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!
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!
I have recently taken an interest in Meditation,may I ask if you will be releasing your book on meditation anytime soon?
It’s done when it’s done. I’m sorry I can’t give you a release date.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Her lover surely does not perceive her to be the future mother of his children.
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.
@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!!!
Any chance of you doing the audiobook version of minimal game?
I’ve been thinking about it.
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!
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBdmpag02m4
YouTube title:
PhD Woman Demands That Men Marry Her
Content: Massive cringe fest. Feminist holds a ted x talk about why men are bad for not wanting to marry her and make babies with her.
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?
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.
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.
Thanks for your suggestion. I just activated that option.
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.
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.
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.
Please keep me updated.
You can post if you like the thread too. Like “nice thread guys, i’m subscribing to this”.
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.
Alright, a couple of notifications from other threads just popped up in my mail. So it works.
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.
Great! Thanks for the update.
Aaron, what’s your take on the turkish referendum which is supposed to be held in Germany on re-introduction of capital punishment in Turkey?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/germany-turkey-death-penalty-referendum-voting-ban-merkel-erdogan-gulen-coup-eu-refugees-asylum-a7721301.html
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……
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”.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
For those following the comey thing and how the media is trying to spin a narrative. This was extremely telling… ooops
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.
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
“Comments are turned off for this story.” – what a surprise
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.
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.
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).
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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))
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?
Look up “false dichotomy”.
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
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.
For people who aren’t braindead, here are good summaries on why minmaxing is for idiots:
http://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2017/01/09/minmaxing-wont-work-in-dating-either/#comment-1357
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2016/01/so-whats-strategy-here-pretend-youre.html?showComment=1453821384441#c5832727449388376539
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).
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.
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…
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).
Alek Novy’s words are so sad. So many lives are destroyed by these pseudo-scientific advice. They could have done so much more.
These PUAs like Chase are people who have no conscience.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m not a PUA shill (brainwashed by PUA theories)
(seconds later)
I just believe you can make people fall in love with you…
You really can’t make this stuff up.
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.”
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
Alek
I want to debate you further on your breakdown here to Rick here;
https://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2017/05/03/the-open-thread-may-2017/#comment-3555
“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). “
Agreed. There are a few effective ways to get from hello to sex quickly and ‘countless ways to fuck it up’.
—————————-
“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).”
Lookup the definition of Charm (and Charisma) in the dictionary please.
Charm =the power or quality of delighting, attracting, or fascinating others.
Charisma=compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others.
Both terms imply ‘attraction’ or ‘strong attraction’. It feels to me that’s a contradiction in terms you are using. Charm + Charisma are words usually dropped in to why a guy has an ‘X-Factor’ and gets laid a lot along with his decent looks.
It’s hard to quantify how much charm and charisma play into sexual attraction. Or how much they compel a woman to want to fuck a guy ASAP. but ‘inspire devotion’ is are pretty strong words in the definition no? Someone who can inspire devotion in others is rare. And what is rare is very valuable. If it’s possible a guy is a 7 but his charisma and charm are off the scale that influences sexual attraction and motivates a chick to want to fuck him asap.
—————————————
“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.”
You cannot create attraction out of thin air with words . Agreed . That’s the scam. Attraction Y/N is close to ‘instant’ in time to decide and a perfect evolutionary mechanism pretty much.
Your terms of ‘ influence ‘ vs terms of ‘modify/control’ are confusing in above statement. As the definition of the words modify and control both includes the word and ideas of ‘influence’. ?
So it becomes ‘you can influence attraction’
But you can’t create/influence/influence attraction.
———————-
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.”
I will come back to you on this .
I think a person can very much fake his way into a relationship that’s very observable. Eg Tinder Swindler. Lots of people fake their way into relationships .
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?
If anything, having a big dick is underrated. It’s a huge asset.
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.
Did I say I was going to write an article about it?
Girth vs length is a false dichotomy. How about both?
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.
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.
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?
Of course. Good looks are enough to get laid. If they want to marry a good woman, they need to fix their life.
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.
> 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.
> 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.)
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.
> 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.
Thanks!
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.
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.
> 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.)
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.
I have found this mASF archive:
http://www.masf20.com/masf-archive.html
i can’t believe it, that’s wy you fail.
you must unlearn what you have learned.
concentrate
you must train your self to let go off the thing’s you fear to lose.
sorry guys the thought off geeks using starwars to pick up girls is just to funny.
most off the principles are the same for many thing in life. pick up is not different in that regard.
LOL: bend over and show me your darkside.
Aaron
Reading through all this debate.
Your statement above is the one major flaw in your argument
“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.“
As if ‘quality women’ don’t get horny ,dress up, go out , drink a bit too much and ever have a one night stand with a good looking dude in a bar or club hahahahaa!!
Yeah that NEVER happens!! :O
Oh wait , no, it absolutely does. All the time.
Just never tell a quality dude about it whom they establish a relationship with.
They like to keep all that on the downlow Sleazy. WAY on the downlow buddy! Only their closest girlfriends will know for sure. 😉
So that quality girl may well be an Undercover Ho. And you’ll never, ever, ever know. 🙂
Unless she’s hooked up to a polygraph machine and there’s a skilled operator involved.
BOOM!
Believe it or not, but there are attractive women out there who do not engage in risky sexual behavior.
The average (modal average) for women is only a couple of partners, and they had them as part of relationships. A huge cohort of women has only been with 1 or 2 guys in their lives.
Aaron
Believe it or not, you will never know for sure.
Women have been lying to men about this since time immemorial. Where does the information about a woman’s sexual history come from? the woman. When the man and the woman have “the talk”. And all women will get their advice from older women growing up to downplay that shit because the man may arc up or bail if he thinks she’s been a slut. It’s the old “rule of 3” I heard growing up. ‘Men multiply by 3, women divide’.
So if she’s saying 3 it’s probably 9.
And the difference between are the nights she went out horny ,got a bit too drunk and slept with that good looking, smooth talking stranger.
That information then goes into the vault, of secrets women keep from men.
I knew Alek would be in with the stats 🙂
Alek, they lie on surveys too buddy.
Think about it …
Dude, there are women who do not go to nightclubs and do not drink alcohol either.
