The Open Thread: March 2017

The monthly Open Thread is a place for open discussion among my readers. Due to its popularity, there may be more than one Open Thread per month.

The stage is yours. Go ahead!

What do you think? Let me know in the comments below, but keep the comment policy in mind.
Please support my work with a donation; your contribution is greatly appreciated! If you need further advice, then get my books or arrange a Skype or email consultation.

118 thoughts on “The Open Thread: March 2017

  1. “Buy my forthcoming book.”

    Any chapter on performing mental arithmetic as an excercise to concentration? 🙂

  2. This question is actually more for Alek Novy,but you can answer this too Aaron.

    Alek,I saw your comment over here:

    https://www.goodlookingloser.com/laid/index/be-a-creep

    The comment was 4 years ago,but may I ask if you have already extensively experimented with being excessively”touchy-gropey?” in social circles? what were your results?
    Are women not really offended (despite acting like it at first)by this and often times even complimented by it even if they aren’t attracted?

    I’ve really only done something like this once(long before I learned of Aaron and pickup,I’m still not all that experienced with women at the moment but at least I’ve learned the truth of it now thanks to you guys.)but yeah,it didn’t result in her having a negative opinion of me. she actually acted flattered (it happened in private actually,and there was money involved. its a long story)

    1. No, as I said in that comment, I never went to the level of that guy. But I was very very touchey… And when I was in my 20s and with a 0.1% physique, it did get me laid in social circles a ton. Back then all I knew was physical escalation – start touching… tell chicks wanna go to my place and bang… get laid.

      Nowadays I’d get akward/creeped out responses if i was that touchey or direct. I have to do it in a more cool way (the levels).

      Chicks have double standards like that. If you’re the physically hot guy, they don’t mind it even in social circle. But again, I have to define what I mean by this – it is “semi social circle”… It’s going to a place where you’re a known entity and there’s a constant influx of new people and turnover and hundreds of people. Like a college campus or a niche.

      “Social cirlce” is not like a tight group of 5 people.

    2. What about clubs, does your levels model apply there as well, but in a faster pace? Or is it completely different?

    3. I actually was one of the first people to buy club game for that reason. It’s that one context I never got around to mastering much.

      Social-circle game spoiled me where I got so many hotties so easily, I was too busy enjoying success to go work on my club game. So I went and bought aaron’s club-game, which answered all my questions.

      If I want to go and finally get that mastered too I have this guide. I still haven’t gotten around to practing all that much though. Social circle been treating me like a rockstar and spoiling me…

      Here’s my review of clubgame btw:

      http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2014/12/about-that-chick-that-was-harassed-108.html?showComment=1418923000567#c8707682557964919025

      It’s now available on kindle, so you can start reading it in seconds…
      https://www.amazon.com/Club-Game-No-Nonsense-Guide-Getting-ebook/dp/B01M0JLB06/

  3. Confirmed by me! Fucking touch them, get right in their way (when they walk in the opposite direction), grab their hands on the street, stand right behind them and scare them, all the fucking fun. I’ve done all that on the street. Much better with full testosterone in my system, no fucking fear, fear becomes a fuel for excitement. All those who react overtly negative will be sideswiped.

    The most important things why Sleaze has the balls of titanium that did what he did in those dark clubs is because the lack of repercussion. That’s it, the lack of repercussion. This has been mentioned in one of his interviews, which I can’t be bothered at the moment to look it up.

    Fucking creep them, learn to embrace your sexuality first, fuck them all!

    Women like you to take them like a man, they don’t dare to admit it, but they WILL appreciate it if you can. Their nature is submissiveness.

    BUT DON’T DO IT WHERE YOU THINK YOU HAVE A CHANCE OF BEING RECOGNIZED, EVER, NOT IN COLLEGE CAMPUS, NOT IN CLOSE-KNITTED CIRCLES, JUST DON’T.

    1. Your advice caught my attention, but just to know: are you on shape? By this I don’t even mean if you’re ripped/athletic, but at least you’re slim? I got a beer belly, so I really doubt this could work on me.

    2. @James

      That’s a good question. I can personally vouch that your physical shape changes how much you can “get away with”

      After I bulked up, I had to become more subtle. I can still get laid as quickly, but I can’t jump levels so quickly or be so physical on the spot. I’m cutting back down currently, will report if it changes again how quickly I can make moves.

      But I can definitely vouch that the same moves I could do while being ripped… the exact same moves creep women out now that I have a little belly.

      http://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2017/03/01/the-open-thread-march-2017/#comment-2127

  4. Fuck the pros first, if you find this is too hard for you, ins-and-outs a couple of times in the cave will give you more desire to act like an ape. 🙂

  5. A quite entertaining clip from the EU-parliament debate on gender-pay differences;
    “Of course women must earn less, because they are weaker, they are smaller, they are less intelligenst…”
    And then a spanish female representative goes mental in response.

    Here is the clip without text, but you get to hear the voice of the spanish representative going mental:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqNx2sKOAPg

    Here is the same clip with text and the spanish representative dubbed (to make her appear more calm and collected…?)

    1. An acquintance of mine, a hardcore lefty, went batshit about this guy being allowed to talk like that. He then proceeded to claim that 90% of studies don’t find any significant difference between the IQs of the sexes. Anyone knowledgeable about this?

    2. Science isn’t a democracy. Even if you found 99% of studies that claimed X was true does not prove that this is indeed the case. This was just a general point, though, because it has been firmly established that there are more men at both extremes of the bell curve, i.e. there are more male morons, but also more male geniuses than female ones.

    3. And also a huge chunk of the gap comes from physical labour. In other words, much of the extra money is earned by guys doing jobs where physical size and strength is a factor in how much you get done.

      A smaller human will simply do less work and hence make less. So even if one only admits the physical difference, that already accounts for a lot.

  6. Hello Aaron,

    Going through your new blog, I noticed you put Black Pigeon Speaks on your sidebar of links. I then found on your old blog a post including his video “How Women Destroy Civilizations” and found it peculiar that you would include his videos on either blog.

    It’s not that his videos are wrong because they’re anti-liberal/PC or are anti-SJW, I could care less. It’s simply that his arguments are shaky at best, his points are incorrect, and he literally misunderstands data/sources to think it supports his point. I’ll go into that here.

    As a rule for proving this, we’ll use his own sources from the “How Women Destroy Civilizations” video:

    – The majority of his argument relies on J. D. Unwin’s book, “Sex and Culture.” This is comical since Black Pigeon Speaks (BPS) seems to have either gotten the wrong message from the book or just didn’t read it since Unwin himself would disagree with BPS’ stance on feminism, as well as the anti-immigration stance, but we’ll get to that. Note that you can Google Unwin’s works and find the full texts available.

    I quote Unwin in “Sex and Culture” from pg. 431: ” It is difficult to express any opinion with complete confidence, but as, at the end of my task, I look back along the stream of time, it seems to me that it was the unequal fate of the women, not the compulsory continence, that caused the downfall of sexual monogamy.”

    Unwin further states on pg. 432: “If, on the other hand a vigorous society wishes to display its productive energy for a long time, and even for ever, it must re-create itself, I think, first, by placing sexes on a level of complete legal equality”

    So this is odd… Unwin disagrees with BPS’s conclusion at 16:10 entirely. And if one actually reads the the book they’ll learn Unwin thinks patriarchal societies are counter-productive and wants complete equality for both sexes, in regards to sexual opportunity and legal treatment. Yet, this again contradicts BPS’ point when he talks about women getting the right to vote at 11:20.

    As Unwin states it’s the unequal treatment of women that caused the downfall of sexual monogamy. He thinks that patriarchal societies naturally create women’s rights movements, and thus that’s why they need to be treated equally to begin with, thus their spheres and influence society are equal. So why BPS thinks Unwin’s work is in agreement with his own points I don’t know.

    Now on multiculturalism. In Unwin’s work Hopousia, he states on pg. 151: “Another important part of a society’s existence is its contact with other societies. In a sluggish uncivilized society strangers are feared greatly, not because there is anything objectively fearsome about them but because they are strange unusual beings who behave and speak in strange unusual ways; and this attitude towards strangers is also apparent among the less cultured members of an energetic society, who will not have anything to do with a ‘foreigner’ if they can help it.”

    So Unwin would actually think BPS is one of the less cultured members of energetic society given BPS position on immigration, heard at 15:56 where BPS states “They await their doom with smiles of tolerance and passivity,” referring to the immigrants entering Sweden. Hilarious if you ask me.

    I’m not arguing that BPS’ overall theories are right or wrong, but many of the sources he cites actually disprove his own points if he’s not already manipulating the evidence to support his point.

    He cropped a Slate headline at 11:43 to remove the sub-heading and used it to support his theory that women are moving further to the left, when that article actually states women’s political affiliations have largely remained unchanged and it’s actually men changing to favor the right.

    Article here: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/the_gender_gap_in_politics_why_do_women_vote_differently_than_men_.html

    His chart on fertility rates is also misleading. Zoomed out so far, one cannot tell that fertility rates in those countries he lists at 7:20 are actually increasing (not to mention the tail end of the Baby Boom clearly being the reason for the fertility rate being so high at the beginning of the chart), meanwhile fertility rates in many Islamic countries are declining rapidly, which contradicts his point that feminism causes such decline.

    Feel free to check the data yourself at the same source he used: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?end=2014&locations=FR-GB-SE-NO-DK&name_desc=false&start=1960

    Also feel free to look at actual population growths to see the bigger picture.

    I’ll add only a couple more obvious points:

    – He never actually states which civilizations in history collapsed because of “loosened/liberal female sexuality” as his arguments state. Kind of funny since anyone that actually studied in history knows that war, disease, technological advances, agriculture, economics, and other factors are stronger parts to look at in the growth/decline of civilizations.
    – He states that women are biologically ingrained to be sexually attracted to scoundrels and criminals, even using a picture of Charles Manson. Yet if this were true, why don’t we see the majority of women lusting after Charles Manson more than, say, Leonardo DiCaprio? Looks, social status, and money are what women chase, yet for some reason, many have agreed with BPS ridiculous conclusion that it’s actually criminals women want. So all a guy needs to get women is kill a few people, not make money or be good looking?

    So my question is, why is it that a guy like you, who is intelligent and more than capable of forming accurate critiques, supporting someone who is the exact opposite?

    1. BPS totally discredited himself in my eyes in his commentaries on war in Yugoslavia. All the constitutive nations welcomed US intervention(apart from Serbia) yet BPS tries to demonize the US and make the case that intervention was some kind of crime against people of Yugoslavia or what have you.

      What bothers me is not his stance per se but that he speaks with certainty on things he knows very little about.

