Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Should Men Pursue?

My response to a comment made (scroll down to see the original comment):

The sosuave article is well written and motivating for sure. But the problem with it is that it essentially gives women a "pass" to do whatever they want, for the reason that the Don Juan will always find a way to break through. So she can cancel dates, flake, act disinterested, play hard-to-get etc, and that's cool because the Don Juan is relentless. You know, it's great motivational fodder but if you want a girl who respects your time and makes it easy for you, this is the worst advice to follow. And I don't think it's unreasonable at all to want that.

Think of a business partnership. Would you get into a business partnership with someone who didn't return calls, flaked on meetings, always made excuses etc. No way, you'd tell them to get lost.

So how come for dating and meeting women guys tend to take a "no pain no gain" approach? It's ego for one. It's nice to feel that you overcame a challenge. And it's also part and parcel of a culture that teaches women to play hard to get with guys who themselves are told to do all or most of the pursuing. It's totally dysfunctional.

IF a woman can show up at a job on time, show up for meetings on time, return phone calls with clients at work, initiate contact with prospective clients, and follow through, THEN I know women are capable of making my life easy when it comes to meeting them. There's no reason why women should "devolve" when it comes to dating and sex. So why lower the bar on what we expect from them in this part of life. I think the "Don Juan" behaviour encouraged in the article basically encourages women to act with impunity and disrespect for men, after all they are MEN and they should be able to take it. Only a guy's ego would permit such treatment. So yeah, male ego can really f**k us up if we're not careful lol.

I don't think much of that article, and if put in practice it would be a very low-yield strategy. There would be absolutely no chance of a decent ROI if you decided to use that approach.

I think persistence is something that is overly touted in the seduction community. I mean on the one hand it's good because it encourages guys to break through their comfort zone, but on the other hand it can be an incredible time waster.

I think it also comes down to point of view. If persistence prevents someone from running away after the first hello then it's good. But where it's bad is where the girl clearly shows she is not that interested but the guy keeps pushing and pushing. That never works in my experience.

Persistence helped me a bit in the beginning to exercise my social muscles but afterwards it ceased to be useful.

It's my belief that if someone always has to persist where women are concerned then there's something wrong. That should not be regarded as a normal thing. It should be pretty easy usually. And if it's not then there's something wrong.

Whenever I find myself wondering if I could have done more, I think back to the "business partnership" analogy. If someone wants to do "business" with you they make it easy. I'm not saying a girl has to come up and strike up a conversation every time, but at least position herself so that it's easy for me to start chatting with her. This furthermore means that she doesn't clip her responses, doesn't act cold, and makes some effort to talk with me. I'll personally give an "A" for effort every time. But she has to at least be willing to work with me.

I have a feeling that the guy who wrote the sosuave article is not very experienced. I suspect he had one or two solid success stories, which came from being persistent and now that's his proclamation to the world. Lo and behold, he found the "formula" lol.

Back to the real world, it's a total time waster and encourages shitty female behaviour.

I mean, your ego can tell you that you should persist otherwise you're not being a "real man" or whatever, but that's a trap too since the ego is never satisfied. But at the same time you have to know when you've done all that you reasonably can. So for example, you say hi to a girl and she ignores you – best to keep walking. You've done your part. Basic rule, make it easy and expect them to make it easy, since God knows they are certainly capable of it.

As for Brent, I've listened to his stuff and he's got great advice for getting guys out of the pursuing/persistence mindset. One thing he said in one of his programs was that he used to be a master pursuer, and then got tired of it. To quote him, he said he reached the top of the mountain and saw the other side, and would never go back. So in other words, he has experienced the fruits of not pursuing and relative to what he used to go through to get laid, he is much better off now.

Paul Janka seems to be at the point where Brent used to be before he made the switch. And that's an important thing to know. It gives you clues as to who is giving the best advice over the longer term. And I personally think it's Brent hands-down. The only issue I have with Brent is that he takes an absolute stance on not pursuing and equates that with "keeping your power". I think that's too much of an absolute view. There should be shades of gray there too, like in anything. But nevertheless, if there is one guy I would recommend above all the other well-known dating coaches it would be Brent because he's much more realistic and doesn't make it seem like it's always up to the guy to make it happen. It takes the load off your shoulders in a big way. And a more subtle point is that this approach raises the bar on what we expect from women, which results in more of them rising to the challenge (by pursuing us). With the current situation women are largely "dumbed down" because they can afford to be, knowing that guys will take up the slack (or try to). So in a sense, this is a way to re-train women for everyone's benefit.

I get that there's a polarity between what Brent and Paul Janka/sosuave etc teach, but I think the only way to resolve it for yourself is to build up enough experiences in your own life to find out what clicks for you. I mean, all these strategies can work to a degree, but ultimately what has the staying power and what makes you happier in the long run? If you do what Paul Janka teaches you may get laid more than with Brent's material, but the drawback is that you might become obsessed with women and never have a moment's peace when you go out. So instead of enjoying a nice day outdoors you're always on the lookout for chicks. And sure you can get them, but then you want more soon after. It's never ending. And Paul Janka actually admits to this in his ebook by saying that it can consume your life.

But with Brent's stuff you get to enjoy that nice day outdoors and if you happen to run across a woman you like then you chat her up.

Personally, I'd rather be happy and make women an offshoot of my life. So I tend to lean towards Brent's approach. But I also don't entirely dismiss what other guys teach, especially when they're talking about certain aspects of female psychology, which comes from just observing women in your daily travels.


Dennis wrote:

I'd love to get your opinion on this article about pursuing...

http://www.sosuave.com/articles/at/persistence.htm

Now, I have to admit, that when it comes to pursuing (or not), I allow my ego to come into play. A part of me doesn't want to make a fool of myself.

Then there's one of Brent's famous podcasts about not pursuing...

http://www.blubrry.com/seduction/135770/pickup-podcast-ep-37-brent-smith-interview/

I don't know if you've ever heard of Paul Janka of New York, but he stated in one of his books...

Let me ask you this question: what happens to the good-looking guy who is sitting on the train as the hottie nearby is checking him out? What happens when she gets to her stop and the doors open? Answer: she gets off the train.

Now re-read that last paragraph. This needs to really sink in.

All your props are meaningless unless you initiate and carry a conversation. There are those women who will come over and introduce themselves, but only if you’re goodlooking (or visibly rich) and they, themselves, aren’t always prizes. And here’s an irony for you: though women are verbal and language-oriented they’re surprisingly poor at driving a conversation. They can really talk, don’t get me wrong. About themselves, dating, clothes, men, relationships, and high-heels. (Women’s shoes are a subject of interest to me, believe it or not. That knowledge has helped me out a good many time.) But, while they’re superbly skilled at answering questions, they lack the ability (in general) to structure an interesting conversation. I’m sure it goes to the submissive, follower tendency of the female character. I like that quality.


The reason I'm posting these is because of the polarity of the two. One guy emphasized not pursuing, the other advocates intiating because most women won't initiate themselves. This goes back to what you were saying about women's herd mentality. The problem is that there's a delicate balance between pursuing and not pursuing.

No comments: