Part II: Ten Steamy Days With A 19 Year Old Swede

this article makes me sad, angry, and upset that this is only the second in a 3-part article. this isn't askmen.com. why, laist? why?

wow, i've only read two of your lame, poorly written articles and i already want to fuck you... with a chainsaw.

disclaimer: i'm not advocating actual violence. i just can't resist a joke like that. i mean, me missing an opportunity to make that joke would really go against the normal grain.

These columns are like train wrecks. I don't want to read them (nor can I stand to read the entire thing) but I have to skim them because they're so ridiculous.

I understand these columns get lots of hits and comments because they're so inflammatory. That said, my opinion of the LAist is less than it once was because you're publishing this, and I suspect many other readers feel the same.

I'm curious if this is the direction Zach wants to take the LAist, or if these columns were bought/solicited/accepted before Zach took over.

I think these articles are hilarious. (Obviously, that's just my opinion.)

Personally, I don't need to read about some semi-pro stoner trying out various kinds of weed (I'm fucked up! I'm hilarious!). Or some self-absorbed girl's romantic misadventures (I'm awesome! Is this guy worthy of me? How about this one? Did I mention that I'm awesome?).

But hey, this is the magical internet, there's plenty of room for all comers. If I don't want to read something, all I have to do is ... not click. I know, amazing, right?

Which is not to say you guys don't have the right to complain about things you don't like. Clearly you do. I'm just saying that a) if this massive bout of hand-wringing is about your personal tastes, an obvious solution would be to look elsewhere for your entertainment, and b) if it's about shielding poor widdle LAist readers from things that you personally find offensive, well, we're (mostly) grownups and there's a generally adult vibe here, so let's just all read and evaluate for ourselves, 'kay?

Meanwhile, Ross, I hope you'll continue to post here. Pursuing hot ladies (or gentlemen) is a big part of life here in L.A.; it's clear that you aren't misleading anyone, so there's certainly nothing unseemly about what you're doing.

i like sex. i like reading about sex. but trying to read through this garbage makes me throw up in my mouth.

I had the unfortunate experience of hanging out with some of the devotees of The Game once. I have never seen a bigger group of pathetic pricks. One guy got 6 numbers in one night, and was so excited he told everyone. Then he proceeded to call them right after he got home, and almost all of them were from various rejection hotlines. All these speed seduction gurus are no better or more reliable than phone psychics, and any girl who would fall for their crap is equally as pathetic.

All that said, I come to LAist for LA news and events, not long diatribes featuring conquests of naive foreign girls. Please LAist, don't publish the third part or, if you do, don't let this guy post anything else on this site.

This is hilarious (from Wikipedia's description of Jeffries' technique):

"The "Basic Speed Seduction" course consists of CD/DVD recordings of a three-day live seminar, a workbook, and a deck of NLP "Patterns" used to structure sentences as commands. The system has you speak some words of a sentence at a normal tone, while the parts of the sentence you want the person to interpret subliminally as a command are said at a lower register. An example of a Pattern would be, "I told my dog to go inside the house." The words "go inside" may be interpreted by the unconscious mind as a command. A weasel phrase would be to say something without directly violating the other. For example, "Just for the sake of me getting to know you better what would someone have to do to get you totally intrigued?" "

It gets better. Here's my favorite:

"Another Jeffries device is phonetic ambiguity. Sentence example: "Standing on the hill, I could see the river twinkling below me." According to Jeffries, the words "below me" could be unconsciously interpreted as an embedded command to "blow me". Especially, if at the point those words were spoken, you spread your hands palms up with fingers pointing down at the crotch area."

Ah, the old "below me" line while a guy spread his hands about his crotch. I fall for that one every time!

i think its interesting... this guy's a hyperanalytical nerd though. glad he is finally getting laid!

pretty weird to read this story online and then hear you telling the same story at 18th street...

couldn't help but check out ross's website. i can SEE why 19-year-old "pernilla" was reluctant to come to the US. she's blind!

Hmm, well, OK. Maybe you're not so bad. I DO love Phillip K Dick. Dick really excites this reader.

So will you be at the next BBQ???

;)

There are 2 issues here - your own sexual conquest and your seminars. First I will address the personal issues.