      It seems to me that BPS is primarily interested in being controversial in order to attract viewers even at the cost of spouting hogwash.

    2. On that same tangent… I’ve noticed that currently the most popularity goes to anti-sjws with high production values.

      Anybody else noticed this? The most viewed and fastest rising stars have this in common. A great speaking voice and fancy graphics, animations or editing ability.

      Obviously there are exceptions. Sargon of Akkad is just him talking over a slideshow or a single wallpaper image.

      Now I won’t comment on BPS quality of argument. Never watched his videos much. But his fancy presentation and radio voice is obviously why he’s popular.

  7. Today reminded me of an article I had wanted to write for AVFM. I never go around to finishing it. But let me summarize it here. The article would have been:

    Thank god for facebook and ugly chicks

    Today I looked at my facebook feed, and I noticed the same thing that I always notice. My feed is full of feminist statuses about women’s rights.

    – Not a single one of them is even mildly cute.
    – All of them are ugly and/or masculine

    The thing is… when I was in my early 20s I was negatively impacted by feminist propaganda because there was no photos associated with it. When articles told me i’m a creep for being a man, and that lusting after women is bad… I assumed it was cute girls writing them.

    When all those posts and articles and leaflets were given out about “sexual harrassment” i had assumed the authors were AT LEAST representative of the average girl. It never even passed my mind that they were actually trolls pretending to speak for women.

    I spent much of my early twenties ashamed of my masculinity and sexuality, because toxic feminist messaging. I assumed it was coming from “the women around me”. I assume the average girl bought into the most insane feminist shit. (of course I was too scared to ask any, and didn’t know that only 10-20% of females identify as feminist)

    Young guys today have it easy. Thanks to facebook and community profiles this has all changed. Ugly feminists are so stupid they put their ugly mugs as high-res photos on their profiles even when they’re making disqus comments etc…

    They’re so deluded, that they think when they post “WE WOMEN want men to do x” and “WE WOMEN think Y about male sexuality” – that men will be like “Oh I totally have to listen to what this unfuckable troll thinks about sexuality”.

    Now young guys today don’t have to consciously analyze this. But they get it much quicker. Like I can imagine that a young high-school boy will notice that out of all his classmates it’s the weirdest/ugliest girls sharing the feminist memes. I didn’t have that luxury. Back in the day there were no photos attached to toxic feminist content. And since they identified as “we women”, as in “all of us women think this way”… I bought into it.

    1. Manosphere.com is an aggregator. There are some sites listed on there, which I like.

    1. That’s a problem with bitches, not women in general. There are women out there who don’t confront you with a list of demands. The problem with mainstream pickup advice is that it is geared towards women who are, quite frankly, reprehensible human beings. The relationship advice in that blog is built on the same premise. If you want pickup to be easy, find girls who like you. If you want to have a fun and rewarding relationship, find a woman who is not a bratty five-year old in an adult’s body. In the West things have gotten so crappy that men expect shitty behavior from women to be the norm, and devise strategies to deal with it.

  8. I’ve been thinking a lot about some shit. Since I’ve read Alek’s Level Theory, my head has been cranking, specially at work (it can be really dull sometimes, when it’s not hectic as fuck).
    The main difference between the knowledge that you and Alek have gave to us, and the old PUA shit a la Mystery is that you only show us the road, the overview, but it’s us who must make the choices. Mystery and others have this monolithic, almost dogmatic view on sex and relationships, and instead you accept that this is a world ruled by uncertainty, and we must become like water (yet sticking to a set of very few golden rules, like never sticking your dick in crazy, etc.).
    Now, about the Theory Level and how it relates with Minimal Game/60s tactics/SedMyth Approach Guide/SIRC guide… This is the part when I start to blabber stupid shit (if not from the very beginning):
    The Theory Level is the process as a whole. From “Hi” to banging her ass doggy style. But it never tells you how. That is up to you. Minimal game, SIRC guide, etc. just give you the tools so you can create your own procedure that fits to your own needs, preferences, limitations and personality quirks. Years ago, my cousin tried to told me something like this, but I didn’t want to hear, since I was sucked into PUA’s bullshit.
    I’d say that the way to sex is more like a flowchart, rather than a straight line.

    1. The reaction of others (mostly females moaning) is sad and disturbing.
      The hipocrisy of PC and feminism is disgusting.
      I hope this level of idiocy does not arrive to Hungary.

  9. Could be interesting for AlekNovy and others who are into debunking PUA stuff – KrauserPUA admits there is HUGE uncertainty in “game” and has some serious, kinda funny insights. I quote the best parts:

    “I recently found out that at its highest levels, mathematics is an experimental science. How very very odd! …

    I’d assumed mathematics is the most analytic and most precise of all knowledge systems. I’d thought it was a closed system, tautologically true. I’d already heard Stephen Hawking waffle on about physics as being quite open-ended and exploratory which had come as a surprise at the time. So I start thinking. …

    Unfortunately, the map is not the territory. It always involves high levels of abstraction and the removal of the specifics of time and place. There will never be a daygame model that perfectly describes and patterns the reality of daygame. We just have to do our best. Anyone watching a rank beginner will soon see that a half-decent model is far more effective than nothing at all. …

    Lets say a girl appears to IOI you so you open. Sometimes you’ll get the “confirmation” of the IOI because she immediately laughs and hooks, as if your opener was actually the second sentence in the set (her IOI was the inaudible first). But other times she acts like she hadn’t just IOId you. So, was it really an IOI? …

    On raw “objective data” the second one is MUCH closer. You kissed her, got her home, and rolled around on the bed. But is that actually closer? What if she’d made a decision early on of “I’ll fool around with this guy a bit but I’m never taking my jeans off”? In that case you were never going to fuck her, and everything that came after her decision was kabuki theatre. In contrast, that first girl may have been thinking “If I kiss him, I’ll fuck him. I’d better not kiss him”. By this formulation, it is the girl’s internal mental state which really determines how close you are to fucking her and a girl who is wavering 50/50 at this “if I kiss, I fuck” stage is arguably a nearer miss than a girl on your bed determined not to fuck. ..

    The girl with a firm resolution to fool around but not fuck may have suddenly changed her mind to either fuck, or perhaps not even begin fooling around.

    Given this, it helps to relax our hold on the dream of making daygame a precise science and to instead embrace the chaos of the world. Whenever humans are involved you can rarely say “this definitely happened” or “this is why.” The best you can do is assign probabilities, based on adding your experience to that accumulated by the community, to know what tends to happen when certain outward behaviours seem to manifest, based upon your reasonably decent calibration.

    But you’ll never actually know. And even if you fuck the girl, you can’t be sure if it because of or in spite of your game”

    Original source and the whole article: https://krauserpua.com/2017/03/12/the-daygame-uncertainty-principle/

    1. Yeah, they all follow the same journey. Even the most ardent PUAs, after a decade or so come out and say “I’ve realize game had nothing to do with my results”.

      Some hold on longer for commercial reasons. Some do it gradually. Some do it abrubtly. My favorite example was when SinnPUA revealed that after 15 years of teaching this stuff, it hit him… none of the shit he taught/did made a difference. It took him 15 years to understand “The chicks I banged were into me from hello”.

    2. @AlekNovy

      I heard read the statement of Sinn you mention on his old blog. He found “screening game” (see his Rapid Sexual Encounters Program) and meant many of the things women do are noise rather than a clear signal. The only clear signal would be movement (“Does she follow you and is ok to be alone with you?”) and touch (as he said: “It’s not a signal, it’s THE fucking signal.”) After this there wasn’t any new content and he disappeared from the PUA scene.

      But it seems it’s possible to get better at dating somehow. Otherwise guys wouldn’t get better over time. Why is it that they get better girls and more in less time – to some degree? Because of improved social calibration (they pull faster, are more persistent, get better at reading cues, are less nervous etc.)?

      What’s your explanation for their improvement?

    3. Because of improved social calibration (they pull faster, are more persistent, get better at reading cues, are less nervous etc.)?

      Yes.

    4. I was going to link you to a longer answer. But I can’t find it. It was either an article on seductionmyth or a longer comment on the old Aaron Sleazy blog.

      Basically, there are many skills involved with getting laid that you can improve. WE HAVE NEVER claimed on here that getting laid is not a skill. After all Aaron published 2 books on improving your getting-laid skills.

      This is a false dichotomy or miss-understanding. “Oh, you say attraction can’t be created, therefore there’s no skill to getting laid?”

      The two are separate. The thing we dispute is that you can CREATE or MODIFY attraction. There’s no evidence for this.

      You CAN HOWEVER increase the odds of an (already attracted woman) deciding to sleep with you, or sleeping with you sooner.

      There IS a skillset to that. And it includes things such as timing, ability to know when to make a move, when not to make a move. Knowing how quickly to move her through the stages (too fast is a problem, but too slow is also a problem). One pegs you as a provider the other as uncalibrated/arrogant or creepy.

      There are a whole bunch of factors that increase/decrease the odds of a woman coming to your place to bang. You can influence many of them.

      The one you can’t is “does she find me attractive in the short-term”. That’s the one that’s decided when you first walk into a room.

      What PUAs/Gamers do (the few who do get better results over time), is misatribute better success ratios to a magical “attraction creating ability”…. whereas most of it came from getting better at these other factors.

    5. Another factor is that over-time you learn to recognize when to cut interactions short, and when to move on, who’s more likely to pan out… which types of girls to even try with etc etc…

      You develop an “intuition” to where in a room full of girls you go for the ones more likely to bang. This is another “hidden factor” that improves your “batting average”. You might apply it consciously as many naturals do. Hang out with them and you’ll hear them say “nah dude, let’s cut this one short, the other group are more likely to come with us and bang”.

      A PUA might apply it subconciously. His mind just calibrated to be drawn more to women in heat, he’s just not aware of it and attributes the higher rate to “i’m better at creating attraction than I was 3 years ago”. Not noticing consciously that his approaching or escalations aren’t as random as they were 3 years before.

    6. Thanks for the explanation, Alek. This pretty much fits my own experience and self-reflection on the dating- and getting laid-“game”. I found some comment of Chase Amante, who explained it pretty much like you:

      “It’s my belief that attraction is there or it isn’t. You can unlock attraction by allowing a woman to feel comfortable lowering her guard and expressing it around you (this, to me, is what most men talk about when they discuss building attraction later into knowing a girl – at least it’s what I mean when I phrase it this way).

      And it’s also possible to sleep with women who are NOT attracted to you, but who are horny and with whom you handle logistics.

