What Emulating James Bond Actually Means

[PrettyDecent]

Hey y'all,

A familiar character to this site is James Bond - he embodies a number of characteristics that we teach here. Catch is, when you're new to the 'social arts' and seduction, he's actually quite difficult to emulate. This gets Bond a bad reputation on other sites, what with all the titles you see trending like "stop trying to be James Bond" that talk about "getting over your ego, and giving girls fun" instead.

Way I see it, there are a couple reasons for this:

- Different thoughts of seduction teach different types of 'sexy' (e.g. one will be focused on Smooth/Charming while another will teach Talkative/Dynamic)
- Smooth/charming has a longer learning curve, so it's easy to point fingers at those doing it wrong and go "Ha, you see that guy! Proof it doesn't work!!"

So as someone who's initially struggled with using both Smooth and Talkative types of sexy, and then had both work for him, here's how I see what emulating James Bond DOES mean and also DOES NOT mean.

It DOES NOT mean:

- Acting really low energy all the time
- Having a haughty, condescending attitude toward everybody
- Refusing to show any effort at all for the results you want

It DOES mean:

- Matching the energy levels of those you're with
- Possessing the fundamentals to demonstrate your value, while giving good feelings to those around you (whether it be fun on a night out with friends, or intimacy for a woman you want)
- Putting in the minimum, which can still be a visible, amount of effort to move things forward when you need to

Other thing to remember is this: films are designed to showcase the most entertaining moments in an interaction. Meaning you don't actually follow the movie characters as they're going through boring transition points (like buying tickets for a plane, or pausing a conversation to go to the bathroom). Not every single moment of your interactions with women need to be incredibly witty and awe-striking - this is unrealistic. There will be points where you're not talking, or you're discussing what you should have for dinner, and it's not a super sexy vibe - but then there will be points where conversation will flare up just like it does in the movies. Point is, not every single thing you do has to be super epic.

All in all, what does emulating James Bond actually mean? Social calibration.

Cheers, fellas!

~Nick

 

[jdoc]

Think you've hit the nail on this, Nick

 

[Jaimie Richards]

Quick reflection & question for clarification - isn't James Bond style supposed to be naturally lower energy (with medium energy as its height)? The style described in the post is truly awesome, but isn't the part about higher energy level in the vein of Hank Moody rather than 007? For me, it's hard to imagine many situations when Bond would be high energy - mostly because this character is somewhat smooth-sexy-flavored-guy (like in the article by Chase about 3 types flavors of sexy).

What do you think?

 

[PrettyDecent]

Jaimie,

Quick reflection & question for clarification - isn't James Bond style supposed to be naturally lower energy (with medium energy as its height)?

Yep, I agree with you. Looking back on my original post, it has good tidbits...but it's sort of a moot point, mostly because it's impossible to actually become a 'James Bond' character as a social beginner. You have to walk through the fire and polarize a LOT. From there, you can start pulling back the amount of effort you give out, but you're actual mood should reflect how those around you are feeling.

The original post is also at odds with a central tenant of Bond's character: he doesn't surround himself with loud people (which you need to be yourself to some extent if you want to surround yourself with this type). This post describes how to hang around mid-to-high energy groups of people, which is whom I mostly surround myself with.

Also -

Other thing to remember is this: films are designed to showcase the most entertaining moments in an interaction. Meaning you don't actually follow the movie characters as they're going through boring transition points (like buying tickets for a plane, or pausing a conversation to go to the bathroom). Not every single moment of your interactions with women need to be incredibly witty and awe-striking - this is unrealistic. There will be points where you're not talking, or you're discussing what you should have for dinner, and it's not a super sexy vibe - but then there will be points where conversation will flare up just like it does in the movies. Point is, not every single thing you do has to be super epic.

This is also a good point for describing sexual tension, but more of a limiting belief in terms of sexual attractiveness - you CAN be attractive nearly all the time, that's the whole point of fundamentals.

Cheers on the clarifying points, Jaimie!