In fact, the more attractive, the less likely she is to do so. We know from the research and people who study this stuff: banging random dudes is generally a trashy-girl strategy. Either because she’s of lower class, or
@Jamesetta
Yes, women lie about it when they do hook up with random strangers. But certain girls don’t even need to go the “bang random dudes strategy” because they’re of a high-enough quality to get attention and actual dates from from higher status guys.
All women would prefer if the sex included more than sex. All of them. The only time a girl goes for “just sex” is when she can get higher-quality sperm by dropping that requirement. However, girls who can get “more than just sex” from high-quality men, have no need to drop their criteria and can insist on getting more than just sex.
It’s basically a mating strategy. “If the only chance I have of getting higher-quality guy genes into my pussy is to drop this requirement, well then, I’ll have casual sex”.
Women might rationalize it about how they loooove sex. But funny coincidence: not one of these girls who talks about how much she enjoys random hookups is always the kind of girl who could never ever even get a proper date from that caliber of guys. I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.
Self-esteem also plays a role. The lower-esteem she has (or the more validation she craves), the more likely she is to bang a random genetically superior guy in a bathroom stall. If a girl sees herself as the prize and worth more than just sex, she will always insist on more than sex.
Her higher self-esteem might be because she is genetically superior herself. If she is a 9 herself, then she gets no self-esteem boost by banging a male 9. In fact, her self-esteem would go down and she would feel cheap.
If you’ve ever watched these podcasts with hoes debating male/female issues, you’ll notice all the chicks bragging about banging 30-40-50 guys have one thing in common. Not one of them ranks higher than a 5.
A girl might have higher self-esteem due to her own genetic superiority, coming from a very good family that validated her enough to not need it from random hookups, or a variety of factors. And the opposite can be true. A hotter (8+) girl could have lower self-esteem due to other factors and need to be validated by getting drunk and begging for attention from hot guys. Though its rare at that level. The hotter she is, the less likely she is to crave additional validation from what she already gets just for being hot.
But yeah, basically as Aaron says, there are plenty of girls who don’t need to go into a club and get validated by attention from random drunk men. They have self-worth. They don’t drink, they don’t party, etc.
Your whole spiel with “yeah she might be a bookworm intellectual who’s never gone into a club, but she might secretly be having orgies in back alleys, therefore it doesn’t matter, therefore you might as well accept thrashy hoes, since any chick could secretly be a trashy hoe anyway” is a fallacy argument. Can’t remember what the fallacy is called, but it’s fucking dumb. Yes, its theoretically possible. Your kindest friend that people like for being kind might secretly be a serial killer. Therefore treat known serial killers the same as the kindest people around? What the fuck is your point?
Aaron
“Dude, there are women who do not go to nightclubs and do not drink alcohol either.“
Women hang out in social groups. So are you saying there’s groups of women in the western world that had never drank alcohol and have never been to a nightclub? I’d imagine that % is very low indeed. Or else when her friends say “cmon were all going to to Club X and drinking tonite !” She says “no thanks I’m quality, I’m staying at home protecting my reputation”. I can’t see that happening.
Alek I’m saying if there’s alcohol involved alcohol lower inhibitions. that what it does. So all those noble ideas go out the window and no one needs to know. Especially the next quality guy she meets who is boyfriend material.
You can never know for sure a woman’s sexual history.
But excluding alcohol and nightclubs, there’s vacations away from home, work trips, whatever ..when no one is looking and no one will know .it won’t damage her reputation.
Like sleazy used to say “ women get horny too. Uncontrollably sometimes and they ALL have a weakness for “ romance” and the situation.
This quality girl theory just seems very unrealistic and a very low percentile.
Can’t ever know for sure, despite what the woman says ! They are always biased to tell a guy exactly what he wants to hear and they’re quite skilled at getting a read on the guy.
Alek
When you say high quality girls don’t go around bragging about sex or the number of partners they’ve had… I think that’s proving my point.
Trashy and slutty girls do that. Quality girls keep it on the downlow. The mega downlow.
That doesn’t mean they haven’t done it themselves. “Slut-shaming” amongst women? Hello?
Horny, alcohol, good looking guy, no one watching -> hookup-> backwards rationalisation “bad decision” ->> shhhhhh no one needs to ever know.
Alek-
“you might as well accept thrashy hoes, since any chick could secretly be a trashy hoe anyway”
I never advocated for that ? A trashy hoe is a trashy hoe. I’m saying there’s a flaw in the criterion for what is a “quality girl” . Max 3 LTRs 0 hookups or whatnot,
The flaw is you cannot ever know the truth about a woman’s sexual history if you’re using that to determine if she is a quality chick and meets your acceptable behaviour. Because that information is coming from the woman. And the woman is heavily biased to lie to you about it because she knows better than to scare off a guy who may be quality relationship material.
TL: DR
Defining a girl as a quality girl in by her sexual past as a major component is irrational. Because you can never know for sure .because the source is biased. And so is the “data”.
Rationality deals with facts no?
The fact is – it’s indeterminable?
A rational way would be to look at her genetics – is she hot , is she educated is she suitable on all other measureable scales.
If the facts can be gathered , sure of course not.
And Alek
Wtf is all this shit about the time it takes to gain status + charisma + looks is the SAME time as it takes to learn “Game” ??!
Whaaaat?
You must have been a real slow learner, Soz buddy.
Getting Status ? Years
Getting a great physique ? What 2 Years?
Charisma ? Unquantifiable really
If the alpha way is the shortest time from A to B with the least effort involved .
If the goal is to get laid “today” and if a guy can learn whatever technique he can in 3 months from another guy that really knows how to work it, (Possible imo) Then tricking women into bed via the ‘Game of manipulation’ of everything and anything he can IS the Alpha Way ?!
If a dude is horny as fuck and the goal is to get laid with a chick at a similar quality level as himself.
That’s quicker than building a ripped physique in the gym , building status through his work, building finance . He should be trying to do that
anyway.
I guess the super – alpha way A->B is get a loan from the bank , go to brothel and fuck a heap of prostitutes.
There’s no way the time it takes to build Status+Body+Cash+Charisma = the time it takes to trick a woman into bed!
Come on and hit me with the “ you must only fuck fatties “ counter argument …
It’s not only fatties. Just sayin 😀
I ussually don’t add caveats and clarifications because it would make the comments as long as a doctoral thesis.