      That said, you can increase how attractive you seem to women during that first impression by improving fundamentals / attraction factors. (…)

      You won’t build that attraction any higher with them while you’re with them, but you may make them more sexually aroused or feel needier / view you as scarcer (which I guess some guys would consider “attraction”, but I consider different dimensions).

      So here’s my framework: You can increase how attractive women find you by improving your game and fundamentals. However, once she’s had that first impression of you, her attraction is set.

      You can still unlock “frozen up” attraction she has for you that’s dampened by low attainability or low value behavior by you, or by her not being invested enough, and you can still help her feel more sexually aroused, or needier toward you, but when I’m talking about pure, raw attraction, as in do I find this man attractive, is he a man I like sexually and romantically, in my view that’s set.

      All you can do after the first impression is made is unlock (or lock, if you mess up) the attraction that’s already there, turn her on sexually, or make her chase you or feel needy or invested or other emotions like that.”

      But some PUAs, like Krauser or Heartiste, write something about the difference of (unconcious) “hind-brain attraction” and (concious) “fore-brain attraction”, which means a woman can be sexually attracted to you without being aware of it. Men wouldn’t have such a “split” between unconciousness and conciousness. What do you think about this theory? Are there any scientific sources about it? I couldn’t find any.

      Maybe you could elaborate on this last question of mine.

    7. Would you mind elaborating how you are doing to sleep with women who are not attracted to you? To me that is a rather questionable claim.

    8. @Aaron.

      I think Chase means situations where there aren’t any better opportunities, she is tipsy and horny and the guy makes it happen. Like guys sleeping with girls they aren’t that much into because the girl they fancy left the party, for example. But the cases are rare and no one can “create” to make her acting on it.

      Like these rare cases where girls weren’t into a guy but hung up with him over and over again because they share the same social circle and they get together (see the mere-exposure effect).

      But chances are very high but of these (mis-)”matches” won’t hold very long due lack of sexual attraction/chemistry.

    9. “Would you mind elaborating how you are doing to sleep with women who are not attracted to you? To me that is a rather questionable claim.”

      If we read it charitably, perhaps it means a woman who’s neutral towards you. It doesn’t mean “Not attracted” in the sense of “I find him unattractive”… But more in the sense of she doesn’t think “oh wow he’s attractive when she sees you”. So she finds you neutral.

      That’s just my charitable reading of that part. But if we read that way, then yes, that’s also true. A woman who’s set to jump on any random cock from a guy that doesn’t repel her, will in fact sleep with a guy even if he’s “not attractive”. When no better guy came a long, and the neutral guy made it easy. Basically he’s a human dildo with good logistics.

    10. So here’s my framework: You can increase how attractive women find you by improving your game and fundamentals. However, once she’s had that first impression of you, her attraction is set.

      That’s largely what Aaron Sleazy’s “Minimal Game” book is about, and why he focuses so much on how you can become more attractive in general (before you even walk up).

    11. But some PUAs, like Krauser or Heartiste, write something about the difference of (unconcious) “hind-brain attraction” and (concious) “fore-brain attraction”, which means a woman can be sexually attracted to you without being aware of it. Men wouldn’t have such a “split” between unconciousness and conciousness. What do you think about this theory? Are there any scientific sources about it? I couldn’t find any.

      Sexual repression is definitely a thing. Case in point – alcohol.

      – We humans (not just women) often artificially restrict whom we allow ourselves to be attracted to, because society tells us that’s the right kind of partner to be attracted to. Or that other types would make us uncool.

      – Why do you think so many guys can drink beer and all of a sudden find a fattie to be hot. There’s no “become attracted to fatties” molecule in alcohol. All that alcohol does is remove inhibition. Which means the guy was repressing his natural instinct to get horny for fatties.

    12. When no better guy came a long, and the neutral guy made it easy. Basically he’s a human dildo with good logistics.

      And if he also leaves the impression that he’s very experienced, will be great in bed etc. Coupled with making the process easy/smooth… etc etc. A neutral guy can often “pass” as in “meh whatever, me and my girlfriends ended up in his apartment, and things happened and I ended up in his room and whatever”

    13. P.S

      In case a new bystander misreads this discussion. It’s not about suggesting that this is a productive or smart strategy. The most productive strategy is in fact to focus on being “the attractive guy” to a larger number of chicks and identifying them better, building a niche that brings them to you etc etc…

      This discussion about banging chicks who find you neutrally attractive is only to explain why it sometimes happens. It’d be a dumb thing to focus on mastering. Btw, this probably explains those PUAs who wonder why chicks don’t even answer them after a lay and can’t repeat it. They’ve built a method centered around shot-gunning hundreds of chicks until they run into the girl who was out to “use any random human dildo”.

    14. Complete bullshit. If you’re good, you zero in on women who are potentially interested. You can hit 1/3 if you’re good. This is because you’ll be able to literally read when she is into you. The reason you’re not batting 100 is that logistics may be an issue, and she may also find you super-hot but still doesn’t want to cheat on her boyfriend.

      A “pro” who gets 1 in 30 chicks if a fucking amateur who doesn’t know what he is doing.

    15. Torero says his 1/30 claim for an advanced gamer is about purely about cold approaching at daytime younger-than-himself above-average looking women and being an average looking man.

      When you are better looking, or aim for less attractive or kinda same-age women, go for warm approaches or hit night clubs, statistics might differ. That’s what he says at least.

    16. If anything, the conclusion is that shotgun approaching is a complete waste of time. By the way, Torero was caught faking his infield videos. There is a post on that on my old blog.

    17. I think reading signals is really a problem PUAs have, Aaron. It’s ridiculous how less time they spend about thinking which context is given.

      @Alek Novy, you meant, the better looking a guy, the more he can “get away with”. What does this mean if (sexual) attraction can’t be created?

      My explanation:

      PUA related average-looking guys often get neutral to negative reactions, so they think they need to create the attraction the good-looking guy gets because of his looks.

      Reality is, neither the good looking guys nor average-looking guys, PUAs or anyone can create (sexual) attraction but the girls warm up and feel comfortable with the good looking guy instantly because of his looks-related halo-effect, which an average-looking guy gets significantly less (or never).

      The average-looking guy (better said, the woman in front of him) needs more warm-up time through conversation (superficial comfort) and has to create sexual tension (arousal) through actions where the good-looking guy already has both to some degree.

      By being better in creating the opportunity to make her at ease and have more calibrated flirt skills, average-looking guys get more and (some) hotter girls (but on average less than the good-looking guy even they sharpened their social/flirt skills) and misinterpret it as some learned skill to “create attraction”.

      Does that explanation fit?

  10. Maybe this fits here:
    http://www.spiegel.de/lebenundlernen/job/karrierefrau-mitte-30-single-wenn-ich-maenner-treffe-haben-die-alle-schon-eine-frau-a-1139129.html#js-article-comments-box-pager
    A german article about a thirtysomething women who can’t seem to find a good man without a wife.

    As far as I can tell she’s the typical inbetween woman: As feminist as the strong, independent, modern woman can be. At the same time she’s looking for the king to woo her and make all her wishes come true. Yes, not the prince. Because the king already has the castle, the treasure and the palace he can place at her feet. And of course while kneeling before her he has to tell her how special she is, how much she admires her and how good her doctor in cultural studies is.

    I don’t think she notices how any man she describes is just an instrument through which she wants to become happy. Yes you read correctly: not a man with whom she wants to be happy. I think I already mentioned how disgusting I think this behaviour is. It’s becoming a recurring theme with me.

    Look, all people have dreams. but as you grow up you should realize that this world we all live in doesn’t work on wishful thinking. But the woman in question is blatantly ignoring this. I think for a 35 year old woman this is pretty sad.

    And, lastly, to my amazement she quit the cuck that wanted to foot the bill. (She very likely would quit any man that stops being usefull to her, but that’s another story.)

    1. That’s a rather tragic story. It’s amazing how deluded she is. According to her story, she’s successful in her job. Yet, in reality she got really lucky that she managed to get an university job in her bullshit subject an effing administrative job at a garbage-tier university in the middle of nowhere. While she “followed her passion”, she maneuvered herself into a corner she has little to no chance of ever getting out of again.

  11. Hi Aaron,there’s something I wish to ask.

    I remember reading something like this in the distant past,but I can’t recall where. Is it true that a negative placebo-effect (aka Nocebo effect) could render an effective treatment useless?

    Lets say for example,there is someone suffering from a certain disease and believes from the bottom of his heart that there is no cure to his disease and he’s doomed. He is then given an effective medicine.
    Just as it is possible(though not probable,and definitely not something to count on )for a placebo-fake medicine to cure someone,is it possible that the person’s own pessimism/self-defeating mindset to actually sabotage an effective treatment? I find that hard to believe,but I want to know what you think.

    1. I’m not familiar with nocebo research. However, people go to great length to sabotage themselves. Thus, I would not rule out that it is possible that a defeatist attitude overwrites positive treatment effect (cf. psychosomatic issues).

    2. This has some overlapping points with discussion about marriage – namely all placebo research I know of is correlational as opposed to experimental.

      This means you take bunch of patients, assess their expectations of treatment effectiveness and then correlate that with actual outcome. Problem is we can’t know whether healthier patients are simply more prone to placebo response to begin with.

      I’ll also add that placebo effect has a more important role in psychiatry than in other medical branches. Antidepressants are often compared with placebo group, but nobody does the same with antibiotics or chemotherapy for example.

  12. Hey guys, I found this on YT. I hope you find this interesting (or at least it doesn’t cause you an aneurysm)
    https://youtu.be/TOjBJc5pdVk
    The comments are quite interesting too, it’s a mix of sarcastic, self-hating, and hilarious comments. But I’m quite surprised that no feminist has cried THAT’S SEXUAL HARASSMENT!!1!1!1!!1!1!1!1 yet.

  13. I am of a similar opinion about academic qualifications where people with questionable [insert a lot of things] practice. (Including professional qualifications) Could you elaborate on this a bit more and give a idea about the state of education today.

  14. A question that might be interesting to some :

    I recently read some old interview of Aaron (https://cliffslist.com/cliffs-list-exclusive-interview-with-the-master-of-fast-seduction-sleazy/) in which he notes that you get confidence by being able to celebrate the smaller successes like simply having a friendly interaction even if it goes nowhere.

    Now, I’m an Incel, As it turns out, a fairly good – looking one who can appear confident in most situations after mostly overcoming a pretty horrible childhood. Sadly, said childhood was horrible in part because I was raised by a Narcissist, feminist single mom which is why I suffer from such a massive degree of sexual inhibitions and shame that in the past I’ve been unable to make moves on girls who were literally throwing themselves at me.

