problem because I think you'd agree that it's more fun when the chemistry and sexual tension slowly build up.

To answer your question about the nice guy dilemma, that could be either one. Sometimes there are people who you just would not sleep with. Ever. But more commonly in the situation you describe, the guy just has no confidence. He doesn't stand up for himself, he shows no leadership ability, he doesn't make decisions... I know it's painful, but look at some of those dating shows like Elimidate and Next! and you'll see that too many guys just give up all their dignity and self-control around a hot woman. They go out of their way to compliment and impress her, they tell her to pick the restaurant, they ask stupid questions like, "How do you like me so far?" or, "Am I your type?" Would you date a woman who always acted that spineless and meek around you?

As for learning body language, I have a couple of recommendations. First book is "The Definitive Book of Body Language" by Allan and Barbara Pease. Really good book. They devoted an entire chapter to courtship signals. My only complaint is that they don't reference their sources, which strikes me as lazy since I was able to corroborate them using Google without much hassle.

Anyway, the second book is David DeAngelo's Double Your Dating. I actually think this is probably the best intro book of them all. As much as I like Mystery, his jargon heavy text can be a little hard to wrap your mind around at first. There's a lot of practical advice in the book, discussion of the why and how. He saves the actual techniques for the end of the book. He does cover body language, but more importantly he goes into detail on creating and projecting an ideal self-image. He also does list other good books to read (none of them pick-up artist books) and a few DVDs with actors who illustrate principles of good body language.

Posted on Jun 26, 2009 4:16:07 PM PDT
D. mckenzie says:
Brett G:

If you think you are constantly blowing it by being overly needy or desperate, then it's your basic social skills that need working on. One big step you can take in improving your social skills is to stop looking at everything in the context of "hooking up with women" and just start treating all people as people. Do this enough, and eventually you will find that some of these people will want to hook up with you.

Nice guy dilemma: That depends. I'd have to see the situation. If it was an average guy chasing around models, then it's his looks and lack of status. If he was going after average girls but always acted desperate and needy (see: creepy and weird) then it's his shoddy social skills.

Look at it like this: take sex off the table for a minute and ask yourself if you would want to hang out with her on a strictly platonic level. Do you actually like her as a person? If the answer is yes, go for it. If not, then pass.

That being said, if she doesn't return your level of interest, then give her respect, keep your own dignity, and move on.

And to tomsho's advice...

Draw out the flirting to see if you are on the level? No, women don't do that when they're interested. If she is actually into you, she is not going to risk blowing it by playing a bunch of games - she knows that any woman who is more straightforward will beat her to you. This notion that women like to play games was cooked up by men who are trying to find mutual interest when it just isn't there.

Reading body language - you will pick that up naturally as you get more used to being around people. Don't think of it as being something complicated - if it were, everybody would need to read a bunch of books to learn how it worked.

Posted on Jul 23, 2009 11:33:26 AM PDT
Solzhenitsyn says:
God what a tedious thread.
Women DO play games.
Nice guys DO have a much harder time.
Are there skills involved in dating and mating? YES.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 24, 2009 8:32:11 AM PDT
D. mckenzie says:
Had you been paying attention, you would have learned that nice guys only have a hard time when they decide to waste their time on women that don't really want them. Unfortunately, a lot of "nice guys" interpret this flaky, lack of interest some women show as "games"

Ask yourself, what possible benefit do women get from playing games? Money? Attention? She can get that without the games. Men who play games do so mainly so they can maintain multiple girlfriends, but women are largely uninterested in collecting men.

Sure, there are skills involved in dating, but they're no different than the skills involved in dealing with people in general.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2009 12:39:16 PM PDT
D.mckenzie, hello again and thanks for responding. Before you read the rest of this message, again I'd like to say that your brief comment about *pursuing women who are into you and staying away from the ones who aren't* was probably the most important contribution to this discussion. Looking at recent comments, I would also agree that if a woman is really into you, she won't play games. She might play games initially though when she hasn't yet sized you up, and your response to them will help determine whether she gets into you. Much more often than not, though, flakiness is a sign of lack of interest. Move on!

