The Open Thread: May 2017

The monthly Open Thread is a place for open discussion among my readers. If this thread gets very busy, there will be another one on the 15th of this 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.

109 thoughts on “The Open Thread: May 2017

  1. I have recently taken an interest in Meditation,may I ask if you will be releasing your book on meditation anytime soon?

    1. It’s done when it’s done. I’m sorry I can’t give you a release date.

  2. Ok, I can’t figure something out which in turn bugs me out. So I’ll post it here.

    I know several 20 y/o women. All of which are single but not by choice for some time now. They aren’t top tier but in the upper 20 – 30 % looks-wise. They aren’t fat, they are thin. They have pleasant personalities as far as 20 y/o can have that. They aren’t sluts. They aren’t prudes. They come in contact with men and fancy some of them – no, those aren’t the “uber alphas”. But all these men are ready to give is casual sex/hookups. Deal breakers from the women’s side are the usual ones (ugly, small, no money at all, Neudeutscher, etc.). My standard analysis would be that there is something wrong with them. But I can’t find it. Anyone an idea?

    Please no manuresphere crap.

    1. What’s their socioeconomic background, and what is the socioeconomic background of the men they meet? I’m not talking about the “Neudeutsche” (= low-IQ savages from Africa or the Middle East, for the non-German readers) who won’t be able to ever do more than live off government handouts.

      Would you date them? If not, why?

    2. Socially they are middle-class to upper middle-class. Profession: students. They aren’t materialistic middle-class whores. They search for students of middle-class to upper middle class. He should have his act together, as in knows what he wants to study and a rough estimate on profession.

      Good question, but yes, I would date all 3 of them, if I hadn’t a girlfriend. One isn’t my particular type though (too chatty), so that would be less serious. One caveat: I don’t know their performance in the sac.
      But, I can only repeat myself I don’t see a deal-breaker which puzzles me.

      For the non-german readers: 10 years ago it was – at least in my not that small circle of friends and acquaintances – virtually unheard of that attractive women are single for a prolongued period of time.

      To any other readers: Did you make similar experiences? Is this really a social trend or an unfortunate turn of events? I thought this whole “No male commitment!” was a revenge fantasy of virgin-TOWs.

    3. Have you considered the possibility that the guys they are looking for aren’t going to find them good enough. My opinion is that it is not that men have no commitment but women just have less value today. Now, I am dead against marriage but even I would marry a good catch.

    4. My thoughts:
      1. The Women aiming high , not impossible but hard to achieve for them.
      2. Men seem to be more selective nowadays (especially the good catches). And women seem to be more forgiving. (At least in my days none accepted getting peed on. [Not what another acquaintance has to accept, for reasons of anonymity I can’t tell the real stuff, but boy, it’s juicy. Yes, pun intended.])
      3. A streak of “bad luck”. As in the women not being the type of the men.

      PS: Thanks @Aaron and @Don for the feedback.

    5. I think they aim too high. The fact that they can’t get any man to commit means that it’s impossible for them.

      Oh, and if those women think that a guy that pees on them would even consider them as girlfriends, then they need to get their head examined. It fully contradicts PUA dogma, but there is a big difference between how you treat a girlfriend, and how you treat a slut you just want to get your rocks off with.

  3. “Oh, and if those women think that a guy that pees on them would even consider them as girlfriends, then they need to get their head examined. It fully contradicts PUA dogma, but there is a big difference between how you treat a girlfriend, and how you treat a slut you just want to get your rocks off with.”
    I see what went wrong: None of the 3 women get a golden shower. I have 1 (one) other acquaintance who agrees to crazy shit akin to getting a golden shower, but what she really accepts I cannot tell bc of anonymity. She is in a relationship with the guy.

    1. Her lover surely does not perceive her to be the future mother of his children.

    2. Yes, he definitely doesn’t consider her marriage material.

      Look at it from the positive side: I get a chuckle out of it every time I think about it. That is worth something.

    3. @sleazy: “Her lover surely does not perceive her to be the future mother of his children.”

      What are you talking about? Since babies poop and pee on new parents, then SURELY, a golden shower is the ultimate pre-screener for motherhood material!!!

  4. Just thought I’d poke my head in and remind everyone that it should never be a goal to try and convince a woman that they’re attracted to you, the goal should be to get a woman who is attracted to you to admit it. Apparently that’s still hilariously in question with people I run into these days, texting for hours with a woman that won’t budge, and thinking that their level of “game” is how convincing and persuasive they are. It’s a fool’s errand and a costly use of your time for no output. Anyways, Aaron, keep doing what you’re doing, love all the latest posts you’ve been putting out, and I’m looking forward to your future publications!

    1. it should never be a goal to try and convince a woman that they’re attracted to you, the goal should be to get a woman who is attracted to you to admit it.
      I agree with the first half. The second half however…
      More like make her to admit she’a attracted, the goal is for you to seek in which level are you. Alek made a mini essay about it.
      You met X girl. You like her, and she seems to be attracted to you. All girls have different ways to convey the message. Your duty is to keep treading waters to see how attracted she is. Start initiating light physical contact, be aware of her responses and behaviors with you, and then keep getting closer and closer. If she’s willing to put herself in situations where both of you are alone, she is giving you the chance for something to happen. There’s no need for her to “admit” anything, most of the times is tacit.

  5. since this is an open thread. I struggle to find a job near my village because I’m felon (don’t want to try at any work found by my family otherwise they could know), illegal jobs are not open to me because I don’t drink with those cool guys that seem to get their jobs at the forests etc and I can’t just go for supermarket job because my mother would make my life a living hell. I need like thousand dollars to move out of this crazy country. So, my father is a farmer. Should I expect him to pay me at all if I do majority of his work? The more I do for him the more “useless lazy fuck” I am being called, and with my personality I struggle to put my thougts aloud before I get external objective view on the matter. I need to earn this money to get outta here, because unemployment is high and I doubt I will find a job in the first 2 weeks out of moving. Or should I just steal my fathers money and pay it back when I find a job?

    1. I understand your desperation but stealing from yout father might be a one way road – you mighy destroy any chance at a relationship with him. The supermarket option sounds like the lesser evil – you only need to stick it out for a while.
      If you are more succesful in the future, no one will remember about you doing the shitty job part. If you steal from your family, no one will ever forget it.

  6. Aaron, do you think it might be a good idea to activate email (or any other kind of) notifications for new comments, in addition to the ones already in place for new posts?

    When you post lots of content in a couple of days (like right now), it’d make it easier to follow the conversations being developed in several threads.

    1. Well, I checked the “Notify me of follow-up comments by email” box in several posts, confirmed they were still checked after refreshing the pages, and thought that would be it. But next morning, all of them are unchecked and I didn’t get any email.

      Does it work only if you leave a comment while checking the box? I did not clear my cache or anything, by the way.

    2. Yes, that option only works in tandem with leaving a comment. There may be a way to access the entire comment feed. I’ll have to look into that.

    3. Well, I opened the WordPress account manager, went to “Manage Followed Sites” and checked the option “Email for new comments” under your blog, which was unchecked (the option for “Emails for new posts” was already checked of course).

      Maybe that will do the trick. I’ll have to wait and see.

    4. You can post if you like the thread too. Like “nice thread guys, i’m subscribing to this”.

    5. That’s the go-to measure in these cases, but I didn’t bring it up because Aaron likes his comment sections free of fluff. Heh.

      Anyway, no one has commented in the other threads, so still no updates from in that regard.

    1. Although if you want to be selective and there are some threads you care for more than others, the best option is indeed to leave a comment on those and not have the “Email for new comments” option checked.