    Now end of last year I started making a conscious effort to get over my anxieties and sleep with girls, which saw me do stuff like for example get the hottest girls at some party alone in the bathroom or getting dates with girls I met at the Subway Station, Supermarket etc. Nothing came of all those though because I failed to escalate beyond kissing and stopped pursuinge them further because I considered myself rejected after not escalating fast enough. Still, not that bad for an incel, right?
    Nope – instead of seeing it that way , I read tons of LRs, read Sleazy Stories multiple times and am now busy despairing about the fact that I just can’t do the same despite getting plenty of interest from attractive girls.

    How do you see anything positive in having a friendly chat with a girl all while knowing that some other , better guy (Like the author of this blog for example) would already be buys getting his knob slobbed by her on the toilet????
    What else is an interaction that goes like this but proof that you’ll never make it? How do you actually gain confidence through that instead of losing it???

    Also bear in mind that this way of thinking combined with copious amounts of PUA literature has only succeeded in getting myself so far into my head with associated circles of negative thoughts that nowadays I find it hard to keep up basic smalltalk with a girl, never mind escalate decisively.

    Sorry about this kinda incoherent post – I just have a really hard time grasping what my actual problem is, since I seem to be in a good position to get laid a lot,.Yet whenever I actually talk to a girl I feel like I was just kindly asked to quickly refute the Relativity Theory on Threat of death if I fail.

    1. That’s easy. How do you sleep at night knowing that you don’t make the same money as bill gates? Small wins are important. Realistic comparisons are also important.

      – Comparing yourself to a top 1% or top 0.01% guy is not a good idea for any area of life.

      Also bear in mind that this way of thinking combined with copious amounts of PUA literature has only succeeded in getting myself so far into my head with associated circles of negative thoughts that nowadays I find it hard to keep up basic smalltalk with a girl, never mind escalate decisively.

      That’s why I have so much “vitriol” towards people pushing micro-optimizations and “maximal game”. This is the result. It causes a ton of harm.

      p.s.

      When I have more time I’ll come back here to make more replies.

    2. Alek, this is what I’m trying to get at: despite looking through Aaron’s writing multiple times, many guys remain confused. It’s also why I defend roissy to some extent. He sits outside the mainstream of PUA and provides good insights into what’s going on in many such anecdotes, e.g. that looks alone just are not enough in many cases. I think the OP wants to get laid more than to be able to pull 5-minute blowjobs, and a straight read through Aaron’s stuff gives the impression that getting to the point of being able to do such stunts should somehow be easy or always possible.

      My suggestion (to OP): what is it that you actually want? If you’re able to get the hottest girls at a party alone in the bathroom with you or consistently get dates from those you meet during the day, I’d say that’s major success — well ahead of what the average guy in society at large knows how to do. You’re obviously doing something right.

      At this point, don’t try to copy Aaron. The girls you meet in most cases and in most situations will not be giving out blowjobs in 5 minutes. Also, despite his track record, even guys like Aaron can’t always make it happen. Aaron repeatedly described his ability to spot when he does or does not have a good chance with a girl, so his success rate is massively improved by avoiding the cases where it’s unlikely. Again with some exceptions, it’s much more likely you’ll be able to pull a 5-minute blowjob from girls you meet in the vibe of the nightlife than those you meet out and about during the day or at parties.

      Just keep your interactions flirty and at some point invite the girls back to your place or theirs. You don’t even always need to come up with some pretext. After a date, if you feel that there’s chemistry, ask if she’d like to come over later that week. If you just met her that night at a bar, if you’re already making out (you say you’ve at least gotten to this point), then “how far is your place from here?” is clear enough. Once she’s alone with you in a room for whatever reason, it’s basically obvious to both you and her what’s going to happen next, so pick up where you left off at the bar.

      > How do you actually gain confidence through [interactions] instead of losing it?

      Here is a key insight: you should never seem desperate or overeager. Make your intentions clear, but in your mind you should have an attitude of indifference. (“Don’t care whether she comes, stays, lays, or prays. I mean whatever happens, your toes are still tappin’. Now when you got that, then you have the attitude” -Mike Damone, from the movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High) Not only does this make you calmer and smoother and have less of negative mindset after a failed interaction, it also makes you attractive to more of the girls you meet.

    3. >> How do you actually gain confidence through [interactions] instead of losing it?
      > Here is a key insight: you should never seem desperate or overeager.

      Should add (yet another point of confusion in Aaron’s writing, as I think he did mention this attitudinal aspect often enough): this attitude of indifference most certainly does *not* come easily for most people.

      One aspect of this mindset is letting go of judging yourself too much — and that can be very hard to do, especially if you’ve had a difficult upbringing. Another is that if you’re out on a mission to get laid, girls can pick up on it. You obviously have to at least put yourself out there, but if instead of a mission you just think of going out to have a good time and leave the idea of getting laid (or pulling stunts) as a “nice-to-have” extra if you meet some girl and see a good opportunity, then you give off a much more attractive vibe. It’s not always easy to put yourself into this frame of mind.

      Alek: how do you do quotes properly? I can’t find a page showing what html tags or other markup is available for the comments here.

    4. Another great observation by Assanova that seems like an exact match to the OP’s situation (also backs up my statement that looks alone are not always sufficient):

      https://realmademen.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/nightclubs-turn-men-into-vaginas/

      “Let’s talk about what I see the most of: men coming in healthy, and developing severe cases of depression and an extremely lowered sense of self-worth. These guys get rejected so much, that they end up turning into complete beta male vaginas. Why? Because they feel hopeless and like they will never find a woman. Their self-esteem is completely shot. And the worst part is, most of these guys are decent-looking guys who should have no problem getting women. I’ve even seen 6’4″ pretty boys constantly get rejected and turn into depressed beta males that will take any woman that will have him.”

    5. Can’t help but quote Assanova again: great stuff at his blog. I can see why Aaron linked to him.

      https://realmademen.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/how-to-bang-women-easily/

      “A lot of gurus will try to glamorize the player lifestyle like it’s all models and strippers. Real life players know that the glamorizations just aren’t true. Yes, you eventually get those super hot girls while doing almost no work, but it’s not due to cold approaching like crazy. […]”

      This another huge problem for a lot of guys (myself included per comments on the May open thread): you read anecdotes of people like Aaron and start to build up an imagined version of what their lives must be like. You then start to pass judgment (especially on yourself) against that imagined standard, not realizing that the anecdotes only reveal a slice of the complete picture.

      There’s a lot of nuance to human relations and there’s a lot of nuance to how people interpret things based on their particular experience and perspective. Getting sex and companionship may be a “simple” or straightforward matter in the Minimal Game sense, broadly speaking, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy to comprehend or explain fully and accurately what’s going on and how to act in any given situation.

    6. Hugely important point that I don’t think is clearly conveyed by Aaron (incidentally this post backs up the personality/charisma angle):

      https://realmademen.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/personality-is-better-than-game/

      “I’ve mentioned what my first year of college was like. I couldn’t get laid, let alone a date. Why? Because every time I would approach a girl, I had the mindset of “first I’m going to do this, then I’m going to do that”. That made me come off as very disingenuous, and it just placed me in a position where I was thinking too much and coming off as unnatural. ”

      Don’t be fake! It’s one of the biggest turn-offs from a woman’s point of view. It’s very, very hard to fake out a girl, especially one you’re trying to get with.

      OP: Aaron can pull his stunts because the girls he attracts see that he is *genuinely* doing it. You can’t just copy his moves without first internalizing the state of mind he’s in that’s making it all possible. In this sense, re-reading Sleazy Stories so many times is actually working against you at this point!

      A personal confession to illustrate. While I made the general observation quite a while ago, I had another confirmation last night while trying to put the moves on a girl in a way that I imagine as Aaron’s style but doesn’t really come naturally to me. She smoked me out pretty much immediately — I was actually impressed at how quickly she did it! We had already had gotten physical at that point however, so I simply acknowledged that I was forcing it and fell back on my natural style, after which it was smooth sailing.

    7. Thank for your responses!

      First off: “What are your Goals?” Good question – they are to get taht area of my life completely handled in such a way that I never , ever need to worry about it the tiniest bit again. That doesn’t mean getting a girlfriend and laid every once in a while, but being capable of pulling a new girl whenever I want to. Anything less just isn’t worth the effort, since I’d still be in a position where individual women can hold power over me since I can’t immediately replace them at will. On top, to make up for time and countless opportunities wasted.

      You’re both fairly right – see, when I decided to actually take action on girls roughly half a year ago first, I did so because I was really frustrated about still being a virgin at 26. Only to realise that this is no surprise, since all I’ve ever done is ask out two girls in a really convoluted and indirect manner. So I decided to finally be bold, just try shit and since there’s roughly a billion attractive women on this planet , not worry to much about whether it works right away or not. After all, the worst that happens is that I learn something and acted in spite of my fear.

      My next assumption was that since even Rainworms are cabaple of mating , rational thinking is at best a massive hindrance to the whole process. After all, how much do you need to think to know when and how to bite into a sandwich?
      So simply follow my instinct no matter what, no matter how inappropriate or wierd the things it tells me to do seem to be.
      Also, that women who are into me will make it easy and there’s no need to be “smooth” as long as I’m doing *something*
      As a side note, I don’t agree with the whole Alpha-Beta thing at all. Worriyng about being Alpha gets you nowhere. An Alpha guy is simply one who doesn’t matter

      Related: https://realmademen.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/the-time-is-right-now/

      I’ve had that timer tick off *countless* times in the past years after becoming outgoing and confident. I just never knew what to do to push things further, on top of thatoften took it for me being delusional and horny since I didn’t do whatever magical, mystical thing guys do to get girls into bed and so never made a move. So I’d just stay relaxed and the next time my timer goes off I act on it. That’s also how I got my first kiss. Funny enough, I just looked in her eyes for a moment and got amassive hard – on. Which I correctly took as my body subconsciously recieving her signals.

      And as to how I got that girl into the bathroom? Exactly like that: https://realmademen.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/be-sexual-without-touching-women/

      I was just too shy to go ahead and do more than light touching and flirting, yet made decisive move when I felt the time was right. Sadly, I didn’t escalate further when we were tere, but whatever, it’s not bad for my first real try ever I suppose.

      But yeah, reading all that PUA stuff played into my impression that you constantly need to do the *right* thing right off the bat or you’re screwed, which gave me that Agenda you speak off, so my initially good mindset was replaced with bullshit that made me wierd and awkward around women. Right now I’m working on getting back into the mode I was in half a year ago and chill the fuck out. By the way, I never got “Mass-rejected” the only time I got close to was when I spent two weeks approaching one woman each day. First girl I went on a n insta-Date with and made out with her to boot. I only got two outright rejections allover, a few girls were not interested in anything more than a polite chat, and a few ones were majorly into me but turned off by me trying to forcibly replicate my initial success.

