David DeAngelo undermines masculinity

[Jakob]

<b>Here's a piece from one of David DeAngelo's newsletters:</b>


<i>When you start talking to a woman in a bar or club, it's CRUCIAL that your conversation be exciting and entertaining - right out of the gate.

Unlike a date where you can afford a boring moment, in a club you have to be constantly increasing her attraction for you or she'll move on to the next guy.

One of the most important things for you to remember is to AVOID ROUTINE CONVERSATION AT ALL COSTS.

Don't talk about work, business, politics, religion, or family - EVEN IF you share these things in common.

If you find yourself entering the "boring zone," change the subject fast - and turn it around in funny, cocky way.

For example, if she asks an "interview" question, give her a silly answer and accuse her of trying to pick you up.</i>


<b>My views on David DeAngelo. This is taken from my blog:</b>


David DeAngelo (David D) puts women on another kind of pedestal.

Let me explain.

Read between the lines of many of the things he says, in his programs, and in his newsletters. Look at what he is actually communicating. He is often times promoting empowerment with women from a position of disempowerment.

He puts women on a pedestal by making them seem infallible and hard-to-reach. He says things like: You must do this, and when women do this you must do that (otherwise it's game over). He makes it seem like getting women is an obstacle course.

This is what the seduction community commonly does, by the way. It justifies quirky female behaviour using various forms of (flawed) evolutionary biology theory. It's like saying that it's okay for me to steal, because I am merely playing out my self-preservation instinct. Yeah, right...

So basically, anytime a woman does something, no matter what it is, it's up to you to calibrate that for best effect.

Constantly back to the drawing board...

David D teaches you to model yourself after what women want instead of modeling yourself after what you really want, and it just so happens that women are most attracted to this anyway. He has it totally backwards.

First you get your own life in order, and learn to live happily WITHOUT women, and then you are able to accept women into your life with a much healthier mindset.

I went for two years without sex and meeting women, and I was perfectly fine with it. I focused on my own life and my own interests. And when it came time to get back into the dating scene I did so seamlessly. There was no loss of "game", no "rustiness". Because I focused on my own life, it was natural that offshoots of my life (such as women) would automatically be taken care of as well.

David D harps on the necessity of knowing how attraction works and how you have to "get it" or you're screwed. But what HE doesn't get is that a guy who is trying to model himself after what females find attractive is NOT being the one thing that women DO find attractive: a guy who doesn't try to impress them.

By trying to be the guy that women find attractive you ARE being the guy that's trying to impress them.

All he's doing is teaching men how to emulate certain qualities that attractive men already have. He's teaching you to display the symptoms without getting the actual "virus". In this case, the "virus" is being your own man and learning to be happy without women.

After going for two years without sex and learning to be happy without women I can safely say that I have the "virus". And when the day came that I did hook up, guess what, it wasn't even that special. In fact, it was on par with "jerking off". You know that your neediness is taken care of when the prospect of sex is no more exciting than jerking off.

David D constantly frames getting women as very important, by way of subtext. On the one hand he is teaching you to stop being a "wussy" which is good, but on the other hand he is teaching you to stop being a wussy because it turns women off. Getting women is the subtext behind everything he says. Do you see the problem with that? It's a bit subtle but basically he puts the goal of positive change for the sake of getting women. So he starts off strong with good advice but then adds the final "sticky" as to why you should be doing it.

Be a challenge......................... because it gets women

Don't be a wuss......................... because it gets women

Be strong and decisive......................... because it gets women


Although you are removing the wuss behaviour technically speaking, you are still (deep inside) being a wuss who's wearing a "man" costume. You will still be the guy who goes home after a "sarge" wondering how you could have made the man-costume more convincing. Not that there's anything wrong with continuous improvement, but it has to be for the right reasons.

The end result - you will still be needy for women. The core problem will still be there. You will not internalize anything truly powerful and long lasting using David D's advice.

Jump farther

Run faster

Leap higher

... Because it gets women.


Or, alternatively:

Jump farther

Run faster

Leap higher

... Because it makes for a more fulfilling life.


Now which do you think is better?

The problem with David D (like most seduction "gurus") is this: He puts women on a pedestal. He assumes that getting women is like getting to the top of a tall mountain, and by giving you all these "tools" you will be able to scale the mountain and get the women.