When I say "treated like this" I mean as a prize to be won. As someone who is valued and cherished for her lack of wrinkles and sags. You value youth so highly, yet you are no spring chicken, mister. How saggy is that sac these days? And when are you going to need Viagra, if not already? I assume besides their supple flesh, young girls are easier to manipulate. Do you have relationships with women your own age? If so, I apologize and award one point.

I would love to see what past conquests have to say. It all comes down to whether it is 2 consenting adults having a healthy good time, even if it is somewhat of a mentor/mentee relationship. May-Decembers can be positive for a young woman interested in learning a thing or two. If that is so, then you get another point.

The digs at women of a certain age (over 30?) is what paints such a bad picture of your character. If you are able to have healthy sexual relationships with women of all ages and are not damaging them, then I have no quibbles. It's your life.

Now, regarding these seminars. Again, it goes to motive. If these are men looking for healthy sexual relationships vs. scumbags looking to fool a girl into bed by any means possible and cast her aside, then maybe you are the savior of unfuckable men the world over.

One issue I have is the use of the word "seduction" and the constant use of plurals in relationship to the women.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You talk about women making self-defeating choices - insinuating they are making their own choices, while simultaneously teaching men how to weaken women's conscious choice-making abilities using psychological and linguistic trickery. Why not just have a 10-minute seminar: "Part one - get them too drunk to think straight. The end."

If a guy is awkward around women and needs to learn to develop a rapport with them, possibly to lead to a relationship someday, or at or at least a really good lay that's fine.

As long as it's above-board and the women are not left feeling used and manipulated. As long as it doesn't start heaping that oh-so-unappealing "baggage" on these women. It really seems like this is a how-to-fuck-a-woman seminar. In which case, taking the high road of "helping these poor men" is total bullshit.

I am currently hosting a seminar on knee-capping. There are so many poor men out there who don't know how to properly cripple their enemies. How dare you insult thes poor guys?

Oh man, I can't believe I got caught up in this. I need to eat more vegetables. After all, you are what you EAT. MY ASthma has gotten much better since I cut out wheat.

HeartDryAsDust belched out thusly:

"I had the unfortunate experience of hanging out with some of the devotees of The Game once. I have never seen a bigger group of pathetic pricks. One guy got 6 numbers in one night, and was so excited he told everyone. Then he proceeded to call them right after he got home, and almost all of them were from various rejection hotlines. All these speed seduction gurus are no better or more reliable than phone psychics, and any girl who would fall for their crap is equally as pathetic."

Amazing how it is perfectly acceptable to heap contempt on people who are trying to improve themselves in a very painful and difficult area of life.

You wouldn't spew venom at a child trying to learn to read or an adult with a learning disability, yet men who never learned to be socially adept are perfectly acceptable targets of your venom and ridicule.

Beyond this, your story smacks of falsehood: if you hung out with these people once, how the hell would you know what happened when the guy went home and called these women?

I can understand the knee-jerk reactions of women to these blogs of mine, but I think your readiness to spit bile at men who are in need of help is truly disgusting.

You are right about one thing, it wasn't at home. I went back to one of these guys apartments, and the dude called all the girls from there.

Couching what you do in lofty terms doesn't make it a lofty enterprise. What you teach isn't a way for socially inept men to interact with women, its simply offering fools gold to those who want to be rich. Any real, interesting, worthwhile woman would never fall for voice patterning or any of the other BS you charge people to hear.

You aren't teaching men to be socially adept, you are teaching them how to treat women like morons.

This post just stinks of desperation. How satisfied and happy could you be if you have to run about bragging about boning nubile young women (and the wait staff from CPK of all places)?
Also...seduction journal? Come on now. You must have better things to do with your time.
When I read these posts, I hear the voice of the Comic Book guy from the Simpsons.
ps. Crowley would be rolling his eyes at you. Love is the Law, Love under Will, not Smack Your Saggy Balls on Women then Brag on the Internet. Have some dignity.
pps. Elise + Malingering=hilarity.

To all the ladies whining and bitching about Ross, welcome to the world of guys who have come across some chick attempting to write her own sex column. If you seriously think that the female gender has a more mature outlook on sexual relationships, and how to write about them and post their writings online, it's time for someone to suggest to you that, No, they generally don't. On the LAist alone, I have read about some dude's dick size being so big that it hurts to fuck (go figure), that nice guys are really mean guys because they are soooo needy and terribly socially awkward (aw, shucks), and body hair just needs to be removed from this planet altogether (too bad for me).

