Playing with CUPID
Thomas
Let's outline CUPID:
Looks - 55%
Money - 20%
Brain - 20%
Personality - 5%
So personality counts very little, right?
But let's take a man that scores a top-rating in looks, money and
brain, but lacks personality seriosly. He will still be an elite
right? He should have no problems with getting girls, right? But what
about a man that has no emotional strength, like a man that:
- Never calls a woman on her bullshit
- Always get intimidated by other men (and women), while women seeing
it
- Always are negative and feeling down
- Are crying like a little baby, a whimp
- is no challenge at all
- is VERY desperate
Let's take a great looking man with a lot of wealth, but he is a
retard - is he going to get girls?
This is interesting this CUPID - my guess is, Ray, that you can
actually defend it. And I'm beginning to believe in CUPID theory big
time! For instance: An ugly guy, who is shy, will never get anything.
But a great looking man, who is shy, is seen as being VERY cute!
Interesting!
But in the above examples about the man with no strength, there must
be something other into play...
Regards,
Thomas
Bet For A Living
>
>Looks - 55%
>Money - 20%
>Brain - 20%
>Personality - 5%
>
>So personality counts very little, right?
>But let's take a man that scores a top-rating in looks, money and
>brain, but lacks personality seriosly. He will still be an elite
>right?
Yep.
>He should have no problems with getting girls, right?
Nope.
By the way, this man:
1. Can model (looks); is not fat, and is 6'2" in height;
2. Earns about $500,000 a year or more (that's what golddiggers go for);
3. Is smart enough to score about 1,400 on the SAT;
Please remember that women want the BEST of whatever it is they want.
>But what
>about a man that has no emotional strength,
>like a man that:
>
>- Never calls a woman on her bullshit
He'll have a domineering girlfriend who is about a 7; catch him walking her
Yorkie outside their apartment building in the snow.
>- Always get intimidated by other men (and women), while women seeing
>it
This creates a false image of low status and low brains; also costs him looks
points, sadly.
>- Always are negative and feeling down
>- Are crying like a little baby, a whimp
>- is no challenge at all
>- is VERY desperate
Then he's an idiot and doesn't have brains.
A smart man understands at least SOME things about seduction. He's also being
very self-destructive about women.
Usually, these men can get 7-8s but get hung up on the 9-10s who are out of
even their league (the 10s are out of EVERYONE'S league).
>Let's take a great looking man with a lot of wealth, but he is a
>retard - is he going to get girls?
Retarded means he's severely lacking in brains.
>This is interesting this CUPID - my guess is, Ray, that you can
>actually defend it. And I'm beginning to believe in CUPID theory big
>time! For instance: An ugly guy, who is shy, will never get anything.
>But a great looking man, who is shy, is seen as being VERY cute!
>Interesting!
That's because women want him approaching them.
> But in the above examples about the man with no strength, there must
>be something other into play...
I would say that in both cases behavior is manipulating a woman's perception of
his CUPID rating.
Even if he doesn't know it, his rating is still high. If he doesn't know how
to capitalize on it, that's his problem.
Ray Gordon, Author
The Seduction Library
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Disclaimer
IF YOU ARE NEW to this group take note that Ray Gordon is our resident
idiot. (Most newsgroups have an idiot or two and we are no different.)
Before you check out his website or take his comments to heart, be warned
that his reputation among the successful regulars in this group is
absolutely awful.
His conduct includes the following behaviors, which collective serve to
bring his mental state into question:
-RECENTLY: Impersonating newbies, ie posting under third party names to
appear as someone else, and making posts that support the products he
regularly spams the newsgroup with. These posts are usually made by web-
based posting services such as Google.com.
-regurarly spamming the group with ads for his website and products
-laying claim to concepts that others had identified before him,
-insulting competing products (who's authors DON'T see a need to actively
promote here and are still successful)
-spouting stories of conspiracies against him,
-threatening, on a regular basis, to sue other group members for libel. He
has apparently been making these threats for years but has yet to follow
up on them.
Oh, and he has herpes.
Remember, all the info you need is free. And knowledgeable people with
experience will help you out WITHOUT trying to sell you something in the
process.
Two great sites to get you started are:
http://www.fastseduction.com/
http://www.pickupguide.com/
If you wish to filter out ray's posts, as well as those of other
identified trolls, the recommend kill-filter for this newsgroup can be
found at
http://www.fastseduction.com/filters.shtml
End of message rf113
Bet For A Living
in the group.
Poor BABY.
Nippleslayer1
> Hi Ray and everyone,
>
> Let's outline CUPID:
>
OK, what the hell?
> Looks - 55%
> Money - 20%
> Brain - 20%
> Personality - 5%
>
So you have control over 5% of your game? You share the opinion of
most AFC's-Not much I can do, might as well live with what I was born
with and hope for the best.
> So personality counts very little, right?
Wrong.
> But let's take a man that scores a top-rating in looks, money and
> brain, but lacks personality seriosly. He will still be an elite
> right? He should have no problems with getting girls, right?
You seem intelligent enough to deduce what kind of girls he will
attract.
But what
> about a man that has no emotional strength, like a man that:
>
> - Never calls a woman on her bullshit
> - Always get intimidated by other men (and women), while women seeing
> it
> - Always are negative and feeling down
> - Are crying like a little baby, a whimp
> - is no challenge at all
> - is VERY desperate
>
He sits at home theorizing about what might work with women while
attempting to ride the coat tails of those who do know. Sound familar?
> Let's take a great looking man with a lot of wealth, but he is a
> retard - is he going to get girls?
>
Since most extremely wealthy men are also highly visible, it should be
easy enough to answer this question. The thing is I don't know any
wealthy retarded men.