Check this out (click on "Full Episode" and listen to the first 5 min):

Harvard scientists did some math and found how difficult it is to find the right person. The pickier you are, the more that the odds are stacked against you. The killer variable in my view was factoring people who would find you attractive. The scientists were too generous- assuming 1 in 5 (20%) of appropriate women would find you attractive. Although this variable varies quite a bit among guys, some of us aren't very lucky.

I've gotten into online dating recently, and I'm simply amazed how rarely girls even reply to emails- to send even a simple "no thanks, I'm not interested"!! I've sent messages only to those with whom I felt there was some common bond or at least appeared to have an empathic bent, but I guess people are good at hiding how shallow they are. After listening to the above podcast I wonder whether I should just email everyone, cast the net wide and see who bites.

I showed your heartlessb*tches link to my sister. We usually agree on a lot of things but not here. She liked your website, although she admits in general that women often go for total jerks. I on the other hand felt that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Nice, respectful guys will naturally have or at least demonstrate self-doubt compared to a**holes who think they know everything. It is extremely rare to find considerate people who *show* confidence. There's a difference between real nice guys and fakes. You can tell the fakes because they act out when they realize there's no payoff. If they lose the "nice," then they're not the real thing.

I think that the real nice guys have problems because of *shyness* and fear of rejection, or much worse the fear of flaky response. They make the mistake of trying to become friends and evolve romance out of it, when the process usually works better in reverse. But the killer, as you pointed out, is that *nice guys waste time on women who aren't interested.*

To make things worse, the guys are expected to make the first move. *That is what makes finding the right girl so hard.* It would be a hell of a lot easier if the girls could make the first move too, because then we wouldn't have to waste time with the ones who aren't interested.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2009 5:03:06 PM PDT
A. Tomsho says:
"I've gotten into online dating recently, and I'm simply amazed how rarely girls even reply to emails- to send even a simple "no thanks, I'm not interested"!! I've sent messages only to those with whom I felt there was some common bond or at least appeared to have an empathic bent, but I guess people are good at hiding how shallow they are. After listening to the above podcast I wonder whether I should just email everyone, cast the net wide and see who bites."

This stood out to me for two reasons.

The first being that casting the net wide is what is also called shotgunning. It's nowhere near as effective as you think. Have you specifically thought about the kind of woman you really want and are attracted to? It'll save you a lot of grief.

Second, I don't buy that you're not getting responses because every woman online is shallow. The fact is that most guys accidentally sabotage themselves online. What does your profile say about you? What are you saying in these emails?

Posted on Jul 28, 2009 9:25:34 PM PDT
I think D mckenzie is either trying to sell us his own methods or he's actually a female...I think probably the latter.

Posted on Jul 30, 2009 1:21:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 30, 2009 1:29:13 PM PDT
D. mckenzie says:
Rivas thinks I'm female - that's hilarious. Not too sure how I can comment on this. Am I selling some system? No, I'm just disseminating common sense to anyone who has enough sense themselves to listen, and I've had as much fun reading these responses as I've had posting them. Moving on now...

I listened to the clip, and approaching this as a math equation (especially a complex, unsolvable one like the drake equation) is looking at it all wrong. .