Anyway, you do realize that your clicks and comments are simply securing Ross and his sweaty stories of his Swedish sweety a permanent spot along the side of the front page of LAist, right? Your constant complaints about Ross has told any editor looking for the accumulation of clicks (for advertising purposes) that Mr. Jeffries can indeed increase readership of this blog. No editor, in his right mind, would avoid this scenario.

Welcome to the Age of Irony, Ladies. You're all so hilarious. I look forward to your hysteria in Part III.

What, Asher, you think we're not having fun? This is a blast!

Hey, Elise. I can tell some of you enjoy the fallout. It's the sufferingly agonized of the lot that complain about Ross' "lack of taste" or, even better the "OMG, what does have to do with LA?" whiners that deserve a little love slap of reality on their cute, little, oh-so-smooth asses.

By the way, this message, written in Austin, TX, has no place on this blog. Someone ban me... please. In the names of LAist and freedom everywhere.

Elise wrote:

"Hmm, well, OK. Maybe you're not so bad. I DO love Phillip K Dick. Dick really excites this reader.

So will you be at the next BBQ???

;)"

Did you just ask me out?

RJ

I'm afraid I'm too old for you. Plus I have baggage. Although I do carry it myself. I have to admit, sometimes it is a bitch getting it up those tight, narrow Paris hotel stairways.

Is this just a thinly disguised (and poorly written) marketing ploy for Ole Saggy Balls' bullsh...cough, cough..."coursework"?

If so, OSB might want to consider hiring a ghostwriter who can spice it up a bit. Besides being boorish, it's also boring, which may be his greatest transgression. I won't be checking out Part III - he says what he really wants to say in the comments, anyways.

Quite a lot of us actually enjoy reading about sex, but only when the person writing is more interested in actually telling a story or getting a point across, rather than stroking his own limp dick (or should I say - choking his own chicken, OSB?).

LAist - you have some good writers, some shitty writers, some funny ones, some boring ones (I'm with people on the occasional weed analysis - eh, kinda lame). You're democratic, and I get that. But OSB here has a clear agenda ("Speed Pussybaiting Can Work For You!"), and I didn't realize that this was a platform for hire.

I'd rather read about how Jamie-Lynn got knocked up by her church-going paramour. That's more scintillating than this tripe.

Shanaynay: I love the word pussybaiting. That is my word of the day. I just imagine a box propped up with a stick and a rope, with cute Agent Provocateur panties inside.

By the way, Asher, not to spoil the mood, but douches are actually bad for a woman's health.

I'm sorry, Hindinwood. What am I deflecting? The fact that this very blog has run columns written by women that are farcical in the world of relationships just as Ross seems to be doing? That's the truth, and nowhere in it am I suggesting myself as being part of the Seduction Game.

What I am saying (along with one other writer in this thread) is pretty simple: If you don't like what is being written, it might be best to chill out rather than keep talking about it, because the more you talk about it here, the longer the column gets highlighted as a most commented article on the front page of LAist.

Of course, thanks to my special somethin' somethin' going on with Elise, I've added to the cause of doing just that. Thankfully, I've got thick skin, and can see into the side effects of my own actions. However, since I am here, it would only be proper that I suggest you not jump on a knee-jerk reaction yourself, and consider my points of sex columnists in general as being rather obtuse and lame (and, quite frankly, useless in forging a real, sustainable relationship that is supposed to make ourselves happy and horny and oh-so grateful to be alive).

As for douches, that's really too bad, Elise. And to think all of those commercials with Mom and Daughter hanging with hoes in the garden were outright lies. Dammit all, there goes that fresh feeling I was hoping the ladies would hold onto throughout the day.

Elise-

Oh, snap!

(Yeah, that's the sound of the pussybait catchin' my ass if there's Agent Provocateur in there! Damn...we all have our weaknesses!)

Wow. Am I the only one who is amazed by the amount of seething hatred that comes through on boards like these? It never ceases to amaze me. Have people lost their sense of humanity and ability to see another point of view as a result of participating on forum websites? I think so. Furthermore, I see that more and more people enter into a "conversation" (read: flame war) with the notion of their opinion being fact. I see it everywhere on the internet. It's shocking and dangerous.