> This is interesting this CUPID - my guess is, Ray, that you can
> actually defend it. And I'm beginning to believe in CUPID theory big
> time! For instance: An ugly guy, who is shy, will never get anything.
If he is willing to accept that he can do nothing about it then yes he
will never get anything. If you are willing to do the same, there is
not much point to reading ASF. You would be much better off on
alt.seduction.foxing
> But a great looking man, who is shy, is seen as being VERY cute!
> Interesting!
> But in the above examples about the man with no strength, there must
> be something other into play...
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
If you are not really just a Ray sock puppet, stick around a while and
you will discover why most of his theories are flawed.
Nippleslayer1
dexx
>Let's outline CUPID:
>
>Looks - 55%
>Money - 20%
>Brain - 20%
>Personality - 5%
Just for fun...
So i'm looking at this thinking it adds up to 100%. Hmm, why not
points. A guy with 100 points gets the girl
Let's see, what happens if I'm ugly.
Looks = 15
Money =20
Brain =20
Personality =5
That's only 70 points so no girl :-(
But if I have 3 times the needed cash(1.5 mil instead of 1/2 mil, the
amount I think Ray stated was needed) then my money points triple
Looks=15
Money=60
Brain=20
Personality=5
Now I've got 100 points and I get the girl :-)
Hmm, I've seen this happen. The more cash a guy has the less he needs
to depend on other factors. With enough cash you can be a disfigured
vegetable and still get the girl.
So MY theory says if one thing is lower it has to be made up for by
the other items till you hit 100 points and score :-)
Couple of problems, looks can't get better than a 10 and measurable
intelligence tops out at 200 IQ.I think I'll call 50 looks points = a
10. That's 5 points per rating point, just to make it easy. And smart
lawyer/doctor types run about, oh I'm guessing here, say 160 IQ. So
call 180 IQ = 20 points. That way a super genius of 200 or is 25.
that's five scale points = 40 IQ points.
Now I think I'll apply this to myself.
I scored 6.5 on Hot or Not so that's 32.5 points.
My best year has been 100 g's so that's only 4 points on the money
scale :-(
I'm smarter than your average bear, about a 170 IQ so that's 21.25.
Looks=32.5
Money =4
Brain=21.25.
That's 57.75 points.
So I need 42.25 points worth of personality to get the girl. The only
variable I have total control over and you can throw character,
confidence etc. into this quality.
So basically if I nail the bitches, it's going to be (averaged) 42%
personality and 58% other factors that attract shallow people.
I think I can deal with that.
I'll call this dexx's PU scale. Anyone have suggestions for it to
reflect reality more? More weight to intelligence, less/more money as
a base factor etc. Maybe I should up the looks to 6 scale per rating
point?
Nippleslayer1
> The anonymous remailer seems a little BITTER that my theories are taking hold
> in the group.
>
> Poor BABY.
>
>
means he has taken hold? According to your logic then, it won't be
long until all the women of the world are aware of your methods and
they become absolete. What then? Oh wait a second, in order for
something to be feared, it must have an effect. Nevermind.
Nippleslayer1
Nicholas
news:9lbjmtghi8fva8jmi...@4ax.com:
<snip a reworking of the CUPID method>
>
> I'll call this dexx's PU scale. Anyone have suggestions for it to
> reflect reality more? More weight to intelligence, less/more money as
> a base factor etc. Maybe I should up the looks to 6 scale per rating
> point?
I think the basic premise of CUPID is flawed, because your ratings (or
"points") in any category is relative. IOW, you'll get a different rating
in every category from every woman. A chick who grew up in poverty will
see $100K a year as a shitload of money, but if her dad was the CEO of a
Fortune 500 company, with a total compensation package worth over 4 mil a
year, she would view $100K as no more than shopping money. I also averaged
about a 6 on hotornot.com, but there were a few 9's and 10's averaged in to
that equation (yeah, I know, sympathy votes, probably, but some women dig
me). The same with intelligence, a chick with a Ph.D. is going to rate you
differently than one whose education career ended with her high school
graduation. You also have to consider that the women will rate each
category with different importance. I've known women that are not gold
diggers, who have decent jobs and pay their own way. They don't care at all
whether or not a guy has money, so for them, looks or personality would
weigh more heavily. Other women I know base EVERYTHING on looks, so if a
guy is a 10, he can be dirt poor and dumb as a rock, and she'll still
spread her legs for him. So, unless you're going to use a different scale
with every chick, I can't see how you can come up with any type of system
based on CUPID that would be even close to working. Personality plays more
of a part than you think, when keeping in mind that you should be changing
your personality to suit what she's looking for, based on the values you
should be eliciting from the start.
--
Nick
"That man that hath a tongue, I say, is no man,
"If with his tongue he cannot win a woman."
--William Shakespeare, "The Two Gentlemen of Verona", Act 3 scene 1
"Losers always whine about their best...
"Winners go home and fuck the prom queen."
--John Mason (Sean Connery) "The Rock"
Disclaimer
IF YOU ARE NEW to this group take note that Ray Gordon is our resident
idiot. (Most newsgroups have an idiot or two and we are no different.)
Before you check out his website or take his comments to heart, be warned
that his reputation among the successful regulars in this group is
absolutely awful.
His conduct includes the following behaviors, which collective serve to
bring his mental state into question:
-Making posts using third party names to make the posts appear to be from
others, then posts either questions or supportive comments regarding his
products. These posts are often made using free web-based usenet
facilities such as Google.com
-regurarly spamming the group with ads for his website and products
-laying claim to concepts that others had identified before him,
-insulting competing products (who's authors DON'T see a need to actively
promote here and are still successful)
-spouting stories of conspiracies against him,
-threatening, on a regular basis, to sue other group members for libel.
