I admit I haven't frequented the community as much though I understand its concepts. I said silly because this is a thread addressing the problem, and it is silly from the perspective of someone who understands what's going on. But when trying to help someone I would still be respectful.

It has, but at the same time, they were grossly misdiagnosing what goes into those things. For instance on the "attract" front, they tended to say that it's not looks and vibe(shit %98 of stuff ignores vibe altogether), and had all sorts of little things to do to "get around lack of looks" which is crap.

Yes, attract, comfort and seduce may have always been the idea, but how the oddball PUA experts suggesting going about those things was so badly off, it's not even funny.
That was actually Mystery's model, but look at how Mystery went about achieving it.

I believe it was also the core of Ross Jefferies' Speed Seduction and Dear Lord, you cannot possibly tell me you think that bullshit is even within a country mile of being useful. Create attraction through language patterns and weasel words. Yeah, RJ, totally, lol.

_________________
RSDTyler

I have no issue with Mystery. If you do use MM, the girls are so well trained on it that they can help you out if you get stuck.

_________________
mpuaforum.proboards.com

Come on V, you know I gotta defend MM on that one. MM talks about maximizing your looks through fashion and working out. Heck, in the Game, Style talks about tanning, having to work out and get in shape, shaving his head, tanning, whitening his teeth, ditching the glasses for contacts. In the VH1 show, every season started with the guys getting made over as much as they could within a short time frame. Some guys got oral surgery if I remember correctly. So it's not that the old school stuff disregarded looks. Sure, they didnt give you workout plans but they said to maximize how you look. AND they started off telling guys to have a sexual persona and to fit into some sexual architype. By contrast, I find the old school stuff much more realistic than new school stuff like "state" and "nimbus" or whatever that say that these moods and energies are what matters more than anything else. I'm sure you know the Tyler line about if your game is 1% better than the good looking guy, you'll win or something haha. Yes, looks werent the emphasis of MM, but from any school of PU, who tells students that this is a process that may take a few years to complete?

Is it fully realistic about the importance of looks? Nope. But no PU material really is. There is always something that is peddled that will supposedly get you past your looks....state, being direct sexually, brutal honesty...."breaking rapport tonality that commands her to seeing you as an authority??"....it ALL comes down to here's what you can do so women like you do matter what you look like or how much money you have. At least back then they told you to maximize your looks even if it cost you alot. This stuff is all in the older stuff anyway. It's just that people like to see it as outdated, forget it, twist it and then come back with it like it's new.

From a thread here from 2008:
See, most of this stuff is old school. Good you were able to break it down succinctly and hopefully people follow the basics that are already out there. It's kinda like how people say MM was so complicated, when it was read 1 book, and get in the field while hitting the gym. Now, game is "simpler"...read this PU book, this book by tolle, art of war, this other book, meditate daily, watch these daily videos for the latest secret, etc. Yeah...things are "simpler" now

It's like comparing Dennis Rodman to Michael Jordan.
He does. But after he tells you to buy a new wardrobe, he then proceeds to say that ANY man can go pull 10s in a club. Provided he has enough "game".
Chase Amante Good Looking Loser
StrengthBySonny
This doesn't exactly disagree with my point
I'm not strictly bashing Mystery. I bash PUA in general. I think %95+ of it is inefficient at best, and outright toxic at worst. Jack was saying that old PUA schools of thought had attraction down. I don't agree. Every old thing I've read, insists that attraction comes about because of your actions. You DO things to "create attraction". That's still common, I might add. That's why I disagree that it was always understood. It still isn't, even today. But it was even worse back then.

What I posted does not match the old(or modern) definition of Attraction, Comfort and Seduction. Because I define "Attraction" as "She likes how you look, and come across" and they define it as "You did things to make her like you!".
I'd define the 2nd step as "You get on the same emotional level, and feel connected" while they would say "You do the right things and you'll 'build comfort'".
While they're telling you "Ask her questions from a frame of superiority and ensuring she's good enough for you. Tell her stories that highlight excellent personal qualities and inform her that you have an interesting lifestyle.", I'm saying "Have fun with the girl, get sexual with her, let yourself like her, make sure you two are in sync".

These are radically different. What I posted can be called "Attraction, Comfort, Seduction", but the way I'm defining these things is so different from how Mystery, RJ, RSD, Stlye, etc, etc that they are not even close to the same thing.

It's about like saying that polo and basketball are both the same, because you have a team, a ball, uniforms, time limits and scoring.