Geez people, if you have something to say or disagree with someone, express yourself by all means. But why soak your posts with nihilistic insults and arrogant witticisms? You may think you are impressing someone, and you are, but not in a helpful, constructive way.

It's a pity really. People have lost touch with decent communication through the internet, as if sitting behind the computer abdicates them of any sense of kindness, diplomacy or respect. Sitting down at a keyboard gives most folks the license to be completely self-righteous and vindictive when a simple "I disagree with that because..." would suffice.

The original poster just shared an experience he had with a younger lady using language that makes you attractive. Is this cause for the overly venomous and vicious attacks? Is demonstrating some reserve and RESPECTFUL disagreement totally out of the question?

I believe in freedom of expression 100%. However, I don't believe that this freedom implies the right to be verbally destructive or irresponsible. I believe people who engage in ad hominems, overly or covertly, are cowards at the center. They would be ill-prepared to say in real life to another person what they spew on blogs or forum websites. They would be forced to see the look of hurt or anger on the other person's face. Anonymity is the sultry whore of the coward.

I realize this has nothing to do with the original posting. I'm simply amazed by the sick addiction some people seem to have in verbally shoveling their hatred upon one another. It's sad.

Awwwwwwww! That's right, Ross is the victim here! Awwwww! Poor Ross -- sorry, I mean, "Destiny," -- no no, I mean, Ross!

Where do you think you're posting, dude? Your cheap psychology tricks may work on those "open minded" 18-year-olds you keep chasing, but we all know the score here.

You're posting your lay-conquest stories here because you want to rile up more business for your seminars. LAist gets hits, so you offer to write here for free so you can fish for students. Basic publicity strategy. Nothing wrong with that if LAist allows it.

Part of your publicity strategy is posting "provocative" posts that are written a bit "outrageously" so you can get hits and thus fish for more students for your seminars.

But now when people challenge your posts and write a bit "outrageously" back, you cry, "Boo-hoo mommy! The kids are being mean to me!"

Come on, man! If you can't take the heat, why the hell did you start posting in the damn kitchen! And I thought we were having a good time here!

The point most are making here is that YOUR WRITING SUCKS! You just posted this "I'm too cool for school 'cause I fucked a hot 19-year-old and I'm 50," couple of paragraphs. It's arrogant and self-involved, it offers no advice and it doesn't offer to better the lives of anyone on LAist.

There is NO real "STORY" there. The writing is not ENTERTAINING. It doesn't OFFER anything to the reader! It's lousy SELF-CONGRATULATORY, SELF-INVOLVED writing. And a half-assed job at that!

WTF Ross! Honestly, how did you expect people to react?

Do you have any friends, man? Have you ever accidently befriended any of those "vampire" people who just want to talk about themselves, tell you all their stories, tell you everything that's wrong with their lives, want you to cheer for them and support them when they're down, expect you to be there for them, brag about themselves and how cool their lives are, yet ... truly don't give a fuck about you or your life?

That's how you sound, bro!

And, again, here I thought we were having a good time. Come to the barbecue and I'll tell you all that shit to your face, if you want. No worries. No need to "hide" behind anything. We can have a cool-ass discussion on the social interaction/mating habits of the 21-century. I actually agree with some of your points. It's the way you say shit that leaves you open for digs.

But I'm sure you already knew that. You can't be that stupid when you're trying to troll for new, impressionable acolytes who will take the bait.

Crap, it's time to ASSk my neighbor to SUCK MY BALLSamic vinegar from the bottle she borrowed to make that salad. Shit, I gotta get back to work! Damn you, LAist!

And if Pernilla wavers, assure her that I am a very nice person. I especially like cookies.

Ummm, I have seen Creative Force in person and believe me, he does alright. He looks like a fucking model.

But I love the, "You're just jealous" defense. That's what teachers tell children when the other kids don't invite them to parties and throw their shoes in the trash.

Awwwwwww! Did I hurt your feelings, Ross -- I mean "Voll Tare" -- no no, I mean, Ross!!

I am truly jealous of a 50-year-old who spends his life chasing 18-year-old, easily impressionable girls! Dang! You got me, buddy! I was hoping I could slide by my whole life and not be found out! Damn it, LAist!

Bro, I've given you props too. Did you miss those? Is the mean guy on LAist hurting little Ross' feelings by not playing by his rules? Awwwwwww! What can we do to make it better, Rossy?

So now you want a dick measuring contest? Haha! Nice try, man! Again, where do you think you're posting. Trying to bait me with your PSYC 101 talk: "Yeah ... well ... well ... you can't get laid!" Haha! What is this Junior High! Haha! Try that shit with your teenage students.

Ain't nobody pissed off here, dog. And how can I "dislike" you? We're just having fun here ... and you know it! The fact that we're not falling for the Ross Jeffries-is-the- master-of-the-universe bit is what has you riled up.

Like I said, I actually agree with some of the things you've said. It's the way you say 'em that leaves you open for digs.

Just write better shit and actually HAVE SOMETHING TO OFFER THE READER and you'll do much better, bro! Instead of this self-aggrandizing crap.

You know what they say about self-aggrandizing people ... right?

Ross, I appreciate you're concern for the 'socially awkward male.' It's definitely something that's not talked about much because men are supposed to be dominant and confident and whatnot...

But aren't seminars and seduction journals a bit over the top? Do women really not go for guys being themselves anymore? do guys really need a 'plan' involving subliminal-speak and all this nonsense in order to pull girls?

this all seems way too over-thought and over-the-top. I'm not saying it won't work...I haven't tried it. But my conscience says it's super-shiester and that's gotta count for something.

Ross, For the love of God, All you need to do is post a fucking picture of Pernilla and everyone will curb their enthusiasm with silent displacement of genuine horniness and mazment.

Elise, I dont know who you are, but if I did, I would take you out and buy you some I CECREAM.

Everyone else, shut the fuck up.

OK, everybody, if I agree to have sex with Ross' girlfriend, will everyone finish themselves off ?

Because I have cookies to bake. Real cookies. That's not a double entendre.

The vitriol displayed in these comments is interesting. Why are so many people so upset? That's one real issue here.

Why do people get upset when Ross describes the time he spent with a woman? What does it say about those who find Ross' descriptions so troubling? Each individual who posts a negative comment might learn something if they would examine the process by which their feelings and thoughts about those feelings manifested themselves.

I suspect those women who are so scornful of Ross' narrative find Ross' attraction to a younger woman to be threatening in some way. The older men may be somewhat envious.

I can't say. But for all those posting negative comments, these comments say more about you than Ross. Untangling your feelings and your thoughts could be quite useful to you, although I imagine I could well get attacked for saying so.

What I do know about Ross is that he is brilliant and irascible. It's not surprising, since all pioneers get arrows in their backs--which can make anyone less likely to suffer fools gladly. He has, however, taught thousands of men how to communicate with women better, and how to create experiences for women that they themselves want to have.

You women out there who heap scorn on the attempt by men to better communicate with women should take a deep breath and examine those feelings and thoughts as well. The fears and processes men go through in their desire for touch, understanding, intimacy are badly understood by many women.

It's really beyond the scope of my short post, however, I urge everyone who has nasty things to say about Ross' story re-read his responses. Read them carefully. You may not have the context to fully understand what he's saying, but give it a try. And while you're trying, consider your own thoughts and feelings about the subject. Try to tease out one from the other and you just might gain some personal insight.

"You women out there who heap scorn on the attempt by men to better communicate with women should take a deep breath and examine those feelings and thoughts as well. The fears and processes men go through in their desire for touch, understanding, intimacy are badly understood by many women."

The problem is, teaching men subliminal linguistic strategies is miles away from honest communication. If Ross just wanted to show men how to "be themselves" and attract women in a totally genuine way - cool - but according to Wikipedia and his own website that's not what's going on.

I totally understand what he's saying about the falsity of the traditional dating model, and let me say that I agree. However, there is most certaintly a middle-ground between that and tactics of psychological manipulation to hook up with the object of your desire.

As far as the age thing, what offends me about it is not the fact that she's 19, but that it's so important to him that it's mentioned in the HEADLINE. If you meet an awesome guy/girl, why is it relevant that she/he's 19?? It reaks of smarmyness (sp?) and therein lies the problem...

hindinwood....you made an excellent point about his "smarmyness." for another example - on you tube there are videos of RJ and his "students." in one of them, RJ introduces us to a chubby, kinda nerdy british guy who alleged got to bang a girl using RJ's techniques. no big deal. but what makes it totally creepy is that they go on and on about how the chubster student devirginized this girl, with RJ laughing about the fact that the girl ended up paying for the hotel room.

so what is it - are you RJ, progressive yet respectful seducer and thinker, or tom fucking leykis? either way it doesn't matter, but the fact that you totally speak out of both sides of your mouth just goes to your poor reasoning and writing abilities. people can see through it and that is what makes people so angry.

