Arguing for/against Seduction: A Forum for Debate

[TomGray]

In my school, the architecture professors, in order to demonstrate the stability of the building the students have modeled, will throw the model against the wall. If it doesn't break, it's structurally sound. So I'd like to do the same thing with the viewpoints presented on this site. Now I believe in seduction but my lack of experience makes me a poor arguer for its virtues. But if I'm truly committed to improving my romantic life in this way, I'd like to be able to explain it to people a bit better. If not so they change their minds, then at least that I make good points.

So allow me to play devil's advocate and argue opposing views. After all, I'm more interested in the truth than dogma.

My first argument: You cannot sleep with girls without first forming a connection, and the best way to form a connection is to be friends first and to get to know each other without pressure. Thus, the best method for sleeping with girls is to be friends first.

Gentlemen, your rebuttal?

 

[Franco]

Tom,

All of the content on this website is a rebuttal to your statement. Instead of writing up a detailed description, I'll just link an article that encompasses most of the problem instead:

• The Sad Tale of "Shopping Guy"

- Franco

 

[Tim Iron]

Tomgray, no need for argument or debate...

we would just be wasting our energies...

I encourage you to just go out and try what you learn on this site. It works on all women regardless of race and nationality as long as you can make the small necessary adjustments.

 

[Howell]

Language is the primary issue when we have these kinds of arguments, as is often the case. Basically,words have emotional affects on people, so when you tell them that they shouldn't be "friends" with a girl before sleeping with her they misinterpret it and project their misunderstandings on the world. Usually people will take this to mean that you should be an insincere dick, which of course is not what it's saying. It's also not saying that you should not bond with women first and foremost. That would be obviously bad advice if it were. When we say be a lover not a friend first, we are saying that you should form a specific type of connection -- a sexual one, for, if you want sex you should make a connection based on sexual value.

My first argument: You cannot sleep with girls without first forming a connection, and the best way to form a connection is to be friends first and to get to know each other without pressure. Thus, the best method for sleeping with girls is to be friends first.

The best way to form what kind of connection? Also, are the best relationships the ones where there is no pressure/tension?

Arguing this would be primarily a word game. Define friend and pressure and connection one way, and you could actually be right, define it another and you'd be wrong. However, in common parlance, you'd be wrong.

Coming to terms would be the first step in this debate, and it would also probably be the last one, unless someone is seeking to just be disputatious, in which case it'd be best to follow the advice of Franko and Tayo.

And if someone came to this forum and seriously wanted to debate this, we would direct them to how we are using the terms as laid out across the site. If they didn't know how we were using our terms, it would be a pointless debate.

 

[TomGray]

Franco, Tayo, thanks for your input but my goal in this is to developconcise arguments for seduction. I can't very well show someone an online article in the middle of a debate and say "Here! Read this!" Distilling the tale of Shopping Guy into a few words, I suppose, would go like this: presenting yourself as not interested in a woman romantically/sexually will lead her to treat you like you're not interested romantically/sexually as women aren't as interested in sleeping with their friends as men are. I"m a poor devil's advocate that I can't think of a rebuttal to that. Maybe that just means that the argument is airtight

Thanks for the reply, Howell, semantics can be a definite obstacle to communication and it's actually impacted me arguing for seduction in the past.

My second argument, mates: Approaching random strangers on the street will never get you laid and if it does, only very rarely, and it certainly won't lead to serious relationships. There's a factor of weirdness: you come off like a creep by being so forward. You'll get much better results if you meet women through social networks, such as work or through friends, or at social events like parties or weddings.

 

[Franco]

Tom,

presenting yourself as not interested in a woman romantically/sexually will lead her to treat you like you're not interested romantically/sexually as women aren't as interested in sleeping with their friends as men are. I"m a poor devil's advocate that I can't think of a rebuttal to that. Maybe that just means that the argument is airtight

I'd say that's a pretty good summary, yeah. The article includes the details as well, but as long as you were able to capture the gist of the argument, then it worked as a rebuttal, correct?

- Franco

 

[Tim Iron]

If you live (or work) in a University town, believe me... approaching random girls on the street can get you laid if you present yourself well... and can get you relationships if you know what you are doing... (you give up creepy vibes when you have not done it up to 50 times) I am talking from personal experience!

PS: presently i hate meeting girls through social networks... it is just too much work.