_________________
RSDTyler

I'm not saying that you aren't a smart guy, but like most people you are operating from your own personal experiences. Let's go with what the nerds at Oxford University have to say on what Mystery's claims. Read the whole thing at:http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/upl ... 899909.pdf
The study goes into a bunch of different reasons that women find men attractive that do not rely on physical characteristics. I'm not going to say that looks don't play into success with women, but at the same time I'm more inclined to believe that there are other factors that exist in people that make them attractive beyond the physical appearance.

_________________
mpuaforum.proboards.com

Not in bars/clubs which is what MM is for.
I've said before that MM makes vastly more sense for getting a GF outside of a bar, than it does a ONS.

As for the study, I'm just going to make one quick quote to show why I think it's sorely lacking in reason The first problem I have with this, is "women". "Women" and "Young attractive women" are basically day and night. Most people placing personal ads in the newspaper, are older women. Further, asking "women" what they want in such a broad and open ended way is not all that useful. Most women say things that are literally nothing like the men they fuck.

Also, notice that this article, ignores looks. Literally. I think out of turn, this paper is pretty much proving my point. Mystery almost ignores the single most important factor in hooking up. And so does most PU stuff. It's a page or a chapter at most. And is never stated as being the single most important factor.

The paper's other issue, is that it takes traits in husbands and assumes that this somehow translates into SNLs. That's a pretty questionable premise. "Old fat women, say they like their fat old husband's sense of humor.... therefore, I bet that posh sorority sister, totally hooks up based on being witty!".

This is about as useful as the article that says 3/4 of "women" prefer a "flabby" man over a fit one. And about %98 of those 3/4 are fat/old women I don't want. Pretty useless to me. Using the above logic, I should get fat in order to make myself more attractive to "women".

I mean, if we're defining "women" as "people who have vaginas", no question. I mean, by that metric, RSD can also be effective. Ozzy and Jeffy have banged hundreds of fat chicks. David X is somewhere around 500! According to him, one of the highlights was a blowjob from a toothless Eskimo. So... YEAH!

_________________
RSDTyler

Here's what I take exception to in your analysis. You describe the absence of information as proof. People will give you examples and with the exception of myself, you'll say that they are wrong or making it up or not good judges of men's attractiveness.

I'd say that for the most part you are normally correct in the attractiveness being important. But at the same time I've actually seen differently from guys who have strong and outgoing personalities. I'm not saying that they go to the bars/clubs and pull 10s every night...but they do go to bars/clubs and occasionally pull very attractive women.

I've seen guys that women will approach and because he says something stupid he'll lose the girl. So if a guy can lose attractiveness because of his words and actions, he can also gain attractiveness with words and actions.

_________________
mpuaforum.proboards.com

Great work been done by you. I am glad to be a part of the community.

Not sure what you're referring to, here. I don't think I've ever argued against this. Yes, an average looking guy, who's very cool, can occasionally get attractive women he doesn't know. But rather than teach him to work on his looks and being cooler, most PU schools mostly focuses on stuff for him to do in the moment, which is not where the game is won and lost.

Do you think MM/typical PU stuff can help someone become cooler?
Is that really so?
So because a hot woman could stab you in the eye with a tooth pick, thus making you not want to fuck her anymore, a fat chick could do something to make you want to fuck her?

Does it cross-apply to men, too? Can I run some awesome routines and make you gay for me?

_________________
RSDTyler

Hey, V...the reason I give MM more leeway in not writing chapters on looks, is because MM favors an indirect approach. Yes, I fully believe that looks matter, alot. But the extent that they matter, depends imo on the context that you meet and approach these women. It's like saying, do interviewing skills (ie as an interviewee) and a good resume matter for a job search? Well, if you're applying online for a job and you get a call for an interview, yes, you need to have above average interview skills. However, if you're recommended for a position and have a "hookup" from someone in the company, you can fluff it. Your interview skills/resume matters less than for the person coming off the street. Lookswise, women typically have higher standards for the guy at the bar, than the guy who they date from work. The average looking guy at work or through social circle, has a better chance because he can display other attractive qualities and grow on her before he even shows interest. It's like when people see a hot girl with a much less attractive guy together and they use that as evidence that the guys game must be really good hence looks dont matter. No...he didnt come up to her at the bar. He was able to demonstrate other qualities that she liked that made up for his looks.