Alright Magicman, so is RJ selling a product, or writing an article that the majority of LAist readers will find interesting/relevant? I think that is the real question.

As far as this;
"Language is a funny thing, as is honesty. We all use subliminal linguistic strategies all the time. I would argue that everyone uses them every time they speak. Knowledge of and understanding of how we go about this is a good thing, not a bad thing."

You are splitting hairs. Yes, language can illusive, frustrating, and naturally deceptive. There are as you know many books about this subject and it's an extensive and interesting field.
However, for the sake of this discussion, let's boil it down to the *intent*. There is a diference between using a subliminal linguistic cue that you are aware of v. unaware of. I agree that it's healthy to try and be conscious (sp?) of the way you use language and to what effect, the bottom line is; when your intent is to manipulate someone without their knowledge to achieve an end result, THAT is smarmy.
This strategy may seem like a great idea to you (I'm assuming you're male, correct me if I'm wrong), but as a woman it strikes me as being calculated, uneccessary, and vaguely insulting to my intelligence. That is my honest opinion, and it seems to be shared by the other ladies (and some men) who have commented on this article.
The end.

Magicman-
The approach you describe above is not disturbing. Obviously anyone could benefit from that advice, whether in a romantic platonic or professional relationship.

However, the material in RJ's *Speed Seduction* program is different.

se·duce
–verb (used with object), -duced, -duc·ing.
1. to lead astray, as from duty, rectitude, or the like; corrupt.
2. to persuade or induce to have sexual intercourse.
3. to lead or draw away, as from principles, faith, or allegiance: He was seduced by the prospect of gain.
4. to win over; attract; entice: a supermarket seducing customers with special sales.

I don't see much in that wording about resonating with anyone emotionally. Maybe the point of the article above is that RJ found him self connecting with the young lady on more than just a sexual level and was pleasantly surprised. Who knows?
Either it's that, or it's a semi-sensationalistic "I fu**ed a 19 year old" bodice-ripper. You can't really have it both ways, at least not without better writing.

"...waking up to a flawless young body, without a sag or a wrinkle, mine to touch, taste, savor and pleasure…ahhh"

Mmhmm.

The writing may not be to your taste. Chacun à son goût.

However, I beg to differ--you can have it both ways. You can have it any way you like it. That's part of the subtext. Why jam yourself into the box? Why allow yourself to be defined by conventional expectations? Do you like it better that way? Do you really? Do you know you have a choice? But that choice only comes if you choose to exercise it. Mmhmm

I don't think Ross was intending to resonate with you. In fact, I think his principal intention in writing the column was to resonate with men; and if there were women that read it with interest, that's great, too.

Ross WAS intending to resonate with this young woman, however, and I would guess he did just fine in that department. She attended one of his seminars. She knew exactly who he was, and she found she was interested in his ability to resonate with who she is.

Nothing underhanded about that.

By the way, you do know, don't you, that bodice rippers are the most popular form of fiction for women? You knew that, right? I wonder why that's the case? What is it about the bodice ripping genre that women find so attractive?

Answer that one, and maybe you'll gain some insight into this entire subject.

Again, I would ask you to look inside yourself and observe what you are feeling and thinking about what you are feeling. Not the knee jerk reaction you have because you're shocked, (just shocked!) that a man would find it beguiling to be with an attractive 19 year old woman. Mmhmm

I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way. I mean in a constructive way. Settle down your racing mind, breathe deeply a few times, and fell what you are feeling, pay attention to the words flowing through your head. Be the observer of your own reactions to Ross. It really is more important to you than you think it is.

The definition doesn't exactly sound very good does it?

A person can define it in anyway that they like but, the manipulation is something that has more to do with most people not taking responsibility in there lives and choosing to be a victim. What if you were in complete control of yourself and you begin to realize that everything that has ever happened to you was of your own doing to begin with? If Ross's technology is manipulative, so incredibly mind altering, and can steal the virginity of a young women from 1000yards away, why wouldn't Ross sell it for a million dollars a lesson? Wouldn't all people with this technology be in a power struggle for the white house by now?

