Post: #1

This is a quote by the one and only Giacomo Casanova that I found on BrainyQuote. Now, my question is one that questions basic Game advice that should be ingrained in everyone's heads. Before I form it, though, I would like to draw attention to this article on this website which I stumbled upon: http://touchmyculture.com/2014/04/02/a-b...-casanova/

Such an article states that "His hypothesis was that he, or indeed any man, could seduce any woman if she felt that she was the sole object of his undivided attention".

When reading this, I should think that some red flags concerning Game should pop up in our minds. With Game, we want to be aloof and have an abundance mindset. Why would Casanova, of all seducers, say that the woman has to be the complete center of the man's attention?
Casanova also states that it is "only necessary to have courage" (another quote), so that probably has a great deal to do with it. However, to be alpha seems to be to have things going on that you put a great majority of your focus on outside of one girl, regardless of confidence/cockiness. I also thought that alpha was the very definition of conquest. I realize the top quote could be a figure of speech, but I'm relatively positive that the man was on the topic of seduction when he said this. I don't think that this necessarily had to do with the times he lived in, either. I welcome everyone's thoughts on the matter.

Post: #2

Post # 1 eh?

Game is understanding what works. Casanova was gaming in a different atmosphere, culture and time. The factors of that time were different. Men were more masculine and women more feminine. There was a "segregation" of duties per se. Plus I'm assuming Casanova got away with a lot more as he had style and looked good (not sure if he had money, but presumably).

Today, women are more masculine, especially in America. Your frame therefore has to be strong enough to withstand the shit tests that women dish out. No doubt that these shit tests are at least moderately different from Casanovas times.

Now here's my question to you: Why are you so focused on comparing game theory from a 1000+ years ago to today? How many cold approaches have you done? In other words, is there any practical back ground or perspective to your question? Are you unsuccessful with women so far? I'm really just trying to understand because this thread does have at least some potential.

Post: #3

I don't necessarily think the quote is off-base. There are many paths to seduction, and emotions are contagious. I actually suspect that, here in Russia, lays happen quicker when you "are madly in love" than if you are aloof and only text a girl rarely to hang out when you have a free day. Chicks do like romance. You shouldn't judge everything you do by how alpha/beta it is, despite that being a generally useful concept. Cassanova probably succeeded in eliciting certain emotions in women. I'm sure there's a chapter on Cassanova in the Art of Seduction...

Post: #4

"It is usually the man who attacks. As for me, I defend myself, and I often capitulate." - Napoleon III

Exceptionally high-value men have the luxury of being able to be passive with women. However, if you don't have the once-in-a-generation social presence of a guy like Casanova and you aren't an emperor (or the modern equivalent), then it's not going to be a very effective strategy to adopt.

Of course, you should still be the prize...which means being the center of her attention rather than putting her at the center of yours. As Casanova said, be the flame not the moth. However, taking that dynamic to the next level, where women are the ones actively trying to win over a man who can select from them at his leisure, takes an atmospheric level of SMV.

Post: #5

(03-18-2015 07:13 AM)Pathph Wrote:  Such an article states that "His hypothesis was that he, or indeed any man, could seduce any woman if she felt that she was the sole object of his undivided attention".

OK I'm not familiar with Casanova, but I'll tell you how I interpret that.

If you view the interaction with Mystery Method's concept of Attraction - Comfort - Seduction. Casanova is talking about how he runs Comfort.

He's already largely passed Attraction. Presumably he has a good station in life, moves in circles of wealthy people, gets invited to their salons. He has status and social circle that puts him in the top 5% or better of the population. He's one of the few nobles in a city of plebs.

When he runs comfort, he's qualifying her. But he lets on that she's passing every one of his tests. Similar to shooting pool with an 8 year old kid and, no matter what he does, you let him win the game.

Krauser does something similar with online girls, where he says to the girl "+20 points" when she demonstrates a trait he approves of. He might even deduct points too for something else, but it will never be a deal breaker.

So the girl thinks that he understands her like no one else does, and accepts her. The famous "we had some kind of connection" in modern dating parlance.

And every girl craves a guy who understands her like no one else can, and can see her special qualities.

So then Casanova becomes a unicorn to her. "Holy shit, this guy not only has the social status that I require, but he fully gets me and appreciates me as a person".

After that, the Seduction part runs easily because she doesn't think anyone else will come along that matches or beats him. And she wants him to succeed.

Post: #6

I would not discount Casanova completely, but he is highly overrated it seems.

He was much more of a prolific writer and salesman - the number of his lays is 122. Now with such a low number you have to assume that he went for top-notch quality mostly. But even that I doubt.