  7. I was browsing the Red Pill sub on Reddit, and feel like I just fell into a PUA time warp. One guy is posting about “Cocky and Funny” routines, and guys are raving about it. Another post is about how fat and ugly guys get hot girls because they are confident and practice “Agree and Amplify”, whatever that is. Again, a lot of guys are wildly agreeing to this. I thought this was stuff was all debunked and discredited years ago……

    1. It’s weird, for some reason there are pockets where guys are into 2001 community stuff. I met a guy in real life who started explaining stuff that we laughed at as being cheesy/old 10-15 years ago. But he was educating me like he discovered some brand new cutting edge secrets to getting chicks.

      Perhaps there’s some internet marketer recycling the 2001 community shit for a new audience? That’d be my guess. I can’t imagine why people would go into the archives of PUA sites and only study the stuff that was current 10-15 years ago. Someone’s recycling and repackaging it I guess.

      I mean these guys are into (for example) shit that RSD was doing 15 years, but even RSD laughs at today “like look at the stupid crap we did 15 years ago”.

    2. @Alek
      Its a shame that Aaron’s stuff isn’t more well-known considering the amount of bad information that is out there. Its really only the guys who dig deep and have at least some modicum of experience who learn about him. I was once a believer of PUA and reader of Girlschase,I learned of Aaron because Chase reviewed his books,I checked him out mostly out of curiosity but once I actually got to reading his stuff,everything fell into place,everything he’s been saying rang true with my experience (albeit limited)

      Speaking of Girlschase though,someone started a discussion about Game in the forums:
      https://www.girlschase.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15963
      (this whole debate started because one of the members of that forum,Ken,was not finding any success at all. He’s been a member/follower for 2 years and and still hasn’t lost his virginity)

      Now,Its probably the same old same old stuff to you,but I find it an interesting read. I wonder if this King bert guy (his username before getting banned,he is now “Guest 0291”)is a regular member here. There were some things I wanted to ask him,too bad he got banned before I ever got the chance.

    3. Girlschase is not about giving you a no nonsense guide of game, its about making money with advice and tricks how to get girls. I recommend taking a look at the website: A lot of programms and only ten articles per month are free.

      There are some good authors like Ricardus Domino or Alek Rolstad (TVA Oslo) and sometimes they write good stuff, but i can easily say 80% is useless and do overcomplicate dating.

  8. I noticed a few guys posting there linking to new PUA guys, but while the names are new, their material is just D’Angelo and old RSD stuff repackaged or recycled. One guy was pushing his special “Daygame” method, and another had a blog on “verbal game”. I guess there is a new generation of clueless idiots running around.

    I am now in a debate with a bunch of guys claiming “cocky and funny” behavior will “trigger attraction.” I feel like I am in Groundhog Day.

    1. I guess it’s a differentiation trick.

      They want to look different than “new PUA” (the stuff RSD came up with in the past 7 years)… so instead of inventing something new, they resurrected 2001 PUA stuff. The new kids weren’t around back then, so it works.

      p.s.

      Both old-game and new-game are BS… But “new game” is substantially less bullshit than old-game. Like 2017 RSD vs 2001 deangelo/mystery/ross jeffries crap.

  9. For those following the comey thing and how the media is trying to spin a narrative. This was extremely telling… ooops

    1. It’s a video of Stephen Colbert announcing that Comey has been fired. But the audience cheers… They haven’t been informed yet that this is supposed to be a “bad thing” (it’s taped before the leftie media gets the narrative out that firing comey is now bad).

      A big oops moment, coz they were supposed to boo about it.

  10. Hmmm. this is interesting piece I saw about a German hockey goaltender. This player apparently ‘liked’ social media posts that compared Hilary Clinton to Hitler. Apparently, that’s bad! (link: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/thomas-greiss-hot-water-likes-social-media/)

    Interestingly, I seem to recall people (i.e. SJW’s with bad grammar) saying “Trump is *literally* Hitler”…and that was OK.

    Similar to @Alek Novy’s post about Stephen Colbert, is there someone out there telling us when it’s ok to boo/cheer and when comparing someone to Hitler is OK/bad?? Please??

    /sarcasm

  11. Aaron,

    By self-proclamation, you’ve been with countless women. In today’s political climate, isn’t that very dangerous? You could’ve been accused of rape by any one of them, and thereafter headaches and extreme distress would ensue.

    1. That is indeed a risk. In general, if a woman seems to be a head case, better back off. I think I mentioned previously that, for instance, I encountered women who insisted I rough them up. If you engage in that kind of behavior, you expose yourself to all kinds of legal problems.

  12. Aaron, I know that you have a hard time with Roissy et al, but I’d like to see your thoughts on the following post.

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/05/18/the-assumed-alpha/

    The final paragraph sums it up:

    “…oftentimes the men who do really well with women are those who are very charming but aren’t especially handsome and are therefore unburdened by women’s expectations. It’s better to pleasantly surprise women than to unpleasantly disappoint women. The Assumed Beta with Game will arouse women to a deeper and longer-lasting intrigue if his alpha personality puts the lie to his beta phenotype. The Assumed Alpha, with inverse alacrity, will disenchant women to a shallower and shorter-lasting curiosity if his beta personality puts the lie to his alpha appearance.”

    From direct personal experience, I certainly identify with what he states here. It of course helps a great deal to be tall and good-looking, but it seems to help as much (if not more in many situations) to have a charismatic and engaging personality along with the right mindset. More to the point: having the right physique just doesn’t seem to be enough in many cases.

    I will add that your overall position on seduction is strong precisely where game is inappropriate or unnecessary — and vice-versa. In situations where at least some girls are likely to get sexual with you very quickly after first meeting you (such as nightclubs and meat market bars), physical attraction and escalation are the most important factors. In other, more general situations, charisma and personality are at least as important. Even in the former situation, it’s quite easy to totally blow a strong initial attraction by doing or saying the wrong thing, as you yourself have pointed out a number of times (your “seduction is like chess” analogy — that you can have a winning position and still lose with a single blunder — is very apt and memorable).

    1. Aaron won’t bother to reply because this shit has been dissected and disproven to death. I’ll give you hints so you can search for answers on the old blogs.

      Hint:

      – False Positives
      – Long term vs short-term mating

    2. Hint3: Attraction vs interest

      – Charm/charisma produce a ton of false positives (numbers, girls reacting well to your advances, girls accepting to hang out with you, maybe even additional makeouts).

      – It also produces results in indirect way (when you’re charming you get set up with/introduced to more people) . It doesn’t make women more sexually attracted though.

      – Conflating what makes a difference in getting a long-term relationship with what will work for casual sex. (you can read more in older discussions)… but yes… personality will get a girl to pick you over another guy for a relationship (increases “long-term attraction). It doesn’t however increase short-term attraction (whom she wants to climb on top of tonight as an ONS or FB).

      – And again remember, personality also produces more false positives. But it also helps with logistics. Like if you’re creepy vs have a pleasant personality she’s more likely to accept going to your apartment. But she did not GROW MORE PHYSICALLY attracted because you have a more pleasant personality. Make sense?

  13. With respect: I think you are wrong — or at least missing or oversimplifying an important part of the bigger picture.

    – If by “false positives” you mean girls who give you attention but are not more or less decided right from the start on what they want or will do with you, I would argue that physical attraction actually produces more false positives — precisely because of its immediate and automatic nature. A guy who gets sexual attention based on his charisma is more likely to go further with it, on the occasions when it does happen, than a guy who gets it based on his physique, even if the latter gets more such attention on average.