He has apparently been making these threats for years but has yet to
follow up on them.
Oh, and he has herpes.
Remember, all the info you need is free. And knowledgeable people with
experience will help you out WITHOUT trying to sell you something in the
process.
Two great sites to get you started are:
http://www.fastseduction.com/
http://www.pickupguide.com/
If you wish to filter out ray's posts, as well as those of other
identified trolls, the recommend kill-filter for this newsgroup can be
found at
http://www.fastseduction.com/filters.shtml
End of message ty118 ty118 ty118 ty118 ty118 ty118 ty118
--Part_Boundary-3331F7--
Bet For A Living
>means he has taken hold?
Wow, defamation!
Ross, of course, is the model of sanity, with his beliefs as expressed by his
postings (really good state control to threaten a customer, isn't it?).
>According to your logic then, it won't be
>long until all the women of the world are aware of your methods and
>they become absolete.
That's OBSOLETE in literate circles. Women don't respect men who can't use the
language or spell properly. Keep that in mind.
>What then? Oh wait a second, in order for
>something to be feared, it must have an effect. Nevermind.
Bitter are you? Awww........actually, I wrote OTF with the idea that one day
women would become aware of the method. The method is designed to survive
this.
Unlike SS, a woman can't actively "defend" against Foxhunting because the man
gives her nothing to counterattack. If she's not interested, he simply doesn't
talk to her. How can she complain about that?
She also can't justify her silence in her head because he's not being an
aggressive, touchy-feely CREEP like the ASF methods promote.
Bet For A Living
methods and incorporating them. Why else would he lie about me?
I just wonder if he realizes how EASY it is to flag material from anonymous
remailers with a "preservation of evidence" subpoena against the remailer.
Even if he uses multiple remailers, you just subpoena the entire chain until it
traces back to his ISP.
Not very difficult, in fact.
Have a nice day.
Bet For A Living
>
>>Let's outline CUPID:
>>
>>Looks - 55%
>>Money - 20%
>>Brain - 20%
>>Personality - 5%
>
>Just for fun...
>So i'm looking at this thinking it adds up to 100%. Hmm, why not
>points. A guy with 100 points gets the girl
>
>Let's see, what happens if I'm ugly.
>
>Looks = 15
>Money =20
>Brain =20
>Personality =5
>
>That's only 70 points so no girl :-(
Wrong calculation. The CUPID rating here would be as follows:
Looks = 15/25 = 0.60 * 55 = 33
Money = 20/25 = 0.80 * 20 = 16
Brains = 20/25 = 0.80 * 20 = 16
Personality = 5/25 = 0.2 * 5 = 1
That's a rating of 66, not 70. The looks rating kills the overall CUPID
rating.
A guy like this should look for a woman who is into brains and money/status and
doesn't care about looks. To her, he'll be an Elite. To a woman who is into
looks, he'll be a dog.
The former category of women will see this man as a 75-80, while the
looksdiggers will see him as a 60 (his looks rating on a 1-100 scale).
>But if I have 3 times the needed cash(1.5 mil instead of 1/2 mil, the
>amount I think Ray stated was needed) then my money points triple
No they don't. Law of diminishing returns. The money rating would go from 23
to 24, maybe.
>Looks=15
>Money=60
>Brain=20
>Personality=5
>
>Now I've got 100 points and I get the girl :-)
Wrong calculation. He'd get the woman with either amount of cash.
If his looks rating went from 15 to 23, he'd be unstoppable, as that would make
his CUPID rating go from 66 all the way up to Elite level, or in the 80s.
>Hmm, I've seen this happen. The more cash a guy has the less he needs
>to depend on other factors. With enough cash you can be a disfigured
>vegetable and still get the girl.
>
>So MY theory says if one thing is lower it has to be made up for by
>the other items till you hit 100 points and score :-)
The theory is right but the expression is incorrect.
Generally, you want to maximize your best category first, to get the women who
have a fetish for that category. Then you want to improve the weakest category
to get the women who require balance.
Please study the actual formula before calculating based on it.
Bet For A Living
>
>>
>> I'll call this dexx's PU scale. Anyone have suggestions for it to
>> reflect reality more? More weight to intelligence, less/more money as
>> a base factor etc. Maybe I should up the looks to 6 scale per rating
>> point?
>
>I think the basic premise of CUPID is flawed, because your ratings (or
>"points") in any category is relative. IOW, you'll get a different rating
>in every category from every woman.
That's what the partner rating is for and it's half of CUPID.
Under the partner rating system, each partner's value system is substituted for
"society's." A golddigger's value system might be 30-20-50-0 instead of
55-20-20-5, etc.
The CUPID rating measures overall desirability, while the partner rating system
takes into account individual value systems like you expressed above.
>A chick who grew up in poverty will
>see $100K a year as a shitload of money,
Not when men with a hundred times as much money are also hitting on her.
A woman's golddigging can be measured by whether or not she rejects wealthier
men than the one she's with. A woman who turns down a millionaire for a guy
who makes $50,000 a year and has him pay for everything isn't using him for
money in her mind because if she were a golddigger, she'd have gone with the
millionaire.
>but if her dad was the CEO of a
>Fortune 500 company, with a total compensation package worth over 4 mil a
>year, she would view $100K as no more than shopping money.
A woman like this will usually NOT care about money because it's the last thing
she needs. She'll just test a guy to see if he cares about HER money, and if
he passes that test, he's IN. Most guys these women date are the
high-achievers they bring home to their parents and the "bums" like the guys
from ASF they have sex with, secretly, which also creates DRAMA for them in
their boring lives.