These seduction teachers are no different from the typical guy who buys women drinks, dinner, and gives compliments, in order to win them over. They are merely using more "sophisticated" tools to win the women over (climb the mountain).

But they miss the reality; the mountain is an illusion. Women are not nearly that far up. They are actually at ground level. And once you realize that you are basically done.

So the best way to "climb" the mountain is to say: "there is no mountain". And the mountain will come to Mohammed (so to speak).

It's funny, all these "tools" that men are taught on how to get women are basically ways of making it seem like you're not using tools at all. In other words, climb the mountain without making it look like you're trying to climb a mountain. But what's the point of that? Just don't bother trying to climb, or assume that you have to.

Here's a gem from one of David D's newsletters:

"Women test men CONSTANTLY.

And ATTRACTIVE women test men MUCH MORE INTENSELY than “regular� women.

If you don't know how to spot these tests (and most of them are very subtle), and then deal with them, you're going to lose your chance to create ATTRACTION before you even GET it."

Again, the mountain analogy applies: Women test men CONSTANTLY, therefore men must be up to the "challenge" or they will lose their chance (oh-no).

Can you think of anything that drains more of your power than this one single statement?

That mountain is indeed very high. You gotta get in great shape. You gotta get the right climbing equipment. You gotta do all these things or you will miss your chance to reach the top of that peak.

And the more attractive a woman is, the more INTENSELY she will test. It's like climbing frikkin Mt. Everest lol.

And furthermore, the tests are subtle so you better learn how to spot them and deal with them.

Give me a break!!

How to be a wuss in a man-costume — that's what David D is advocating here.

[Adama]

[momopi]

If all you want is p*ssy, look on craiglist, backpage, cityvibe, humaniplex, etc. A massage with happy ending is easily obtainable if you don't ask questions and tip well. For the more affulent, you can be a sugar daddy to young college students and cafe girls a la friends with benefits. No begging, grovling, or bending over required. She's the one who bends over to please you, unless if you're into pegging (*). Might cost you a Ferragamo handbag once in a while, but you can decide if it's worth it yourself. Warning: not LTR/marriage material.

If you want a real LTR or marriage, I'd suggest avoding the girls who spend all their time on make up and dress. This lesson, I learned from an old Native American man (guest at my college). He said to me, in the old days when a man wants to choose a wife, he "feels" her hands. If she's the type who works with her hands, she'd make a good wife. If her hands are nice and smooth, you'll starve because she can't cook. You can translate that however you like to modern terms.

If you choose to jump farther, run faster, and leap higher, do it for yourself.

(*) For those who don't understand "pegging", see this wiki entry (NSFW):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegging_%2 ... ractice%29

[Mr S]

If you want a real LTR or marriage, I'd suggest avoding the girls who spend all their time on make up and dress. This lesson, I learned from an old Native American man (guest at my college). He said to me, in the old days when a man wants to choose a wife, he "feels" her hands. If she's the type who works with her hands, she'd be a good wife. If her hands are nice and smooth, you'll starve because she can't cook. You can translate that however you like to modern terms.

That is pretty good advice, I'll have to remember that when I become interested in a long term relationship again, if ever...

[Winston]

Jakob,
Have you also noticed that David DeAngelo's testimonials in this newsletters seem contrived and all seem to be written in two or three writing styles? They seem a bit fake. But we can't prove it for sure. If you look at the letters on this site for example, you'll notice that they all ask questions, sound serious and are all in different writing styles. Not so with his testimonials.

What do you think?

[Jakob]

I do notice that his testimonials have a certain "flair", and tend to be borderline ass-kissing. It's as if they are written in a style that complements David D's writing style. Or maybe those are the only kind of testimonials that get used. Either way, they are not statistically representative of the success of his methods. So at the very least they are cherry-picked. I'm sure he gets tons of emails from guys saying that his stuff doesn't work very well, but of course he generally wouldn't put those up, but in those cases where he does, he reflexively addresses them by saying that the fault is in the mis-application of his methods, because they are "perfect". And he's also kind of condescending too, making it seem like a guy who just doesn't "get it" is doomed to go without women forever.

