Dear Speed Seduction(R) Students,

Wow.It looks like my post the other day about Tom Leykis really touched a nerve.

Mostly it generated overwhelming support. You guys are mostly very pleased that I’ve made a strong distinction between Speed Seduction(R) and Leykis’ idiotic “girl-hating” Leykis 101.

However I have been getting some colorful hate mail. Mostly illiterate and obscene. And most of it not worth answering.But some of it appears fairly thoughtful, praising Tom’s ongoing effort to warn men against the manipulations of gold-diggers, users, etc.

Ok. I get that. I can see the value. But when you step beyond issuing warnings and cross over into advocating being an exploiter and user yourself, then you are really getting into dark(and ultimately self-defeating)territory.

And here is the point you Lekyis Luvin’ Loonies missed: Tom’s view of women is directly reflected in his view of sex-it’s about dumping loads. About building a charge and discharging. About fluid pressure building and releasing. In other words, it’s just and only a highly enjoyable and more vivid form of jacking off. Just using another human as opposed to pictures or movies.

Hey, you don’t need a philosophy for that. Just a few Ben Franklins and your nearest strip-club.

And speaking of philosophy, here is a point I want you fans of Tom to try to understand: “What the thinker thinks, the prover proves”. If you put on a filter that only looks at women as evil, manipulative, vicious, self-centered exploiters, THEN THAT IS WHAT YOU WILL SEE.

I’m not talking about some idiotic “New Age” doctrine from “The Secret”. I’m talking simple psychology; if you create a strong sort filter, your brain will sort out what doesn’t fit with that filter.And equally importantly, what you set as your vision will be the limits of your experience.

If your vision of sex is simply dumping loads, you will probably dump lots of loads. But you will very likely never experience it as anything better, more exciting, or more satisfying and fulfilling.

Don’t get me wrong; occasionally we guys all want to just dump loads. Hey, occasionally we all want to eat junk food. But it isn’t exactly something I would like to have as the only choice on the menu.

‘Nuff said about this to all you Leykis Loonies. I think it’s time you raised your sights in terms of what you expect from women AND in terms of whom you turn to for advice. Might I suggest, as only I can, that you subscribe to my newsletter?

Peace and piece,
RJ

P.S. Why don’t you check out my Speed Seduction Home Study Course? It will put you into a world of satisfaction with women that Leykis can’t get with all of his fame and money.

Dear Speed Seduction(R) Student,

One of the questions I’m sometimes asked is, “What do you think of Tom Leykis and Leykis 101?”

For those of you who don’t know, Leykis has an enormously popular syndicated radio talk show(he’s on 97.1 FM here in Southern California) where he mostly preaches his misogynist doctrine on success with women, called Leykis 101.

While Leykis talks about the importance of having game, which is certainly important, it his definition of what game is that is troublesome and twisted.

Essentially Leykis believes that women are attracted mostly to men with money, and that women have sex not because they mostly enjoy it, but to latch on to a man and use him as a meal ticket. And he further believes that by treating women like trash, they will feel the need to validate themselves by sleeping with the men who treat them in this fashion.

For him, game is therefore about lying to women about your social-economic status to make yourself more appealing and treating women like doo doo.

What isn’t stated in all of this is what I actually find most troubling; that sex is basically about dumping your load on or into someone who visually excites you but emotionally repels you. It’s about stimulation and discharge and nothing more; a sort of very vivid and interactive jack-off.

Isn’t it interesting? His view of women and how they should be treated, matches up and reflects his experience of sex. If you hold people as contemptible then how could you view joining with them intimately as something other than contemptible at worst, or merely mechanical build up and release at best?

And beyond that, his ideas are inaccurate to be generous about it. The biggest inaccuracy that women don’t enjoy and crave sex for its own sake, and that pretending to be able to buy them is the best way to go about things.

Very sad for Tom and for those listeners he badly misleads. For those of us who know how to capture and lead womens’ imagination and emotions, we know how utterly unnecessary the contempt and the lying is, and how grateful women are to be lead to the kinds of wonderful feelings they deeply crave.

Dump the hate, Tom. And open up your mind.

Peace and piece,

RJ

P.S. If you are a Leykis listener I especially invite your comments.