      Also, hating women and thinking they “Test” you and want you to fail. Ties in neatly with the general PUA- narrative that you need to be THIS ALPHA to get girls.
      Related again: https://realmademen.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/women-want-you-to-fail/
      I find it sad that Assanova has a similar article on his site – because you know what? Same thing happened with the girl I made out with. Only that she very clearly communicated how much she was into me , so it was obviously no big deal.
      She’s not “Testing” you on how INCREDIBLY ALPHA you are. She’s just running the female version of “push – Pull”, an dif she’s “Testing” anything at all it’s whether you’re a complete wuss or not.
      Now that I’m able to look at my experiences somewhat objectively again, the threshhold really isn’t about how awesome, amazing and incedible and blablabla you are, but simply if you manage to not be a complete wuss.

      On a Sidenote: What do you guys think of cutting out porn and/or masturbation at least for a while ? I did that to make myself horny and more agressive around girls since I think I substituted actual Sex with porn for so long my desire for the real deal might be diminished. But it did work apparently – might be a placebo, but ever since I picked up my porn habit again, I tend to overthink much more and do less around women.

    8. > “What are your Goals?” Good question – they are to get taht area of my life completely handled in such a way that I never , ever need to worry about it the tiniest bit again. That doesn’t mean getting a girlfriend and laid every once in a while, but being capable of pulling a new girl whenever I want to. Anything less just isn’t worth the effort, since I’d still be in a position where individual women can hold power over me since I can’t immediately replace them at will.

      I think this is another seductive illusion that comes out of reading too many pickup stories: that you can at some point just walk out there any night or day and, with near perfect consistency, get girls to get sexual with you that same night or day. If you’re sufficiently skilled and know how to read them and where to look, sure. But in my experience and observation it has a much more of a “when it rains it pours” feel to it, i.e. sometimes you’ll get nothing and sometimes you’ll get into some truly memorable situations. I think Aaron wrote somewhere that if you go out once a week and get laid about once every several times out, you’re already doing relatively well compared to average. Tucker Max, whose Forbes interview I will not stop advocating as I think he did it precisely to reach through to guys like you who also had a difficult childhood, mentioned somewhere that most of his nights out (like 7/8 of the time) were absolutely normal and regular — i.e. uneventful compared to the totally insane situations he got into in some of his anecdotes.

      > As a side note, I don’t agree with the whole Alpha-Beta thing at all. Worriyng about being Alpha gets you nowhere.

      I agree with this. Alpha/Beta is not a sufficiently fine-grained hierarchy, and it’s often context-dependent. For some good insights on this, see Vox Day’s commentaries at alphagameplan.blogspot.com. (His concept of “gamma” mentality, in particular, is very interesting and something I haven’t quite seen described in the same way anywhere else.)

      > On a Sidenote: What do you guys think of cutting out porn and/or masturbation at least for a while ? I did that to make myself horny and more agressive around girls since I think I substituted actual Sex with porn for so long my desire for the real deal might be diminished.

      Just my opinion, but I think there’s a lot of truth to this as well. A whole generation today has grown up with basically a superstimulus (high def internet porn), and it has drug-like effects.

      In general, you seem like the type that will have no trouble getting girls once you get into the right mindset. I don’t have a very high partner count (a few dozen), and I don’t consider myself especially skilled at pickup, but I’ve seen enough to have some feel for how it works. Once you cover the foundations that Aaron talks about, it seems to me that success depends almost entirely on your state of mind — the “attitude” from that Fast Times at Ridgemont High quote. The manosphere keeps saying “don’t be beta”. But beta is a totally ill-defined term. For getting girls, I think it’s more accurate to say, “don’t be timid” — but also, “don’t be desperate”.

  15. https://realmademen.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/how-to-make-women-horny/

    “Does this mean that you can’t do sexual things or make sexual comments out in public? No, just make sure that they are somewhat private and be sneaky about. In fact, if you master the art of doing things in public, but in a sneaky manner so that other people don’t know what’s going on, most women are going to get extremely horny rather quickly. Why? Because of the thrill of possibly getting caught”

    What a terrific insight there in connection to Aaron’s stories: *the thrill of possibly getting caught*. I can’t recall if he already explicitly explained this somewhere, but it definitely sheds light on how he was able to get women aroused so quickly.

    There too is another great difficulty in transitioning into the right mindset (at least at the level of bathroom blowjobs and stuff like that): you yourself first need to overcome your upbringing and the fear of getting caught. I’d wager that the vast majority of men in general society have trouble with this.

  16. Another very important observation:

    https://realmademen.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/alpha-males-with-brains/

    “Everyone just assumes that there is just one type of alpha male and that all alpha males will do well with women in all environments. If you pay attention, you will see that there are three types of alpha males that can sometimes overlap.

    There is the standard guy who physically looks like an alpha male. This guy usually does well in environments where he doesn’t have to do a lot of talking. Women just look at him and get turned-on. […]

    Then there is the guy who is an alpha male by status alone. […]

    Then there are alpha males that resemble guys like me. He doesn’t look like a meathead, so it isn’t so obvious at first. However, he is incredibly witty, and has a cocky, assertive type personality. As such, women don’t realize that he is an alpha male until they’ve spent a fair amount of time talking to him.”

    This is a very important distinction that will help guys understand the difference between guys like Aaron, who I would estimate as largely in the first category above, and guys like Assanova or roissy, who are in the third category. When I said in the other thread that looks/status aren’t always everything and that personality and charisma may be as valuable in many cases, this is another aspect of what I was trying to get at.

    The problem with mainstream PUA is that it underplays the first two categories and heavily overplays and misrepresents the third category, which is no surprise since personality/charisma are very hard to teach or acquire. As far as I know, Aaron hasn’t discussed the third category all that much. Taken altogether, this situation leads to tremendous confusion for regular guys with little or no real-world experience just trying to figure out what’s what and how to get whatever they’re trying to get out of relations with women.

    1. “This is a very important distinction that will help guys understand the difference between guys like Aaron, who I would estimate as largely in the first category above, and guys like Assanova or roissy, who are in the third category.”
      Quick question: The insane amounts of blind untempered rage in “Roissy/Heartiste/whatever”‘s post don’t strike you as odd? Nor the mentions of child sexual abuse?

      “The problem with mainstream PUA is that it underplays the first two categories and heavily overplays and misrepresents the third category,”
      The major problem with mainstream PUA is that it tells you that a woman who takes one look at you and wants to claw her eyes out b/c you are so disgusting to her, can be “turned around” by standing at a certain angle, dressing funny and a series of verbal clues conveying status.
      One of the many, many, many problems of mainstream PUA is that it turns causation into correlation. I.E. because you see someone successful be a cocky funny jerk with women doesn’t make being a jerk a successful strategy.
      Causation:
      Woman being turned on by a totally hawt guy -> he can be cocky funny
      NOT:
      Be cocky funny -> Woman turned on

    2. > Quick question: The insane amounts of blind untempered rage in “Roissy/Heartiste/whatever”‘s post don’t strike you as odd? Nor the mentions of child sexual abuse?

      Where is the rage? Where did he mention child abuse? He’s gone off on an extremely pro-White tangent in the last couple years, and there are definitely some heated posts in that direction. On the subject of pickup and women, however, he actually presents exactly the opposite position: once you understand their psychology a little and how to interact with them to your advantage, you stop being as resentful towards them.

      > The major problem with mainstream PUA is that it tells you that a woman who takes one look at you and wants to claw her eyes out b/c you are so disgusting to her, can be “turned around” by standing at a certain angle, dressing funny and a series of verbal clues conveying status. […] Causation:
      Woman being turned on by a totally hawt guy -> he can be cocky funny NOT: Be cocky funny -> Woman turned on

      You 100% sure about that? Exhibit A:

      http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/16/article-2279647-04160AF20000044D-407_634x480.jpg

      The major problem with mainstream PUA is that it gives the impression to your average guy who looks like Salman Rushdie that *any* average guy that looks like Salman Rushdie can bag women like that just by learning a few tricks. Many women do get turned on by humor and wit, if you know how to do it properly. (Why do you think that girls constantly say that they want a guy with a good sense of humor?) I’m the tallest and most attractive male in many social situations. There have been plenty of times when I’ve been beaten to a girl who was originally eyeing me by another guy who isn’t at my level of looks but has massively better wit or humor than I do. Note also it’s not just Rushdie’s fame: he is extremely witty, and you can see by the way he’s standing and holding her in the photo that he’s comfortable around hot women (firm grip on her waist, no “hover hand”).

      (Note again to Alek and anyone else reading this: I am not defending mainstream PUA, nor am I a blind admirer of roissy’s. I just point out that there aspects of the complete picture of pickup and seduction that are not well represented in Aaron’s material.)

    3. Look up Salman Rushdie’s net worth before spouting bullshit. Then take into account that he is a celebrity. What’s your argument again?

    4. Aaron: yes, I agree that Rushdie isn’t a perfect example because of such strong confounding factors. But is it really true that money and fame are alone enough to get strong sexual attraction from women (especially hot women)? They no doubt go a very long way to making it happen, certainly in getting attention from them initially. But I’m really not convinced that they are enough on their own. If anything, they seem to bring out their golddigger side. Is a woman’s money-driven attraction really the same as what she gets from looking at a hot guy or one who knows how to properly sweet talk her? As a contrast to better emphasize the point, take Scott Adams:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTF7rTdhk00

      Adam’s net worth is probably on the same order of magnitude, though Rushdie is admittedly more widely recognized. In Adams’ videos, his girlfriend is obviously not altogether repulsed by him, but neither is she really into him. Adams also shows “hover hand” (or arm, in this case). There are clearly moments where she would do anything to get out of there if it wasn’t just to appease him in watching those political debates. Indeed, if you look through that girl’s instagram photos, you find more than a couple where she’s totally embracing some hot young guy in her normal social circle, and I’d wager that Adams is getting duped in this situation. If he had the realtime wit and comfort around hot women that Rushdie does, then he’d have her more properly on lockdown.

      My observation is that women who are truly attracted and into their men tend to dote on them, regardless of the situation.

    5. Aaron: I just realized that there’s a much stronger body of evidence in connection to the Rushdie example. If you’ve discussed this elsewhere, I don’t recall it.

      How do you explain that it’s possible for women to get highly aroused merely by *reading* things? If attraction were really only due to the big three factors of looks, money, and status, then how do you explain that some women will get so horny after reading 50 Shades (or some similar book) that they’ll literally go to their shlubby husbands and start fucking them? Conversely, if a hot guy says something stupid, doesn’t it negate his looks? Also, there’s the interesting inverse situation for men. How can men get aroused from just listening to someone on a sex hotline (who is often nowhere near as attractive as she sounds)?