Yes it is very powerful when you as a person learns to wake up and recognize what is truly going on around you. It is twice as powerful when you find out everyone else is asleep.Ross has taught many people these skills and it has definately better lots of peoples lives.

Listen, all the rants that i have read here are noting 2 things in particular;

1. viewing the world through a filter of fear
2. Being so fear based that unless it is a difficult task it is probably not worth it.

To the women who obviously have not been lucky enough to meet Ross or one of his students, it is a tremendous gift to have the kind of man who chooses to be with you, chooses to be with you in all the ways in which you would want a man to be with you, and not just fulfilling a role. The men that have faced their shame, and their fears, faced them to become a better person a better lover and to be able to understand themselves and the women they choose to have in their lives.

You might stop and consider that his marketing is just that, marketing. If you were to notice the way in which this is such a hot topic for so many why might you find yourself feeling compelled to react out of fear instead of curiosity? Haven't you actually been curious before? Like maybe when you see something and at first it scares the heck out of you but there is something really worth noticing here. Maybe when you really think about it you are not owning your own feelings but just reacting the way society has told you to react...

Magicman-
"Again, I would ask you to look inside yourself and observe what you are feeling and thinking about what you are feeling."

Your tone is condescending.

First of all, I'm certaintly not "shocked" that a man in his fourties is psyched about boning a 19 year old. And to call my arguement (which has been quite rational and well-explained) "knee-jerk", is dismissive and reductionist.
My mind is not "racing", as I am at work, and am attending to a million things besides following this discussion with amusement.

Yes I am aware that "bodice rippers" are popular with women which (sigh) was why I made the comment in the first place. I was suggesting that this article shares a place in the genre, which is known for it's predictable matronly thrills.

For the last time, whether you choose to agknowledge it or not (and at this point that's what it comes down to), RJ is sending conflicting messages as a writer and public person. One is that he wants to forge a deep connection based on mutual trust and pleasure, and the other is an advocation of linguitic manipulation to achieve seduction = sex.
Please see the dictionary definition of "seduce" above if you disagree.

I'm sure you'll respond with something like "panties in a bunch knee-jerk horrified feminist" or whatever, but I suggest you do a little research first.

I'm not being condescending, really. At least I'm not trying to be. I had no idea that you think of yourself as a feminist. As for your panties, I can't say. (OK, that one just slipped out, but you brought the subject up!). To my way of thinking, the bodice rippers are not as easily dismissed as you would have it. Predictable matronly thrills? That's sort of condescending, I think, in its own right, isn't it?

No, I think the bodice ripper genre tells us something powerful about the female psyche. I think it speaks volumes about women. And, by the way, on the subject of research, women of all ages buy these novels. You may not like that fact. it may disturb you because you don't think that's the way it should be. But I suspect deep in your heart you may have some of that stuff going on as well, which may be why it provokes such a reaction in you. We always find theobjectionable in others those things that are in our hearts, you know?

Am I to understand that forging a connection of mutual trust and pleasure to achieve sex is what you are opposed to? Of course not.

It seems to me you have it in your head that women are somehow being duped, hoodwinked, and cheated by men who are "using" them under false pretenses. Or something like that. It is a common enough theme. Lots of women feel as though they were cheated by men. Lots of men feel as though they were cheated by women, too. It's a two-way street.

Look, we are not talking about rape here. We are not talking about violence of any sort. We aren't talking about lying or cheating.

Is Ross' headline sensational? Of course it is. Is it provocative? Of course it is. You have a hard time understanding how someone who writes something like that can also teach men about how to achieve emotional connections with women--connections that may (gasp) lead to sex. Well, please forgive me for saying so, but this demonstrates to me that you don't know that much about men. That is, what men really go through. How they really feel. What they really experience.

The reason I suggested you look at your own reactions was simple.

Only by observing ourselves do we gain understanding of our consciousness. I would respectfully suggest this is a good thing for everyone to do. The stronger the feelings you have about something, the more important it is to observe yourself feeling those feelings. The more you conflate thought and emotion, the more likely it is that you will end up in a loop of thought, feeling and behaviors that are unsatisfying and that stifle your growth.

Dude?

OK, dudette...