These PUA gurus making lots of money selling their material are the most dangerous men to learn from because they are the least likely to admit they are wrong. It's not as if David D or Mystery would ever come out and admit that there are shortcomings in their methods, and then the very next day close shop and start making a living doing something else. That would never happen!

Jakob,
Have you also noticed that David DeAngelo's testimonials in this newsletters seem contrived and all seem to be written in two or three writing styles? They seem a bit fake. But we can't prove it for sure. If you look at the letters on this site for example, you'll notice that they all ask questions, sound serious and are all in different writing styles. Not so with his testimonials.

What do you think?

[ramonthomas]

By now you all should know David DeAngelo is the pen name for Eben Pagan. Eben is a real world Internet marketing guru. He simply created Double Your Dating business and the characters like David DeAngelo as well as Christian Carter as a marketing tactic using alteration.

I purchased two ebooks, one audio and a DVD program. Since then I've given them away to guys who need much more help. Experience have taught me how to confident more than his material.

[Andrewww]

Great post OP, you are 100% right.

The thing you should remember is that people like David DeAngelo make a living by selling this crap. They have good marketing skills, in fact they would make great PR employees. They could sell you a $1 pen for 10 times as much by smooth talking.

[MJay1978]

Jakob,
Have you also noticed that David DeAngelo's testimonials in this newsletters seem contrived and all seem to be written in two or three writing styles? They seem a bit fake. But we can't prove it for sure. If you look at the letters on this site for example, you'll notice that they all ask questions, sound serious and are all in different writing styles. Not so with his testimonials.

What do you think?

Trust me. It doesn't work. I used to study PUA. Honestly, I'm not too crazy about pick-up lines. The only two videos that made sense is Deep Inner Game, which is sort of like a psychology video on how to make your boundaries even stronger. Also body language. Richard La Ruina did quite a bit on body language too. I also liked Eric Von Sydow's videos, which he did two of them based on hypnocism. Pick-up lines and all that other crap? Umm....no. -_-

[Jester]

<b>Here's a piece from one of David DeAngelo's newsletters:</b>


<i>When you start talking to a woman in a bar or club, it's CRUCIAL that your conversation be exciting and entertaining - right out of the gate.

Unlike a date where you can afford a boring moment, in a club you have to be constantly increasing her attraction for you or she'll move on to the next guy.

One of the most important things for you to remember is to AVOID ROUTINE CONVERSATION AT ALL COSTS.

Don't talk about work, business, politics, religion, or family - EVEN IF you share these things in common.

If you find yourself entering the "boring zone," change the subject fast - and turn it around in funny, cocky way.

For example, if she asks an "interview" question, give her a silly answer and accuse her of trying to pick you up.</i>


<b>My views on David DeAngelo. This is taken from my blog:</b>


David DeAngelo (David D) puts women on another kind of pedestal.

Let me explain.

Read between the lines of many of the things he says, in his programs, and in his newsletters. Look at what he is actually communicating. He is often times promoting empowerment with women from a position of disempowerment.

He puts women on a pedestal by making them seem infallible and hard-to-reach. He says things like: You must do this, and when women do this you must do that (otherwise it's game over). He makes it seem like getting women is an obstacle course.

This is what the seduction community commonly does, by the way. It justifies quirky female behaviour using various forms of (flawed) evolutionary biology theory. It's like saying that it's okay for me to steal, because I am merely playing out my self-preservation instinct. Yeah, right...

So basically, anytime a woman does something, no matter what it is, it's up to you to calibrate that for best effect.

Constantly back to the drawing board...

David D teaches you to model yourself after what women want instead of modeling yourself after what you really want, and it just so happens that women are most attracted to this anyway. He has it totally backwards.

First you get your own life in order, and learn to live happily WITHOUT women, and then you are able to accept women into your life with a much healthier mindset.

I went for two years without sex and meeting women, and I was perfectly fine with it. I focused on my own life and my own interests. And when it came time to get back into the dating scene I did so seamlessly. There was no loss of "game", no "rustiness". Because I focused on my own life, it was natural that offshoots of my life (such as women) would automatically be taken care of as well.

David D harps on the necessity of knowing how attraction works and how you have to "get it" or you're screwed. But what HE doesn't get is that a guy who is trying to model himself after what females find attractive is NOT being the one thing that women DO find attractive: a guy who doesn't try to impress them.

