Questions about the Art of Seduction

[ebracer05]

I've been reading this book the last day or so and am about half way through the first section. A lot of guys on here tout this book as a big deal as far as the value of its advice... and so this is why I ask... why?

So far, a lot of the stuff Robert Green is advocating sounds really AFC. His description of the Rake goes against the biggest principles on this site... that a man should find himself in himself and his life, not in a woman. But he says the Rake is a successful seducer because he's able to appeal to a woman's vanity and narcissism by living as a slave to them. That sounds more like an orbiter than an effective seducer, to me at least.

The Dandy reminded me of everything Pook warned against, as far as androgyny is concerned.. and Robert Green outright advocated androgyny explicitly in that section.

The Ideal Lover also sounds like an AFC too. Some dude who's sole purpose is to create some sort of recreation of the "Disney" love everyone on here rails against. So what's the deal?

His discussion of The Natural made a lot of sense to me as far as coinciding with what is taught on this website. No arguments there.

So like... am I missing something in my understanding of what Robert Green is saying, because it sounds to me like he's typifying several portraits of different types of ACFs and saying that they will be effective seducers. If I got on here one day and typed up a field report using some of the archetypes he's presenting, people would flame me... if I read something like that, I would feel like flaming them too. So what gives?

The only thing that did really resonate with me so far is his talk about being able to read another person, determine what's missing in their life, what they're longing for, unhappy with... something that's wrong with their life, and offering a solution in yourself. If they're bored, generate excitement. If they're repressed, give them a liberating experience. Stuff like that... and I think that's exactly what we mean when we say that a man needs to add value.

So to those of you who have read this book, what's your take on what I've asked? Thanks.

 

[Young Juan]

I haven't read the book but I'm guessing these guys in the book are doing these things intentionally and because they want to, not because they're nice guys and think they need to. This distinction often gets lost in literature.

One of my good friends pulled one of the 5 hottest chicks in school as a freshman because he wrote her a note telling her he liked her. Most guys do it from a nerdy/nice guy perspective. He did it from a multi-sport varsity athlete pimp perspective. It wasn't cuz he was shy, it was cuz he was trying to be original, sensitive, etc. but obviously wasn't a pvssy AFC that took sh!t. His whole frame was one of power, and sure he seemingly gave his power away and put the ball in her court, but he had the power to give away in the first place and even if she said no, she knew another chick was waiting to say yes. He tried it again in the future with a different girl and it didn't work, but he still had a state championship and two national titles. It was the least of his non-accomplishments.

 

[zekko]

I haven't read that book, but the short answer is there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Longer answer:
This site espouses a certain philosophy. Yet if you look around you can find guys who are successful with women who are not following what this site says to do. I've read a few posts on another forum recently where a guy was talking to some naturals he knew, and came away disappointed, because they weren't following the pickup principles he had learned.

You have to remember a few things:
First off, men and women have been getting together for thousands of years before anyone had ever heard of SoSuave.

Second, this place espouses a philosophy. You can follow it if you want, or follow parts of it. But don't embrace it as The Sole Truth, because then you've turned it into nothing but a cult.