"How To Seduce Difficult Women" - Official Trailer [HD HQ]

If you don't know how, it's time you watched this movie.
Coming to theaters October 30, 2009.
Before the Game before players, pimps, and pickup artists, where was the art of seduction truly born? How To Seduce Difficult Woman is about bringing American men back full circle to the roots of seduction, forged tirelessly throughout the centuries in France. Throughout the film, we get to witness a motley crew of clueless hopefuls get spoon fed the wit and wisdom that it takes to seduce difficult women, led by their womanizing French teacher, Philippe. Through Philippes seduction course and How-to-Manual, he drops the skills to help this eclectic group of guys to find out how to capture the woman or rather mate of their dreams. However throughout this school, we get to see if the master womanizer himself has the ability to keep his game tight or if he is the one that really needs schooling. Along the way we also get a taste of real-life NYC street interviews on romance, sex and seduction to see how it all stacks up in real life.

Starring: Louis-Do de Lencquesaing, Stephanie Szostak, Jackie Hoffman, Adam LeFevre, Gregg Bello, Brian Avers

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• how
• to
• seduce
• difficult
• women
• movie
• film
• trailer
• Stephanie
• Szostak
• Jackie
• Hoffman
• Adam
• LeFevre
• Gregg
• Bello
• Brian
• Avers
• seduction
• kino
• pickup
• artist
• love
• relationships
• girls
• zombie go boom
• zombie tv show
• mythbusters
• zombies
• world war z
• world war z trailer
• zombilechamudale
• mamazombu

[krypto899]

I fucking hate women

[kungblao]

@SeductionMyth David Schmitt, of Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois, surveyed 35,000 people in 57 countries and found a similar link. "It is universal across cultures," he said. While you reject study after study, after study, after study based on whatever reason, you're making yourself delusional to the fact that WOMEN LOVE MEN THAT ARE PLAYERS, PSYCHOPATH LIKE, COCKY & FUNNY. WHO WANT'S LOSER? You don't need scientific research to prove that. Just look around. Cheers!

[kungblao]

@SeductionMyth Peter Jonason, from New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, conducted the "James Bond study" and found that "men who are narcissistic, thrill-seeking liars and all round "bad boys" tend to have the greatest success finding more sexual partners." Even more scientific research that leans toward PUA type of men over AFC types.

[kungblao]

@SeductionMyth The Herold, & Milhausen, study of 1999 found that 56% of women prefer "bad boys" over "nice guys". "Mike" was presented as a bad boy "PUA" type who has slept with over 10 women. "John" was presented as a "nice guy" and "AFC" type. 56% of women preferred Mike over John. This may not be the EXACT type of study that u are looking for, but once again...this is MORE scientific research that leans toward PUA type of men over AFC type men. Wikipedia: NICE GUY for more.

[kungblao]

@SeductionMyth This is exactly how you sound. "PUA is a scam." Which part is a scam? "All of it, but not all of it. Some of it." Why? "BC theres no science backing it up." Well I found a few studies that do support it. "Its bullshit." Did u even read it? "I don't have to." Well how can u say its BS if you didnt read it? "BC they interviewed women & asked stupid questions." NO THEY DIDN'T. Show me. "I dont have to. LOL." Can you show me studies that prove PUA doesn't work? "Um..."

[kungblao]

@SeductionMyth Do you even know what field testing is? Field testing is doing exactly what you have been crying about this entire time..going out into the FIELD...running PUA MATERIAL, then examining the results and comparing them. U keep dismissing PUBLISHED RESEARCH from a "HOLIER THAN THOU" perspective without even reading ANY of the material and providing direct quotes to support your so called logic. I have yet to see you directly quote any PUA material that you consider BS.

[kungblao]

@SeductionMyth Okay well if the studies that you support were done by "analyzing" people, then mine were done by "analyzing" people too. What's the difference? Besides, you didn't even bother to read the article so, you can't even give a proper response without ASSUMING that ALL SIX studies I provided were done with interviews. You're guessing, exaggerating, and justifying without even reading the study or even an article about the study. FAIL.

[kungblao]

@SeductionMyth And would you like to explain how this "analyzing" was done? How exactly did they "analyze" these "REAL LIFE PARTNER CHOICES?" They analyzed them without asking them questions or interviewing them? Please explain this clearly. I unlike you do not need a direct link to the study, but please explain how they were analyzed without being interviewed or asked questions. If you provide a reasonable answer, then perhaps I would like direct links to the study.

[kungblao]

@SeductionMyth I cant find direct links to the study..and I also can't find direct links to the studies that YOU PROVIDE EITHER, but I still don't dismiss the research simply because YOU FAILED to provide direct links. In fact, I haven't dismissed ANY OF YOUR RESEARCH...and for some reason, you think that I am attacking you personally simply because I don't agree with the crap you are selling. You seem to be taking this personally instead of trying to LEARN SOMETHING.

[kungblao]

@SeductionMyth You expect me to read all that crap on your website, but everytime I point you in the direction of a study, you give me some lame ass excuse of why you're not going to even read it. THINK BEFORE YOU RESPOND...because whatever excuse you reply with besides "Okay, let me check it out" is going to be the exact same response that you get next time you request me to read something from your crappy page, even tho I ACTUALLY READ IT. DON'T BE A DICK.