>I also averaged
>about a 6 on hotornot.com, but there were a few 9's and 10's averaged in to
>that equation (yeah, I know, sympathy votes, probably, but some women dig
>me). The same with intelligence, a chick with a Ph.D. is going to rate you
>differently than one whose education career ended with her high school
>graduation.
Most chicks with Ph.D.'s get very sick of guys whose brains match theirs. They
want a man who is WISE, reasonably intelligent, and often go for blue-collar
types, unless they are marrying to impress society, in which case they pair
off.
>You also have to consider that the women will rate each
>category with different importance.
I did that. That's what the partner rating system is for. For each couple,
there is a CUPID rating and a partner rating. The CUPID rating is the
theoretical average of "society's" rating of each person, while the partner
rating takes the raw scores and applies it to the value system.
>I've known women that are not gold
>diggers, who have decent jobs and pay their own way. They don't care at all
>whether or not a guy has money, so for them, looks or personality would
>weigh more heavily. Other women I know base EVERYTHING on looks, so if a
>guy is a 10, he can be dirt poor and dumb as a rock, and she'll still
>spread her legs for him.
Correct.
>So, unless you're going to use a different scale
>with every chick,
The partner rating, which is in CHAPTER ONE of OTF.
>I can't see how you can come up with any type of system
>based on CUPID that would be even close to working.
I already did that.
>Personality plays more
>of a part than you think, when keeping in mind that you should be changing
>your personality to suit what she's looking for,
I should? I don't buy into that, and that falls under brains as it's a
technique which must be learned.
Personality is subjective and used to deflect more shallow preferences.
>based on the values you
>should be eliciting from the start.
You're talking about seduction technique, which will often **temporarily**
override CUPID to the tune of 10-20 points, depending on how good you are.
A guy with a CUPID rating of 90 is going to blow a PUA with anything under 70
out of the water. A guy with a rating of 90 and the techniques of a PUA is
just disgusting, like Shaq getting the ball two feet from the basket.
dexx
Yup, I think you've nailed it. I was just playing with numbers. In the
end numbers mean little. The PUA has to gauge each situation/reaction
individually and 'roll with the punches'.
Eric Big E
Despite what Ray says, there are ugly players. There are ugly players
with no money. But they're stilling pulling hot women, women who, by
the rules of 'Cupid', would be out of there league. I have seen it so
many fucking times that it's not even funny.
Nicholas
down here, and I've heard the regulars say that OCCASIONALLY that you do
come up with some good info, so, for now, I'm reading what you have to say.
Imagine my surprise when I see a response to one of my posts that is
actually polite. Although I don't agree with your assumptions (those exact
points are detailed below), I'm glad you responded intelligently without
flaming, name-calling, or turning it into a tirade against your
competitors. If you answer all of your critics as you did in this post,
you'd probably get a lot more hits to your website.
I did actually do some homework before typing up this post, having skimmed
over Chapter One of your web-book where your CUPID method is explained. I
then made my way blindly to the medicine cabinet to get some ibuprofen for
the headache I got from trying to figure out your method. Now, with the
headache under control, I can give you the reasons I disagree with your
CUPID method.
betfor...@aol.com (Bet For A Living) wrote in
news:20010802180749...@ng-ck1.aol.com:
>
>>I think the basic premise of CUPID is flawed, because your ratings (or
>>"points") in any category is relative. IOW, you'll get a different
>>rating in every category from every woman.
>
> That's what the partner rating is for and it's half of CUPID.
>
> Under the partner rating system, each partner's value system is
> substituted for "society's." A golddigger's value system might be
> 30-20-50-0 instead of 55-20-20-5, etc.
>
> The CUPID rating measures overall desirability, while the partner
> rating system takes into account individual value systems like you
> expressed above.
So, let me get this straight... your CUPID rating will constantly be
changing based on the values of the woman who is applying the numbers? So,
why have a rating at all? Why go through all of the trouble of coming up
with these numbers when it's entirely based on INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCE at
THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT? You say that the CUPID rating is based on society,
but then say that for each individual woman, you should substitute her
values for that of society. I'm sorry, but I can't make much sense of this.
All that you're basically doing is putting numbers on what humans desire in
a partner AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME, which is, IMO, is senseless to even
discuss, because those numbers are going to change with every situation.
It is also going to change depending on whether the woman is interested in
a man for SEX, or for MARRIAGE. Women will sleep with men that they have no
desire to marry, before and after they are married to the man that they
want "til death (or divorce) do they part". Women will marry men because
they are a "good provider", all the while they're fucking the gardener or
the neighbor who "provides" for them in other ways. Regardless of your
personal feelings toward these women, this has to be taken into
consideration if you're going to promote your "methods" in this newsgroup.
This is alt.seduction.fast, and the point of this NG is seduction, not the
morality of the women that we seduce.
>>A chick who grew up in poverty will
>>see $100K a year as a shitload of money,
>
> Not when men with a hundred times as much money are also hitting on
> her.
>
> A woman's golddigging can be measured by whether or not she rejects
> wealthier men than the one she's with. A woman who turns down a
> millionaire for a guy who makes $50,000 a year and has him pay for
> everything isn't using him for money in her mind because if she were a
> golddigger, she'd have gone with the millionaire.
But what about the fact that she MARRIED the millionaire, but she's fucking
the guy making $50,000 behind her husband's back? Or about the golddigger
chick who is too young to be interested in marriage yet, and is fucking
around with PUA's before finding her rich guy with whom to tie the knot?