Back in his days it was ridiculously easy to fuck the huge servant class.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/79109...overs.html

Warren Beatty managed 12,775, then of course you got the various dictators like Fidel Castro who had 2 per day for 40 years, but of course that is more transactional. But the question is where value ends and transaction begins. The girls might have fucked Fidel without cash just the same as with Beatty. There is little Game necessary with actors.

Also OP - you need Game 101 teaching before going back in time to get some value out of Casanova's teachings.

Post: #7

The Art of Seduction explains in more detail how Casanova operated. One reason why his "sole object of undivided attention" worked is because he already came in with strong preselection value. Women knew that he was pursued and worshipped by many other high-value women. Even if they didn't, he presented himself as someone with strong preselection value by way of his attitude, bearing, grooming/wardrobe, and charm. So, when he turned his undivided attention on woman, she felt immensely lucky and fortunate to have a man like that after her and her hamster would compel her to submit.

Some of the stories of stuff he would do wouldn't work unless, I think, you have strong status. Like the time he hid in a wardrobe all day in order to gain access to a woman that night.

Post: #8

I guess I'm technically questioning Game itself. On a 1 to 10 scale, my experience is probably a 3.5, which is why this is in the Newbie section.

On a slightly different topic, it seems that people will reach a certain level of Game or any skill, and then they will be satisfied. They won't push the envelope any further. They won't question something they've been doing that has been so consistently useful.
In this case, we have modern Game and Casanova's apparent "give her all your love" concept.
Who's to say that there might not be an even better way to be attractive or, ultimately, a way to get whatever girl you want?

And so we learn from the past to see what great men or historical figures pertaining to the skill or idea that we're studying have done, or to see if there is something to discover that no one else has yet caught.

You say that Casanova was good-looking and that this quality was part of the reason. I'm not sure if that's true. Maybe in those times, he would've been considered as such.
The social presence that he brought would seem like a strong reason for the success of his idea. But what exactly were the factors of that presence (being energetic, talkative, chill, etc)?
In showing a strong preselection value when the girl doesn't already know and completely going after her, how would he or anyone emit an attitude like that? It just seems paradoxical.

So, following all of the rambling above, would modern game beat Casanova's method today? And could any man experienced with Game have outdone Casanova? He is supposed to be a legacy, after all.
Or, does his method actually work to get anything like he apparently said it should?

Many questions, I know. Answer what you want to

On a side note, nice references you all have made, especially with The Art of Seduction. I think I'll check that out

Post: #9

(03-18-2015 06:59 PM)Pathph Wrote:  I guess I'm technically questioning Game itself. On a 1 to 10 scale, my experience is probably a 3.5, ...

You're questioning game yet your experience is 3.5 on a 10 scale?

1. How are you questioning game when you don't understand it (or refuse to)?
2. How did you get to such an accurate 3.5 rating?

This thread is likely not going to go "in the direction you were hoping for."

Once you answer the above questions maybe we can comment on the rest.

The purple man is waiting for your response.

Post: #10

Casanova's memoirs are highly recommended reading. He was an adventurer and a rake, and would scoff at the PUA mentality of chasing "notches". He went from rags to riches and back several times, at one time insinuating himself into the employ of a rich nobleman by pretending to be a miracle healer. He also had the disadvantages of relatively low birth (in an age when social mobility was lower than now), being abandoned by his parents, and an ugly face marred by smallpox scars.

Read his book! It's very enjoyable, you will learn a lot about human nature and see the 18th century in an incredibly living way. His approach to women is about the 10th most interesting thing in it. Though I did enjoy his tales of sneaking into monasteries to fornicate with nuns.

Post: #11

(03-18-2015 10:15 PM)Cobra Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 06:59 PM)Pathph Wrote:  I guess I'm technically questioning Game itself. On a 1 to 10 scale, my experience is probably a 3.5, ...

You're questioning game yet your experience is 3.5 on a 10 scale?

1. How are you questioning game when you don't understand it (or refuse to)?
2. How did you get to such an accurate 3.5 rating?

This thread is likely not going to go "in the direction you were hoping for."

Once you answer the above questions maybe we can comment on the rest.

The purple man is waiting for your response.

Are you in a bad mood today Cobra?

There's nothing wrong with studying the past, even if it requires calibration to the modern day.

We celebrate Robert Greene and his books here; what are they if not lessons from the past?

Post: #12

(03-18-2015 06:59 PM)Pathph Wrote:  I guess I'm technically questioning Game itself. On a 1 to 10 scale, my experience is probably a 3.5, which is why this is in the Newbie section.