By trying to be the guy that women find attractive you ARE being the guy that's trying to impress them.

All he's doing is teaching men how to emulate certain qualities that attractive men already have. He's teaching you to display the symptoms without getting the actual "virus". In this case, the "virus" is being your own man and learning to be happy without women.

After going for two years without sex and learning to be happy without women I can safely say that I have the "virus". And when the day came that I did hook up, guess what, it wasn't even that special. In fact, it was on par with "jerking off". You know that your neediness is taken care of when the prospect of sex is no more exciting than jerking off.

David D constantly frames getting women as very important, by way of subtext. On the one hand he is teaching you to stop being a "wussy" which is good, but on the other hand he is teaching you to stop being a wussy because it turns women off. Getting women is the subtext behind everything he says. Do you see the problem with that? It's a bit subtle but basically he puts the goal of positive change for the sake of getting women. So he starts off strong with good advice but then adds the final "sticky" as to why you should be doing it.

Be a challenge......................... because it gets women

Don't be a wuss......................... because it gets women

Be strong and decisive......................... because it gets women


Although you are removing the wuss behaviour technically speaking, you are still (deep inside) being a wuss who's wearing a "man" costume. You will still be the guy who goes home after a "sarge" wondering how you could have made the man-costume more convincing. Not that there's anything wrong with continuous improvement, but it has to be for the right reasons.

The end result - you will still be needy for women. The core problem will still be there. You will not internalize anything truly powerful and long lasting using David D's advice.

Jump farther

Run faster

Leap higher

... Because it gets women.


Or, alternatively:

Jump farther

Run faster

Leap higher

... Because it makes for a more fulfilling life.


Now which do you think is better?

The problem with David D (like most seduction "gurus") is this: He puts women on a pedestal. He assumes that getting women is like getting to the top of a tall mountain, and by giving you all these "tools" you will be able to scale the mountain and get the women.

These seduction teachers are no different from the typical guy who buys women drinks, dinner, and gives compliments, in order to win them over. They are merely using more "sophisticated" tools to win the women over (climb the mountain).

But they miss the reality; the mountain is an illusion. Women are not nearly that far up. They are actually at ground level. And once you realize that you are basically done.

So the best way to "climb" the mountain is to say: "there is no mountain". And the mountain will come to Mohammed (so to speak).

It's funny, all these "tools" that men are taught on how to get women are basically ways of making it seem like you're not using tools at all. In other words, climb the mountain without making it look like you're trying to climb a mountain. But what's the point of that? Just don't bother trying to climb, or assume that you have to.

Here's a gem from one of David D's newsletters:

"Women test men CONSTANTLY.

And ATTRACTIVE women test men MUCH MORE INTENSELY than “regular� women.

If you don't know how to spot these tests (and most of them are very subtle), and then deal with them, you're going to lose your chance to create ATTRACTION before you even GET it."

Again, the mountain analogy applies: Women test men CONSTANTLY, therefore men must be up to the "challenge" or they will lose their chance (oh-no).

Can you think of anything that drains more of your power than this one single statement?

That mountain is indeed very high. You gotta get in great shape. You gotta get the right climbing equipment. You gotta do all these things or you will miss your chance to reach the top of that peak.

And the more attractive a woman is, the more INTENSELY she will test. It's like climbing frikkin Mt. Everest lol.

And furthermore, the tests are subtle so you better learn how to spot them and deal with them.

Give me a break!!

How to be a wuss in a man-costume — that's what David D is advocating here.

It was Dave deAngelo that introduced me to men's issues. (Dave... then Roosh... then Winston...)

But your critique of his approach is right on.

+1

[noog]

For a brief while, after my separation I gave David D's book and game his ideas some thought. But it all seemed to do was to bring out my inner douchebag, which left me just as alone as before and started to have negative effects on other relationships in my life. Go your own way.

[Jacaré]

Never been a fan of David D to be honest as he gives out the typical fake kind of guy vibe that you see so often in North America. That is all hypey kind of thing. Btw, he also goes by another nick name Eben Pagan, and he uses that nick to sell marketing and motivational stuff online. He is one smart marketer and has made millions selling his stuff online for over a decade now.

[WorldTraveler]

<b>Here's a piece from one of David DeAngelo's newsletters:</b>


<i>When you start talking to a woman in a bar or club, it's CRUCIAL that your conversation be exciting and entertaining - right out of the gate.

Unlike a date where you can afford a boring moment, in a club you have to be constantly increasing her attraction for you or she'll move on to the next guy.

One of the most important things for you to remember is to AVOID ROUTINE CONVERSATION AT ALL COSTS.

Don't talk about work, business, politics, religion, or family - EVEN IF you share these things in common.

If you find yourself entering the "boring zone," change the subject fast - and turn it around in funny, cocky way.

For example, if she asks an "interview" question, give her a silly answer and accuse her of trying to pick you up.</i>


<b>My views on David DeAngelo. This is taken from my blog:</b>


David DeAngelo (David D) puts women on another kind of pedestal.

Let me explain.

Read between the lines of many of the things he says, in his programs, and in his newsletters. Look at what he is actually communicating. He is often times promoting empowerment with women from a position of disempowerment.

He puts women on a pedestal by making them seem infallible and hard-to-reach. He says things like: You must do this, and when women do this you must do that (otherwise it's game over). He makes it seem like getting women is an obstacle course.

This is what the seduction community commonly does, by the way. It justifies quirky female behaviour using various forms of (flawed) evolutionary biology theory. It's like saying that it's okay for me to steal, because I am merely playing out my self-preservation instinct. Yeah, right...

So basically, anytime a woman does something, no matter what it is, it's up to you to calibrate that for best effect.

Constantly back to the drawing board...

David D teaches you to model yourself after what women want instead of modeling yourself after what you really want, and it just so happens that women are most attracted to this anyway. He has it totally backwards.

First you get your own life in order, and learn to live happily WITHOUT women, and then you are able to accept women into your life with a much healthier mindset.

I went for two years without sex and meeting women, and I was perfectly fine with it. I focused on my own life and my own interests. And when it came time to get back into the dating scene I did so seamlessly. There was no loss of "game", no "rustiness". Because I focused on my own life, it was natural that offshoots of my life (such as women) would automatically be taken care of as well.

David D harps on the necessity of knowing how attraction works and how you have to "get it" or you're screwed. But what HE doesn't get is that a guy who is trying to model himself after what females find attractive is NOT being the one thing that women DO find attractive: a guy who doesn't try to impress them.

By trying to be the guy that women find attractive you ARE being the guy that's trying to impress them.

All he's doing is teaching men how to emulate certain qualities that attractive men already have. He's teaching you to display the symptoms without getting the actual "virus". In this case, the "virus" is being your own man and learning to be happy without women.

After going for two years without sex and learning to be happy without women I can safely say that I have the "virus". And when the day came that I did hook up, guess what, it wasn't even that special. In fact, it was on par with "jerking off". You know that your neediness is taken care of when the prospect of sex is no more exciting than jerking off.

David D constantly frames getting women as very important, by way of subtext. On the one hand he is teaching you to stop being a "wussy" which is good, but on the other hand he is teaching you to stop being a wussy because it turns women off. Getting women is the subtext behind everything he says. Do you see the problem with that? It's a bit subtle but basically he puts the goal of positive change for the sake of getting women. So he starts off strong with good advice but then adds the final "sticky" as to why you should be doing it.

Be a challenge......................... because it gets women

Don't be a wuss......................... because it gets women

Be strong and decisive......................... because it gets women


Although you are removing the wuss behaviour technically speaking, you are still (deep inside) being a wuss who's wearing a "man" costume. You will still be the guy who goes home after a "sarge" wondering how you could have made the man-costume more convincing. Not that there's anything wrong with continuous improvement, but it has to be for the right reasons.

The end result - you will still be needy for women. The core problem will still be there. You will not internalize anything truly powerful and long lasting using David D's advice.

Jump farther

Run faster

Leap higher

... Because it gets women.


Or, alternatively:

Jump farther

Run faster

Leap higher

... Because it makes for a more fulfilling life.


Now which do you think is better?

The problem with David D (like most seduction "gurus") is this: He puts women on a pedestal. He assumes that getting women is like getting to the top of a tall mountain, and by giving you all these "tools" you will be able to scale the mountain and get the women.

These seduction teachers are no different from the typical guy who buys women drinks, dinner, and gives compliments, in order to win them over. They are merely using more "sophisticated" tools to win the women over (climb the mountain).

But they miss the reality; the mountain is an illusion. Women are not nearly that far up. They are actually at ground level. And once you realize that you are basically done.

So the best way to "climb" the mountain is to say: "there is no mountain". And the mountain will come to Mohammed (so to speak).

It's funny, all these "tools" that men are taught on how to get women are basically ways of making it seem like you're not using tools at all. In other words, climb the mountain without making it look like you're trying to climb a mountain. But what's the point of that? Just don't bother trying to climb, or assume that you have to.

Here's a gem from one of David D's newsletters:

"Women test men CONSTANTLY.

And ATTRACTIVE women test men MUCH MORE INTENSELY than “regular� women.

If you don't know how to spot these tests (and most of them are very subtle), and then deal with them, you're going to lose your chance to create ATTRACTION before you even GET it."

Again, the mountain analogy applies: Women test men CONSTANTLY, therefore men must be up to the "challenge" or they will lose their chance (oh-no).

Can you think of anything that drains more of your power than this one single statement?

That mountain is indeed very high. You gotta get in great shape. You gotta get the right climbing equipment. You gotta do all these things or you will miss your chance to reach the top of that peak.

And the more attractive a woman is, the more INTENSELY she will test. It's like climbing frikkin Mt. Everest lol.

And furthermore, the tests are subtle so you better learn how to spot them and deal with them.

Give me a break!!

How to be a wuss in a man-costume — that's what David D is advocating here.

Are you the same guy that wrote Johnny's Journey - Anti-PUA Johnny. Are you the Johnny that comments on my PartyTravelSexLove blog?

[WorldTraveler]

<b>Here's a piece from one of David DeAngelo's newsletters:</b>


<i>When you start talking to a woman in a bar or club, it's CRUCIAL that your conversation be exciting and entertaining - right out of the gate.

Unlike a date where you can afford a boring moment, in a club you have to be constantly increasing her attraction for you or she'll move on to the next guy.

One of the most important things for you to remember is to AVOID ROUTINE CONVERSATION AT ALL COSTS.

Don't talk about work, business, politics, religion, or family - EVEN IF you share these things in common.

If you find yourself entering the "boring zone," change the subject fast - and turn it around in funny, cocky way.

For example, if she asks an "interview" question, give her a silly answer and accuse her of trying to pick you up.</i>


<b>My views on David DeAngelo. This is taken from my blog:</b>


David DeAngelo (David D) puts women on another kind of pedestal.

Let me explain.

Read between the lines of many of the things he says, in his programs, and in his newsletters. Look at what he is actually communicating. He is often times promoting empowerment with women from a position of disempowerment.

He puts women on a pedestal by making them seem infallible and hard-to-reach. He says things like: You must do this, and when women do this you must do that (otherwise it's game over). He makes it seem like getting women is an obstacle course.

This is what the seduction community commonly does, by the way. It justifies quirky female behaviour using various forms of (flawed) evolutionary biology theory. It's like saying that it's okay for me to steal, because I am merely playing out my self-preservation instinct. Yeah, right...

So basically, anytime a woman does something, no matter what it is, it's up to you to calibrate that for best effect.

Constantly back to the drawing board...

David D teaches you to model yourself after what women want instead of modeling yourself after what you really want, and it just so happens that women are most attracted to this anyway. He has it totally backwards.

First you get your own life in order, and learn to live happily WITHOUT women, and then you are able to accept women into your life with a much healthier mindset.

I went for two years without sex and meeting women, and I was perfectly fine with it. I focused on my own life and my own interests. And when it came time to get back into the dating scene I did so seamlessly. There was no loss of "game", no "rustiness". Because I focused on my own life, it was natural that offshoots of my life (such as women) would automatically be taken care of as well.

David D harps on the necessity of knowing how attraction works and how you have to "get it" or you're screwed. But what HE doesn't get is that a guy who is trying to model himself after what females find attractive is NOT being the one thing that women DO find attractive: a guy who doesn't try to impress them.

By trying to be the guy that women find attractive you ARE being the guy that's trying to impress them.