She is going to rate guys differently based on what she wants AT THE
MOMENT. So that makes the CUPID rating even more flawed, because one chick
will give the same guy two different ratings, based on what she wants at
that time. If she finds a good looking guy and wants sex with him, she'll
rate his 'status' lower than his 'looks' and 'personality', but if she
finds out that the same guy is also the sole living heir to Bill Gates, she
may change her mind about marrying this dude a few months down the road.
>>but if her dad was the CEO of a
>>Fortune 500 company, with a total compensation package worth over 4 mil
>>a year, she would view $100K as no more than shopping money.
>
> A woman like this will usually NOT care about money because it's the
> last thing she needs.
Not sure if I can agree with this. IME these women have a princess
mentality, they're afraid that Daddy will only support them for so long
after they're married. They have to find a man making, or with the
potential of making, enough to keep her luxurious lifestyle.
> She'll just test a guy to see if he cares about
> HER money, and if he passes that test, he's IN.
That I agree with.
> Most guys these women
> date are the high-achievers they bring home to their parents and the
> "bums" like the guys from ASF they have sex with, secretly, which also
> creates DRAMA for them in their boring lives.
You just made my last point. Chicks will rate guys differently based on
their use for them. One rating system for marriage, and a different system
for the guys they want to give them the good dicking they really desire. So
the college graduate with the potential to make millions will rate higher
in status, so she'll want this guy to support her in an LTR or marriage,
but the guys you call "bums" will get a higher rating in personality,
because a good PUA "bum" will know how to make her feel wonderful, and all
women want that as well.
>
>>You also have to consider that the women will rate each
>>category with different importance.
>
> I did that. That's what the partner rating system is for. For each
> couple, there is a CUPID rating and a partner rating. The CUPID rating
> is the theoretical average of "society's" rating of each person, while
> the partner rating takes the raw scores and applies it to the value
> system.
This point here makes your whole premise useless. What's the point of
having a rating system when every combination of man<->woman will give each
person a completely different rating? It makes the entire system
extraneous. You also have to keep in mind that a good PUA can get a chick
to change her values on each category. A smooth talking guy can talk to a
woman who's out on the town looking to find Mr. Right, and convince her
that, at least for tonight, she only wants Mr. RightNow. This would change
the combination CUPID/PARTNER rating AGAIN, because if he makes her horny
for him, her value in 'status' will drop, and her value in 'personality'
will increase.
>>Personality plays more
>>of a part than you think, when keeping in mind that you should be
>>changing your personality to suit what she's looking for,
>
> I should?
You're in the alt.seduction.fast newsgroup. So, if you want to stay on
topic, then YES, YOU SHOULD.
>
>>based on the values you
>>should be eliciting from the start.
>
> You're talking about seduction technique, which will often
> **temporarily** override CUPID to the tune of 10-20 points, depending
> on how good you are.
YES, I'm talking about SEDUCTION TECHNIQUE. That is what this NG is about.
The moose out front should have told you.
>
> A guy with a CUPID rating of 90 is going to blow a PUA with anything
> under 70 out of the water.
Yes, because this 90 is based on what the woman wants AT THAT MOMENT. If,
at that particular moment, the woman is looking for a guy with a great
personality who can show her a good time, then the PUA will no longer rate
a 70, will he?
> A guy with a rating of 90 and the
> techniques of a PUA is just disgusting, like Shaq getting the ball two
> feet from the basket.
That is your opinion, and from previous posts, it appears that you are
coming from a LTR/marriage point of view. That's fine, but I would venture
to say, with a NG like this one, that your opinion isn't shared by a large
majority of the regulars.
James King
the system. It seems that "overall desirability" mean squat once you
actually apply it to a particular person.
So why waste the energy with precisely inaccurate statistics?
Once again, if the purpose is to better yourself by discovering your
weaknesses, then go for it if it takes a method like this to motivate
you to improve.
If the purpose is to discover who you're interested in and who might be
interested in you, Dr. Burns' "25 Qualities" scale will provide more
useful information for you.
Dr. Burns' method of obtaining (and maintaining, if you choose)
relationships has over 10 years of University-backed research study
specifically supporting it, unlike Gordon's work.
Remember, it has only been currently that Gordon is admitting that
factors can override CUPID, which actually render the already
inaccurate statistics completely meaningless except for the two reasons
listed above.
So, anything that immediately supports CUPID, he will claim that it
supports it. Anything that does not support CUPID, is only something
that is temporarily overriding it.
Quite a convenient escape clause to use when needed, methinks.
James King
P.S. Are you still too scared to talk about your patheticly inept
statistical analysis regarding child abuse and family structure,
Gordon?
In article <20010802180749...@ng-ck1.aol.com>, Bet For A
James King
Living <betfor...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Hmmm, so if two naive people are willing to entertain a lunatic,
> > that means he has taken hold?
> Wow, defamation!
Uh, oh ... it's another noodle in the bowl of RICO soup!
> Ross, of course, is the model of sanity, with his beliefs as expressed
> by his postings (really good state control to threaten a customer,
> isn't it?).
> > According to your logic then, it won't be long until all the women
> > of the world are aware of your methods and they become absolete.
> That's OBSOLETE in literate circles. Women don't respect men who
> can't use the language or spell properly. Keep that in mind.
Yes, Mr. Pubilshing for 2 years. =) You *did* correct the error though
after it was mentioned to you enough times.
> > What then? Oh wait a second, in order for something to be feared, it
> > must have an effect. Nevermind.
> Bitter are you? Awww........actually, I wrote OTF with the idea that
> one day women would become aware of the method. The method is
> designed to survive this.
That's why the quotes I have from women concerning your books are so
negative?
> Unlike SS, a woman can't actively "defend" against Foxhunting because
> the man gives her nothing to counterattack. If she's not interested,
> he simply doesn't talk to her. How can she complain about that?
That's true ... Foxhunters eliminate everyone except the aggressive
females who are willing to make the first move and ask the man out.
Foxhunters never approach except as a last resort, so submissive women
(the majority of women, that is) are not thought of very highly in
Gordon's method.
> She also can't justify her silence in her head because he's not being
> an aggressive, touchy-feely CREEP like the ASF methods promote.
Of course not. He's just being anti-social.
James King
--
Enjoy a classic 30-minute drama absolutely free!
http://www.shadowradio.org
Markku Jantunen
>This begs the question of why "society's" ratings were even included in
>the system. It seems that "overall desirability" mean squat once you
>actually apply it to a particular person.
I have no interest in debating the validity of CUPID, but I have one
comment on the above. Relationships practically never take place in
a vacuum: options other than one's current partner(s) always affect the
balance of power in every relationship. This much should be obvious.
In a typical urban environment, there are hundreds or thousands of
potential partners within a comfortable distance. The "overall
desireability" of a person tells you how much he/she is in demand
as a sexual partner. "Overall desireability" is directly related
to the number and ease of opportunities somebody has to get sex.
[clip]
>If the purpose is to discover who you're interested in and who might be
>interested in you, Dr. Burns' "25 Qualities" scale will provide more
>useful information for you.
>Dr. Burns' method of obtaining (and maintaining, if you choose)
>relationships has over 10 years of University-backed research study
>specifically supporting it, unlike Gordon's work.
Interesting. Can you give more specific pointers to this information?
- mj
Bet For A Living
>> rating system takes into account individual value systems like you
>> expressed above.
>
>So, let me get this straight... your CUPID rating will constantly be
>changing based on the values of the woman who is applying the numbers? So,
>why have a rating at all? Why go through all of the trouble of coming up
>with these numbers when it's entirely based on INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCE at
>THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT? You say that the CUPID rating is based on society,
>but then say that for each individual woman, you should substitute her
>values for that of society. I'm sorry, but I can't make much sense of this.
>All that you're basically doing is putting numbers on what humans desire in
>a partner AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME, which is, IMO, is senseless to even
>discuss, because those numbers are going to change with every situation.
That's like saying all NLP does is put labels on what we were already doing.
It's not that simple.
You have to start somewhere with a rating system, and CUPID does that. If you
don't know a woman's specific value system, then the norms are your best guess.
"Society" values a woman's body at 80 percent of the selection process. The
typical man does this as well.
Are you saying it would be wrong for a woman to assume that a man is basing 80
percent of his opinion on how she looks? In SOME cases, maybe, but not
usually.
>It is also going to change depending on whether the woman is interested in
>a man for SEX, or for MARRIAGE.
As a rule, CUPID matters more in the long term than the short. Women will
usually have two sets of values in the cases you cite above.
It's definitely easier to overcome CUPID mismatches in the short run than the
long run.
>Women will sleep with men that they have no
>desire to marry, before and after they are married to the man that they
>want "til death (or divorce) do they part". Women will marry men because
>they are a "good provider", all the while they're fucking the gardener or
>the neighbor who "provides" for them in other ways.
That's a character issue, and if that's the case, the woman usually isn't
strong enough to attract one man who can give her everything she wants, so she
has to piece it together from multiple men.
>Regardless of your
>personal feelings toward these women, this has to be taken into
>consideration if you're going to promote your "methods" in this newsgroup.
>This is alt.seduction.fast, and the point of this NG is seduction, not the
>morality of the women that we seduce.
Morality comes into play inversely, actually.
>>>A chick who grew up in poverty will
>>>see $100K a year as a shitload of money,
>>
>> Not when men with a hundred times as much money are also hitting on
>> her.
>>
>> A woman's golddigging can be measured by whether or not she rejects
>> wealthier men than the one she's with. A woman who turns down a
>> millionaire for a guy who makes $50,000 a year and has him pay for
>> everything isn't using him for money in her mind because if she were a
>> golddigger, she'd have gone with the millionaire.
>
>But what about the fact that she MARRIED the millionaire, but she's fucking
>the guy making $50,000 behind her husband's back?
Odds are the millionaire doesn't have much else going for him.
>Or about the golddigger
>chick who is too young to be interested in marriage yet, and is fucking
>around with PUA's before finding her rich guy with whom to tie the knot?
That just shows how easy it is to be a PUA.
One could argue that SHE is the PUA, actually, and the men are just dancing to
her tune (which is essentially what this newsgroup teaches people how to do).
>She is going to rate guys differently based on what she wants AT THE
>MOMENT. So that makes the CUPID rating even more flawed, because one chick
>will give the same guy two different ratings, based on what she wants at
>that time.
I consider that a temporary overriding of the system. CUPID deals with
long-term compatibility and short-term desirability.
Now the theoretical question is what makes the system jibe with what happens in
reality. So far, it seems personality would matter more in the short run, with
looks and money mattering less, and brains remaining constant, with more of a
focus on how one uses their brains to seduce rather than to accomplish.
Instead of 55-20-20-5, a short-term CUPID value system could be calculated by
something like 40-20-0-40, which would mean a woman wants a man who is decent
looking, with a strong personality, and who knows how to seduce her.
>If she finds a good looking guy and wants sex with him, she'll
>rate his 'status' lower than his 'looks' and 'personality', but if she
>finds out that the same guy is also the sole living heir to Bill Gates, she
>may change her mind about marrying this dude a few months down the road.
His CUPID rating would be off the charts and most women would want to marry
him.
>>>but if her dad was the CEO of a
>>>Fortune 500 company, with a total compensation package worth over 4 mil
>>>a year, she would view $100K as no more than shopping money.
>>
>> A woman like this will usually NOT care about money because it's the
>> last thing she needs.
>
>Not sure if I can agree with this. IME these women have a princess
>mentality, they're afraid that Daddy will only support them for so long
>after they're married. They have to find a man making, or with the
>potential of making, enough to keep her luxurious lifestyle.
More often than not these women practice defensive golddigging, and their
family would rather support them than risk having the "wrong" man in their
lives.
>> She'll just test a guy to see if he cares about
>> HER money, and if he passes that test, he's IN.
>
>That I agree with.
Okay.
>> Most guys these women
>> date are the high-achievers they bring home to their parents and the
>> "bums" like the guys from ASF they have sex with, secretly, which also
>> creates DRAMA for them in their boring lives.
>
>You just made my last point. Chicks will rate guys differently based on
>their use for them. One rating system for marriage, and a different system
>for the guys they want to give them the good dicking they really desire.
So that creates a dual rating system, an expansion of my method. Doesn't
change the fundamental concept.
>So
>the college graduate with the potential to make millions will rate higher
>in status, so she'll want this guy to support her in an LTR or marriage,
>but the guys you call "bums" will get a higher rating in personality,
>because a good PUA "bum" will know how to make her feel wonderful, and all
>women want that as well.
In the short run, yes.
That would make personality and looks the two primary PUA categories, with
brains and then status following.
However, since SOCIAL PROOF is an important part of PU, status would count for
more.
Also, being strong in any category may be sufficient to pull off a PU. If as
you say a woman wants different things at different times, she will probably
want a guy who scores 23-25 in that category: i.e., the best personality,
looks, brains, or the most status.
>>>You also have to consider that the women will rate each
>>>category with different importance.
>>
>> I did that. That's what the partner rating system is for. For each
>> couple, there is a CUPID rating and a partner rating. The CUPID rating
>> is the theoretical average of "society's" rating of each person, while
>> the partner rating takes the raw scores and applies it to the value
>> system.
>
>This point here makes your whole premise useless.
Hardly. The partner rating determines how two people see each other as opposed
to how society sees them.
If one woman rates me a 60 and "society" rates me an 80, I won't want her.
Partner ratings will move up or down off the CUPID rating.
>What's the point of
>having a rating system when every combination of man<->woman will give each
>person a completely different rating?
Finding the person who gives you the highest rating and vice-versa.
Take a woman who is a Minddigger: she'll rate me around a 95. I'll have a much
better chance with her than I will with a Golddigger, who might give me a 20.
Saves time to know who wants me and who does not.
>It makes the entire system
>extraneous. You also have to keep in mind that a good PUA can get a chick
>to change her values on each category.
Temporarily, plus those are her STATED values, not her REAL values.
>A smooth talking guy can talk to a
>woman who's out on the town looking to find Mr. Right, and convince her
>that, at least for tonight, she only wants Mr. RightNow.
She can't be that difficult to seduce, however, if she falls for that.
>This would change
>the combination CUPID/PARTNER rating AGAIN,
Just one woman's vote for it. The basic CUPID rating doesn't change.
>because if he makes her horny
>for him, her value in 'status' will drop, and her value in 'personality'
>will increase.
Temporarily.
She's still going to have looks, height, intelligence, and income requirements
which will kick in.
>>>Personality plays more
>>>of a part than you think, when keeping in mind that you should be
>>>changing your personality to suit what she's looking for,
>>
>> I should?
>
>You're in the alt.seduction.fast newsgroup. So, if you want to stay on
>topic, then YES, YOU SHOULD.
Why should I change my personality to suit a woman?
That's ONE way of seducing them. There are others.
>>>based on the values you
>>>should be eliciting from the start.
>>
>> You're talking about seduction technique, which will often
>> **temporarily** override CUPID to the tune of 10-20 points, depending
>> on how good you are.
>
>YES, I'm talking about SEDUCTION TECHNIQUE. That is what this NG is about.
>The moose out front should have told you.
I have my own seduction techniques, which usually involve dancers and
hypnosis......pretty simple, actually. A one-trick pony can go very far.
>> A guy with a CUPID rating of 90 is going to blow a PUA with anything
>> under 70 out of the water.
>
>Yes, because this 90 is based on what the woman wants AT THAT MOMENT.
A 90 is what most women want at ANY moment. A PRINCE. A REAL one, not a
wannabe. To get a CUPID 90 you'd have something like this:
Looks like Brad Pitt
SAT score around 1,400
Income around $300k a year or higher
Popular
Short OR long-term he's going to win. That's about what JFK Jr.'s CUPID rating
was.
>If,
>at that particular moment, the woman is looking for a guy with a great
>personality who can show her a good time, then the PUA will no longer rate
>a 70, will he?
He will when she wakes up and interacts with the 80-90s again.
A woman need see only ONE prince to raise the bar. She might have sex with
other guys while she waits, but again these are short-term factors.
>> A guy with a rating of 90 and the
>> techniques of a PUA is just disgusting, like Shaq getting the ball two
>> feet from the basket.
>
>That is your opinion, and from previous posts, it appears that you are
>coming from a LTR/marriage point of view. That's fine, but I would venture
>to say, with a NG like this one, that your opinion isn't shared by a large
>majority of the regulars.
I'm not concerned with what the masses think. I see a lot of guys attack my
methods then post about their own mistakes doing things I'd never get caught in
in a million years.
I know if I bump my looks up into the 22-23 range like I have in the past, I
can be a "PUA" anywhere I want to go. I designed CUPID so that I could select
the super-elite women most likely to want me WITHOUT my having to "change their
minds," the path of least resistance if you will.
Oh, and if you're so against people attacking their rivals, you should realize
that I'm not even close to the one who started that.
Long before I came here Ross was bashing Don Steele.
maddman
doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. If you really want to
study his methods, from CUPID, to calling women cunts and whores, to
wishing death on children and cancer patients, go to his newsgroup,
alt.seduction.outfoxing.
Disclaimer
End of message ae241 ae241 ae241 ae241 ae241 ae241 ae241
Disclaimer
End of message ad124 ad124 ad124 ad124 ad124 ad124 ad124
Disclaimer
End of message ac123 ac123 ac123 ac123 ac123 ac123 ac123 ac123
James King
<m...@kaarne.cs.tut.fi> wrote:
> James King <jlk...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> >This begs the question of why "society's" ratings were even included in
> >the system. It seems that "overall desirability" mean squat once you
> >actually apply it to a particular person.
>
> I have no interest in debating the validity of CUPID, but I have one
> comment on the above. Relationships practically never take place in
> a vacuum: options other than one's current partner(s) always affect the
> balance of power in every relationship. This much should be obvious.
>
> In a typical urban environment, there are hundreds or thousands of
> potential partners within a comfortable distance. The "overall
> desireability" of a person tells you how much he/she is in demand
> as a sexual partner. "Overall desireability" is directly related
> to the number and ease of opportunities somebody has to get sex.
But the question is whether or not arbitrarily designated inaccurate
numbers directly relates to the numbers and ease of opportunities to
get sex.
Also remember that Gordon has said in the past that marriage, and not
just sex, is the desired outcome of Foxhunting.
If you define marriage strictly as a function of sex, then perhaps
> >If the purpose is to discover who you're interested in and who might be
> >interested in you, Dr. Burns' "25 Qualities" scale will provide more
> >useful information for you.
>
> >Dr. Burns' method of obtaining (and maintaining, if you choose)
> >relationships has over 10 years of University-backed research study
> >specifically supporting it, unlike Gordon's work.
>
> Interesting. Can you give more specific pointers to this information?
Absolutely. "Intimate Connections" by Dr. David Burns is based upon his
research in Cognitive Therapy and his active application of such
research towards the problem of lonliness which he found in his
patients in his psychiatric practice.
Cognitive Therapy was extensively studied and researched in the late
1970s at the University Of Pennsylvania, and a large mass of documented
study can be found there. Dr. Darrell Smith also studied the
effectiveness of Cognitive Therapy and published the findings in the
journal "American Psychologist" in July 1982. Of course, these are not
the only organizations to amplify the work originally done by Dr.
Albert Ellis and Dr. Aaron Beck, who are considered the founders of
Cognitive Therapy.
One resource that Burns references is "Lonliness: A Sourcebook of
Current Theory, Research, and Therapy" published by John Wiley & Sons
in 1982.
Hope these sources help,
James King
Markku Jantunen
>> I have no interest in debating the validity of CUPID, but I have one
>> comment on the above. Relationships practically never take place in
>> a vacuum: options other than one's current partner(s) always affect the
>> balance of power in every relationship. This much should be obvious.
>>
>> In a typical urban environment, there are hundreds or thousands of
>> potential partners within a comfortable distance. The "overall
>> desireability" of a person tells you how much he/she is in demand
>> as a sexual partner. "Overall desireability" is directly related
>> to the number and ease of opportunities somebody has to get sex.
>But the question is whether or not arbitrarily designated inaccurate
>numbers directly relates to the numbers and ease of opportunities to
>get sex.
I'm not interested in debating whether or not Ray's or anybody's
particular numbers are correct. The point I was trying to make was that
the concept of "overall desireability" is sound and that a reasonably
accurate index of "overall desireability" could be constructed. The
sexual marketplace in typical urban environments is pretty effective
for all types of sexual relationships.
>Also remember that Gordon has said in the past that marriage, and not
>just sex, is the desired outcome of Foxhunting.
>If you define marriage strictly as a function of sex, then perhaps
The sexual market counts in every type of relationship from ONS to
FB to marriage. Marriage, too, is mostly a function of sex.
>> Interesting. Can you give more specific pointers to this information?
>Absolutely. "Intimate Connections" by Dr. David Burns is based upon his
>research in Cognitive Therapy and his active application of such
>research towards the problem of lonliness which he found in his
>patients in his psychiatric practice.
>Cognitive Therapy was extensively studied and researched in the late
>1970s at the University Of Pennsylvania, and a large mass of documented
>study can be found there. Dr. Darrell Smith also studied the
>effectiveness of Cognitive Therapy and published the findings in the
>journal "American Psychologist" in July 1982. Of course, these are not
>the only organizations to amplify the work originally done by Dr.
>Albert Ellis and Dr. Aaron Beck, who are considered the founders of
>Cognitive Therapy.
>One resource that Burns references is "Lonliness: A Sourcebook of
>Current Theory, Research, and Therapy" published by John Wiley & Sons
>in 1982.
>Hope these sources help,
Thank you for the information.
>James King
Disclaimer
End of message rt221 rt221 rt221 rt221 rt221 rt221 rt221
--Part_Boundary-13CC956--
--Part_Boundary-DD686A--
Disclaimer
End of message ag225 ag225 ag225 ag225 ag225 ag225 ag225
--Part_Boundary-1AF6E2D--
Disclaimer
End of message sr220 sr220 sr220 sr220 sr220 sr220 sr220
--Part_Boundary-14A8B1B--
--Part_Boundary-E024A6--