      I am not suggesting that it’s easy to arouse a woman by words alone, nor that if you’re average looking or low status you can always compensate somehow through a charming personality. This is a huge, huge mainstream PUA lie. Your recommendations to guys to work on their looks and status are more broadly effective, and generally easier to accomplish, than the recommendation to work on charisma and sexy banter. What I’m suggesting is just that it seems like the latter are an important factor in a not insignificant number of situations.

    6. Are you writing books? If not, why bother? Lifting weights for a couple of years will make you more pussy than the insanely low odds of writing a bestseller.

    7. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me like the term “attraction” is very ill-defined. What does it even mean exactly to say “you can’t create attraction”? You can certainly destroy attraction by saying or doing the wrong thing (or not saying or doing the right thing).

      There are at least the following factors that affect a woman’s desire to be intimate with you at any given moment and are probably all lumped into the term “attraction”:

      – appeal (how pleasing you are to her)
      – arousal (how horny she is)
      – attachment (how in love with you she is)

      Looks, money, and status increase your appeal to more women the more you have of them. Intelligence, charisma, and a sense of humor generally increase your appeal, but beyond a certain point they can also decrease your appeal, because people tend to associate with others that have similar levels.

      Better looks will make arousal and attachment happen more quickly for more women. Intelligence, charisma, and a good sense of humor will also make arousal and attachment happen more quickly for more women since they help with figuring out what to say at the right time and in the right way. Skill in touching and holding women in the right way also obviously makes an enormous difference to arousal (Aaron clearly taking the cake on this one) and to a substantial degree attachment as well (hugging, cuddling after sex, etc).

      Now for the money shot: how is “sexual attraction” affected by money and status? To be precise: to what extent do money and status really help with arousal and attachment?

      I can’t recall having ever witnessed it in person, but I can imagine that famous and powerful men can get women wet by fame and status alone. But what is going on exactly in the case of Rushdie and Adams? This kind of response definitely fades over time. The majority of guys who bother looking at explicit guides on how to “game” women are not good-looking. The hot, younger women hanging around guys like Rushdie and Adams for their money, fame, and status doubtless find those things attractive in terms of overall increased appeal. When it comes to what gets them aroused and emotionally invested, however, I’m skeptical that in such cases the money or status will do all that much in the longer run outside of their use in some applied manner, i.e. showing affection through gifts, or increasing arousal through the general excitement of some experience or activity. Based on body language, Rushdie easily beats Adams in terms of apparent ability to get his woman aroused consistently, and this is what I was referring to.

    8. Hmm. Perhaps it’s still closer to the general position you’re claiming. But there’s overlap in the various categories.

      “Sexually attractive” might be defined as “easily aroused”, and “sexually unattractive” as “not easily aroused”. For some women, money/status and the constant stimulation that rich and high status people provide lifestyle-wise might provide this easy arousal. For others, perhaps those who are more independent-minded, money/status are seen as vacuous and it’s the wit and charisma that provides constant stimulation leading to easy arousal.

      It’s very hard to tease these things apart in the arbitrary case and come up with universal rules that can be used to call bullshit in any given one of them. That’s all I’m saying.

    9. “Where is the rage?”
      So, no, you don’t see the rage. Then you have far bigger problems than the correct angle to talk to chicks. Or being a cool intellectual alpha.

      You should – this may sound like new age sh** but it ain’t – get in touch with your emotions some more. And only stop if people like “Heartiste/Roissy” give you the creeps.

    10. My two cents:

      I agree that Rushdie’s success (assuming that’s so) with women can be attributed with money and status. The thing about humor and wit, assuming a man is already attractive for whatever reason like looks f.e., is that women will use those traits in a man to only further evaluate whether or not he’s a good long term prospect.

      My point is, positive personality traits only point to the man being stable of mind and intelligent. It’s not the deciding factor in attraction, but only an indicator that the man is safe enough to not end up stalking a woman or become homocidal or whatever.

      To further demonstrate my point, you could take the example of a narcissistic personality. This type of person would probably not be likely to use humor at his own expense. However, a good looking man who has a stable lifestyle and some cool friends being able to poke fun at himself in a funny and confident way demonstrates that he’s probably not a narcissistic asshole, which is a signal that he’s not only a good short term mate, but also a potential good candidate for a guy a woman would also want to date.

    11. All of this has been discussed/answered in the past… That’s why there are different terms…

      Long-term attraction
      Short-term attraction
      INTEREST

      Most of your walls of text (in which you don’t have a SINGLE ORIGINAL THOUGHT) are about interest (not attraction), and no I won’t bother explaining the difference between interest and attraction to you.

      You seem to be more interested in vomiting what PUAs/Marketeres installed in your brain than doing research. The irony is you think you’re “coming up” with arguments, but we’ve had these discussions with hundreds of guys before. All of this shit is implanted in your head by the authors you’re reading. You haven’t said or written a single original thought.

    12. Did someone say it’s not enough to be famous and rich to get laid?

      Dude, I assure you I have no charisma, no charm (currently with a belly), NO SENSE OF HUMOR WHATSOVER… The only thing I got currently is that i’m only a “high ranking/influential person” in a few niches… and get laid with 19-20 year olds.

      I have LITERALLY 100 times less status than scott adams or rushdie, but it’s enough to get me laid with much younger hotties despite having none of those traits.

      —-

      The other thing about many of those traits is that the status/fame itself brings them out of you. When people kiss up to you and see you as high-status, that naturally brings out charismatic actions in you.

      You’d know this if you had ever achieved anything in life. Like go and win a competition in something… notice how in the hours after the win you’re charismatic, charming, grinning and naturally find yourself cracking jokes and being “cocky & funny”.

      Now take a celebrity – they’re in that winning state 24/7 (due to all the praise and flattery). The claim it’s not enough to just be famous (you also need micro-optimizations) is utter bullshit… because

      A) I have far less status than any of those guys, but even this is enough to get one laid and pursued

      B) There’s nothing to compare against. There are no rich&famous people who are anti-charismatic and inhibited. IT DOESN’T EXIST. You have no CONTROL GROUP to compare against.

      The very fame itself dis-inhibits people and makes them act in those ways.

    13. Alek:

      > There are no rich&famous people who are anti-charismatic and inhibited. IT DOESN’T EXIST

      There aren’t that many rich and famous and powerful people who lack charisma precisely because charisma and exceptional social ability are often key factors in this kind of success in the first place. Do you agree?

      > The other thing about many of those traits is that the status/fame itself brings them out of you. When people kiss up to you and see you as high-status, that naturally brings out charismatic actions in you. You’d know this if you had ever achieved anything in life. Like go and win a competition in something… notice how in the hours after the win you’re charismatic, charming, grinning and naturally find yourself cracking jokes and being “cocky & funny”.

      I don’t know about you, but I’ve won a few competitions in my life and actually found myself much more outwardly modest afterwards. I actually have to *force* myself to show my charismatic side most of the time (not just around competitions).

      > I assure you I have no charisma, no charm (currently with a belly), NO SENSE OF HUMOR WHATSOVER… The only thing I got currently is that i’m only a “high ranking/influential person” in a few niches… and get laid with 19-20 year olds. I have LITERALLY 100 times less status than scott adams or rushdie, but it’s enough to get me laid with much younger hotties despite having none of those traits.

      Honest congrats, man. If this is what you want and you figured out a way to make it work, that’s great. My point was that Rushdie’s woman seems into him for more than just his money and fame, while Adams’ woman seems to be looking at him as a sugar daddy, at least as far her true attraction triggers are concerned. Look through her Instagram and you’ll see what I mean.

      > You seem to be more interested in vomiting what PUAs/Marketeres installed in your brain than doing research. The irony is you think you’re “coming up” with arguments, but we’ve had these discussions with hundreds of guys before. All of this shit is implanted in your head by the authors you’re reading. You haven’t said or written a single original thought.

      Yes, I agree that I haven’t said anything that hasn’t been thought of, said, or explained somewhere before. But I am not “vomiting what PUAs installed in my brain”. I’m expressing my own understanding of old ideas and in my own words, and this is a useful contribution.

      Doesn’t it seem to you strange that guys like the OP above (“1”, “May 23, 2017 at 10:44 pm”) has read through Aaron’s material multiple times and still can’t figure out what’s wrong with his approach? I suggested to him that he should not copy Aaron’s style, as that’s something only Aaron can do properly because it requires that particular mindset and ability to assess situations (the “feel” or “intuition” Aaron referred to in his old mPUA posts), which is very rare and so difficult to replicate exactly. I also presented some of my own recent thoughts that I believe may help other readers here clear up the confusion around the heavily overloaded terms “interest” and “attraction”. (By “heavily overloaded” I mean that the terms are not precise. You interpret them one way, another person interprets them another way, and so on.)

      Regarding your point on fitness industry scams: I get it. I agree that mainstream PUA is ruinous to a lot of men. It’s basically just a piece of the much larger “SHAM” industry (Self-Help and Actualization Movement).

      The thing is — and this is really all I’ve been trying to say all along — there are useful insights and observations in *NON-mainstream* blogs that sometimes focus on pickup and dating (e.g.: roissy, Vox Day (alphagameplan), Rollo Tomassi, Hawaiian Libertarian, Dalrock — to name a few). These are worth considering even though the things they discuss are grossly misrepresented by mainstream PUA. Perhaps this is clearer if I ask this (and I ask genuinely, because I only looked into the fitness/nutrition industry a little bit and am not really familiar with it): aren’t there at least *some* items discussed by the maintream fitness/nutrition industry which are items of real importance in fitness and nutrition, even if the industry presents them wrongly?

      I have this feeling that you just want me to cave in and admit that you’re right and I’m wrong. I’m not arguing from this point of view at all. I said many times earlier, I support what you guys are trying to do, I think your advice is broadly correct and useful to MOST guys in MOST situations. All I’ve ever said to the contrary, which is not really the contrary if you think about it, is that there are EXCEPTIONS for which the rules you advocate don’t apply. Indeed, I think that if you really look at Aaron’s material and message, the conclusion you get is that there are no universal rules to seduction. There are patterns, and there are things you should learn about the process that are akin to learning new skills, but seduction is NOT a science.

      The mainstream PUA claim is that seduction can be broken down completely scientifically, i.e. that you can somehow find rules to follow (tricks, routines, “game” methods, whatever) — that ALWAYS produce results no matter where you stand on the male looks/money/status spectrum. This is a huge lie, I’m the first one to agree.