~Nick

 

[Jaimie Richards]

Nick,

Thanks for quick response and clarification. Great points on fundamentals.

J.

 

[JPWorld]

First of all I want to say I totally agree with this and the analysis of Bond and his characteristics is spot on.

In terms of the actors, I would be interested to know who your favourite Bond character is.

For me it used to be Pierce Brosnan, because he simply 'looked like a Bond'.

But then I discovered GC and started looking at actor's body language, fundamentals, gestures, voice etc. After looking at them all closely, I decided Daniel Craig has so many of them down to a T.

He is the epitome of smooth, with slow, meaningful body language and hand gestures with superb eye contact (not to mention I'm sure the ladies love the piercing blue eyes). He has that 'been there, done that, it's no big deal thing' written all over him (as Chase writes about in his 'Smooth Article').

Watch him in this interview for instance, when others are literally laughing hysterically by leaning sideways or slapping their knee or whatever, he just sits there and chuckles to himself, occasionally doing light knee taps. No arms flailing or large body movements. (Look at him at 5:10-6:00 - he barely changes body position here. Or 7:55 is an example)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlDsRiKl2iw

Watch him like a hawk throughout and you'll see what I mean.

Not to mention his voice. If there is anyone who's voice I will strive to master, it's his.

I know Chase likes using George Clooney as the smooth guy, but for me it's Daniel (which, in my opinion, makes him a very hard Bond to replace). Also, as I'm British, it's easier to aim to be like him haha!

I know this goes off on a tangent a bit from your 'Emulating Bond,' but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.

Cheers,

- JP

 

[Jaimie Richards]

@ JP - for me, a draw between Daniel Craig and Sean Connery. Both have great fundamentals and physiques, both star in many great seduction scenes in the Bond saga. SC has great class while DC has great voice (as you've said).

Also, as a side-note: I view Hank Moody (Duchovny) and George Clooney as almost on par with them (outside of Bond archetypes).

 

[JPWorld]

To be honest, after asking which actor was best, the answer Sean Connery was bond to pop up! Many believe there is no other comparison and I can see why.

To everyone else, he just seems to 'have it all', but to us we know that his fundamentals are just sublime.

I would take Craig's voice, physique and slow body language any day though (that's me personally).

@Jaimie - I just checked out some Hank Moody stuff (never seen him before - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI8qkvv6bnE - the problems being British, I don't see programmes like Californication). But I can see him being a great model for Americans to aim for...!

- JP

 

[Edd--19]

Great dissection of Bond's style. I think you've definitely got something there. I also believe that smooth/charming approach works with different types of personalities. No doubt people change and this site is proof of that. I do think that depending on our younger lives we feel much more inclined to certain types of sexy. Such as the guy who doesn't like to sit still and always doing something can learn smooth/charming but probably it would conflict with his core identity and he may trip up coming to some very strong tests. Whereas a guy who is normally low energy and calm is more likely to enjoy this as it involves less effort to get to the energy level of others around him. He can learn to be talkative sexy but in most cases he will want to be congruent with his personality. Of course these people can change to fit in completely and I'm not saying that they will be stuck in one box, it is more like a spectrum were you can mix it all up and pour a little bit of smooth into your talkative nature. It's like finding the perfect paint for your walls.

On the point that it's harder, in my opinion, I'd have to agree. Smoothing/charming requires a lot of work on non-verbals and as Chase has said you have to tail the line of tLoLE. If you don't you lose some maybe most of the attraction you built and may have to start again. Damn incongruence. However, Smooth/charming has its place at higher end venues were people are all very socially calibrated. I've been to one or two and they are very well endowed socially and a talkative sexy guy may do well but the suave man will rule. I believe that the social calibration is the trickiest aspect of tLoLE as its very easy to auto-reject people/not coney your meaning properly/put too much effort in by accident/make something harder than it has to be etc. In the end it comes to experience surely.

There are advantages to both, and it might be easier to learn talkative and then progress onto suave as you've laid foundations for your game and have an abundance mentality and pre-selection going for you. Just my 2 cents.

Edd