You have barely scrapped the surface and are busy wanting to assess a man who is dead for hundreds of years?

Do you think that studying Casanova instead of learning from the current masters and testing it out yourself will give you more substance?

Casanova was at best a Natural. Around his time there appeared other works written by the PUAs of their time in France. Heartiste had an article on it:

https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/03/...ce-europe/

Quote:The Book of the Courtier, published in 1528 by Castiglione

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001...0873861682

Quote:"The Book of the Courtier" was an international best seller from its publication in 1528 until the end of the 18th century. Going through no fewer than 150 editions, it was translated into French, Spanish, Dutch, English, German, Polish and Latin. Twenty years in gestation, put through many revisions, the book, whose subject is the proper behavior of men and women at the courts of Renaissance princes, was written by Baldassare Castiglione, an aristocrat, soldier and diplomat who died, at age 50, less than a year after publication of his magnum opus.

Game is ancient and that very book was a major bestseller as the aristocracy as well as the well-off class wanted to partake in the rampant promiscuity of the upper classes.

If you read some excerpts you recognize several Game concepts in greater detail, albeit the times were different and it was more useful for the ambitious man of the times who wanted to acquire the benevolence of the aristocracy.

In any case - you can doubt Game all you want, but should rather go deeper both in theory and in practice before discarding it.

If you do deny it - welcome - go back to Sluthate or puaHATE AND DISCuss in great detail what neck-tattoo and degree of jaw-bone will get you girls.

Post: #13

Alright, y'all, I read the Casanova portions of The Art of Seduction, which was interesting. Greene seems to think of him as a handsome guy, and there is more to the process than I thought (a lot of DHV). I realize that I probably don't have the experience to question it, which is why I wanted to discuss it with more experienced members. Get their views on the matter. I came to that rating, because I don't think I'm completely clueless with Game, but I'm also not that skilled. If you rank it in a Star Wars perspective, I'm probably just a soldier with a gun, not a Jedi Knight.

So, after pondering what I've already asked, I'm guessing the answers will probably come from reading Casanova's memoirs and experimentation.
Therefore, I would just like to get y'all's opinions on the last questions and one more:
Would modern game beat Casanova's method today? And could any man experienced with Game have outdone Casanova in either his or the modern times? He is supposed to be a legacy, after all.
Do you think that his method actually works to get anything like he apparently said it should (when done spot-on)?
And, randomly thrown in, do you think that the man was actually good-looking? (Greene says that the girls thought that he was, but RawGod states that he had an ugly face)

Post: #14

^ I like your answer. And I'm not in a bad mood, just always in a Troll Hunting mood lately.

I write the type of responses I do to vet the newbies. Sincerely speaking here, I have got a lot from the forum and lately I noticed how many hateful people and far too many keyboard jockeys there are on the forum.

And I'm not pretending to do Tuth's job, just alleviating some trolling by being as observant as possible. Think of it as a vetting process and so far you're fine.

I welcome you to the forum. But I do caution you not to think into this stuff too much unless you practice game. And to do that you will find a lot of help here, including mine if you would like.

Post: #15

Guess I should have stuck to my guns on this. Lesson learned although I'd be interested to know why the ban.

Post: #16

(03-19-2015 02:05 PM)Cobra Wrote:  Guess I should have stuck to my guns on this. Lesson learned although I'd be interested to know why the ban.

Apart from potentially previously banned IP it's essentially useless Game-baiting.

How the fuck is he going to be able to compare Casanova with anyone here? Does he have infield videos of big C? So denying Game, but wanting a big discussion on whether Casanova was a bigger Player than the current ones?

Also most guys now learning Game did so combing knowledge together from others - it is as most of us have observed about Naturals - they usually know one spectrum and can improve a lot on other points.

OP wanted to study Casanova while omitting the current cadre of cads. So it's like with the saints I guess - only a saint if he died hundreds of years ago. There can't be current masters at all. Only ancient knowledge is good knowledge.

Post: #17

Damn trolls, this could have been a good thread.

Post: #18

Seduction is actually walking a tightrope. You want to make a woman believe you "might" see her as The One, but she is always unsure if you really will/do.

If you can walk that tightrope, you will have her hooked and quite possibly drive her to madness in the process.

Post: #19

(03-21-2015 03:16 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  Damn trolls, this could have been a good thread.

This.

(03-21-2015 06:24 AM)Onto Wrote:  Seduction is actually walking a tightrope. You want to make a woman believe you "might" see her as The One, but she is always unsure if you really will/do.

If you can walk that tightrope, you will have her hooked and quite possibly drive her to madness in the process.

I really like this, and agree with it. I've seen some madness.