    – Being good-looking or higher status will help you get set up with or introduced to more people just as well. However, to the extent that looks and status provide raw sexual attraction (versus mere attention), they only provide a certain (quite high) baseline. You can change this baseline over the long term by going to the gym or working harder at your profession, but at any given moment in a particular social setting, they are fixed. Personality and charisma affect the immediate interactions you get from women and other people in the social scene. In my experience and general observation, raw sexual attraction can actually change a great deal from moment to moment based on these interactions.

    – The factors around long-term and short-term interest are largely independent of the looks/status vs. personality discussion. Yes, a woman’s long-term interest in a man will roughly correspond to her estimation of the “beta provider” aspect of his overall character while her short-term interest will correspond to his “sexy alpha” aspect, on average. The question here is the extent to which that alpha aspect comes from looks/status versus personality, and the relative importance of these based on the particular context and social scene.

    – “But she did not GROW MORE PHYSICALLY attracted because you have a more pleasant personality” — these are independent. Physical attraction is very important, but for women, there is much more to total sexual attraction than just the physical.

    I want to add (again, with respect, as I know that you’re a regular commenter here) that you seem to have responded as if I’m a complete newbie to all this or an internet troll with little real-world experience. I have personally pulled stunts at least at the level of Aaron in some of his anecdotes, and I’m quite familiar with the material on this blog and his old forum. I’m speaking here from experience.

    1. Oh, you’re “that one guy” who gets girls due to game instead of having solid foundations and not fucking it up. I’m very happy to finally meet you. For ONS, personality is almost completely irrelevant. You can be a complete asshole if you want.

      For ONS, physical attraction reigns supreme. That being said, you’re, by your own admission, “that one guy”, so you live in a different reality and can conveniently ignore what we discuss here.

    2. Where is “that one guy” coming from? I never said anything about not having solid foundations, and I certainly don’t live in a bubble. To the extent that I talk about my own experiences, it’s only to say that I’ve directly experienced some of the things you describe, and also that it’s largely through this experience that I know certain things to be possible (escalating successfully within just minutes of meeting a girl, for example).

      I don’t understand the animosity here. My core views on seduction and the male-female dynamic are very similar to your own. Your advice is robust in that it will work for the majority of guys in most situations, and you’ve done a great service in debunking the PUA scene. I’d even say that you are unique in the extent to which you quickly cut through bullshit to point out in simple terms what’s actually going on a lot of the time. I’m definitely not trying to lend support to mainstream PUA nonsense.

      What I am hoping to see more of is discussion of the extent to which personality and social dominance actually can and do make a difference and the precise contexts in which they really don’t matter. Through experience and observation in real-world settings (as opposed to merely trying to reconstruct them from online anecdotes), I have seen that looks and status simply are not enough in many cases, and the realities of socializing and seduction (especially at the very top end) are much more subtle. I agree that for ONS physical attraction is primary, but I disagree that personality is of so little import. If it were really so, it would be more correct to say “For ONS, personality is almost completely irrelevant. You can be a complete niceguy if you want” — which is absolutely not the case, and certainly closer to what most guys are actually trying to overcome.

    3. You’re talking about pointless micro-optimizations. The vast majority of guys will get 99% of their success by fixing their fundamentals. They only need to read Minimal Game and follow the advice. For long-term relationships, personal compatibility is of course very important but you simply won’t be able to effectively “game” at that point. You’re either personally compatible or you are not. One girl might be fascinated by your “winning personality”, to another one you’re just a blow hard.

      You’re talking about the very top end: Dude, access to social circles is dependent on socioeconomic status. If you’re a 1%-er, your looks obviously aren’t so important. I really don’t get what you want to tell me. Also note that I’m absolutely not going to waste my time arguing about semantics. You can be an asshole and have lots of no-strings-attached sex, but being an asshole in a relationship won’t work nearly as well. You can of course be a “nice guy” and have one-night stands — as long as you actively move the interaction forward. Typical “nice guys” are fucking losers who have nothing going for themselves in their lives and are afraid of sexual escalation. They think they will get women by supplicating. However, if you are well put together, you can absolutely buy women drinks and get laid. Shocking, I know. If you do well in life, a few bucks for a drink are a trivial expense, but if you’re a loser who can barely afford rent, chances are you’re very resentful if you make the oh-so big investment of getting a drink and don’t get the girl.

    4. There was a website called “seduction myth” that issued a challenge for GAME/PUA sellers. It was called “the experiment”. Let’s set up a simple experiment.

      Have equal guys do an equal amount of direction escalation, with group A doing game (all the micro optimizations bullshit), and group B not doing game ((just minimal game stuff)). Nobody has taken on the challenge to do this split test and prove you can get a significant difference in results (lays per x amount of well-timed escalations).

      The problem is that when PUA does work, it’s because he sold you a basket that contains minimal game as PART OF IT. So they TAKE the stuff that DOES produce results (the minimal game stuff):

      – Knowing how to read/send signs
      – Knowing when to make a move and what kind of move
      – Knowing when to escalate and how much
      – Doing it in assertive/calibrated way
      (plus only a few more things you’ll learn reading minimal game)…

      They take these things THAT DO actually produce a produce a result (or 99% of the result) but then put them in the same basket as fucking 12324312352135 billion other micro-optimization that either make no difference or make a random difference, or even are a negative.

      So you apply the full basket (and because you’re ALSO doing minimal game, which is part of the basket), you get results, but you attribute it to the other 2322345234 shits in the basket that made no difference.

    5. The vitriol, particularly from Alek, is incredible. I agree with you guys in a broad sense and am highly critical of PUA definitions and concepts around “game”. I took some time today to review Debunking the Seduction Community and some of your other writings. What I’m trying to get at here is something that I feel you haven’t talked about much and would strengthen your presentation considerably, especially as it helps typical guys separate signal from the enormous mass of noise on the topic of women and dating. Hopefully I can clarify this below along with my earlier comments on the relative importance of personality, charisma, and context.

      By “realities of socializing and seduction (especially at the very top end) are much more subtle”, I was not referring to one-percenters in socioeconomic status. I was referring to the very top end of *seduction*. I don’t want to waste time on semantics either, but an important distinction needs to be made: seduction is not the same thing as just being able to consistently get laid. Seduction, in its most precise definition, is the ability to lead women in a variety of situations towards arousal and sex. (cf. etymology of “seduce”: “to entice (a woman) to a surrender of chastity”)

      In this sense, the PUA community’s reference to “seduction” is, unfortunately, the correct use of the term (“game” also referring to this more precise meaning). Probably for this reason, PUA snake oil salesmen types are able to dupe so many guys into buying their product. Most guys just want to get laid (and have fwbs / girlfriends / relationships / etc), but they are told by the PUAs that they need to be all-out seducers in order to do it. Your central message is that this isn’t so and that it is actively counterproductive a lot of the time, and I fully agree.

      However, at the top end of actual seduction (the specific meaning above, i.e. being able to arouse girls in a wide variety of situations rather than going after girls who are obviously showing interest in you or who are already somewhat sexually aroused, as in bars and clubs), I think that there is a considerable element of truth to the idea that personality and charisma are quite important.

      By analogy, anyone can learn to drive a car on good roads and in decent weather. The ability to drive at very high speeds, make difficult maneuvers, or under dangerous weather conditions by knowing how to handle the car’s controls in subtle ways is a level of ability that very few drivers will attain.

      Most people can learn to socialize and relate to the opposite sex at the average level. Knowing what to say and how to act, in subtle ways, in a range of situations with a girl alone or in a larger social context, both in and out of the nightlife, in order to gain social acceptance and arousal from the girl and to do so with relative consistency — this is a level of ability that very few guys will attain.

      Foundational things like physique and status, in my observation and experience, are just not enough in many cases. They will work for the 99% majority out there who want to get laid quickly from bars and clubs and have relationships outside of that. For seduction in its precise original meaning, there is a lot more to consider.

    6. So you’re claiming that there is an “elite” level that is beyond us mere plebs who only want to get laid or have a nice girlfriend? No matter how you phrase it, what you’re suggesting is a complete waste of time. By smart “target selection” (no, not compromising on looks), you can easily get 1 out of 3 girls. Heck, I’ve had plenty of nights out where I approached a grand total of one girl. Please tell me, enlightened one, what I’m missing. Do you want to get laid/have fulfilling relationships, or do you need the ego gratification of having turned around “grey zone girls”, which is a topic that I, by the way, discuss in both Minimal Game and Club Game.

    7. Yes, in part, I’m claiming that there likely exists an elite level of ability along these lines. I’m not claiming to be at this level — nor that you are absolutely below it. But I can feel something based on experience and observation, and my impression is that personality/charisma and knowledge of the subtleties of female psychology start to matter a lot more at that point.

      I’m also claiming that there is more to getting girls than being good-looking and successful and keeping your intentions clear throughout your interactions (though again, I agree that these things carry the majority of the weight). What is seduction, really, if not turning around “grey zone” girls? This isn’t about ego (unless you make it so, which is another contemptible aspect of mainstream PUA).

      Approaching girls at bars or clubs who are giving you strong DTF signals or dating those who are showing strong interest in you due to good foundations is of course a robust and winning strategy, but it’s one that essentially involves reducing the subtlety of interaction required. Charming a girl who isn’t otherwise paying much attention to you and then drawing her into a sexually aroused state, especially in short order and in atypical or socially unacceptable situations, is what I presume most people think of as the art of seduction. The difficulty in doing this is also why the famous seducers in history (Casanova, Lothario, etc) are so exceptionally rare.

      I was going to add a comment before your reply just now that the whole process of “escalating and not fucking up” is a highly concise way of saying what it takes to seduce someone. It’s not fair to say that this is altogether easy in many situations. It requires experience (as you talk about in your books), and raw physical attraction will often fall short. The big lie in PUA is that there is *always* some way to get a girl interested in you regardless of any mismatch in physical attraction and social status. But it’s also misleading to suggest that escalation isn’t quite tricky in a lot of situations — or that there’s no way at all to get the job done if you don’t immediately capture a girl’s attention.

    8. Go ahead and waste your time on grey zone girls. In both Club Game and Minimal Game I lay out my reasons why it’s a bad idea. Overall, I get the impression that you live in some kind of fantasy land. If you think pick up has to be difficult, then be my guest, but let me tell you that you gain absolutely nothing besides dubious ego gratification by attempting to turn around girls who aren’t quite sure whether they like you or not. How about you engage your imagination and flip the sexes in the stories you tell. Let’s say you are only mildly interested in a girl, while there are also others whom you really desire. How do things play out?

    9. I will take the time to review what you wrote on this particular point (“grey zone”), as I have one of your books. It’s otherwise hard for me to elaborate further right now except to say that it still feels like there’s something missing in your description. I’m tempted to say it’s akin to flirtation… an element of romance… something more than mere sexual escalation which a skilled seducer should be able to bring forth more consistently and deeply than others and which depends largely upon charisma and psychology.

      You should take a look at the archive clips on Youtube of the Tom Leykis show. He is a successful American radio personality who made his way from a poor upbringing in a working class neighborhood to the Hollywood hills, married and divorced multiple times, has a lifetime partner count likely in the hundreds, and frequently discusses provocative topics on male-female relations along with his own “Leykis 101” series of advice to guys. His advice is very pragmatic and realistic and closely mirrors your own.

      He is also extremely jaded and has, in my opinion, a broken view on relationships and this element of romance — often comparing hookups with women to using a urinal and advocating outright lying (about e.g. professional status) in order to get sex. It’s just my personal impression, but a skilled seducer of that elite level should be able to leave women with a feeling at the end of having somehow had something special from the interaction, and wanting more, rather than a mere yielding to lustful temptation that she may quickly try to forget or altogether regret later on.

    10. There is nothing “special” about being used. Women who engage in ONS and flings are simply trash and unfit for a serious relationship. Of course, this doesn’t mean that you need to make them feel that they are trash. By definition, you won’t be able to seduce a quality woman, because a quality woman does not engage in risky sexual behavior. Thus, you are trying to make the case for something that does not exist.

    11. I pre-empted these large blocks of fluff you’re giving rick by mentioning the SedMyth Experiment.

      You’re suffering from the same issue as that kid who was selling us on elite bodybuilding. Namely, you haven’t QUANTIFIED anything. There’s two problems with “selling eliteness and micro-optimizations”

      1) No two sellers of eliteness can agree on what is the right micro-optimization
      2) They can’t (or won’t) give a number for that the ROI is

      You’re saying people should make getting laid about 18 times (1800% more complex)… What are the additional results they’d get for increasing their investment by 18 times. Not in fluffy cult-speak… in actual numbers.

      – Will they get laid by 18 times hotter girls? Mathematically impossible.
      – Will they lay 18 times more chicks per 100 hours invested? So if I lay 10 hotties a for every 10 hours trying to pickup chicks*, I should lay 180 chicks by investing those same hours (if I use these micro optimizations)?

      Be specific, quantify it.

      (I do actually get 10 lays per 10 hours invested in trying to pick up chicks. That is my actual number. Because I built a system around having status in a niche and having chicks come to me. I choose from what’s thrown at me, and depending on how easy she’s gonna make it for (or how high quality she is))

    12. Alek: seduction is not just about sex. If you look at it just the way you’ve described, with the goal merely to get fast sex (n.b. fast *arbitrary* sex; i.e. you don’t care who it is you’re with) so long as it’s as hot as possible and with the least expenditure of time and resources, then you’re missing the aspect I’m talking about. Some abilities and interactions are different at a qualitative level. At best you might be able to measure them on a discrete scale (if you’re truly mathematically inclined, you might say that they have a different “cardinality”).

      Sure you can pit two guys of equal physique and status against each other in the same environment and see how their behavior makes a difference (the old show Keys to the VIP might be a reasonable approximation), and sure you can find ways and position yourself into circumstances that get you laid on the regular. But can you make a particular girl fall in love with you? If one guy is able to seduce attractive girls into having emotionally void ONSes but they often disappear afterwards as a result, while another slow-plays a single extremely attractive girl (who of course has other options) through some clever flirtation over a few weeks to build anticipation and then rolls that into a relationship of consistent companionship and sex with a real emotional connection, how do you compare the two?

      How do you quantify a series of psychological states? How do you measure love?

    13. How do you quantify a series of psychological states? How do you measure love?

      And that’s how cults work xD

      Scientology: Give us a measurable quantity of dollars for an un-measurable benefit that we will pitch to you with vague fluffy words xD

    14. Alek: seduction is not just about sex. If you look at it just the way you’ve described, with the goal merely to get fast sex (n.b. fast *arbitrary* sex; i.e. you don’t care who it is you’re with) so long as it’s as hot as possible and with the least expenditure of time and resources, then you’re missing the aspect I’m talking about. Some abilities and interactions are different at a qualitative level. At best you might be able to measure them on a discrete scale (if you’re truly mathematically inclined, you might say that they have a different “cardinality”).

