This gal just can't accept me yet.
-
Be a monk and end all lusts lor...
-
Originally posted by dokono:Ah...
You get my point but the point is, with this forum and other forums as a basis, read their threads, you will see that average girls with a bit of makeup, will always be the seducer. Guys will always have to approach even if the girl is interested. And the girl might just be playing with him. Many examples in this forum.
doko
Seduction transcend gender.
You are measuring seduction purely based on physical attraction and our biological make up - although it's indeed complementary and creates a synergy towards the entire package of seduction - both man and woman are indeed capable of seduction on the same competitive level. Obviously, biologically speaking, you will find more guys making the approach (being the bee) towards the woman (being the flower), but that itself doesn't mean that the seduction has began and it doesn't not suggest the seduction begins from the woman - it only speaks of attraction, not seduction.
Seduction is an art - it doesn't matter who is approaching or who is being approached because at the end, how it runs and take effects matters much more.
Cheers -
I thought we were having an intellectual and engaging discussion with rainee.Originally posted by Devil1976:Save your breath lah... Most of the time this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, but just argue bluntly and crudely as if he's making great points..
Even though you are the moderator, I don't see why this attack would have any benefit to the constructiveness of this forum and the general community. I thought someone mentioned never belittle people's comments.
Whatever the case...can't be bothered anymore unless there's constructive criticism.
doko -
YeahOriginally posted by Yunhaier: Seduction transcend gender.
You are measuring seduction purely based on physical attraction and our biological make up - although it's indeed complementary and creates a synergy towards the entire package of seduction - both man and woman are indeed capable of seduction on the same competitive level. Obviously, biologically speaking, you will find more guys making the approach (being the bee) towards the woman (being the flower), but that itself doesn't mean that the seduction has began and it doesn't not suggest the seduction begins from the woman - it only speaks of attraction, not seduction.
Seduction is an art - it doesn't matter who is approaching or who is being approached because at the end, how it runs and take effects matters much more.
Cheers
Seduction transcends both gender.
Ok. But my point is females are better seducers than male seducers, because that is their expertise. History has proven that. Chinese history, Western history, sgforums history, other forums history. You know, they play with them and play with them and usually amount to nothing, sometimes just for the attention and ego. Females are good. I respect them in this area.
Seduction is an art, agreed. Even though you say it does not matter who approaches, one thing I have to add is the man will usually have to approach to be seduced or to seduce. Men are in unfamiliar territory where the females have huge expertise-"sa jiao" in this area. After all, men have needs.
doko -
Originally posted by dokono:Yeah
Seduction transcends both gender.
Ok. But my point is females are better seducers than male seducers, because that is their expertise. History has proven that. Chinese history, Western history, sgforums history, other forums history. The man will usually have to approach to be seduced or to seduce.
doko Doko, how can you agree with me that seduction transcend genders and later claiming that females are better seducer?
If it transcend genders, being a specific gender doesn't mean you are better at it - it simply refers very much to the art user, much more than the gender.
I don't think you are reading enough if your known seducers belong largely only to female ones - there males seducer as well (Especially European history, literature and plays. A closer note would be Japanese literature like Tales of Genji).
I said in my previous post - seduction doesn't mean the act of approaching or being approach because that refers to attraction, not seduction.
Cheers -
Originally posted by Yunhaier:
Of course a well-known male seducer is Casanova. He is expert in this area and he is definitely good-looking. But the fact is he really loved his victims too. He was attracted. If Im not attracted by a female, why would I want to seduce her? Of course I might, but that's another story. Doko, how can you agree with me that seduction transcend genders and later claiming that females are better seducer?
If it transcend genders, being a specific gender doesn't mean you are better at it - it simply refers very much to the art user, much more than the gender.
I don't think you are reading enough if your known seducers belong largely only to female ones - there males seducer as well (Especially European history, literature and plays. A closer note would be Japanese literature like Tales of Genji).
I said in my previous post - seduction doesn't mean the act of approaching or being approach because [b]that refers to attraction, not seduction.
Cheers [/b]
It's just like you need to be born with a good set of cards to seduce people effectively. You need people skills to seduce people. The sum of which brings out maximum effectiveness. In order for a male to seduce, he still needs to approach. The female won't just go to that guy, even if the guy is gd-looking. Unless you are talking about a female seducer, then it's different if she is the one taking the approach to seduce.