See, I agree with what you said about looks mattering for bars. I think it's ludacris to approach directly and act like looks dont matter. However, MM, is different. It advocates an indirect approach, using preselection, pawning girls off for hotter ones, teasing, group stuff , mentioning lifestyle etc, before you even act interested. In this context, a guys looks have less importance than the guy who is approaching directly. That's why I give MM more leeway, because it's not advocating a simple approach and that the honesty and confidence alone will make her want you. Even then, it still says to maximize your looks. It also gets more leeway because even though it doesnt tell you how to be cooler, it at least tells you to approach people and give some value. Not every "set" is for sex. So guys at least get used to socializing, as opposed to approaching with intent. Approaching with intent is fine, but if we are talking about what may make a guy eventually learn how to be "cool", being able to have fun with strangers, say some stories or whatever, is closer to getting there than just approach girls you want to sleep with and be honest about it.

Old school: Go out, socialize, give value to people. New school: Go out, approach and be honest and escalate. If both are followed, new school gets you quicker hook ups but neglects being a cool guy more than old school.

As to the fat chick stuff, this again proves context. If a fat chick came up to you and said, hi I thought you were cute, you probably wont fuck her. However, if she spoke to for a bit casually and mentioned something that turned you on, you'd probably be more inclined to at least hook up.So if the fat chick comes up to you seductively, you'd glance say nah. But if she spoke to you and dropped some seduction in, you'd be like "fuck it..." I'm sure you've known girls who turned you on over time, as opposed to off the first introduction. That's what MM attempts. To give you time to drop some seduction in under the radar.

Meaning that because you say the article ignores looks. That doesn't mean that it's wrong. It's more likely that the article doesn't need to talk about physical attractiveness because it's a given. Are you saying that guys can't figure out that they should try to look as good as possible? Or is there specific instructions that men shouldn't worry about their looks. PUA probably focus on how to talk to women because looking nice is more of an attribute that requires no pick up training. Talking to women, however, is a skill especially to the guy that has to rely on more than just looks. If you need to get in shape, you wouldn't talk to a pick up coach...you'd talk to a trainer. If you needed to dress nice, a pick up coach would probably take you to a clothing store and turn you over to one of the clerks or help you seek out a stylist. Just as you wouldn't go to a stylist or a personal trainer and ask them to teach you how to pick up women. As for being cooler, not many people have the ability to learn that from books but I bet any pickup coach worth the title can teach you that.I would have to stipulate that your hypothesis that women value physical attraction above all just for this argument to work. Lol. This is a great argument because you know that 99.99% of all straight men would not participate in homosexual sex, so if I say "no" you believe your point has been made. But let's look at the flip side of that argument...could a woman approach a straight woman and talk her into having lesbian sex with her? Happens all of the time, but that's because they don't view things the same as men and they have broader views of what they find attractive.

_________________
mpuaforum.proboards.com

But what timespan? In a bar, we're looking at 4 hours, max. Usually less than that. Yeah, I've dated two girls who were straight up plain. Not pretty or nice bodies, but not ugly or overweight. Just meh. But we were friends for a while before that turned into anything. And we were still just FWBs. I never even considered either of them for being GF material, just based on looks, alone.
And really, if either of them had been clearly DTF when we first met, I still probably would have. I just wouldn't have spent any time trying to get with them.

The most impact a girl's personality has ever had on me, is a sort of cute girl, being really cool. At which point, I would take her over a much prettier girl, but she *still* needs to meet a minimum threshold. And I can't say my sexual interest in her changes much at all. If I don't find a girl physically appealing when I first see her, that rarely changes, unless she was poorly styled or something. I've never found a woman to be sexually unattractive and then sexually attractive based on anything she's done. I've met a few pretty girls who acted like men, and completely turned me off. The reverse has never happened.
Are you saying you've seen girls and found them sexually unattractive, and then their personalities turned you on and you found them sexually desirable?

I think looks are horribly misunderstood. In that a girl at least has to think you're decent looking to have literally any shot with her, same night. And your odds are bad(very bad) if she thinks anything below "He's cute". Once she finds you physically attractive, you have rapidly diminishing returns. I'm defining options here as attractive women(entry level being cute with decent body or plain faced with good figure).
A man who is a 6 probably has 4x the options a 5 does and probably 20x what a 4 does. Meanwhile a 7 probably doesn't even have 2x the options of a 6.
That's what I've seen. To have a fighting chance, you must be at least a 4. And that the difference between being somewhat unattractive and somewhat attractive is massive.