All he's doing is teaching men how to emulate certain qualities that attractive men already have. He's teaching you to display the symptoms without getting the actual "virus". In this case, the "virus" is being your own man and learning to be happy without women.

After going for two years without sex and learning to be happy without women I can safely say that I have the "virus". And when the day came that I did hook up, guess what, it wasn't even that special. In fact, it was on par with "jerking off". You know that your neediness is taken care of when the prospect of sex is no more exciting than jerking off.

David D constantly frames getting women as very important, by way of subtext. On the one hand he is teaching you to stop being a "wussy" which is good, but on the other hand he is teaching you to stop being a wussy because it turns women off. Getting women is the subtext behind everything he says. Do you see the problem with that? It's a bit subtle but basically he puts the goal of positive change for the sake of getting women. So he starts off strong with good advice but then adds the final "sticky" as to why you should be doing it.

Be a challenge......................... because it gets women

Don't be a wuss......................... because it gets women

Be strong and decisive......................... because it gets women


Although you are removing the wuss behaviour technically speaking, you are still (deep inside) being a wuss who's wearing a "man" costume. You will still be the guy who goes home after a "sarge" wondering how you could have made the man-costume more convincing. Not that there's anything wrong with continuous improvement, but it has to be for the right reasons.

The end result - you will still be needy for women. The core problem will still be there. You will not internalize anything truly powerful and long lasting using David D's advice.

Jump farther

Run faster

Leap higher

... Because it gets women.


Or, alternatively:

Jump farther

Run faster

Leap higher

... Because it makes for a more fulfilling life.


Now which do you think is better?

The problem with David D (like most seduction "gurus") is this: He puts women on a pedestal. He assumes that getting women is like getting to the top of a tall mountain, and by giving you all these "tools" you will be able to scale the mountain and get the women.

These seduction teachers are no different from the typical guy who buys women drinks, dinner, and gives compliments, in order to win them over. They are merely using more "sophisticated" tools to win the women over (climb the mountain).

But they miss the reality; the mountain is an illusion. Women are not nearly that far up. They are actually at ground level. And once you realize that you are basically done.

So the best way to "climb" the mountain is to say: "there is no mountain". And the mountain will come to Mohammed (so to speak).

It's funny, all these "tools" that men are taught on how to get women are basically ways of making it seem like you're not using tools at all. In other words, climb the mountain without making it look like you're trying to climb a mountain. But what's the point of that? Just don't bother trying to climb, or assume that you have to.

Here's a gem from one of David D's newsletters:

"Women test men CONSTANTLY.

And ATTRACTIVE women test men MUCH MORE INTENSELY than “regular� women.

If you don't know how to spot these tests (and most of them are very subtle), and then deal with them, you're going to lose your chance to create ATTRACTION before you even GET it."

Again, the mountain analogy applies: Women test men CONSTANTLY, therefore men must be up to the "challenge" or they will lose their chance (oh-no).

Can you think of anything that drains more of your power than this one single statement?

That mountain is indeed very high. You gotta get in great shape. You gotta get the right climbing equipment. You gotta do all these things or you will miss your chance to reach the top of that peak.

And the more attractive a woman is, the more INTENSELY she will test. It's like climbing frikkin Mt. Everest lol.

And furthermore, the tests are subtle so you better learn how to spot them and deal with them.

Give me a break!!

How to be a wuss in a man-costume — that's what David D is advocating here.

Hi Jakob,
I like your 3 blogs very much. Have you ever traveled overseas and dated? If you have not, I think you'd really benefit from it. You'd meet some great woman. Even though I was an active dater all my life, I find international dating far superior. There is a country that suits everyone's needs.

[Array9]

Good day to all,

I read one of David's books(for free) a few years ago. The problem with these techniques is that they are only effective on ladies who you would NOT marry. There is no need to use pick up lines to get the attention of a good woman.

Women in America have the upper hand in the bars and clubs. They are the gate keepers. Most attractive women there already know what they will say to a guy that they have no interest in. When I was younger, I would be in the clubs almost every weekend with a little success. Once I got older, I realized that these party girls all led to dead ends for me.

I have traveled to many parts of the world where there is no need to use "game" to talk to an attractive lady.

DD's methods, to me, are a waste of time.