Being too picky is of course a killer, because you wind up with a bunch of variables as "disqualifiers" that in the long run really don't matter. Two of the most important things that make it work in the long run are loyalty and dependability, and most people have these. Throw in compatibility in personalities and sexual um... don't know what it's called, but you know what I mean, and you've got a winner. All you need is a short list of deal-breakers (I only have three) and stay flexible on everything else, and then, all of a sudden, the complex equation of finding a mate becomes something surprisingly simple.
"Is she physically into you" is the most important variable because the rest of it is built on that. Trying to evolve romance out of friendship - I tried this myself a couple of times when I was younger, and it blew up in my face because the foundation of physical attraction just wasn't there, so everything else on the romantic end fell apart.
I used to approach this logically, thinking that if we have x, y, and z in common, we should be perfect for each other. But attraction does not follow the laws of logic. There would be girls I would think I would be perfect for, and I would just wind up as good friends with her because I wasn't her "type", and there would be others that I thought I had nothing really in common with, yet got somewhere with because she was physically into me.
Very attractive people may seem like they have it easier, but that isn't necessarily the case. A lot of very attractive people think "I'm really great, so I should be with someone really great" and end up creating for themselves an extremely tiny dating pool. A lot of wealthy and very well educated people do this also, and wind up worse off in the dating game than average people who are more realistic about who they can get. I've seen guys who are only moderately wealthy yet are convinced they should be dating like Donald Trump, and they set an unrealistic bar for themselves. Good looking and highly educated guys do this too, so they wind up not much better off than average guys.
On the confidence note again: I don't think confidence and being a nice guy are mutually exclusive. Confidence is just a way of looking at things. One big thing that can sap your confidence is having this "find the perfect person" mentality because it puts way too much pressure on you. If you think she is the perfect girl going in before you really know anything about her, then it's a near certainty that you are going to act in a needy, desperate way that will give her the creeps. But if you just calm down and remember that it isn't the end of the world if you blow it, and remember that you have no idea yet if she really is Mrs. Perfect, you will do loads better.

And to online dating - What you have with online dating are men, who are usually just trying to find a date for this Friday night, contacting women, who are trying to find future husbands. Ergo, women online have standards much higher than men online, so you wind up with men scratching their heads over all their unanswered emails. The trick of course is knowing what to write in your profile/ profile responses to increase your odds. Also, I would not recommend online dating for any guy who isn't at least in his late 20's. Women just don't take really young guys seriously, and in a forum like online dating, you are going to be filtered out pretty quick.
That being said, here is the stuff I think guys should know if they want to take a crack at dating online:
1.Be specific in your profile. Don't use vague terms to describe yourself - use specifics about yourself and your life. Don't try to brag or sound impressive - women are far more impressed by men who don't feel they need to brag.
2.Don't try to be funny. If she is interested in you, she will want to know as much as possible about you and will take everything you say at face value, so all your jokes will fall flat and make you sound stupid.
3.When writing to someone, find the most unique thing in her profile and comment on it. The beauty of this is that it shows you are actually interested in talking to her and not just hitting on her.
4.Post good pictures of yourself. An ugly guy with good pictures will get more responses than a good looking guy with crappy pictures. A couple of shots showing your face and upper body should do. No sunglasses.
5.A good profile has two parts - first, describe yourself, and be as straightforward as possible. Second, describe the type of relationship/woman you are looking for, and don't mention sex or physical attributes.
6.Don't assume you're one of 50 guys competing for her - this will lead you to do stupid things like bragging about/ embellishing yourself, or being way too nice (see: creepy). In my experience, when a woman finds a guy she is interested in, the rest of the male population ceases to exist. If she is into you, then effectively you have no competition. That being said, you can still blow it by being a jerk. Just act normal and you will do fine.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2009 7:27:27 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 3, 2009 7:28:13 PM PDT
D.mckenzie, thanks a lot again. Your tips were useful and made sense. I completely agree with your "x,y,and z" fallacy argument- there is nothing logical about how this game works. Shaping the entire search around finding the "perfect" person can be self-defeating.

However, I have observed that often women don't get attracted to a guy right away. I've seen examples where a woman's first impression would be that the guy is ok looking, but then somehow find him attractive later. "Love at first sight" is not a very common phenomenon. What is your take on that?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  27
Total posts:  438
Initial post:  Dec 21, 2008
Latest post:  Oct 6, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women Into Bed
The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women Into Bed by Mystery (Hardcover - February 6, 2007)
3.9 out of 5 stars   (240)