_________________
RSDTyler

Yes, I am Jack. The community has always preached that looks barely matter, if they matter at all. The opinion that looks have much to do with your success, is a minority view within the community. And this was far, far worse "back in the day". Looks are maybe %10 of the equation, your "game" is the other %90.

I'd never heard of pickup before Mystery. After reading MM, I looked at forums at the time(maybe 2007/08), and the levels Aspergers was off the charts. I read some threads from LoveSystem's forums and TheAttractionForum and came to the conclusion that the pickup community was full of socially retarded, physically unattractive weirdos who had no success with women whatsoever.

They would tell stories about women clearly repulsed by them from the start, and then describe all the mad "game" the laid on her while plowing. Most of the time, these stories end with her wandering off and them saying something like "I knew she would come back, but I decided to play 'keep away' and talk to someone else". And sometimes instead of her running away, they'd pester her into giving them a phone number. Or a "number close" as they'd call it. Often times badgering her over and over after her repeatedly telling them no.

I spent 30 minutes paging through a mega thread in sheer fascination of hundreds of men posting about getting dozens and in several cases *hundreds* of phone numbers in a day. One guy said he started at sunrise and kept going until the shops closed(probably 11pm) and had something like 130 phone numbers by day's end. Productive! I had to conclude he was literally running up and saying "Hi, can I have your phone number!?". The same guy later commented that he had gotten nearly 2,000 numbers, but only 2 dates and 0 lays, and how to fix that ratio. I mean, Jack, to sit here and tell me that the PU community was anything other than horribly broken and dysfunction(still is, actually) is just not reflective of what was going on at the time.

So far, this is the only forum I've seen that isn't overflowing with "game" and is largely reality based. I figure GLL and Chase's forums are probably solid, I just haven't ever registered there. But places like pua-zone and sosuave are still delusional and tell you that "game" can over come looks. And that looks matter so little, you're basically wasting your time improving them. And that even attempting to improve them, is a sign of bad "inner game".
But what ones are worth the title? Honestly, how many of the mainstream PUAs strike you as cool guys?
Mystery is an oddball. He is not cool. RSDTyler is an enormous faggot. He's not even slightly cool. Ross Jefferies is nearly the definition of uncool. David D is boring as fuck and is less cool than your typical Presbyterian minister.

Out of the really mainstream PUAs(the ones most people have heard of), which of them do you consider cool? I'd say Gambler is probably the most famous of the ones who seem like a cool guy. It's a small minority of them.
But that's because there is no such thing as a straight woman. All women are bi-sexual.
She still has to find the woman physically attractive.

_________________
RSDTyler

I figured it out and you figured it out. I refuse to believe that we are the only men that know to dress for the occasion. I agree that working out helps tremendously, but there are plenty of guys that are out of shape and teetering on the obese side that still get attractive women...but it's offset by dressing nice and having a great personality. (Beating a dead horse) I'll have to conceed this one to you. I was introduced to the seduction community somewhere around 2000-2001. Since then I've known some coaches...some of them shady and would take guys money and blame failure on the student. I know some good ones that will challenge their belief systems and rebuild a guy over the course of weeks/months. These are the guys that I speak of being worth the title. TBH, there are a few guys here on this site that I would take advice from before any of the names you listed above.Then you really can't compare man thinking to woman thinking which is exactly the core of the issue. I'll use my "openly" bisexual ex as an example. Every so often she was up for a threesome. Sometimes she would come across very hot women which would obviously make me happy. Other times she would want me to consider these butch looking women that were just fugly and/or out of shape and I would have to veto(Chistmas eve 2012 brings back bad memories). I would ask her from time to time why she would pick those women and her response would be that those fugly women were cool.

I'll even use her example when it comes to me. I pissed her off one night and she let me know that her friends told her that she shouldn't date an ugly guy because their heads get too big and they don't know how to act(This being a woman that I met in a club who is usually the hottest woman in the room). It's a good thing that I have a good personality and dress nice.

If you've paid any attention to some of my posts...I preach stir emotions. This is the thing that I wish more people focused on than anything. For me being cool is just an attribute that can be replaced by another attribute. Being handsome is an attribute that can be replaced by another. But if you can get a girl to feel something when you talk to her you will have success.

Not a bragging point, this same ex contacted me a couple of days ago and she's is attempting to get back with me while trying to justify living with another guy. It's not that I know her, I just understand women and I know how to get at them in an emotional way and that is the base of my attractiveness. It's not a fluke statement that she's made because I can provide more from other women if need be.

I think you said it best when it comes to why I believe what I do

_________________
mpuaforum.proboards.com