      You can measure non-sex qualities you doofus. You’re starting to piss me off with this shilling.

      Hint: Focusing on pua-style micro-optimizations WILL NOT FUCKING GET YOU HIGHER FUCKING QUALITY WOMEN OR LIFE SATISFACTION THAN WORKING ON OTHER AREAS OF LIFE! Are you fucking braindead?

      Like that’s literally the worst pitch you could have made for “micro-optimizing game”.

      The two alternatives are:

      A) Aaron’s method: Become good in 10 areas, build a fullfilling life with all the hours you save by stopping past the point of dimishing returns (i.e. minimal game)

      B) Minmaxer method: Invest the same energy and hours into “becoming elite” at game

      How THE FUCK would you get a better life by being a loser in every area of life because you invested all your energy minmaxing game? All the super high-quality chicks are like “He spent 10 years becoming elite at macking at the expense of being average/sub-average in every other area of life, that’s so dreamey”. What the holy fuck.

    15. So much bullshit in there, i’ll only make these 2 more points to this PUA shill, then I’m done:

      1) I’ve been in this shit for 15 years bro. I’ve tried (and tested) everything that exists. I’ve done the “charming/charismatic” thing (as in conciously producing it with state and body-language etc)… It produces tons of false positives… it looks impressive. Produces tons of false positives, tons of false friendships, people kissing up to you etc etc etc.

      2) Here’s a hint: THE NUMBER ONE SOURCE OF CHARISMA is ACTUAL REAL WORLD ACCOMPLISHMENTS! That’s the fucking idiotic irony.

      The time you’re spending learning how to DISPLAY charisma, you could go and actually BECOME SOMEONE (like real world fucking accomplishments). When you’re genuinelly SUCCESFULL at something (or really great at 10 things as we suggest), charisma comes out by itself (mostly).

      P.S

      You know where my fucking VITRIOL COMES FROM? From having watched these cults destroy lifes. That’s where it’s fucking coming from. From watching 20 year olds FULL OF POTENTIAL wasting their twenties on learning how to fake the symptoms of success… when they could have spent that decade ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING of substance. They might have become the next steve jobs. Instead they waste their twenties micro-optimizing the skill of “faking the traits of a high-status accomplished person”.

      Here’s a hint DOOFUS. You know why charisma/high-status body-language etc produces those things it does (which you exaggerate, but still)… Because people are wired to fuck/befriend/kiss up to succesfull people.

      Here’s the motherfucking irony

      It takes THE SAME FUCKING TIME TO BECOME SUCCESSFUL as it does to learn how to fake the traits/symptoms of being successful (high status).

    16. It takes THE SAME FUCKING TIME TO BECOME SUCCESSFUL as it does to learn how to fake the traits/symptoms of being successful (high status).

      But being a master faker (displayer of symptoms and attributes) only gets you a portion of the results than ACTUALLY BEING that someone.

      People eventually see through the act.

    17. You know where my fucking VITRIOL COMES FROM? From having watched these cults destroy lifes. That’s where it’s fucking coming from. From watching 20 year olds FULL OF POTENTIAL wasting their twenties on learning how to fake the symptoms of success… when they could have spent that decade ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING of substance. They might have become the next steve jobs. Instead they waste their twenties micro-optimizing the skill of “faking the traits of a high-status accomplished person”.

      When you’re on your deadbed, you will not regret not having spent more time micro-optimizing game. You’re going to regret all those hobbies you didn’t take up because of minmaxing like a dumbass. All the businesses you never got around to starting… etc…

    18. But being a master faker (displayer of symptoms and attributes) only gets you a portion of the results than ACTUALLY BEING that someone.

      People eventually see through the act.

      ESPECIALLY high-quality people/women. Some will even verbalize it like “Oh you’ve mastered this act tehehehe, but that’s all you got, an act”. Puas will say it’s a shit test. No, it’s a high quality chick telling you that you’ve gone down the wrong path by focusing the symptom rather than the cause.

      The most absurd thing you could have fucking brought up is “oh it’s not about the sex, it’s about quality of life”. Like THAT’s THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what that method was created for.

      The whole point (promise) of fucking game (micro optimizations) is that you can be a nobody loser and get laid like you’re someone accomplished. They tell you not to waste time on other areas of life because you can be a loser and get laid by acting like an accomplished person.

      No…

      – ACTING like an accomplished person (while being average at everything except the acting)… will NOT get you better quality of life, better relationships, better friendships or higher quality women THAN ACTUALLY BEING accomplished (plus applying minimal game).

  14. (I do actually get 10 lays per 10 hours invested in trying to pick up chicks. That is my actual number. Because I built a system around having status in a niche and having chicks come to me. I choose from what’s thrown at me, and depending on how easy she’s gonna make it for (or how high quality she is))

    Point being, I don’t have charisma or focus on any of the micro-optimizations. I have a fulfilling life filled with mastering different areas of life that make me happy.

    Now I do invest hundreds of hours a year in the lifestyle/hobbies themselves

    But thing is, I’d do it even if it didn’t get me laid. Nobody would invest 100 hours approaching random chicks if it didn’t get them laid.

    In terms of actually actively trying to get laid (flirting, escalating) my investment is 10 hours a year.

    ==Second point on micro optimizations

    You get most of the micro-optimizations handled with experience ANYWAY.

    If you focus on just minimal game:

    A) you have leftover willpower and time to invest in other areas of life that fullfill you

    B) most of the micro-optimizations will come to you from sheer experience (from the lays you’re getting doing minimal game)… Even if you never read a single blog or book on them.

    So concioisly studying/focusing on micro-optimizations gets even more ridiculous.

    1. It’s about time to release “Maximal Game” which is a compendium of Alek’s posting history. Thanks for sorting shit out and correcting morons on the internet despite having much better stuff to do, Mr. Novy. (not being sarcastic here)

  15. It’s about time to release “Maximal Game” which is a compendium of Alek’s posting history. Thanks for sorting shit out and correcting morons on the internet despite having much better stuff to do, Mr. Novy. (not being sarcastic here)

    I’d love to say “thank you”… but I’m not doing it for altruistic reasons. This is literally my only form of procrastination. If I’m responding to this stuff, it’s because I’m postponing getting something done.

    With that said, the reason these people make us so angry, is that every single one of these dumbasses comes in making the exact same points/arguments we’ve seen for the past ~7 years. But every single one thinks he’s coming up with a unique argument nobody has thought of before. Whereas me and Aaron feel like we’re experiencing Deja Vu for the 238230230th time.

    But that’s brainwashing for you. Like this newest shill probably believes those are his originals thoughts. If you ask him, he probably thinks he came up with this shit (theories/arguments) on his own.

    If people knew how much Aaron has to repeat himself… they’d be more lenient about him being “selfish” and not wanting to answer questions. When he has answered every single question/argument/point 534534 billion times before. People just have to search.

    1. “Whereas me and Aaron feel like we’re experiencing Deja Vu for the 238230230th time.”

      @Aaron: I apologize for speaking in your name… but I guess this is how you feel too, after answering something for 232929th time… with someone barging in here and demanding you spoonfeed them. But you’ve given it away for free for years.

      If someone wants spoon-feeding, they book a consultation. If they want to get away free, they should spend time going through this and the old blog and forum. But the entitlement from some of these guys asking for free spoon-feeding is pretty annoying.

    2. Of course it is. What I find particularly irritating is when people resort to rhetoric fallacies, such as the false dichotomy I hinted at earlier. At the latest at that point it is clear that we’re not dealing with someone stupid but someone malevolent.