    14. People would have to be in very specific circumstances to be able to copy my personal style, at least with regards to club game. Thus, Sleazy Stories is not primarily an advice book, which should be pretty obvious. Minimal Game and Club Game, on the other hand, are.

      Furthermore, if you focus on exceptions, you’re doing it wrong. Instead, focus on the 10% of effort that get you 90% of the results. (Or plug in 20/80, it’s just an expression of the general principle, for all the aspies reading this.)

    15. Also, Alek, for the record: I don’t know how to pull hot 19-20 year olds on the regular, not that I wouldn’t like it. My ability and approach at the moment is along the lines of my replies to the OP above, and I think it will get him similar results.

      My view is that we are here to help each other understand, improve, and get what we want out of the modern dating scene. You know something, I know something, and if we both try to at least better understand each other’s position and knowledge, we both win. I’m definitely not “attacking” Aaron or “defending” mainstream PUA in a black-and-white manner (nor non-mainstream PUA, for that matter).

    16. My point is, positive personality traits only point to the man being stable of mind and intelligent. It’s not the deciding factor in attraction, but only an indicator that the man is safe enough to not end up stalking a woman or become homocidal or whatever.

      Exactly. It’s just a signal to look into matters further. The distinction people don’t get is that these are separate categories

      – There’s instant attraction (short-term, lust, etc)
      (that’s based on things like height, shape of face, body odor etc, or extremely high status to the level where it’s unfakeable)

      – There’s such a thing as instant interest
      (that can be based on things that you can learn/fake, such as humor, charisma, etc)

      – There’s something called long-term attraction
      (that’s based on traits that the woman is looking for in a long-term partner… )

      Now where these fucking puadiots mix things up (because none of them is trained in logic or the scientific method) is that they CONFLATE things

      They mix up correlations, fall for false positives etc… etc… They mix up interest and attraction, the mix up short term and long-term etc etc…

      To give a practical example:

      – Let’s say a woman feels 5 out of 10 physical attraction to you
      – But you’re creepy, look dangerous, inexperienced, you would cling after sex, wouldn’t know your way around her body, would stalk her later etc etc
      – That will LOWER her interest in acting on that attraction

      On the OTHER hand…

      – Let’s say a woman feels 5 out of 10 physical attraction to you
      – But you’re good at putting her at ease, it’s clear you’re experienced and will make the process smooth and guilt-free
      – That will INCREASE her interest in acting on that attraction

      A Puatard will watch this and say “aha, his behaviour changed her attraction for him”… Not it didn’t dumbass. The attraction is the same “5 out of 10”. It’s the interest that changed.

    17. The distinction people don’t get is that these are separate categories.

      – There’s instant attraction (short-term, lust, etc) (that’s based on things like height, shape of face, body odor etc, or extremely high status to the level where it’s unfakeable)
      – There’s such a thing as instant interest (that can be based on things that you can learn/fake, such as humor, charisma, etc)
      – There’s something called long-term attraction (that’s based on traits that the woman is looking for in a long-term partner… )

      Now where these fucking puadiots mix things up (because none of them is trained in logic or the scientific method) is that they CONFLATE things. They mix up correlations, fall for false positives etc… etc… They mix up interest and attraction, the mix up short term and long-term etc etc…

      Great comment. In my own description I used the terms appeal, arousal, and attachment. What you described as instant attraction roughly corresponds to what I was thinking of by arousal; instant interest is roughly what I was thinking of by appeal; long-term attraction is roughly what I was thinking of by attachment. So we’re on the same page here, more or less.

      Where I take issue with what you say is that I think there’s more subtlety to the factors going into each of these categories than what you describe. Taking your example:

      Let’s say a woman feels 5 out of 10 physical attraction to you. But you’re creepy, look dangerous, inexperienced, you would cling after sex, wouldn’t know your way around her body, would stalk her later etc etc. That will LOWER her interest in acting on that attraction

      On the OTHER hand: Let’s say a woman feels 5 out of 10 physical attraction to you. But you’re good at putting her at ease, it’s clear you’re experienced and will make the process smooth and guilt-free. That will INCREASE her interest in acting on that attraction

      Is physical attraction the only thing that goes into attraction (more precisely: arousal or what you called instant attraction)? This is why I brought up the point about romance novels. Don’t you agree that some significant fraction of women can actually get turned on quite strongly by a guy who knows how to use his voice and wit in a sexual manner?

      I would suggest that “attraction” and “interest” are ill-defined. “Arousal” is more precise. After all, it can even be measured objectively (through e.g. “vaginal plethysmographs” and similar).

      My issue with the downplaying of charisma and (for lack of a better term) “intellectual” and personality-based approaches to arousal and seduction is that they sometimes really do play a major role. I contend that in cases like Rushdie, women give him attention only initially because of his fame and money. The ones that really stick around him are attracted to (i.e., aroused) by his intelligence and wit. Likewise, Scott Adams has a wildly successful career by any measure, but he lacks the charisma that his girlfriend in that video most likely needs in order to be properly aroused. Even male models of her age who lack this will not be able to get her fully aroused. This is something that regular guys, especially those who are of above average intelligence, should carefully consider before pouring excessive amounts of time and effort into improving just their physique and career.

    18. Again, if you’re obsessing about exceptions, you have a lot to learn as you will only be wasting your time.

    19. – Let’s say a woman feels 5 out of 10 physical attraction to you
      – But you’re good at putting her at ease, it’s clear you’re experienced and will make the process smooth and guilt-free
      – That will INCREASE her interest in acting on that attraction

      That was an example where behaviour can change her interest in acting on her short-term attraction…

      Let’s look at the other side… Where behaviour acts as a SIGNAL for her to explore if there’s a chance for long-term attraction.

      To further demonstrate my point, you could take the example of a narcissistic personality. This type of person would probably not be likely to use humor at his own expense.

      However, a good looking man who has a stable lifestyle and some cool friends being able to poke fun at himself in a funny and confident way demonstrates that he’s probably not a narcissistic asshole, which is a signal that he’s not only a good short term mate, but also a potential good candidate for a guy a woman would also want to date.

      Exactly. It’s just a signal to look into matters further. The distinction people don’t get is that these are separate categories

      Now the way long-term attraction works is that it is based on things that CAN be faked. When picking a provider a female’s attraction to a guy CAN be based on something like his “level of kindness to dogs”.

      Puatards look at that and go “oh, so if you fake that trait for 2 hours in a bar, it’ll increase her attraction to where she bangs you that night”… Except short-term attraction doesn’t factor in traits that are fakeable.

      The way long-term attraction works is that women test you and go out with you for many weeks or even months to make sure you’re not faking either of those traits.

      Females of our species have SPECIFICALLY EVOLVED to where their short-term attraction is never based on traits that can be faked.

      BUT WAIT? How is that faking those traits increases your odds of getting laid in the short term? Several answers:

      – In some cases it’s because it increased interest in acting on pre-existing attraction
      – In a lot of cases it just produced false positives where a woman is like “hmmm this guy is acting pretty high status, let me explore this further”…

      The guy believes he ALMOST laid her… but truth is, that she went out with him to explore things further. When she saw it was an act, she backed off. That’s why PUAs have insanely high flake rates.

      ======

      YES HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL MEN HAVE CERTAIN TRAITS (there is a correlation)

      The causation is mixed up though.

      Fact: Famous guys get laid a lot
      Fact: Famous guys are irreverent and charismatic
      False conclusion: they get laid because of the charm and irreverence

      No, that’s just a faulty correlation-causation assumption.

      This false theory is unfortunately backed up with false evidence. Guy goes out faking the behaviours and actions of famous people… Notices that more women give him a chance. Concludes (due to a false positive) omg the theory is true. No dumbass, you just lead her on you idiot.

      And when you do get laid, you would have had anyway if you just did minimal game and just base sociosexual calibration (but you credit the faking traits of status and other microptimizations)…

    20. – There’s such a thing as instant interest
      (that can be based on things that you can learn/fake, such as humor, charisma, etc)

      – There’s something called long-term attraction
      (that’s based on traits that the woman is looking for in a long-term partner… )

      Puatards often conflate the two. You can walk up to a chick and because you say something funny it produces an INSTANT rise in interest. You think “oh I created an instant spike in attraction”.

    21. Aaron I screwed up.

      My entire comment is in italic coz I forgot to close the tag. Basically this sentence alone should have been italic.

      “oh, so if you fake that trait for 2 hours in a bar, it’ll increase her attraction to where she bangs you that night”

      I opened the tag before it, but didn’t close it after.

      Can you fix it for me please? Thank you.

    22. People would have to be in very specific circumstances to be able to copy my personal style, at least with regards to club game. Thus, Sleazy Stories is not primarily an advice book, which should be pretty obvious. Minimal Game and Club Game, on the other hand, are.

      Furthermore, if you focus on exceptions, you’re doing it wrong. Instead, focus on the 10% of effort that get you 90% of the results. (Or plug in 20/80, it’s just an expression of the general principle, for all the aspies reading this.)

      That’s excellent advice for all areas of life too. If you’re the exception you’ll find out pretty quick when you notice that you get outlier results.

      Going into something with a plan to get outlier results is insane. People with top 0.1% results either

      A) had the right set of circumstances and predispositions.

      B) worked on it for 15 years obsessively, while sacrificing every other area of life (minmaxing basically)

      You can’t copy A, and doing B is stupid. Not only will you be a complete failure at everything else in life, but there’s no guarantee you ever succeed in getting 0.1% for this area either.

      You might barely get any better than the guy who applied a minimal method.

      The ideal approach is the same for every area. Go into multiple areas applying a minimal method.

      – If you’re not an outlier you’ll get top 1-5% results

      – if you’re an outlier you’ll get top 0.1% results despite only applying a minimal method (like Aaron did)

      Going into a field and minmaxing is always an insane idea. It’s due to refusing to accept reality and the cards you’ve been dealt.

      We’re not all meant to be an outlier in any area we attempt. There’s probably a field where you ARE meant to be an outlier. But you’ll never discover your talent if you’re busy wasting all your energy on micro-optimizations an area where it wasn’t meant to be.

      Accept reality, being top 1-5% is good enough. Especially when with this strategy you can achieve this in multiple areas. And hey you might stumble on the thing you were meant to be an outlier in as well.

    23. People would have to be in very specific circumstances to be able to copy my personal style, at least with regards to club game. Thus, Sleazy Stories is not primarily an advice book, which should be pretty obvious. Minimal Game and Club Game, on the other hand, are. Furthermore, if you focus on exceptions, you’re doing it wrong. Instead, focus on the 10% of effort that get you 90% of the results.”

