BlackJackal
Master Don Juan
Thats what I've been waiting for since forever.Jayer said:We are on The Star
The last of the characters before we get into actually tactics!
Thats what I've been waiting for since forever.Jayer said:We are on The Star
The last of the characters before we get into actually tactics!
It has changed my perspective alot. Though not as much as the power book.DavenJuan said:just purchased this book over the weekend. hopefully some of you are still reading this book.
the approach that robert greene takes and relates his theories to past characters is a bit different.
has this book opened you up at all? do you see things in a different perspective?
Thats a very good example Departed. Did you keep a blank face and let people imagine what they wanted or did you try and conform it to their beliefs about you? Good stuf!thedeparted said:Haven't read the book in awhile. But this may be an example of a fetishistic star:
In high school I was unknown. Very shy. Quiet. But I was on a mission to get into a top school. I was quietly collecting the grades, awards, leadership positions, scores, etc.
By senior year, it paid off. I got all the scholarship offers. Word got around. People realized I was the guy who "made it". I was going to Harvard. Yale. Wherever I wanted. But they didn't know me. Or anything about me.
The result is that there were crazy rumors. Some thought I was a genius. Others thought I was rich. One story had it I played chess at an international level. Everyone saw in me their own idea of the Harvard man. Random women approached me in the parking lot. The QB's gf suddenly knew my name. It was unbelievable.
Basically, I was the "star" -- I got the ride that everyone secretly wanted. And they projected all their fantasies onto me. That year I had a half-dozen women to choose from, and that's not counting the MILFS and the teachers who suddenly needed their computers fixed ;-)
Amen. Couldn't have put it beter myself. The oldschool SS-heads perhaps were more Charmer oriented but currently, the focus is not on chasing a female but baiting a female and getting her to chase you. Neither are better/worse; just two different camps.FoolsCause said:The suave Charmer method is not favored on SoSuave. Don't put the pvsy on a pedestal. The Charmer studies from afar and chooses a target that has doubts about herself, unrealized potential, and gives her recognition for what she wants to be, perhaps gives her flowers or chocolates if that's what will make her day. He uses seductive words to arouse a romance-novel feeling in her. He'll listen to her. He'll adjust his approach, like a chameleon, in accordance with the victim's "type" (discussed in Greene's book).
I agree. A lot of AFC by default attempt to be charming but because the idea of a charming nice guy is rampant in the media it has lost its charm so to speak. I think the reason that the charmer has dropped off the seduction radar is because it has become cliched. It is in effect romanticism when we are in a post-modern world. However post modernism denatures everything and we have to rebuild are beliefs and ideals so I can see neo-romantic ideals such as Charmers coming back in the near future definitely.Rollo Tomassi said:The problem with the Charmer is that it necessitates a guy already having killed his inner AFC and is confident enough to know when to push and pull it. Most women in this era are already used to the behaviors of a Charmer being associated with the Nice Guy, so when you read the biographies describing this seduction type bear in mind they happened long before the sexual revolution.
Yea, one of my favourite quotes about the charmer is on p85, stating thatFoolsCause said:The Charmer understands his victims' psychology. Also, he's agreeable and doesn't neg-hit her. The Charmer has a short expiration date, and when the bubble bursts and his charms wear off, she goes looking elsewhere. It's best used for ONS and STRs. Casanova would keep his contact short and sweet then move on to the next victim before reality set in.
I think you keep the same mood to them in a degree at least. Of course you want to make them every target happy, but it depends were their happiness comes from. If you meet someone who enjoys looking at the word pessimistically like a gothic chick, or the female lead, Marla Singer from the movie 'Fight Club'; trying to make her happy with an upbeat attitude would be counter-productive in this instance. OTOH if it is a regular girl having a sh!tty day, being upbeat and reassuring that things will turn out okay can go a veeeerrrry long way. I think you have to evaluate each circumstance and react accordingly.Jayer said:I think the important thing to take from this chapter is that of having good energry and being positive. Using flattery in a timely manner. One thing he says that I'm not clear on is
"You should adapt to the victim's moods"
So if he says you should be positive and happy... is he now saying you should be down and depressed if your target is?
If someone can explain the mirroring aspect of this it would be appreciated....
I agree with all of this. Indifference is the cardinal sin concering relationships. As a seducer you have to find that weakness or at the least, create it via doubt.Ripper said:No, the book isn't a novel, he just uses examples from famous seducer's of the past to illustrate his points.