My second argument, mates: Approaching random strangers on the street will never get you laid and if it does, only very rarely, and it certainly won't lead to serious relationships. There's a factor of weirdness: you come off like a creep by being so forward. You'll get much better results if you meet women through social networks, such as work or through friends, or at social events like parties or weddings.

 

[TomGray]

Tayo, I'm glad that you're engaged in the debate but I feel that you're missing the point. I'm not interested in personal testimony, I know this stuff works, I'm concerned with a logical chain of argument. Right now, your conclusion is "approaching random girls on the street can get you laid and can get you relationships" which is the opposite of my conclusion and that's good. But "if you present yourself well" and "if you know what you are doing" are too vague to be helpful conditions to support your case. Present yourself well how? Know what about what you are doing?

Giving up creepy vibes if you haven't done it 50 times is a good start. One could roll with it and say that approaching women relies on being relaxed and confident, qualities which can increase with repetition.

As a rebuttal to your next point: it's way more work to learn a bunch of "seduction techniques" and approach random women on the street who don't know jack about you than it is to engage in social situations where people are already expected to be amiable with each other such as a party or wedding as mentioned before. And by engaging in such situations, you'll meet more women than if you approached one on one and they're probably going to be more your kind of people anyway since they are attending something that you are interested in attending as well.

 

[Tim Iron]

you win... I lose...

 

[lingua]

This might be an interesting read: Real Empiricists Test. In my case, I don't feel the need to convince others, even my close friends who don't know game. And the rest of the people have no business in my personal life.

The Futility of “Convince Me”

Over the years, I’ve had various people come to me and ask me to “convince them.”

I used to get mired in trying my hand at it, but these days, my response is always the same: “No.”

Why should anyone spend his precious time and lifeblood trying to convince someone to go try out something he can just go try out?

I’m not going to try to convince you there’s snow on the ground. Go stand up and go look for yourself. Or don’t. You’re the one who keeps saying you want to go sledding. What’s it to me, or anybody else, if you do or don’t?

My theory these days is that the “convince me” people are not actually looking to “find the answer” for the thing they’re allegedly trying to find the answer for.

You know what I think they want? Debate. Hot, dirty, lusty debate.

Which is totally great and bully for them, but when you’re a busy person, debating with people about whether they ought to buy Cavendish bananas or Lady Finger bananas when they’ve never tried either and don’t want to try one until they’re certain they’re going to like it is an exercise in futility. It adds nothing to my life, and if you’re a busy person who’s on the make himself, chances are it adds nothing to your life too.

And if you find yourself doing this... endlessly questioning and looking for more debate about something that you could just go and do?

Ask yourself WHY you’re doing it.

Is it because you’re scared to take the plunge and are just looking for ways to stall doing so?

Or... is it because you really don’t CARE about taking action, and instead care more about “being right” – and asserting some kind of intellectual dominance over anyone with differing world views from yours?

I’m happy to have people try out the stuff I lay out for them to do, but I’m fine for them to do something entirely different if they prefer, or nothing at all. We each of us lives his own life, does his own thing, and selects his own path.

But please, I beg you – don’t come to me and tell me you’re “skeptical.”
You SHOULD be skeptical – but I’m not here to convince you. Convincing you is your job. Or rather, the job of your tests.
Want to be convinced? Shut the laptop or put away the smart phone, get up, open the door, and go talk to some girls.

They will do far more convincing for you one way or another in 10 hours of approaching and attempting than a thousand hours of debating Chase Amante’s recommendations with Chase Amante could ever do.

Real empiricists test, my friends.

Now, get thee to some women, and engage thyself in thine experiments.

 

[Estate]

Tom,
I'm wondering what the point of this really is? Are you looking G for ways to justify things to people you know?

Here's the thing. I never discuss this with anyone else I know. It doesn't help anyone. I just do what I do. I never want to be considered a pick up artist. NEVER! I'm a regular guy who appreciatesaid the value of improving myself. That's all. I am me. But I've improved things about myself. I am nothing G else.

As for the argument. People can view all the material here and be convinced or not. Some are. Some are not. If not. You won't change their mind.

Look at the RED Julien situation. Some can argue that video clips are taken out of content and the premise is that he's teaching guys to be confident. Others will never accept anything but that he is teaching rape culture. And there's a million opinions in between.

A common theme in Chases posts are that to be successful it's not about changing the world and their opinions to agree with yours. It's about adapting to the world to be successful.