      Aaron: I completely agree. This is why I stressed the point that a straight read through your material (that is, taking Minimal Game and Sleazy Stories as a whole rather than separately) can lead to a considerable amount of confusion for a lot of guys. It gives the impression that while mainstream PUA is a ton of bullshit, if someone follows your advice, then with enough diligence maybe he too can pull stunts along the lines of what you can. I certainly had this impression myself (not that I didn’t get pretty close once or twice so far)! I can’t easily recall if you’ve ever confirmed as explicitly (aside from those mPUA posts, which I hadn’t seen before and think are tremendously valuable and insightful) that you acknowledge your innate advantages over most other guys in terms of achieving success with your personal style of seduction.

      My guess is that for the guy I replied to above and for many others reading your material, it’s not at all obvious that you were able to pull what you pulled in those stories in large part because it was specifically *you* in them rather than just anyone with roughly your profile following your approach with sufficient practice.

      People with top 0.1% results either:
      A) had the right set of circumstances and predispositions.
      B) worked on it for 15 years obsessively, while sacrificing every other area of life (minmaxing basically)
      You can’t copy A, and doing B is stupid. Not only will you be a complete failure at everything else in life, but there’s no guarantee you ever succeed in getting 0.1% for this area either.

      Alek: I 100% agree with what you just said here. This is exactly my point. There’s something quite exceptional going on in the cases of men who consistently pull a large number of women and in the cases of men whose pulls seem to violate the normal rules of male-female pairing. It’s why exceptional cases like Salman Rushdie and Scott Adams are so interesting.

      The typical guy reading Aaron’s material (or reading any pickup or dating advice, for that matter) is more likely to identify with Adams, not Rushdie. Rushdie is an extremely witty and infamous celebrity author. It doesn’t come as much of a surprise to anyone that despite his looks, he managed to bag a woman at the trophy wife level. But precisely for those reasons, most guys can’t relate to him. Adams, on the other hand, appears like (and to a fair degree probably actually is) just a “regular guy” who managed to bag a hot young chick by working hard on the monetary aspect of the looks/money/status foundation. (Dilbert is a famous strip, yes, but a lot of people wouldn’t recognize Adams, even by name.) The regular guy struggling with girls thinks: “Wow: this f*ckdoll is attracted to him because he has money. I also want a hot babe like that to fall in love with me. I should work harder on my career.” He then does so and ends up with girls who are mostly just into him for his money, and in the end he is likely to suffer greatly.

      My point is in the Rushdie/Adams example is that Adams’ success in this regard is not so clearly complete or genuine, while Rushdie’s is probably complete and genuine but perhaps not for the initially apparent reasons. By focusing on such exceptional cases and understanding what’s really going on in them, guys who are thinking like I suggested above — and I’ll say again that I’m pretty damn sure that this is the majority (>80%) of guys who look into pickup and dating guides in the first place — can improve their chances of having genuine success by on the one hand developing a more accurate picture of what they will eventually actually be able to achieve (in terms of the level and quantity of female attention they can actually get), and on the other hand by understanding that looks/money/status are not always enough to get genuine affection from women.

      (Note: I’m aware of the other posts here on escorts and how relationships can be seen as a kind of prostitution. If a guy has no problems with girls who are with him primarily for his money or status but are not truly into him, then more power to him. I’m pretty sure, however, that the majority of guys who look for pickup and dating advice are looking for sex *and* emotional affection and attachment from the women they seek out (and thus that the sex they get be “freely” given; i.e. the women are genuinely into them when sex happens) — not this moneyed man/high class escort type of situation. It’s why I think it’s important to study exceptional cases and to figure out to what extent you can actually win a woman’s mind (i.e. emotional attachment) with looks, status, and money, not just her body.)

    24. I didn’t read the entire comment, but let me point out that I very clearly state the intended audience for both Minimal Game and Club Game right in those very books and even give pointers if you are not quite part of that audience. If there is any confusion about whom my books are for, then the issue is with you, not me.

      If you want to systematically study exceptional cases, which may very well just be your perception, then go ahead and do so. In the worst case, you’ll end up with a case study on why X was able to get Y, which will teach you nothing at all on how you can do better with girls since you are not X, regardless of whether there is a chance that you will be able to get Y. Go ahead and waste your time. Feel free to reach out in a few years’ time to let me know how utterly fruitless your endeavors were.

    25. You know something, I know something, and if we both try to at least better understand each other’s position and knowledge, we both win. I’m definitely not “attacking” Aaron or “defending” mainstream PUA in a black-and-white manner (nor non-mainstream PUA, for that matter).

      Not really, you haven’t constructed a single sentence that we haven’t seen before, given a single original argument or had a single original thought. Not a single thing you’ve said is something that we don’t know about (heard from actual PUA gurus/authors).

      I know you believe you’re telling us original ideas/arguments/points we haven’t heard before… but it just isn’t the case… sorry

    26. I know you believe you’re telling us original ideas/arguments/points we haven’t heard before… but it just isn’t the case… sorry

      I’m trying to clarify your ideas for the other guys reading them. I never once claimed any originality.

  17. that’s what the forums and comments section are here: If you need help/clarification. For even better clarification, book a consultation. A book is like a group class it has to speak to a broad audience it can’t be clear to everyone. That’s why you book a private lesson.

    The answer to “I need clarification with minimal game” isn’t I’ll go study the insane bullshit theories that micro-optimizing minmaxer come up with. Doesn’t logically follow.

    Like if you can’t even make minimal game work (the 20% of actions and factors that give 80% of the result)… how is the solution adding additional factors… you can’t even make the most important foundational 20% work… solution, add more factors? Holy shit that’s imbecillic.

    1. Man… these past couple of days have seen a serious wave of enlightenment for me. Something really did gel in my mind after looking through Aaron’s old mASF posts (I’d never looked at them before).

      Another major thing that just cleared up in my mind: there’s a difference between attraction and *attachment*. What you and Aaron keep repeating is that you can’t force or create attraction (sexual desire), i.e. it’s either there to begin with or it isn’t in any given interaction depending on the various aspects of who you are and your lifestyle, and the best you can do is not mess it up. But you *can* create attachment. I think a lot of guys are conflating the two at some level. (Girls are without question doing so.) This is what I meant when I wrote in the other thread, “you teach how to seduce the body, not the mind”.

      Alek: I get the impression that you’ve been personally burned by having spent a lot of time initially looking at mainstream PUA material. If so, I can understand why you’re so militantly against anything that sounds like it. I never really steeped myself in mainstream pickup routines or lingo, so I didn’t have this problem of having to deprogram myself from it. I defend those like roissy who provide useful insights into female psychology and the dynamics of male-female interactions, but they are few and far between. Roosh is obviously popular and has a pretty large audience, and he should probably get come credit for the work it takes to build and maintain such an audience (man guys probably find Aaron’s work through him — I did, anyway). I agree that the way he’s carried his life so far makes him a complete asshat, and he is nowhere near the level of understanding or pickup ability that you and Aaron have. I’m honestly not familiar with any of the mainstream PUA names.

    2. You’ve been burned by x. You’re bitter because of bad experiences with x is not an argument.

      Arguments either stand on their merits on they don’t.

    3. I’ve been burned by fat loss scams. Which is why I’m passionate in dismantling them.

      I’ve had my time wasted by incompetent teachers in many hobbies I took on (it turned out these are people who weren’t competent to teach in these fields), I now spend a lot of time exposing unqualified teachers.

      Feminism ruined my sexuality for a while. I spend a lot of time attacking feminist theories…

      etc etc… etc… You’ve been burned by X is not an argument. Especially since nobody on the planet is a robot that fights against things that they haven’t been personally impacted by.

      The arguments stand on their own. Saying “your arguments might be distorted because they scammed you harder than others” is not an argument. Tackle arguments on their own, not based on who’s said them.

    4. > Saying “your arguments might be distorted because they scammed you harder than others” is not an argument. Tackle arguments on their own, not based on who’s said them.

      Alek: you’re misreading me here. I’m not attacking you, nor am I saying that your arguments are distorted. I’m saying that I can better understand your vitriol against mainstream PUA if you were badly hurt by it.

    5. Let’s avoid the seduction community since you have such a hard-on for it, and look at another equally scammy industry to make the point.

      The fitness industry scams 99.9% of customers. Literally 99% of people are scammed into buying gimmicks that don’t work, supplements that don’t do anything or minmaxy programs that can not be done by anyone except a full-time athlete.

      If someone is angry at the fitness industry for pushing supplements and robbing people of tens of thousands of dollars (and tens of thousands of hours of wasted productivity)… He has a point… since MOST people (at least 99%) are scammed. It doesn’t matter if he personally spent his 20s buying worthless supllements and doing programs crafted by steroid users. Because 99% of people are getting scammed in a similar way.

      The seduction industry is similar. Literally 99.9% of people who discover the industry spend a ton of time and money buying books, reading posts, and being sold on overcomplications and confusion so as to be kept as customers for a long time.

      Literally 99.9% of peoople discovering the community get NO RESULTS. It’s similar to the fitness industry. It’s not that overcomplicating (non-minimal) selling shits hurt alek… they hurt 99.9% of people.

    6. Put another way: look at specific instances of mainstream PUA. It’s actually objectively funny in many cases what they are trying to do. No doubt in a lot of situations, girls approached by a mainstream PUA actually are laughing. But it’s a laughter of ridicule and pity rather than of nervousness and arousal.

      Aaron’s stunts are incredible to read and witness when they do happen, and they make mainstream PUA look all that much siller. I claim no superiority in the matter by any stretch, but I’ve seen what’s possible, and it’s easy to extrapolate from there. Just to illustrate, my best personal stunt is going to some girl’s place with her, her friend, and her friend’s guy in less than an hour of meeting them at a bar, only to have them literally push the other guy out the door — essentially because I had the “don’t care” attitude and was casually joking all the way while he was acting in an a totally serious “holy shit this is actually happening!” way. He wasn’t bad looking or anything, but he gave off the stink of overeagerness. I’ll point out also that if I had tried any fast moves like what I imagine from many of Aaron’s anecdotes, I’d have been kicked out as well. It was the attitude and my humorous banter that kept those girls aroused, in that specific situation.

  18. > “Sexually attractive” might be defined as “easily aroused”, and “sexually unattractive” as “not easily aroused”

    More clearly: someone who is “sexually attractive” to another makes the latter easily aroused, and unattractive / not easily aroused, etc.

    1. Sexually attractive = “would like to or could imagine having sex with”. Sexually unattractive = “not in a billion years”.

    1. Mind you, this is a case of extreme leftists threatening violence against less extreme leftists…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *