In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Two Wheels | Main | Godard Linkage »

November 03, 2006

More on Seduction

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

GNXP's GC has let himself be coaxed into further discussions of connecting-with-chix techniques. His remarks -- complete with tips, links, and scorecards -- can be enjoyed (and/or gawked-at) in the comments thread on this posting.

Me, I tend to think that a close reading of "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" is all that's really necessary to begin enjoying the game of love. Even a whirl through the Stephen Frears film can help you find the rhythm. ($10.88 for the DVD -- how can you beat that?) OK, bonus points for every week you actually spend in France. But is anything more than that really needed?

But maybe I've settled for too little ...



UPDATE: You can get a little taste of The Game by watching the short video on this page. To my surprise, I find myself thinking, "It actually does seem kinda plausible and helpful. I'm offended by the idea of turning seduction into an aggressive, by-the-numbers method. But maybe that's just a stupid principle I'm hung up on. What the heck, y'know? Maybe most guys could benefit from a little seduction boot camp. Maybe many girls would appreciate it if we sharpened our skills up." How do you react?

UPDATE 2: Glen Raphael links to a hilarious how-to (and how-not-to) video.

posted by Michael at November 3, 2006


"I try to minimize the time during which the sawtooth wave is above the distraction axis."
Which nobody can deny.

Posted by: dearieme on November 3, 2006 1:52 PM

I like this video for the collection of good/bad pickup lines being tested "in the field".

I think these classes are a positive development. Women are drenched in this sort of info - they compare notes with girlfriends, they read magazines full of advice on how to attract men and keep them attracted; men are essentially clueless by comparison. We men need all the help we can get!

Posted by: Glen Raphael on November 3, 2006 2:41 PM

I dunno - lately on the rare occasion I take a gander at GNXP, I can't get over the sensation of falling into a vast well toward... nothing. A bunch of young men way too amused at their own cleverness and wrapped up in their own egos...

Posted by: jimbo on November 3, 2006 2:42 PM

Valmont is a FAR superior film version of Les Liaisons Dangereuses. I believe it was released in the same year as Dangerous Liasons, but got way less publicity.

Posted by: the patriarch on November 3, 2006 3:50 PM

I dunno - lately on the rare occasion I take a gander at GNXP, I can't get over the sensation of falling into a vast well toward... nothing. A bunch of young men way too amused at their own cleverness and wrapped up in their own egos...

young men wrapped up in their own egos?! certainly you can't be referring to the group of gorgeous, intelligent world-killers at GNXP? :)

Posted by: p-ter on November 3, 2006 4:10 PM

Dearieme -- Indeed!

Glen -- Thanks for the link, that's a beauty.

Jimbo -- My guess is that they're all on some innovative, not-yet-ready-for-the-market, the-rest-of-us-will-see-it-in-10-years mood-heightener.

Patriarch -- You're in a small minority where that judgment goes! (Not that I've seen "Vamont"...) Actually, if memory serves, "Valmont" was expected to be the big hit (prestige director, etc), and "Dangerous Liaisons" was the surprise.

P-ter -- It's true, they're like the attractive young cast of a sexy new TV show ....

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on November 3, 2006 7:57 PM

"Valmont" was excellent; "Liaisons" was more *fun*, though, and *fun* is usually winner-take-all in a box office showdown.

As for the rest of it, 99% of what you boys have to do if you want the girls is think about sumpin' else besides yourselves. (This, of course, assuming you've already got yourself figgered out.)

Posted by: communicatrix on November 6, 2006 1:56 AM

I'm telling you, if you haven't seen Valmont, rent it, it's much better than Dangerous Liasons. And more fun, in my opinion, although DL does have some nice over-the-top set pieces. I'm thinking Sofia Copolla screened it for research for her most recent flick.

As for seduction, make a girl laugh and you're in. That, or be really good looking. I've heard that works, too.

Posted by: the patriarch on November 6, 2006 1:03 PM

*patriarch, no way Valmont is better than DL. Most I could give you that Annette Bening is not worse than Glen Close, but that's about it. Buthtub scene, in particular, is completely out of character of the 18 cent. novel. Coppola doesn't understand the epoch at all.

Valmont is completely missing layers, I say layers of the original. Dl is not entirely there either, but it gives you a choice what aspect to like: a morality fable? a psychological drama? a seduction manual? social bias analysis? Valmont is only plot, and that is done poorly; all alterations to L make me scream bloody murder; they are like mending precious gold therad-woven 18 cent. textile with lame of 1980's.

Posted by: Tatyana on November 6, 2006 3:51 PM

Ah, see I've never read the novel, so I'm taking the movies as works unto themselves, and on that basis, I maintain that Valmont is a better movie. Perhaps DL is more faithful to the novel, but that doesn't interest me in this case.

And my comparison to Copolla was a slight dig on DL. Both flicks are over the top, visually. Which is fine.

Posted by: the patriarch on November 6, 2006 5:18 PM

It seemed over to top to you?
Even Farinelli is not over the top.
Even Casanova is not over the top.
That was a century of excess.

Read the book, seriously. Although you should have done it 20 yrs ago.

Posted by: Tat on November 6, 2006 7:49 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?