 

[Miguel]

My first argument: You cannot sleep with girls without first forming a connection, and the best way to form a connection is to be friends first and to get to know each other without pressure. Thus, the best method for sleeping with girls is to be friends first.

Your argument seems to have weak support, as you admit you don't have experience with seduction. Even if it's right, you have no way of proving it, since you have not tried it.


Full disclosure: I am newbie in this too, so I am trying to dismantle your argument without lecturing you on something I have little knowledge of.

 

[Chase]

Tom-

Important to keep in mind here.

You're asking for an intellectual debate. Yet, this:

In my school, the architecture professors, in order to demonstrate the stability of the building the students have modeled, will throw the model against the wall. If it doesn't break, it's structurally sound.

... is not an intellectual debate. This is a test.

An intellectual debate about structural stability in architecture would be me saying this dome cannot be larger than X size and still support its own weight, and you saying oh yes it can be larger than X size and still support its own weight, and then you and I debate forever about who's right and who's wrong and we never test it (and probably never, ever convince one another, either).

If instead we say, "Our time is far too valuable for this hogwash; let's just test it out," we then rather do what your professors do, and draw something up with a CAD program, print it out with a 3D printer, and then throw the finished product at the wall to see if it breaks or not.

The seduction equivalent of this, of course, is this: Real Empiricists Test.

Engaging in intellectual debate about the merits of seduction is equally effective as engaging in intellectual debate about the potential maximum size of domes in building construction. You can break out all the mathematical formulae in the world if you want, but if I don't want to believe you, I'm simply not going to believe you.

Conversely, you can just print the model and throw it at the wall, and if you're right, it's irrefutable.

Testing trumps debate every time, as your professors so aptly demonstrate here.

Chase

 

[TomGray]

Estate: in part, I'm trying to figure this out for myself. I've had a bit of a paradigm shift on how I view seduction and I feel that clearing the air through debate might crystallize some things for me. Maybe you're right that I shouldn't bother trying to convince people the validity of my views but I'm not a person who usually shies from a challenge. If there's a chance for me to express my opinion in a logical way against someone who shares a different viewpoint, I'll welcome it. Hell, I might even be proven wrong and then I'll have learned something. And if I do have a good point, then there's a chance someone will change their mind. It's not rare. And some viewpoints are too dangerous or damaging to allow to continue propagating. In our case, some examples of that would be "only bad girls have sex on the first date" or "women don't really like sex". Or how about "breasts need to be censored but male chests are okay to show" or especially (the big one) "sex with a person you're not in a committed, long-term relationship with is wrong and you're a bad person for doing so". The world could do without these viewpoints.

Miguel: I know this might seem strange to you, but I don't need to have experience with seduction to have a strong argument. It's a logical fallacy called "argument from authority". People tend to correlate wisdom with experience and this is usually a fair assumption. However, even people who are wiser than you make mistakes too. And people who don't have a shred of credibility can be absolutely right. It all depends on the argument. I could have been living in the woods all my life with contact only with the wolves who raised me, but if every step of my argument makes logical sense and concurs with empirical data, then I can still be right, no two ways about it. Your second point is excellent as I indeed have not tried this method and cannot attest to its validity. But even if I did try it and it didn't work, there would be a logical reason why it didn't work which could be explained in argument. And then we could explain to other men (and women) why this is not an effective method for establishing relationships.

Chase: I gotta say, I'm glad that the man himself made a comment on my post. But I do have some rebuttals. There are some fundamental truths which exist only in the mind and yet cannot be refuted. Something like "squares have four sides" or "a circle is round". I believe that Descartes called these "axioms". Empirical testing is invaluable and should always be valued above unapplied theory but some arguments contain self-evident truths. Some arguments are simply better than others. And I don't think there's as many stubborn people out there as we think. There are lots of people (myself included) that are willing to change their views on sex and relationships if it seems to make more sense. That's why I value this site above others on the same subject, it always seems to come from place of reason and makes a logical chain of argument to support its conclusions. And to repeat the point I made before, if we did debate about the size of domes in a building and one of us was right, there would be a reason why we were right which we could then employ in argument and save posterity from making the same mistakes

To clarify for everyone here: I have no intention of trying to convert non-believers. Some people just don't want to hear it. But some people are more open-minded and can accept a good point. Other people are more clever than you and can have you reevaluating your beliefs. And I believe that that's a good thing. Socratic wisdom is the best kind and should be embraced.