It's far more subtle and nuanced than being a glorified pick-up book. At heart, I think, (coupled with the 48 laws of power) the book is really a discourse on human nature and behaviour. As he says near the start, you can't seduce a happy person. It seems to me his main point, the starting point for seduction is need. In other words, you can't seduce someone who wants for nothing. Seduction is predicated on need, it's about satisfying the need of the the target. In fact, I think you could go as far as to say that he considers this to be the primary paradigm of human relationships. i.e. we gravitate towards those and build relationships with those who fulfill some sort of need we have.
I agree here too. The best way to get what you want from someone is to understand how they think? You, as a person, do not factor into the equation. I believe that letting go of your ego takes a combination of time and success. Most people encounter it after feelings of satiety with life, for example, that joke about how men think the most logically after they have orgasmed. Once we are getting what we want, we don't let our emotions get in the way and as a result can put more emphasis on the 'other'. The problem lies in making yourself content with who you are. It is a catch-22 because the two are often intertwined; you might have to achieve one in order to attain the other.Ripper said:The other sense I get about the book is that Greene believes that successfull seducers can take their ego out of the situation so that they can analyse the situation and be rational about it. The problem with emotion is that it clouds judgement according to him and you always need to be in a position to judge accurately if you want to be a successfull seducer. You might be able to leap from here to saying that men are perhaps more naturally dispositioned to be seducers because they can check their emotions more easily than women and act against what they feel much more easily than women but that is somewhat controversial. Interesting discussion there I reckon.
MF and Ripper, you´re both right. I came across RG website where he talks about The Game (from Neil Strauss). This is what he says:Microphone Fiend said:I agree with all of this. Indifference is the cardinal sin concering relationships. As a seducer you have to find that weakness or at the least, create it via doubt.
I agree here too. The best way to get what you want from someone is to understand how they think? You, as a person, do not factor into the equation. I believe that letting go of your ego takes a combination of time and success. Most people encounter it after feelings of satiety with life, for example, that joke about how men think the most logically after they have orgasmed. Once we are getting what we want, we don't let our emotions get in the way and as a result can put more emphasis on the 'other'. The problem lies in making yourself content with who you are. It is a catch-22 because the two are often intertwined; you might have to achieve one in order to attain the other.
Source: http://www.powerseductionandwar.com/archives/the_robert_gree_2.phtmlTucker Max: The Art of Seduction is very popular among the Pick-Up Artist (PUA) community, and was mentioned prominently in Neil Strauss' book, "The Game." What do you think of the PUA community?
Robert Greene: I don't have any beef with them, I don't know them that well so its maybe not for me to say. I know that there's a lot of stuff in the NLP [ed note: neuro-linguistic programming, a style of seduction invented by Ross Jeffries] world that are kind of the source or foundation for the Pickup artist world. I think there's a lot of interesting things in NLP, a lot of truth to it but what sometimes bothers me a little bit isn't so much what the original thinkers of NLP were coming up with, but how its used. It becomes really formulaic, almost in a clichéd way, where there are these buzz words, this A B and C business and you just have to learn these techniques and go out and apply them and its really kind of mechanical and not strategic or creative. I find that really uninteresting. To be a real seducer, a great seducer, you have to have a flow, a style that is your own. You can take ideas and suggestions from books, but you have to think in the moment. A pickup artist can a get a girl in a bar to sleep with him, but then what? I am interested in power, in making people fall in love with you, in having the capacity to influence and change their behavior. A different approach.
I have not had any attempts at seducing a chick that was a downer, but my guess would be to focus on their outlook/philosophy on life first and their current emotion second. If the women is pessimistic, talk to her in a way that allows her to be pessimisticJayer said:Just off the bat in response to what you responded to me. How would you go about seducing a "Marla Singer" type? Cause I have no clue with these girls....
Although I think that the hatred is just loosely veiled attraction that can be manipulated (see: All of Sunny D's threads) there is a point where the inattention leads to hatred and you have to put in a little extra in order to get back to where you once were. Plus the residue of the hatred will always be there imo.In the process of seduction you may have to pull back at times, subjecting your target to moments of doubt. But prolonged inattention will not only break the spell, it can create hatred
When you get caught up on your insecurities you can’t focus on the target which is why you, as a person, should not factor into the seduction equationHis hesitation shows that he is thinking of himself, not of her...
The 6th story was not real interesting/relevant to me.if you are looking for something other than pleasure - for money, for power - never show it. The suspicion of an ulterior motive is anti-seduction