But how many male seducers do we have as compared to the females?
My belief: females are born naturals. I do hope Im wrong.
doko -
Originally posted by dokono:Of course a well-known male seducer is Casanova. He is expert in this area and he is definitely good-looking. But the fact is he really loved his victims too. He was attracted. If Im not attracted by a female, why would I want to seduce her? Of course I might, but that's another story.
It's just like you need to be born with a good set of cards to seduce people effectively. You need people skills to seduce people. The sum of which brings out maximum effectiveness. In order for a male to seduce, he still needs to approach. The female won't just go to that guy, even if the guy is gd-looking. Unless you are talking about a female seducer, then it's different if she is the one taking the approach to seduce.
But how many male seducers do we have as compared to the females?
My belief: females are born naturals. I do hope Im wrong.
doko I realise that our definitions are different, like comparing apple and orange; I suggest you read up the book by Robert Greene - the Art of Seduction - in doing so then we may speak on the same ground, cause I only know MCsquare understands this like I do.
Your words seemed to have suggest that whoever make that first move in approaching wins at seduction.
Seriously, that's NOTHING near AOS - that's probably the very tip of an iceberg.
P.S: Another thing I would like to add is that there are more woman than man doing the cooking in this world. Ironically, all the top chefs in the world are man. Does that make man a 'natural' cook?
No, it doesn't.
Think a little.
Cheers -
Pls don't take me as the moderator at this instance... I could have been anyone at this point and take you on with the same comment...Originally posted by dokono:I thought we were having an intellectual and engaging discussion with rainee.
Even though you are the moderator, I don't see why this attack would have any benefit to the constructiveness of this forum and the general community. I thought someone mentioned never belittle people's comments.
Whatever the case...can't be bothered anymore unless there's constructive criticism.
doko
You can see it as whatever you like... Just a point to make to you from here...
Debates and arguements are won because you make VALID POINTS...
NOT simply because you INSIST that you are 'RIGHT'... Why INSIST on your POINTS being 'RIGHT' and 'SIMPLY TRUTH' when basically there ain't much of anybody around to agree with you...? You think this is my 'personal attack' on you...? I think you're under your own delusion, that's why I'm telling you...
ELSE, I could have easily chose to just ignore you and when you continue if you prefer? -
YeahOriginally posted by Yunhaier: I realise that our definitions are different, like comparing apple and orange; I suggest you read up the book by Robert Greene - the Art of Seduction - in doing so then we may speak on the same ground, cause I only know MCsquare understands this like I do.
Your words seemed to have suggest that whoever make that first move in approaching wins at seduction.
Seriously, that's NOTHING near AOS - that's probably the very tip of an iceberg.
P.S: Another thing I would like to add is that there are more woman than man doing the cooking in this world. Ironically, all the top chefs in the world are man. Does that make man a 'natural' cook?
No, it doesn't.
Think a little.
Cheers
I came across that book. I know it touches on male seducers as well as female seducers. I browsed through the book, it seems to cover a lot more on female seducers than male ones, from Cleopatra to Chinese concubines. That book is a good example of historical seducers. Which type of seducer will you want to be?
I did not say whoever approaches seducing will win. It depends on the skills of the seducer as well as his/her looks. You can't expect a nerdy guy to be able to seduce a pretty party girl right? Even his skills with seducing is at absolute perfection. He can't even pass the first stage ie physical attraction. The girl doesn't allow him to seduce. Similarly, it does not work for a nerdy guy on a handsome sporty hunk. Just does not work that way.
Your analogy on chefs...It's like comparing two different things together. It's like comparing apples and oranges also. Females are always better in this area of seduction and/or relationships. They might have perfected or were born to be good to begin with. Males can be just as good but in relation to the females, they are a small bunch.
doko -
double post
-
double post
-
hmm..Originally posted by Devil1976:Pls don't take me as the moderator at this instance... I could have been anyone at this point and take you on with the same comment...
You can see it as whatever you like... Just a point to make to you from here...
Debates and arguements are won because you make VALID POINTS...
NOT simply because you INSIST that you are 'RIGHT'... Why INSIST on your POINTS being 'RIGHT' and 'SIMPLY TRUTH' when basically there ain't much of anybody around to agree with you...? You think this is my 'personal attack' on you...? I think you're under your own delusion, that's why I'm telling you...