    3. Aaron, I feel that you’re at least giving some consideration. I’m quite surprised by the response as I have absolutely no malevolent intent. My goal is nothing more or less than “to follow the truth wherever it may lead”.

      Jesus Christ did I hit the thumbscrew on your lieutenant here, though. PUA shill? Alek, do you understand that I’m trying to separate actual seduction from what passes for it in the “seduction” community and am highly critical of mainstream PUA bullshit? They take grains of truth and build castles in the sky on top. I’ve read Strauss’s book and have looked a bit through mainstream PUA material online in the past, and I sympathize with the fact that it’s ruined the lives of countless men out there.

      “it’s not about the sex, it’s about quality of life” — no. I mean that real seduction is not just about sex! To really seduce someone means to get them to fall for you emotionally, not just physically. Incidentally it happens that sex is a very emotional thing for girls, hence so much of the confusion around the subject of seduction. Making girls have sex with you is not the same thing as making them truly fall for you, and the latter is very much harder to do with any consistency.

    4. You don’t make any sense. Do you even get laid?

      You can’t consistently make girls fall in love with you because you can’t fake personal compatibility.

    5. This is getting hilarious. Do I even get laid? Aaron: do I really sound like your run-of-the-mill troll? Am I going out of my way to brag about how many chicks I’m banging?

      Let me try another approach to try to get on the same page here. “You can’t consistently make girls fall in love with you because you can’t fake personal compatibility”. OK, I agree. But personal compatibility is a very complex thing with a very multifaceted range, and some people have the kind of personality and ability to adapt to and influence others that gives them an appeal to a great variety of other people. They aren’t faking it, they just know what to do and to say in a greater range of situations and with a greater range of other personality types. As anyone who has seen such people in real life can attest, it’s a rare thing and very difficult to learn — so difficult, indeed, that you’d almost conclude that you’re either born with it or not.

      To make an analogy that can be more easily related, instead of making others fall in love, let’s consider what it takes to make them laugh. Your statement here becomes, “You can’t consistently make people laugh because you can’t easily adjust yourself to each person’s particular style of humor”. While this is broadly correct for most people who would try to do so, hence making “humor compatibility” an important factor between most people, does it also imply that there really is *nobody* out there who can make a diverse group of people laugh, in a variety of situations, with relative consistency? How many people are truly, consistently funny and how many are so skilled at humor that they can successfully reach a broad audience? Maybe 3-5% of the general population for the former and a tiny fraction of a percent for the latter.

      You’re a fan of Schopenhauer, and so am I. “Every person takes the limits of their own field of vision for the limits of the world.” You’ve got quite a bit of experience, but do you honestly think you know *everything* there is to know about seduction? Alek: same question. I don’t by any stretch pretend to have all the answers. I’m just pointing out that there is something missing from what you usually talk about, and it has to do with this hard-to-quantify, hard-to-analyze emotional aspect of seduction, where foundational factors just aren’t enough in a lot of cases. If sex were all there was to it, the entire worldwide history of custom, tradition, and literature around love and romance simply wouldn’t exist, and today’s free-for-all hookup culture would be some kind of paradise for men and women — which it clearly is not.

    6. Oh, the troll response, “do you think you know everything about X”! Keep writing all you want, but the fact of the matter is that even if your personality is oh-so malleable, why would you bother adapting it just so that you could bed some chick. In the long run, it will become obvious that you’re only faking it. Just do yourself a favor and shut up.

    7. Of course it is. What I find particularly irritating is when people resort to rhetoric fallacies

      Well, that’s always been annoying, what’s really getting horrible… is that you get new shills making the exact same logical fallacies as the previous 23230 other shills, and feeling clever about it.

      A logical fallacy (arguing in bad faith) is pretty manipulative in itself. But when someone does it to a person who’s obliterated that fallacy a billion times before in a billion ways… it’s a whole new level of fucked up.

      Like if you’re gonna pull that manipulative shit, please do some research to see if other shills before you have tried to pull that shit.

      But I think it’s just brainwashing honestly. Every one of these puabots feels he is special. Each one genuinely believes he’s coming up with unique and novel arguments and points (telling you shit you’ve never thought of). It’s not even conscious.

      Like Rick here probably genuinely feels like he’s enlightening you and telling you things you’ve never considered. Apparently he read “debunking the sed community” and immediately figured out there are things you hand’t consider, so he’s going to enlighten you now about them.

      But if he did any research on forum/blogs he’d know those “arguments” (fallacies in reality) have been brought up (an obliterated) an infinite amount of times before.

    8. I’m not a PUA shill (brainwashed by PUA theories)

      (seconds later)

      I just believe you can make people fall in love with you…

    9. You know, Aaron, I had a different opinion of your work until this exchange. I know your material well and can identify with your personal growth to a great extent. I only spoke up in good faith, supporting your case through ‘tough love’ as it were, not the blind allegiance that you have from your followers here.

      As I type this with a girl I met the other night literally sleeping nude in my arms, an encounter more or less just like in some of your early anecdotes, I can only think that here is a guy who was just like me but has lost something that can only be recovered with great difficulty and introspection. I know what you ultimately want, and it is not yet another hot chick at the club. You want a real woman who can support you while at the same time challenge you to grow further; someone who you can have fantastic sex with but with whom you can also have a great conversation. Someone that will make you fall in love again.

      I have no doubt that you guys can and have pulled many more girls than I have. I know from direct experience that your method works. But if you think that this is all there is to seduction then you are grossly and unfortunately mistaken, and it is ultimately you who will suffer in the long run. To this end I can only suggest that you take a look at the very surprising turn of Tucker Max, a guy whose past stunts and total partner count easily equal or exceed your own. See the Forbes interview he did a few years ago.

      I’ll leave you for now with another quote from Schopenhauer, admittedly somewhat cryptic but certainly appealing to your old self — the Aaron I can relate to.

      “In their search for gold, the alchemists discovered other things — gunpowder, china, medicines, the laws of nature. There is a sense in which we are all alchemists.”

    10. I almost wish you belonged to my inner circle so that you could compare what my life is life versus what you assume it to be like.

    11. I’m not a PUA shill (brainwashed by PUA theories)

      (seconds later)

      I just believe you can make people fall in love with you…

      For people who are new to this, you might be wondering what the connection is. Perhaps you weren’t around in seductionmyth days. So let me explain for the sake of those who are new.

      Basically, it was minmax-gamers (PUAs, Speed Seducers, Seduction Community, DePagangelo etc) who invented the notion that one can CREATE/ MODIFY/ CONTROL attraction by what he says and does.

      Whereas the marketing features heavily on the initial lays (one night stands and casual sex) the theory covers all forms of attraction…

      The claim is that you can “control her attraction switches”. Whether it’s through hypnosis (Speed Seduction) or Cocky & Funny (DePagangelo). The claim is that you can control other people’s attraction mechanisms. Be it long-term attraction (love) or short-term attraction (lust) or social attraction (friendship).

      But what are you guys saying it doesn’t matter what you say and do?!!?

      And that there is the dichotomy. Every sane person agrees that how you do it makes a difference in the outcome (OF COURSE). If you meet people while keeping an open body-language they’re more likely to want to become your friends (social attraction). If you’re charming, you’re going to get more women opening to you than if you’re not (hence increasing the ultimate number of girls who would bang you or become your girlfriend or marry you or fall in love with you). But the charm itself DOES NOT create attraction. Neither lust (short-term desire to bang you), nor love (long-term desire to pair bond and produce offspring).