But if anyone has a rebuttal to that, I'd like to hear it

 

[Tim Iron]

Mr Franco... please delete or close this thread.

PS: This kind of thread does not contribute to self improvement.

 

[Estate]

Estate: in part, I'm trying to figure this out for myself. I've had a bit of a paradigm shift on how I view seduction and I feel that clearing the air through debate might crystallize some things for me. Maybe you're right that I shouldn't bother trying to convince people the validity of my views but I'm not a person who usually shies from a challenge. If there's a chance for me to express my opinion in a logical way against someone who shares a different viewpoint, I'll welcome it. Hell, I might even be proven wrong and then I'll have learned something. And if I do have a good point, then there's a chance someone will change their mind. It's not rare. And some viewpoints are too dangerous or damaging to allow to continue propagating. In our case, some examples of that would be "only bad girls have sex on the first date" or "women don't really like sex". Or how about "breasts need to be censored but male chests are okay to show" or especially (the big one) "sex with a person you're not in a committed, long-term relationship with is wrong and you're a bad person for doing so". The world could do without these viewpoints.

Tom,
This still doesn't answer my questions. In order to get people to debate with you then it should feel like there is actually something to debate.

Take any of your challenges above, like, "girls don't like sex". Well, we can debate it all day. There is a whole website here which argues as to WHY this is not true. You have no put forward a rubuttal only in the sense of "It might be wrong".... but WHY?

THAT sparks debate.

However, I again go back to my main point. Who are you trying to challenge with these ideas? This is all about SELF improvement, and guys can opt to believe the advice and practice it, or not believe it and be about their day. But who or why are you trying to get these concepts? I don't see the point of the WHY. If someone WANTS this information, they will consume it. If they don't. That's their personal choice and that's ok too... it's their life to live as they want to.

When you say something like "Girls don't like sex" and we point out entire articles (plural!) which present the argument to the contrary... you say this is not concise. But this makes no sense.
Someone once said "we could put a man on the moon" and yeah, plenty people thought he was crazy. The obvious question is "How would we even do that?". The answer, when starting from scratch to that, is most definitely not something you can sum up in one sentence or one paragraph to outline ALL the work involved from DAY 1, to the moment of landing on the moon.

But... by your logic... since we cannot sum it all up in a single sentence, we should never have tried.... because if we cannot sum it up so easily... it must be impossible? But... oh wait! We DID put a man on the moon

The proof you are looking for is in all the articles on the page. The guys who write them are experienced and have field tested every theory in dept before writing. Many guys here have learned from this proof and improved themselves. However, if your assertation is that all of this might not be true, you are free to ignore the advice.

If you want to sum up everything on this site so simply, it's like this:
Q: - "I don't know how to get a girlfriend, how does seduction work?"
A: - "Just meet and talk to more women than you do now and it will happen"

But if you REALLY want to understand it and PROVE this... read the articles, they explain all.

 

[TomGray]

Estate, thanks for your input but I never said that if the answer isn't concise it's worthless. Conciseness just makes it easier to package and explain to other people. Consider evolution. Evolution is an enormous scientific concept based on tremendous amounts of evidence. If you don't find a way to make it palatable then it will go over people's heads and they will just ignore it.

The viewpoint "girls don't like sex" is not something that I was arguing for. I was presenting a viewpoint that other people have that is not helpful. I totally agree with you. I agree with everyone's points, I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Who am I trying to challenge? Mostly me. Self-improvement means having critical thinking skills and reevaluating things that you thought were unbreakable. The person who can see the truth, no matter how harsh it might be, and weather it is stronger than the person who can only live in their comforting preconceived notions. I've been thinking about all this seduction stuff so long that it's become naturally ingrained in me. But talking about it with other people has made me question myself so I need to reevaluate it to see if it truly has the value that I first ascribed to it. A good way to do that is to argue opposing views and to see if they hold water.

And to be totally cliche: with great power comes great responsibility. If you see a man proclaiming that women don't like sex, you could just let him wallow in ignorance and move on. But he's not going to damage just himself with this view. Any woman he gets involved with (if he even does) is going to end up sexually frustrated and, worse, other men might agree with him and start peddling this conclusion around causing more damage. It seems a bit melodramatic, I know, but what if he's not arguing something as innocuous as that? What if he's saying that women are naturally inferior to men? Or that women shouldn't be allowed to have jobs, they need to stay home and take care of the family? Would you be willing to stand by and just let someone spread vitriol like that? I couldn't.

And besides, people change their minds all the time! Most people are more than willing to as well, as long as you provide good reasoning and evidence. There will be some people who just won't believe you no matter what reasoning you use or evidence you provide and I agree that these people shouldn't be bothered with. But there aren't as many people as stubborn as that.

And my most important point: what's wrong with a little healthy debate?

 

[Miguel]

I've been thinking about all this seduction stuff so long that it's become naturally ingrained in me. But talking about it with other people has made me question myself so I need to reevaluate it to see if it truly has the value that I first ascribed to it.

Would you care to share what exactly did they tell you?. Why do you think you need to reevaluate it?.

A good way to do that is to argue opposing views and to see if they hold water.

No, that's a terrible way. You will learn nothing, except reinforce the opinions of yourself and the other party you are debating. It's also possible you will make enemies.

And my most important point: what's wrong with a little healthy debate?

Haha, you sound very naive. It's wrong, if you care about your reputation.

 

[Chase]

Tom-

What's your concise one-line argument that will make us all drop our previous disbelief in this argumentation strategy and instantly get behind it?

If the strategy works, you should be able to come up with one, and make us all instantly see the light. We're all smart people here, and many of us have decades of deep experience arguing and debating.

If the strategy does not work, you won't be able to come up with anything that changes our minds, and will have effectively rebutted your own position. If that's the case, you are then free to concentrate your efforts on more productive endeavors (like talking to pretty girls!).

Chase

 

[Richard]

Chase: I gotta say, I'm glad that the man himself made a comment on my post. But I do have some rebuttals. There are some fundamental truths which exist only in the mind and yet cannot be refuted. Something like "squares have four sides" or "a circle is round". I believe that Descartes called these "axioms". Empirical testing is invaluable and should always be valued above unapplied theory but some arguments contain self-evident truths. Some arguments are simply better than others. And I don't think there's as many stubborn people out there as we think. There are lots of people (myself included) that are willing to change their views on sex and relationships if it seems to make more sense. That's why I value this site above others on the same subject, it always seems to come from place of reason and makes a logical chain of argument to support its conclusions. And to repeat the point I made before, if we did debate about the size of domes in a building and one of us was right, there would be a reason why we were right which we could then employ in argument and save posterity from making the same mistakes

For the sake of debate - you can refute those fundamental truths about squares and circles because they're mere representatives and symbols that figuratively represent something else. Does a square have 4 sides? Only if you aspire to the general idea that the square represents an object with 4 sides, but in reality what if a skyscraper was a "square?" You couldn't really refute that because it's a simple representation that we all hold to be generally true. Just as numbers are used to represent figures that don't actually exist - we simply give numbers "weight" because it makes life convenient.

A circle being round can be refuted with the same argument; it's a symbol that's never been proven to be anything except a representative of a concept. That doesn't mean these are fundamental truths, it means that they are accepted as accurate symbols. I could take a Native tribe from Africa and teach them that a square (4 sided object) is actually known as a triangle and there acceptance of that truth then couldn't be refuted.

My first argument: You cannot sleep with girls without first forming a connection, and the best way to form a connection is to be friends first and to get to know each other without pressure. Thus, the best method for sleeping with girls is to be friends first.

Gentlemen, your rebuttal?

As Chase was saying, arguing for or against points like this is irrelevant because words then become taken at face value. Experience and testing trumps a debate any day, but that being said I'll offer a rebuttal.

.... and how many girls have you slept with doing that? Any great girlfriends come from doing that?

If the answer is yes, a lot of girls, and a great girlfriend then I see no need to change his mind because he's already getting the result that you're trying to persuade him into getting.

I could also reference a shit ton of psychology studies and gather the empirical data showing the differences in emotions during certain phases of building a relationships, etc. Which effectively shows that women's sexual arousal for a man spikes in response to certain actions largely unrelated to building a connection. Furthermore, a woman's sex drive and hormonal spikes are created as a result of stimulating the limbic system in the brain and it's not stimulated by logic, rational, or word content/context. It's stimulated by nonverbal cues which don't have much to do with building a deep friendship-like connection.

-Richard