ELSE, I could have easily chose to just ignore you and when you continue if you prefer?
Seems that even though I am 'deluded', I seem to be making a lot of sense to people still huh?
I don't know based on what statement that caused you to think I am deluded.
doko -
Never mind...Originally posted by dokono:hmm..
Seems that even though I am 'deluded', I seem to be making a lot of sense to people still huh?
I don't know based on what statement that caused you to think I am deluded.
doko
-
Originally posted by dokono:Yeah
I came across that book. I know it touches on male seducers as well as female seducers. I browsed through the book, it seems to cover a lot more on female seducers than male ones, from Cleopatra to Chinese concubines. That book is a good example of historical seducers. Which type of seducer will you want to be?
I did not say whoever approaches seducing will win. It depends on the skills of the seducer as well as his/her looks. You can't expect a nerdy guy to be able to seduce a pretty party girl right? Even his skills with seducing is at absolute perfection. He can't even pass the first stage ie physical attraction. The girl doesn't allow him to seduce. Similarly, it does not work for a nerdy guy on a handsome sporty hunk. Just does not work that way.
Your analogy on chefs...It's like comparing two different things together. It's like comparing apples and oranges also. Females are always better in this area of seduction and/or relationships. They might have perfected or were born to be good to begin with. Males can be just as good but in relation to the females, they are a small bunch.
doko I don't think you get what I am trying to say - in reference to the analogy I have given, I am actually implying that having MORE doesn't always mean better in that sense.
The Law of Seduction states that either you are seducing or you are being seduced. Therefore both man and woman are constantly and subconsciously exercising or being subjected to Seduction. Failing at first impression doesn't mean you fail at seduction - during my younger days, somehow, my first impression is always bad, but that has never cripple or hinder me in any ways.
If you are thinking along what you are thinking in your third paragraph, I am very sure you probably just scan through the book and not reading it thoroughly.
Why can't a nerdy guy get the pretty ladies?
Ah... that's the difference between our perception: you are thinking that nerds (which is actually a very vague term; I am just presuming your definition of a nerd is probably that of a bookworm) will fail at hitching good looking girls because they are nerdy (his appearance) while I believe that they cannot get the girls is because they are NOT doing it 'right'.
Because I have seen 'nerds' getting the girls because they understood what they are doing and how to get around it.
Therefore it is the LACK of knowledge and being VERDANT at relationship/love/dating scene that is the root of problem, not solely appearance because I tell you, the looks factor has less weightage as one grows older.
Oh yeah... how old are you anyway?
Just to sidetrack: perhaps you are the kind of person who believes that leadership is inborn while I believe that leadership is taught.
Seduction is an art because the winning formula is not clear cut; having different stroke of paint produce equally beautiful picture - you cannot bench mark everything according to the commonly known seducer (E.g. Siren, which I see your thoughts going towards that direction) and build everything around that knowledge because in this world, there are other type of seducers other than just Siren - which is probably why you insisted that woman are better seducer because your examples and thoughts are build around 'Siren', being feminine-based seducer.
Your theory of seduction probably only implied in relationship/love/dating scene, while seduction applies to everything in life. All politicians practice them unconsciously (usually Charismatic-styled seducer)... the real estate agent practice it... the PR executive does it... the auntie selling tissue paper did it even though she doesn't know what seduction means... everyone. As long as you interact with another, you doing selling, persuasion and everything else - it's under the huge category of Seduction.
Ok enough enough... don't want to keep rattling on le. I don't see a point since you have already decided on your own stand. I just want to share something more because you have touch on a topic I am pretty involved in. Bottom line is: it's always dangerous to generalize things like woman are like that... men are like that because generalize pretty much narrow perception.
Which is why I donÂ’t recommend reading Venus/Mars book - too much generalizing?
Always keep an open mind.
Cheers -
G-string?
-
Wah...Originally posted by Yunhaier: I don't think you get what I am trying to say - in reference to the analogy I have given, I am actually implying that having MORE doesn't always mean better in that sense.
The Law of Seduction states that either you are seducing or you are being seduced. Therefore both man and woman are constantly and subconsciously exercising or being subjected to Seduction. Failing at first impression doesn't mean you fail at seduction - during my younger days, somehow, my first impression is always bad, but that has never cripple or hinder me in any ways.
If you are thinking along what you are thinking in your third paragraph, I am very sure you probably just scan through the book and not reading it thoroughly.
Why can't a nerdy guy get the pretty ladies?
Ah... that's the difference between our perception: you are thinking that nerds (which is actually a very vague term; I am just presuming your definition of a nerd is probably that of a bookworm) will fail at hitching good looking girls because they are nerdy (his appearance) while I believe that they cannot get the girls is because they are NOT doing it 'right'.
Because I have seen 'nerds' getting the girls because they understood what they are doing and how to get around it.
Therefore it is the LACK of knowledge and being VERDANT at relationship/love/dating scene that is the root of problem, not solely appearance because I tell you, the looks factor has less weightage as one grows older.
Oh yeah... how old are you anyway?
Just to sidetrack: perhaps you are the kind of person who believes that leadership is inborn while I believe that leadership is taught.
Seduction is an art because the winning formula is not clear cut; having different stroke of paint produce equally beautiful picture - you cannot bench mark everything according to the commonly known seducer (E.g. Siren, which I see your thoughts going towards that direction) and build everything around that knowledge because in this world, there are other type of seducers other than just Siren - which is probably why you insisted that woman are better seducer because your examples and thoughts are build around 'Siren', being feminine-based seducer.
Your theory of seduction probably only implied in relationship/love/dating scene, while seduction applies to everything in life. All politicians practice them unconsciously (usually Charismatic-styled seducer)... the real estate agent practice it... the PR executive does it... the auntie selling tissue paper did it even though she doesn't know what seduction means... everyone. As long as you interact with another, you doing selling, persuasion and everything else - it's under the huge category of Seduction.
Ok enough enough... don't want to keep rattling on le. I don't see a point since you have already decided on your own stand. I just want to share something more because you have touch on a topic I am pretty involved in. Bottom line is: it's always dangerous to generalize things like woman are like that... men are like that because generalize pretty much narrow perception.
Which is why I donÂ’t recommend reading Venus/Mars book - too much generalizing?
Always keep an open mind.
Cheers
What a long post!
Ok...Im also tired of this seduction subject in this thread.
Sorry if I mislead you. I was referring to BGR seduction-related matters. In BGR issues, my view is that females are born seducers whereas males who are in small numbers, are naturals. Of course, through trial and error, males and females can be great seducers in this aspect.
I don't want to generalise but I just can't help but feel this way. It's like the law of nature taking effect.
In order for seduction to take place, attraction must begin. That is why I feel seduction and attraction are inter-related. If I like the girl, I make it easier for her to seduce me. Same case for the girl.
You mentioned you have seen nerds managed to get party girls but what is the story behind it? Not that Im questioning your experience, but there are some things that goes behind the scene you may not know. For example, this girl just like this nerdy guy's face for some unknown reason. But don't you think it is a rare case compared to the number of party girls willing to accept a nerdy guy as a bf? Maybe the guy is rich? Maybe the guy is just for company? Maybe the guy is the rebound guy?
Then, you brought in other areas of life which you put them into the seduction category. I call it "selling yourself" to others. How you create a posture and a kind of image to others through your style and personality. There are different ways to sell yourself. True, in some ways, it is a form of seduction and/or salesmanship...the ability to rapport.
To tell you the truth, I like this topic a lot and I don't like that John Crap either.
Thanks for replying.
doko -
You are still wearing your G-string?Originally posted by Bontakun:G-string?
Cheers -
Oei! Tell dat to Dev!Originally posted by Yunhaier:You are still wearing your G-string?
Cheers
-
What's it got to do with him? He wear G-string also?Originally posted by Bontakun:Oei! Tell dat to Dev!
Cheers -
Dunno leh...Originally posted by Yunhaier:What's it got to do with him? He wear G-string also?
Cheers -
-
Ok. I tink I shld get a head start in running away from Dev...Originally posted by Yunhaier:LOL!!
Cheers -
Originally posted by Bontakun:Oei! Tell dat to Dev!
-
Ask yourself do you still want to jio her if u feel tired then forget about her and move on.If you still have feelings for her then...GOGOGO!I support you make your feelings known!Touch her heart with your sincererity!
-
GOSH!!!Originally posted by Yunhaier:What's it got to do with him? He wear G-string also?
Cheers
DEV and Bontakun wears G-STRING???
*TRAUMATISED*