      The scammy part is the claim that you can “CONTROL” their attraction. This is akin to voodoo magic and witchcraft and love potions.

      they’re more likely to

      The phrase I put in there holds the key. It’s about statistical odds. Certain things increase the odds. This is the objective reality part. This is “minimal game”.

      The key is: you can INFLUENCE attraction, and you can increase interest… But you can’t create / modify / control attraction. One huge reason is that YOU ARE NOT FUCKING TELEPATHIC.

      Even if you could successful fake your way to a relationship (hint you can’t, but that’s out of the scope of this comment)…. But even if you could, the issue is YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT TO FAKE.

      Jane will fall in love with you if you’re kind to dogs and spend more time doing charity than obsessing with your career, Roseanne will fall in love with you if you’re ambitious with your career. Even if you could succesfully fake ambition for career (you have to be braindead to even consider that you could do this)… But even if you could, how do you know which one to fake?

    12. > With that said, the reason these people make us so angry, is that every single one of these dumbasses comes in making the exact same points/arguments we’ve seen for the past ~7 years. But every single one thinks he’s coming up with a unique argument nobody has thought of before. Whereas me and Aaron feel like we’re experiencing Deja Vu for the 238230230th time.

      Alek: all I can say is that this surely comes with the territory. It’s futile to get angry with those who honestly try to understand and fall short. The idea that seduction can occasionally happen very quickly is something I’ve accepted for a long time (partly based on personal experience), but the idea that it may happen with much more consistency when done relatively quickly than when done slowly — the mere thought that this might be true — was a major revelation for me today, something I hadn’t even considered. I certainly agree that it’s not worth arguing with trolls, but the task then is to separate out the few who are in an honest struggle to learn and improve. I am one of them.

  16. Aaron, forgive me if I’m wrong, but as ubiquitous as it usually is to see the topic of dick size wherever men’s sexuality is discussed, I don’t think I have read you tackle the subject. Though I suspect your advice would be along the lines of “like height, you can’t change it, and unlike height, it’s only noticed right before sex, so don’t obsess about it”.

    But it does seem to be an obsession for a lot of guys, and since you seem to have the spare time at the moment to go into very specific stuff, why not?

    1. Heh. That makes me look forward even more to a post of yours about the subject. Because, what shouldn’t be a radical idea sounds like it thank to the preponderance of feel-good advice these days. There’s a debate though on what’s more pleasant to women, whether length or girth.

    2. Did I say I was going to write an article about it?

      Girth vs length is a false dichotomy. How about both?

  17. On second thought: I’ll cede some ground and admit that it’s a mistake on my part to assume what it is you in particular want or don’t want. I was projecting, as I can relate to many things you’ve described about yourself and your background. Personally, I have never been able to sleep with a girl without feeling at least some level of sympathy, empathy, or moral concern — and I certainly felt these things while I was writing my reply earlier. Perhaps we differ here. There are plenty of guys who seem to have truly no qualms about using girls for sex indiscriminately (e.g. Tom Leykis). If you are like this, it obviously changes your perspective.

    What I think is true for the majority: the kind of seduction you advocate is essentially empty and emotionless. What good is it to bang hot chicks all the time if it ultimately won’t lead to real fulfilment?

    I can hardly recall the times when you’ve said anything about how a guy should build emotional attachment to and from girls aside that it only happened once or extremely rarely for you personally. You teach how to seduce the body, not the mind. The more one practices this kind of fast sex and sex-only seduction, the more dulled to emotion one becomes. This is a much bigger deal for girls than for guys — but it’s still true for guys, and it’s worth pointing out again even if it’s been said before, because it’s something that guys should seriously consider before treading all the way into the abyss of the hookup culture. Tucker Max is a strong example, I think.

    1. You are projecting. Why do you assume my sexual relationships are empty and unfulfilling? Also, don’t assume that relationships are either shallow and empty or deep and fulfilling. It’s a wide spectrum.

  18. Hi, Aaron. I have two relatives who around the age of 24. They are really good looking, but they aren’t confident and their social skills are lacking. Is it possible that they will ever find ANYONE? Like, idk, could they find someone for marriage even if it takes awhile, like say in their 30s or 40s? Is it possible that they could at least find someone to marry, even if they lack confidence and good social skills?

    1. Of course. Good looks are enough to get laid. If they want to marry a good woman, they need to fix their life.

    2. Bob men like that shouldn’t get married at all. their wife’s would walk all over them and it’s very likely they will just take it. most likely their wife’s will cheat and divorce them. they should build-up their confidence and self-respect before they engage with women. women dont respect men without confidence. any relationship would be destined to fail and divorce can be a expensive experience.

  19. > Why do you assume my sexual relationships are empty and unfulfilling? Also, don’t assume that relationships are either shallow and empty or deep and fulfilling. It’s a wide spectrum. … I almost wish you belonged to my inner circle so that you could compare what my life is like versus what you assume it to be like.

    Aaron, thanks for your patience in this conversation. Something occurred to me suddenly while thinking about it today that I hadn’t ever considered before. It puts a large number of aspects of the debate here under an entirely new light, and it potentially resolves a huge mass of confusion around what seduction is really about and many of the points of contention I have with the way you present your ideas.

    (I first concede that I haven’t been giving your total life experience enough credit, and I’ll definitely take the business end of that first Schopenhauer quote myself on this point. I decided to take the day off today after finding a copy of your old mASF posts this morning. After reading through some of them now for the first time (I’ve never previously looked into that forum), I’m getting a much clearer picture of how you saw things when you started and what your private life is like (or was like) than what I’ve gained from the material on your recent websites. Hopefully this act and concession will at least convince you and Alek to cut me some slack on the PUA shill / internet troll / malevolence angle, as that’s about as far as possible from where I actually stand.)

    What occurred to me all of a sudden is that *maybe seduction can’t really be done in a slow manner*. Fast, spontaneous (intermittent and unpredictable) arousal is likely the main thing that really gets people hooked on each other (at least initially), leading to the “passionate love” that’s so elusive for so many. For men this happens when the woman in front of them is attractive and feminine, and for women it’s… well, that’s what everyone is trying to figure out (including women themselves)! For many women, it’s possible by being with a physically attractive or successful and high status guy who then escalates (all the foundational stuff you talk about). For others it may be possible through something clever said or done (the charisma / “game” angle). One of the major assumptions of the mainstream seduction community (and mainstream opinion about dating and relationships, for that matter; certainly it was an unconscious assumption of mine until today) is that *there exist slow and gradual approaches* to get women aroused and seduced towards passionate love. Many people (myself included) want this to be true, but it just might not be so!

    I’d like to add more here (including some background on myself to help bridge the gap on where exactly I stand), but I’ll do so a bit later as I have some actual plans to get to and would like to think about this idea more before any further replies.

  20. > Aaron, thanks for your patience in this conversation.

    Yes: something definitely ‘gelled’ for me today in a major way, in large part after looking through your fastseduction forum posts and considering for the first time the idea that fast seduction may be the *rule* rather than the exception. Your own descriptions in some of these posts are actually confirming a lot of the points of contention I had in my mind about your work for a long while. I’m very far from your ability and experience, but we’re much more on the same page than you might think.