You didn't like the article. I liked it. Not necessarily the writing, but the message, which was, by the way in all likelihood, written for men. I'm sure there are a few men out there who in their heart of hearts, didn't like it (damn few, I suspect). But I found it interesting and insightful.

I wasn't trying to psychoanalyze you, nor do I care to, although I guess I was right about your being a bit of a romantic. I have no idea who you are except from an exceedingly limited frame of reference. Besides, I'm no therapist even when I know people well.

Still and all. The final paragraph of my last post is right. As in accurate. Right for you, Right for me. Right for the species.

Does Pernilla wear Uggs?

"But, as we can see, this hypno-speak doesn't work on EVERYONE. Hey, if all you want from life is to be a 50-year-old guy chasing 18-year-old girls, I guess more power to ya."

For me it is just the way in which I see this world. Not an act or anything like it.

I am sure I was will to take the time and disect your rant it would be littered with "hypnospeak" it is the wya in which th eworld communicates anyway. You can be aware of it or be the sheep which ever you choose is your choice, isnt it

It's amazing to see how people's buttons get pushed on the subject of men learning to have power, choice and selection when they don't have the looks, money, power, status or fame that men are required to have in the "dating game".

Reverend to that!

It's all it is. Oh and someone asked the question above about itn't it just good enough to be yourself?

(ps Im not Ross)

IT is good enough to be yourself but it all depends on what you mean. Is everyone a walking robot with only one face?

If you were to go to get a good job are you going to be the same self you would be if you were getting read to go play sports in a locker room? IF you were having dinner with the family would you be the same self you would be if you were having a TV dinner at home by yourself?

If you're going out for coffee with your sister would you be the same self you would be if you were out with a girl (or guy) you wanted to get naked?

The concept of self is ultimately an illusion anyway based on two completely faulty things; the past and the future because none of that stuff has anything to do with what YOU as a person are doing NOW.

I think guys should definately level the playing field in this game. Women have it easy in the dating world PERIOD. Sure they might color it with, "I have to carry myself around like Im carrying a lot of money through the city at night," buton the opposite end of the spectrum is the guy who has NO ONE -

Take a guy who has no ablility with women whatsoever and you just might have a guy who thinks about things like, "God - Im so lonely I can't take it anymore. What would happen if I committed suicide? Would anyone even notice?"

How many even remotely attractive women have been there? I would wonder what some of these girls who are annoyed by the attention men give them would do if all of a sudden for a good five years or so NO men paid attention to them AT ALL? 10 to 1 they would FREAK OUT.

Not only that what abou the concept of attractive women not having or needing any social skills at all? Some might argue that an attractive woman's personality flaws or complete lack of personality would be overlooked by someone courting her. Does that make her a manipulator because she's using her looks and or sexual power to take advantage of men (or other women)?

Lastly what IF in this BIG GIANT WORLD there was a person who for whatever mysterious reason just seemingly had the ability to Naturally speak in such a way as to elicit desire in the members of the opposite sex. History has shown there are men like this. Casanova was an ugly dude. Does that make them a manipulator?

What about the woman who buddies up with a guy who takes her out to dinner, movies, sporting events, cool parties, shopping etc.? and spends money on her? Deep inside she knows that this guy is only doing it to sleep with her in his mind an yet she has NO intention of doing that. "We're just friends." she often says all the while acting and doing subtle things that might suggest that the situation could eventually change so that the guy continues to hang around.

I can remember at least one Girl LATELY when we were on our first date together asking me after I called her on her "Lets Just Be Friends" nonsense (which is funny because I usually take that as some sort of challenge from attractive women these days); "Well why can't you just pretend you don't want to get in my pants like all the other guy friends I have?"

Her words! And I don't want to hear crap about what kind of Woman she must be to say that. I think she just had the guts to be honest about something most attractive women do.

No, and she hates crocs, even though they are from Sweden.

Uh....no, they're from Colorado. Surely that information's gotta be on Wiki somewhere.

Dear Screech...Zac and Slater said they'd help you pick up chicks later.

"Your comments are right on, however, since the view that is accepted on this site is that men are monsters, untrustworthy with power, and that men who do need help are worthy only of scorn and ridicule, I'm afraid what you have to say will fall largely on deaf ears."

Where in the world did you see any comment indicating this view?? It sounds like YOU have a victim complex RJ.
And no, I did not email Laist. I have no problem hashing things out with a healthy debate...