I almost feel like a good amount of the discussion being had missed the point, or perhaps most of the commenters stopped reading when the conversation shifted from the PUA community to the life and works of Stendhal.
To me, the articles clearly had three acts. First, was the explanation of the PUA method and the argument for it. This has accounted for nearly all the discussions I've read thus far. Second, was the case of passionate love as made through the works of Stendhal and his characters. In the third "act" is where the true point of the article comes to life. The author tries his best to merry the practices of seduction with natural love as played out through the characters he has introduced. Ultimately this leads to a discussion of which way is the best way to acquire the lover you seek.
This is the conversation I sought when I clicked the comments button; so I suppose I'll just ask the question outright: Which of the scenarios do you prefer, or do you believe is best?
Letting love naturally occur, all the while you are yourself and your beloved sees you for that?
Seduction through the art of 'the game' to acquire the target of your love in spite of the reality that you must "not love her for her to love you"?
Or perhaps you prefer the authors idea of balance through the withholding of the expressions of love, both verbally and through eroticism until the timing is proper?
Hell, maybe you've even got your own idea of middle ground? Let's hear it.
I believe that passionate love ("limerence" as the kids call it) is always bad for me. My best relationships are ones where I'm not in love. Yeah, love comes with an instinct that makes us want more of it, but the same is true for heroin.
Ahh, but books, tv, and movies are the pushers of love. If heroin were as high profile and esteemed in most societies as this love thing, then yeah, we'd probably all want it even before we'd had it.
To me, the articles clearly had three acts. First, was the explanation of the PUA method and the argument for it. This has accounted for nearly all the discussions I've read thus far. Second, was the case of passionate love as made through the works of Stendhal and his characters. In the third "act" is where the true point of the article comes to life. The author tries his best to merry the practices of seduction with natural love as played out through the characters he has introduced. Ultimately this leads to a discussion of which way is the best way to acquire the lover you seek.
This is the conversation I sought when I clicked the comments button; so I suppose I'll just ask the question outright: Which of the scenarios do you prefer, or do you believe is best?
Letting love naturally occur, all the while you are yourself and your beloved sees you for that?
Seduction through the art of 'the game' to acquire the target of your love in spite of the reality that you must "not love her for her to love you"?
Or perhaps you prefer the authors idea of balance through the withholding of the expressions of love, both verbally and through eroticism until the timing is proper?
Hell, maybe you've even got your own idea of middle ground? Let's hear it.