    You’re definitely operating at that elite level I had tried to describe earlier as something I can only vaguely feel right now exists (but I do feel it). This is a big reason why it’s so difficult for others to comprehend or relate to what you say. Perhaps vice-versa, also: it may be quite hard for you at this point to recall how it is like to *not* know and see what you now can. In your own words (from an Aug 2009 post):

    “I honestly think that someone who thinks as seduction as a list of techniques to reach a desired outcome (cf. Woodhaven’s report or pretty much anybody in the whole community) does not get what it means to be a real seducer. For instance, I had another insanely quick pull yesterday and even if I described what I had done, virtually nobody else if in my position could have done the same. It’s not just a matter of escalation skills but a matter of perception of the “energy” of the woman […]

    “I used to write about “intuitions” and those were probably the preliminaries to my current game. I “feel” a room, I “feel” which women will be responsive and to which degrees. This is also why I virtually never get those harsh rejections which seem to be the norm […]

    “Let me make use of an analogy. There seems to be a modest interest in MMA in a lot of seduction guys. So let’s imagine this was an MMA board in which guys put up not field reports but fight reports. Let’s say Anderson Silva puts up a report describing in detail how he defeated an opponent. Do you think anybody else could get anything from it without already being an exceptional fighter? In the fight he would not actively think “he is doing x when he is attempting y” but just act and react based on his extensive experience and intuition — and do the right thing, block, avoid or counter attack. Of course, noobs would then write, “But Anderson, when the opponent does x, what exactly do I do in return?” Such questions are simply beside the point.

    “Of course we could talk about basics and fundamentals, but this is just not
    overly fulfilling. And if you ask us to “break things down” then you are simply not operating on the same level as Cosy or me. If someone asks me, “Dude, how do you do instant make-outs?”, and I reply, “I feel that I can do it and do it if I want to”, people would ask for further clarifications or just call me a prick, but it is really how it works. It is impossible to teach intuitions.”

    I understand what you were trying to explain here. It’s like trying to teach someone how to read (and play upon) poker tells: there are just too many subtle variations. What you need to do is develop a kind of pattern recognition rather than always follow a strict set of rules.

    Another post (~Jul 2009):

    “Women want guys like TVA, Kinetic, Cosy or me because of the experience we provide. A sentence I hear in one way or another and over and over from my girls is, “I have never experienced anything like that before. Not even close.””

    Despite my limited experience, I can relate to what you’re saying here. One ex-girlfriend and one or two encounters at one point each explicitly said something along the lines, “you have some kind of power over me, can’t explain it” — which I honestly thought rather funny at the time and nothing much more. If I had to describe the key difference between my state of mind in those few successful situations compared to the many situations when I’ve fizzled out with girls, I’d say it’s mainly an attitudinal shift. In the former I had a relaxed state of mind along the lines of “amused mastery” (to take roissy’s description), while in the latter I was much more obviously nervous or overeager.

    I now think that what happened in your case is that while you had a late start, you were actually pretty much a “natural” in terms of ultimate innate ability to begin with. Of course you see seduction and relationships as things that don’t need to be complicated or difficult! You have all that experience and intuition built up into something that’s now second nature. To use my earlier analogies, you’re like a racecar driver who had great reflexes to begin with and who has trained to the point that they can calmly handle driving conditions that would make most people hyperventilate — or a naturally funny person who has practised his material to the point of being able to quickly make diverse audiences laugh without breaking a sweat. The fact that so many people struggle with dating and relationships is good evidence that it’s not nearly as easy for them.

    I’d like to elaborate further, as this reflection and review today have actually helped me a lot and may be of use to others. I can also clarify my position on exactly what my points of contention are, as I can already tell that what’s been bothering me about seduction and dating is just going to bother me even more as my own understanding gets closer to yours. But I first want to confirm that I’ve convinced you of my intentions and that I’m not some PUA shill or a troll with truly zero experience who is out to try to discredit and put down others merely in order to try to make himself feel better. (Another thing I realized today is that you have a lot more exposure to such types than I do, and the great majority who come along saying that perhaps you don’t know quite everything there is to know about what you’re talking about are more likely incredulous and envious trolls than people honestly seeking after the truth.)

    1. Thanks for the update. I appreciate that you have taken the time to further explore those issues on your own.

      By the way, the old mASF board is down. You mentioned that you have access to an archive of my post. Interestingly enough, I don’t. Would you mind telling me where I can find it? If you don’t want to post this publicly, feel free to contact me via email: aaron.sleazy at gmail.com.

    2. > the old mASF board is down. You mentioned that you have access to an archive of my post. Interestingly enough, I don’t. Would you mind telling me where I can find it?

      I found a copy here: http://www.masf20.com/masf-archive.html — looks like meszi found it as well. Note that you don’t really need to install the included software (though it may help with ease of browsing). After extracting the rar file you can look through the …/Groups/*/*.dat files with a basic text editor as they are essentially plaintext.

    3. I’m the exact opposite of Aaron as are the many friends I’ve helped. And no it’s not just for “People like aaron who had natural potential”.

      – Minimal game is simply “Here are the 20% of factors that make 80% of the difference”.
      – The rest either makes too little difference or you will pick up from experience

      No, there is no over-simplification going here. It only seems that way to you because you’ve been brainwashed that it needs to be more complex.

      It’s like when someone trying to push bodybuilder micro-optimizations.
      You explain why those micro-optimizations are past diminishing returns.

      The person comes back with “Well that’s because you had natural musclegaining potential”… No, it’s the same with gaining muscle too… There are 10% of things that give 80% of results. And in pretty much any area.

    4. I just noticed you’re talking about how Aaron is elite and you need to micro-optimize to become elite…

      Ok, that part might be true. Perhaps Aaron had natural talents that made him elite despite not over-complicating. But the question is then, why do you have to become elite like Aaron?

      Being in the top 5% like most of us who just use minimal game is good enough. No need to be top 1% like Aaron if you don’t have the “natural talent” that Aaron had. It just means sacrificing other areas of life for little additional benefit.

    5. > I just noticed you’re talking about how Aaron is elite and you need to micro-optimize to become elite… Ok, that part might be true. Perhaps Aaron had natural talents that made him elite despite not over-complicating. But the question is then, why do you have to become elite like Aaron? Being in the top 5% like most of us who just use minimal game is good enough. No need to be top 1% like Aaron if you don’t have the “natural talent” that Aaron had. It just means sacrificing other areas of life for little additional benefit.

      Alek: I totally agree. Most guys don’t need to reach the top 1% (or even 5%) of ability to get what they want out of relations with women. I’d guess that the vast majority of guys who bother looking at pickup-oriented websites in the first place, including Aaron’s, are just shy and awkward types trying to get from below average to average — i.e. to the point where they can socialize properly in order to comfortably meet women, engage with them to the point of getting laid reasonably regularly, and then find meaningful relationships. Even most of the rest are quite probably not all that interested in the end in seduction for seduction’s sake.

      Aaron’s overall message, which is that in order to do this you need to focus on improving your life and yourself as a person rather than on dubious techniques for bedding women, is definitely the right one. I just think that a lot of guys remain confused in various ways (I certainly was until yesterday), because pickup and seduction as an art (where you can with relative consistency get sex and passion quickly from a variety of girls) is a game played on an entirely different level. It is itself, pardon the play on words, a *seductive* target that most guys don’t really want or need in the end despite how much it might fascinate them (see again the Tucker Max interview in Forbes, an excellent and insightful read). Also, I think there’s quite a lot of nuance that gets left out of what you guys usually repeat on this site which can actually be taught or at least better illustrated, in my opinion.

      (It’s clear enough that most of the general population at large is pretty confused about how to go about dating and relationships these days. This isn’t surprising, as the current situation is unprecedented on many levels.)

    6. LOL translation for the geeks that want to do pick up: do or do not, there is no trying. feel the force around you. kalm your mind must be. use the force. Yoda’s pick up.

Leave a Reply

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