The caveat: Some guys can get good at “game” and “manipulating women into bed” rather quickly.
It’s not about how long it takes to learn (the theory about what to do). It’s about how long it takes to force yourself to do something that feels unnatural. All the guys I’ve seen who get good at “manipulating chicks” game quickly are psychopaths.
A normal guy feels iffy and feels anxiety about doing this stuff. It’s similar to what Aaron mention in a recent post about how feeling insecure about something is generally a sign you should be insecure about it. The insecurity is there for a reason. Like if you’re insecure about your weight, you should be, so you can go hit the gym.
It’s actually faster/less work to go hit the gym and fix your weight, than force yourself to feel secure about being out of shape. For most normal human beings.
Some people (here’s the caveat) find it easier to trick themselves into feeling secure about their weight. In their case, it is the faster route. Same with things like approach anxiety. If you feel anxiety about approaching a chick and showing high-status signals… You should. Evolution designed you this way so you can go and become higher status, more fit etc before you approach girls. For some guys learning the habit of acting high-status despite being a loser is the shortcut. I’d say those are a minority of guys.
tl;dr
For most people faking high-status is just like forcing yourself to approach when you have approach anxiety. And you have it for a reason. We evolved that way. There had always been serious repercussions for people who act “above their class” historically.
And women actually find it so egregious they’re passing laws to deem it “rape” if you misrepresent your status or success before bedding a woman. So just like approach anxiety, that mechanism in your body is there for a reason.
For most normal humans it’s faster to earn actual real status, than to force yourself to fake it. It’s not about knowing how to effectively fake it (you can learn all the information in a couple of months). Just like approach anxiety it takes a ton of work (for non psychopaths) to override it.
Is see what your saying.
Hit the gym fix the weight and that builds natural confidence etc. that is true.
And the breeding of psychopaths can be the big downside of the manipulation game approach.
Not sure about the status .
You’ve written about it no doubt but couldn’t find here via the search bar.
Building actual status.. how long in your theory?
Charisma .. not sure how long either , charisma is a tricky one. Hence I guess why all the RSD guys are now selling “ charisma coaching” LOL.
Tyler and Jeffy now the burnt out old men selling charisma XD
To me The Game was always “training wheels” a short term fix to come off and go to a individualised Minimal Game.
I think the issue I would see with MG is that it may be too much of a ‘quantum leap’ for a shy guy. I think there’s the element of ‘verbals’ that’s not trained enough with that approach .
Now the argument is “ words don’t matter / just fix anti-game” . I’d say “ it’s not what u say it’s that way u say it” . Prosody erc
Sleazy mentions but skips over in his books and says “ we bantered a bit .. etc” , ( wtf did u say) you state stuff about “framing interactions” so you only accept the “ Chad treatment” (isn’t that still ‘Gaming??! Manipulation?)
I reckon what I say and how it’s said is still important. to ‘set the scene ‘ with a chick and lead through the next steps of my strategy to get her knickers off.
And it’s very handy when there’s no green zone girls around to tune the Grey Zone girls to get my dick wet( Tonight!). Max the opportunities given the constraints. Plus I like turning women on more and more with what I say to get them soaking wet before I fuck them in the back of my car etc. I like having that “skill” and it is a skill a verbal skill. Smooth Talker . Whatever.
I could see guys after hitting the gym and with new clothes etc and some status still having anxiety cos the verbals are not automatic .
And some of the old “ Game” audio courses are still useful. Sleazy needs to do an audio course to go along with the book. I demand to know if he sounds like a German Ross Jeffries or not .
TL:DR
How long to build real word status and verbal confidence for approach?!
Also I do have to say your approach to “fix yourself first” in some ways harks back to nice guy thinking. Ie If only I was better then they should like me,and when I’m better and fix myself they will like me.
To me there’s a phrase I read somewhere that stuck as a mantra “females of any species will not mate with non aggressive males”.
There’s is an element or aggression , dominance and submission going on to get a quick fuck. I got better results purely just switching up my approaches to be more aggressive, I was fine as I was I did need some canned phrases though to use to get over the propensity to be “nice”.
I saw that in guys I hung out with who got laid quickly too. A dominating mindset. And hey looks too for sure.
It’s like the girl knows off the bat “ this guy isn’t fucking around, he doesn’t have anxiety about it , he’s 100% DTF and will pull the trigger. “ maybe she thinks “I’m gonna get a good lay here, it’s worth the effort.”
I heard a great audio on this idea from Scotty F titled “ are YOU sexually available?” ( you as a man – not her) .it’s like dancing , the man leads the woman follows.
TL: DR – there’s an element of nice guy thinking still prevalent in the your approach to teaching and philosophy . There is an element missing imo. I think it’s related to verbals and voice. Subtext, framing, bantering etc. An audio course would be a great addition. And there are still elements of old school”game” you both are using and may not realise it.
“Cheeky_Jamesetta, perhaps try to sperg out a little less. When people say that it does not matter what you talk about, they obviously imply that the context is that you are a somewhat well-adjusted member of society. Even a 10/10 Chad will creep out women if he start talking about how he likes to stroke his meat to hentai“
Aaron , I will try to condense.
You said above “personality is irrelevant in a ONS. The guy can act like a total asshole if he wants” true. So a 10/10 Chad talking to a 7/8 chick can probably talk about masturbating to hentai if she’s salivating to fuck him asap. She’ll laugh it off ,press her tits onto him laugh and say “you’re such an asshole Chad haha”. If he’s boring she’ll take over . He’s a 10. Unless he throws a drink in her face he CANT fuck it up.
If the guy is a 7 in looks (as I assume most will be learning pickup) – Verbals and “how” the guy talks is very important. I can’t see how that’s being taught through a book.
“Not specific enough, if like u say ,there are countless ways to fuck it up.”
Why should you specifically focus on all the ways you can fuck an interaction up? Just narrow in on what works but beware that you can easily terminate a woman’s interest if you veer off course.
Pickernanny
That’s not my point. I’m re-emphasising and agreeing there ARE countless ways to fuck it up.
And trying to point out Sleazys “narrowing in” is not nearly narrow enough. It’s still too broad and vague. It’s encouraging improvising the verbals and thus quite easily veering off course for a newbie!
It’s missing some key ideas and tried and tested shit that’s part of ‘the course’ /steps / process that minimises newbies veering off course and fucking it up!
See my further comments below re pickup as it relates to a ‘sale’ and the basic 2 steps as relating to the video of Scotty doing Day Pickup. Do you agree with the analogy or not? If you don’t and you see no similarities there’s no point debating why banter influence and comms are important skills in the process.
Ur idea of pickup may be as it relates to a very high SMV guy that can do whatever, say whatever and still NOT fuck it up. Ie “Words Dont Matter”. Aka Chad.
I’m talking about newbies trying to learn pickup 7 and 8 s in looks as it all comes down to “value exchange”.
Pickernanny
I’m keen to know from the ‘professors ‘ if my rationale is completely incorrect that’s why I’m trying to debate this. I thought I was in fact a rational dude. I’ve read a lot of the Anti-Game shit, PuAHate archives etc but something is missing in my mind from my own experience. what I see re Scotty doing pickup lines up with my understanding of it.
If what I’m proposing has been thoroughly debunked 15 years ago and I am in fact trying to argue the same old shit for the 2345789100nth time..please someone post me a link to the Internet Archive and I can get further de-programmed. GL&S , pickernanny , Alek maybe u can please help and flick me a link. Cheers!
Many thanks!!
Alek -Is this the ‘debunk’ from 15 years ago?
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2012/12/guest-post-what-game-is-and-isnt-by.html?m=1
Alek-
Can I ask u a question – how low did u get stuck in “PUA-Land” ? I see above that u have vitriol of time wasted and ur friends wasted lives etc. totally appreciate that and I’m not advocating for PUA or “ shilling” or whatever.
Was it really ~10 years ish?
Wtf were u studying – RSD? Do u know that whole crew were trained in conversational hypnosis (fact) and their whole mission was to confuse guys and keep them going around in circles yeah? They should all be sued or shot tbh.
And yes as sleazy said in the book
“ if the woman likes you – it doesn’t matter what u say or do” . *To an extent*. Picking up chicks purely non-verbally takes experience, confidence , and a high level of looks . “Value”
So that approach may only work for guys very high on the scale of “value” or *outlier guys with something else going for them. ( I think Sleazy is an outlier tbh)Not the mere mortals at a 7 in looks.
“I think Sleazy is an outlier tbh”
I think that goes without saying. The man had the right insight/mindset,and was in the right time (today’s woke culture probably wouldn’t have tolerated his behavior,lol) and the right environment to fully explore that insight. And he was generous enough to share his experiences and what he learned with us so that we can benefit from it,and even derive new lessons that we can share.
This is reminding me of what I wrote here on Aaron’s post in 2022:
https://blog.aaronsleazy.com/index.php/2022/05/24/marshmallow-test-b-s/
__________
Anyway,that’s my perspective on all this. Aaron,you’re one of the most brilliant writers I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting. I think part of the reason why so many people get taken in by frauds and hucksters is because people want to find that there is more to life than the boring mundane way of doing things. (Not that I can really blame them…)
I know for fact that there is indeed much more to life than the mundane. But I believe it takes a special kind of life experience to be able to identify those who are telling the truth and those who are selling lies to make a buck off of you.
__________
Man,I’ve gotten so far since then. Are we just lucky? that our experiences managed to guide us into discovering certain truths about the world (Aaron’s insight into true female nature being just one area) that is completely invisible (sometimes even incomprehensible. ) to many average joes out there?
I don’t know. They say ignorance is bliss,but I think I would prefer to know what I know (I’m not quite pleased/content with who I am as a person right now to be quite honest,but I don’t regret knowing the things I do) to be honest than to have lived my life as oblivious (describing them as “blissfully happy” would be quite the stretch. I daresay most of them do not fit that description) as blue pill joe.
Maou
I’d say outlier because
-Pretty Tall 6’3
-Unconventionally good looking ( Adrien Brody a like so I’m guessing big shnoz)
-Big shlong by all his accounts ( in the 2% who knows)
+aggressive
women seem to have some kind of in-built radar for “big shlong” – maybe it’s just scanning a guys package area who knows.
So drunk, horny, and just looking for a good fuck tonite – ideal candidate.
Unfortunately 3 of the above cannot be ‘taught’ by any method. Put a cucumber down the pants perhaps.
Cheeky, how do you expect us to respond to your posts when you write 52 in a row? Too wordy and disjointed at that. Please stop spamming and condense your thoughts.
I think I’m no-polar and I’m in my up-cycle tbh 😀
Fair enough. Will do.
Ohhhh. Now I realize why you guys say this is a woman. Completely the way they discuss things. Not sure why she is shilling for PUAs though.
I’ve tried adding TL:DR’s now 🙂
I’m a Boomer.
The Boomer thing explains it haha. Yeah it would be appreciated if you break it down more concise.
Heres my points;
-For a guy starting from 0 , It takes less time to learn manipulation techniques (say 3 months) than it takes to build real-world status, charisma, looks maxx and get results with MG . (1 year + ?) Therefore manipulation is the more efficient way to approach pickup than MG ,as its the shortest time with least effort. Plus possibility of conversion of grey zone girls into lays when greens zone girls are constrained.
-Aleks theories and MG in some ways have parallels to the Nice Guy Syndrome. If I make myself better they will like me.
-MG doesnt focus enough on the verbals and voice. ” just dont have anti-game/ words dont matter”. Sleazy mentions he banters with girls quite a bit in his books.
If your looks are below an 8 and you have no outlier attributes , what u say and how u say it matter.
-Alek is still using the basic theory of old school Game. by asking for non chad treatment from girls for sex even though he’s not a Chad. (frames, manipulation, playing the numbers)
-Women are heavily biased towards not revealing the truth about their sexual history. So classifying Quality Girls as <=3 LTRs and 0 hookups is irrational.
I think that was all.
I think physical escalation covers everything you mention. Dominance, “Charisma,” leading the dancing,(Quickly physically escalating is more efficient than dancing, whether she likes you or not) but the same thing as dancing really, assuming she thinks you’re hot.
If she doesn’t, you’ve saved time and maybe opened up other (possibly better) opportunities. Also chicks just enjoy to dance. It doesn’t mean she’s interested. Might as well touch her and find out right away.
Or talking…,…The least effective way to escalate. Remember, the title is MINIMAL Game.
Hmmm. Yeah physical escalation is one thing. There still needs to be some verbals , some chat that’s not “nice guy talk”.
Verbal escalation as being the least effective ? debateable. You’re not always in a bar or club or able to do a bold move. I think VE is a very handy skill to learn .
What about Verbal Dominance? – I see Alek mentioning he implies things to girls re his ‘Chad Sex only treatment ‘via verbal frames. I see Sleazy talking about banter and being an “asshole” . Asshole is a broad term. Thats VD. Frame Control . That’s old school game. I don’t recall reading that in MG. That’s the missing bit for me and I still see it talked about here and in the book.
I still *don’t * see it talked about (in depth) here or in the book ,I meant to say
Yeah, I remember having a discussion with Aaron about being an ass hole. But this reemphasizes his point that it doesn’t matter what you say. As long as she’s into your looks. Why do you think the old saying is that “women decide whether they’ll have sex with a man within seconds of meeting him?”
Don’t overthink it. Use Occam’s Razor.
GL&S:
There’s no doubt about it. This is how women who try too hard to sound smart argue on the internet. Midwit guys also write in a rambling way, but different. Any cursory look at a public discussion on sports shows you.
Cheeky Jane is a female troll. Who knows, though? She might identify as something else, hah.
???? Manuel.
The only thing that confuses me the PUA related comments. Did they recruit her do speak for them? Is it the result of a disfunctional society?
Damn. Tried to do the smiley again but it resulted in question marks.
GL&S
My point is “it doesn’t matter what you say “ is not quite true. That only applies if a guy is VERY good looking. Below an 8 in looks I think verbals are important.
Look at this statement from Alek from another post ‘Beta providers don’t get real sex..”
“That’s kinda why I wanted to say I’m a notbeta… My approach to chicks is “I will not take the beta treatment, I only take chad-like treatment.”
Most chicks go “ughh you’re not hot enough to get the Chad treatment”, but a percentage of them do find me hot enough to give me the Chad treatment.”
He’s using verbal frame control to get Chad sex even though he’s not a Chad. And he’s playing the number with that.
How is that not the same as ‘game’ as laid out in the book The Game. That’s basically MM to me.
Ie Manipulating the chick so she sees u as more alpha to the get her into bed quicker?
Also Sleazy mentions he banters with chicks almost in every instance in his books afaik.
Why doesn’t he talk about philosophy or video gaming if it doesn’t matter what the guy says?
I think banter is important and necessary below a certain looks level . Banter is flirting.
Chicks love banter
Still need verbals unless you are extremely good looking in my book. Verbals can’t hurt a guy. I don’t think ‘escalation’ quite covers it enough.
And yes sexual attraction happens in less than a second afaik . It’s pretty much instant and a perfect evolutionary mechanism. It can’t be created after the fact . Agreed on all of that.
GL&S: I think it just suits her agenda. PUAs are the ultimate simps after all. They’re just sleazy simps, contrary to the “nice guy” simps.
Can someone please explain to me how what Alek is saying in my quote above is not basically the same as ‘Mystery Method ‘
Ie manipulation of factors to get Chad treatment even though you are no a Chad and playing the numbers. Please.
And why Sleazy says “words don’t matter , just don’t fuck it up” yet mentions he ‘Banters’ with women in most instances.
They are the bits I’m talking about.
-Banter or Teasing is another word for ‘flirting’
-Negging was the MM word for ‘flirting’
-Framing interactions for Chad like treatment even tho you are not a Chad is ‘flirting’
-getting laid despite being a total asshole means ‘flirting’
– asshole is a broad term it basically means banter teasing’ frame control ‘ ie flirting.
So everybody is still flirting just like always, since time. And saying words don’t matter just don’t fuck it up don’t’ anti-game’.
No – flirting matters and it’s important
Unless u are a 10 in looks and a Greek God.
Do you understand my point?
TL:DR – I’m pointing out the ‘mode’ of communication matters in pickup. Verbal skills are necessary, ‘how u say it’ matters. And it clearly matters because everyone is still using it.
GL&S
“Yeah, I remember having a discussion with Aaron about being an ass hole. But this reemphasizes his point that it doesn’t matter what you say. As long as she’s into your looks. “
No. That’s is only holds true if guy is 9-10 in looks and she’s salivating at the opportunity to fuck the guy. ( she’s an 7-8 say)
Guy can still fuck it up talking about computer programming and how he’s loving ‘ Baldurs Gate 3’atm. He’s better off Bantering with her.
There is sexual attraction which is instant.
There is also sexual tension which can certainly be broken by what a guy says. “Don’t fuck it up” isn’t specific enough. Verbals and modes of communication matter imo.
And it’s clear they do , cos everyone who is having success getting laid mentions it in some form. Mainly using the broad term “asshole”.
Cheeky_Jamesetta, perhaps try to sperg out a little less. When people say that it does not matter what you talk about, they obviously imply that the context is that you are a somewhat well-adjusted member of society. Even a 10/10 Chad will creep out women if he start talking about how he likes to stroke his meat to hentai.
Yes, communication matters. At a MINIMAL level. Nowhere near the level of looks and physical escalation. In his books Aaron says to not talk about politics, religion or sports. To make statements, not ask questions. Asking questions is a magic trick. It appears to work but it doesn’t create attraction. Of course, mystery was a magician. Lots of those guys are. At the end of the day magicians are frauds. Look into Good Looking Loser. I think he wasted a portion of his life with the bone heads at RSD.
Hmm. It’s not as simple or as minimal as that .
When the advice is don’t talk about “XYZ” ..and just “don’t fuck it up” it’s leaving out a key bit imo.
I never said anything about asking questions either. I’m talking about bantering, teasing, negging , etc that’s the ‘mode’ of comms.
Bantering isn’t questions.
It’s setting a very useful dynamic and signalling certain things to a woman.
That’s what I see Sleazy and Alek still using ,
Please refer to my quoting of Alex’s approach to getting Chad-like sex above and explain how it’s any different to the theory of MM.
GLL hung out with Scotty who is legit I don’t know about him.
RSD are a whole other story.
Especially in bars and clubs.
I’m fully aware that Scotty and GLL are legit. My point was that they spent time in the PUA racket. That’s what turned them away from those dumb asses. Most of us here at some point went through this journey. Scotty’s opinions deviate sharply from your own:
https://youtu.be/PZQ6Brjnz0c
About Alek’s comments. I think he was just talking about having standards + playing the numbers. Again, simplicity.
GL&S
I thought Chris was outed as a fraud or something but anyway…
Thanks for posting that video. That’s a great demo and illustrates some of my points about taking a guy from 0 to pickup.
Jeff Magic fails because his vibe is nice guy/pussy and he’s asking stupid PuA questions. Epic fail.
Jimmy does better but it’s too clunky and no physical escalation. Fail.
As for Scotty yes absolutely that guy can say pretty much anything – his looks value is a 10!!!
Before he opens his mouth his NVs practically scream his “personality” – Bad-Boy. And he’s a skilled dude, lots of experience.
Now take a scenario of taking a tall guy , 7 in looks, say a computer programmer, ->reads MG -> Gym for a year-> Image->basic advice on escalation and verbals , be direct , don’t anti game ,don’t fuck it up .
Now send him in with those 3 others in the video . Is he gonna do as well as Scotty?
What’s the chances he’s gonna say something to fuck it up ? High. After the hand grab and the hello he’s still got to ‘fluff talk ‘ her all the way to the sex part that could be 30 minutes, 1 hour away whatever . He’s still gotta learn the art of small talk or banter or bullshit. Imo.
He can’t skip the talk mate -cos he’s not a 10 !
He’s a programmer not a Bad-Boy.
Does that make sense?
GL&S
“About Alek’s comments. I think he was just talking about having standards + playing the numbers. Again, simplicity.“
Not exactly . He said he communicates he only accepts the Chad treatment even tho he is not the Chad. And a small % hit rate.
Which to me is the same as saying –
I only accept the Alpha treatment even tho I am Beta. And a small % hit rate. Which in mind is exactly what “Game “ was all about ?
I have to qualify my statement a bit to illustrate my points
-As for Scotty yes absolutely that guy can say pretty much anything- >> but the *way* he says it will have “the vibe” .. he’ll talk slow, he may use innuendo , he’ll add a little purr and growl in his voice ,there will be subtext of fast sex from how he says things if you get me.
Hard to learn how to talk sexy from a book. Impossible without an audio course tbh. That’s what I’m saying. That’s the missing bit imo.
I replied to the wrong threat please delete the copy
Aaron-
“Cheeky_Jamesetta, perhaps try to sperg out a little less. When people say that it does not matter what you talk about, they obviously imply that the context is that you are a somewhat well-adjusted member of society. Even a 10/10 Chad will creep out women if he start talking about how he likes to stroke his meat to hentai“
I will try to condense.
You said above “personality is irrelevant in a ONS. The guy can act like a total asshole if he wants” looks are King. Etc true. So a 10/10 Chad talking to a 7/8 chick can probably talk about masturbating to hentai no worries. if she’s salivating to fuck him asap. She’ll laugh it off ,press her tits onto him laugh and say “you’re such an asshole Chad haha”. If he’s boring she’ll take over . He’s a 10. Unless he throws a drink in her face he CANT fuck it up.
If the guy is a 7 in looks (as I assume most will be learning pickup) – Verbals and “how” the guy talks is very important. I can’t see how that’s being taught through a book.
Aaron
“When people say that it does not matter what you talk about, they obviously imply that the context is that you are a somewhat well-adjusted member of society. “
Would you describe Scotty as looking like a ‘somewhat well adjusted member of society’?
Talking to a chick in the context that u are somewhat well-adjusted member of society.. is boring. That’s nice guy talk. She’s horny and DTF? She doesn’t wanna hear that shit. That’s a turn off. She wants fun ,sexy, dominant ,masculine etc etc Scotty and Chad 10 bring it all with the looks. How is Joe 7 gonna?
Scotty is extremely good at communicating and an exceptional conversationalist. An aspie with his body and appearance would not do nearly as well.
I think you’re kinda proving my point there Aaron.
I think that’s why a computer programmer who’s a 7 may not get laid reading MG, fixing the fundamentals and just going direct with escalation , without learning effective verbals.
Scotty has looks and verbal game. it’s a package.
And how he communicates to chicks is hard to learn from reading a book. And cant be learned in the gym. That’s my point. Every guy I’ve met who was good at pickup was also a good conversationalist /smooth talker/ great at banter etc
but yet guys on here say “ it doesn’t matter what u say “ , “ just don’t fuck it up” ?
I think you are setting up a false dichotomy. We have discussed the topic of conversation before. There are a few posts on the topic of “anti-game”. In short, you need to meet a certain bar to not be perceived as weird but you do not have to have the gift of the gab.
So you are basically saying to a newbie who may have little experience and lots of anxiety about approaching and talking to chicks
– “improvise, just don’t fuck it up”
Hmmm ..ok.
I guess it’s sink or swim then.
You are not arguing in good faith.
I’m struggling to see the difference between what Alek is doing and my understanding of “The Game”.
And wondering if ‘banter’ and verbal skills are necessary and how they are being taught via the book MG.
I’ll go back and read the Anti-Game threads then. thanks for the replies .
Cheeky, you’re gonna find me pop up in many ant-game discussions. It’s not because I’m weird or not smooth. It was there for the taking if I had physically escalated. You are aware that women physically escalated too, yes? I was too mentally fucked up to pick up on the signals. Largely because the pick up industry acts like getting women is all about social skills. Not to get too far into it but I thought I had no personality. And the pick up bullshit that permeates our culture made me worse. Girls would put it right out there for the taking. I was too stupid to pick up on. I did nothing verbally. If I physically escalated I would have fucked them. Hot ones too 8/10. BTW I’m NOT a 10.
GL&S
Speaking of Scotty check out this video this illustrates what I mean
https://rumble.com/v13km9w-scotty-picks-up-a-girl-and-heads-in-the-direction-of-his-car-3.html
Now ,this is a outside of a club yes but what is Scotty trying to do ?
1. Establish mutual sexual attraction
2. Influence the girl to go from point A to point B (his car) to get a fuck in as shortest time possible.
He’s attempting to influence her through his conversation, verbals to go to point B.
He needs to overcome any objections she has.
Girls will put up objections (usually)
It’s the same steps in a club .
To me a pickup resembles a sale.
Once mutual attraction is established it’s influence and persuasion to get the girl from point A to point B ( the bathroom stall , ur car outside, ur place or hers) to fuck her.
If the guy is not a Chad or like Scotty a bad boy or a Rockstar Asshole (Say he’s a dressed up 7) Just physical escalation + basic verbals insnt enough imo. He still needs to overcome any objections , deal with obstacles, influence and persuade and ramp up interest if necessary .
Verbals, tactics, influence, manipulation, etc etc
The girl isn’t usually going to lead. She needs a story , an excuse some kind of “frame “ to work in ….?
I don’t see that being taught in the book MG.
That’s the smooth talking I’m on about.
It’s the same thing I see Alex describe re non Chad treatment and implying frames etc.
Does that make sense or no?
Yes Cheeky, it makes sense. Earlier you said Chris GLL is a fraud. Did he fake his “in field” videos or something? I always thought his content was solid.
Everything about Scotty is masculine. He did touch her early and often.
Chris was busted doing fake infields with hired actresses afaik.
Well I’m glad I’m finally making sense.
Scotty is touching, yes. And doing the long hand hold (great move). The touch on the arm is the best way to convey sexually interest off the bat imo. But that’s all it does.
He’s touching he’s holding her hand..
But he’s also talking..talking..talking..talking to influence the girl ,all the way to his point B .
Overcoming objections on the way.
., gameplan, tactics, Influence, persuasion, overcoming obstacles
He’s like Jordan Belfort on the phone selling stocks, pickup imo is similar to a Sale. A true seducer is like a salesman, except he’s selling the idea of “ exciting quality sex-today!” (Buy Now!!)
The art is closing the sale today, tonite or right now in the bathroom stall.
Any guy can get up the balls (eventually) to get physical. But not any guy can talk smooth to get from A->B. That’s “the Art”.
A 7 reading MG + looks maxxing +some escalation moves still isn’t learning the “talk “.
Cos afaik it’s not in Sleazys book ? it’s been dropped out and more towards as “words don’t matter-do anti game /just don’t fuck it up”.
That’s what I mean about Verbals , (to beat my point to death) 😀
And the other aspect of The Art is the image. Look at Scotry. It’s 100% “Bad Boy/Danger” . The chick knows what’s up from the second she looks at him. Maybe shes ‘green’,maybe ‘grey’. Doesn’t matter.
When Sleazy said above “personality is irrelevant for a ONS” it’s not exactly true.
Why? Because Scotty’s ‘personality’ is conveyed through his Thin Slice. His archetype. His image.
He doesn’t need to convey “Alpha” through words. He screams “Alpha-Bad Boy with his image. His personality is already Shining Through.
So therefore ‘Personality’ is actually QUITE relevant for a ONS. Wether or not he’s an ‘asshole’ is the subjective opinion of the chick.
TL:DR So my ultimate question is
Can you take a 7 guy , give him the book MG , get him to fix his fundamentals and image etc tell him to improvise and don’t anti-game with his verbals and send him out to pickup with success like Scotty and Sleazy?
I don’t see it happening.
What’s up with your constant false dichotomies? If I tell you that to advance in your career, a good first step is to work hard, but then you compete with someone who only needs five or six hours of sleep a night, is taller, and better looking, and at least as competent as you, then you will also not get the same result. However, you will still do better than all those guys who only make the least amount of effort to not get fired.
And yes I post a lot. there’s a lot of dimensions when talking about communication. Plus I’m on the other side of the planet close to Antartica , sometimes it takes 15 hours to get a reply. 😛
Coming off confident is not mutually exclusive with building your body and having a cool style though. You ever put on a tie and just stand up a little more straight? Scotty looks confident largely because he LOOKS cool. Of course he doesn’t where a tie as it doesn’t fit his lifestyle. But Aaron talks extensively about exercise and fashion in his books. It’s the same thing in the end. Whatever you think about GLL he advocates confidence in your LOOKS.
Well that bit is true. Building a great body (2 years?) and having good posture and cool style breeds confidence in how a guy looks and feels about himself.
But it doesn’t make a guy a great communicator.
The gym doesn’t teach comms skills.
I’m betting Scotty’s confidence comes from his looks +his smarts +his comms +his experience and success with picking up chicks in many environs, over and over .
“Don’t anti-game /don’t fuck it up” is a bit too loose and basic and open ended.
In a nutshell I’d describe it as ‘Street Smarts’.
Going ‘direct’ with verbals can fuck it up.
To me everything in the pickup is said ‘indirectly’. And speaking indirectly and having great comms and street smarts is an acquired skill outside of self-confidence .
Sleazy, I’m not even fully sure what the term you used means. A comparison of 2 I assume.I shall google and refrain 🙂
In that career analogy,
I would tell the first guy -hard work isn’t enough to advance his career.
I’d advise him to get street-smart, use strategies, learn great communication skills, influence skills and any tactics he can to get ahead cos that will advance his career quicker than just working hard.
Because he is in competition with the Tall ,Better Looking and more productive guy and he will need all of those things working for him to get to advance in that career.
It think it is possible for him to advance quicker. And tell him that every manager I know has those skills and uses them to jump above the guy just working hard.
The lazy guy needs to start working hard to get into the competition .
The point is that there will always be someone who is taller, better looking, younger/older, lives in a nicer place, has a fancier car, etc. But instead of trying to look for some “magic bullet”, as PUAs used to call it, you are better off improving yourself so that you are in a better position. Of course “hard work” is not the only determinant for advancing your career, but ceteris paribus it is an advantage. If you and some other guy are equally charming or equally great at kissing ass, and one of you gets twice as much done, then that person will look better. Likewise, if you and some other guy have similar conversational skills, but one is in much better shape, then the latter will be considered more attractive. If you are now itching to write that this is all theoretical because no two guys are that similar to each other, then you are missing the point. In that case, take the same guy, and assume that in one scenario he has worked on his physique or developing certain skills, etc.
I don’t quite get what ur saying now.
2 guys say they are twin brothers, the same in all dimensions of communication and looks and the guy with the better physique is considered more attractive … and??
Do either of them know how to pickup chicks?
I’m saying I think what you are teaching wrt to how to approach an interaction to pickup re teh verbals is too vague and open ended for a newbie. Even with fixing all the fundamentals I think it’s still too much of a quantum leap. I think there’s more going on in the interactions than is explained in MG. That’s all basically.
And I think Alek is still using the principles of Da Game to get Chad like treatment for quick sex ! 😀
Have you actually tried following the recommendations in Minimal Game or are you just keyboard jokeying, to use an old PUA community term?
I read the book a few times and nodded my head at most of it. But I felt something was missing. I was always decent enough in my youth but was not consistent. At the time I came across your book, I already had an effective method of quick lays consistently through reading Strauss’ book and soon after dropping what I didn’t need after I developed intuitions and forward thinking. There was other bits from other methods i tried and kept in the mix also.
I can see where your method works but it relies a lot on those intuitions installed already. I think it’s missing a few things that would help newbies.
Please have a look at my post above and the video re Scotty’s day time pickup . Is what I’m outlining about 2 main steps in a pickup correct or not?
Scotty is trying to;
1. Establish mutual sexual attraction
2. Influence the girl to go from point A to point B (his car) to get a fuck in as shortest time possible.
Does pickup resemble a “sale” or to you or nah?
Is there influence involved in a pickup for you or not? When u say u banter with a chick that means setting up a dynamic right ? I don’t see that concept being taught in the book.
Surely you understand that it is not possible to document every single possible interaction between men and women and provide concrete advice. Minimal Game offers a concise and very effective framework. Instead of your abstract objections, why not provide us with some concrete examples? Also, what exactly are you arguing about? Sure, if you look for some kind of “complete manual” to verbal pickup, Minimal Game obviously does not provide it, and neither does any other book. Do you even still go out and try to pick up women? If not, then please spare me your bullshit.
If you refuse to go out and see how interactions unfold in practice, it does not matter what you read. One of the most common responses about Minimal Game I have received over the years is that it provides the right amount of information to steer guys through the process, and I would agree with this sentiment as this book is completely built on practical experience, discarding convoluted PUA nonsense and keeping the bare essence. An objection by some shills was that this book does not contain any information that could not also be found in some other books. I do not think this is true, but if we accept this statement, for the sake of the argument, then it is still the case that other books also serve you heaps of superfluous and often downright harmful material.
I reread ur post “ do you have anti-game”
This comment from yourself –
“It’s not about “the” problem but about a potentially wide variety of problems that need to be fixed. While there is one path from “hello” to sex, with some variations, there are countless ways to not get to sex.“
I’d agree roughly
Theres a few effective ways to get from “hello” to sex. And there are countless ways to fuck it up. For a newbie.
And your advice to newbies basically is “fix the fundamentals ,look for signals, approach, talk should be socially appropriate and well adjusted , physically escalate, dont have anti-game and don’t fuck it up” ??
Not specific enough, if like u say ,there are countless ways to fuck it up.
Well Mystery had a crack at it and developed a “method” , step by step. Remove the stupid jargon from his method and it’s not bad . It’s better for newbies imo cos it makes them think in steps and think ahead. (Guys that have some looks of course.) he teaches some banter it’s lame but gives the gist. He tries to set up a dynamic. Overcoming objections. Some influence ideas etc etc . I think that’s better training wheels for a newbie tbh than basically “improvise , talk normal and escalate , don’t anti- game, don’t fuck it up”
Like to be honest Sleazy, hasnt that what guys have basically always been trying.. and getting nowhere??
You could add an appendix with some examples of the kind of banter, how u talk about sex, some phrases , some moves that you make . Something specific . An audio course to hear how Sleazy says it. Yknow? There’s so much going on in communication . 1 phrase could be said 10 different ways. Had to get an understanding just from a book even. Audiobook would be great.
Dude I’m wayyyy too old to be dressing like a rockstar and trying to pull chicks in Clubs.
Still could tho haha ????
So now you have devolved into a Mystery Method shill. The word “training wheels” is straight out of his marketing materials. I am not going to repeat the discussions on this topic I had over 15 years ago.
I’d argue there’s some solid old school pickup audio and video courses that teach solid verbal game ideas well tbh. And others outside of pickup. vocal power courses etc.
Training Wheels is a commonly used English turn of phrase I was using to describe how I used it.
Fair enough. Thanks for the discussion .
Maybe an appendix on Banter would be a useful addition to your book and some audio lessons. that all I’m saying really.
What+ how something is said can be key to setting up the lay once it’s on.
I would point out though – if I was a new guy say if I were to pick up a similar book to yours on pickup maybe with an expanded title such as –
“Minimal Game ~ For Tall, Dark, Handsome Dominant,Witty Asshole Guys (With Big Dicks) – How To Get Laid In Niche Clubs In Berlin And London.”
I’m not sure much could be learned from the above book tbh.
Maybe just ‘Dominant , Witty Asshole’ – aka being an asshole through Banter verbal domination .
Banter works, it cuts through in Bars and Ckub.
it’s the most effective mode of communication. It does a lot of great things.
At least MM tried to break it down and teach it. You mention u banter at the start quite a few times .(I see Alek saying some shit about using frame control to get Chad sex around here also.)
Having socially well adjusted conversation is too broad a description there’s too much improvisation and too many ways to say the wrong thing or slip into ‘Nice’ territory. Even with your hand on her ass. It’s incongruent ?
Asshole is what a guy should be going for.
Nice is harder to pull off it’s more dependant on the image of the guy.
Like u said of ur friend and student Lisbon
He looks like a killer but he comes across too nice and pussy. It’s incongruent.
Mystery and others used to refer to their teachings as “training wheels”. This was the standard defense when people brought up that their ideas about picking up women seemed pretty out there. You were supposed to practice magic tricks, approaching from a 45 degree angle, and “openers” until you no longer needed it, but they somehow skipped how to talk to women without being a total weirdo.
Well all I can say was I read all that and skipped the magic tricks cos that seemed goofy and stupid to me from the get go. I didn’t want to be ‘magician asshole’ I could see I could be ‘me asshole’ and that worked much better than being ‘me improvising’ or ‘me nice’ . I looked at the steps , the process.
The process is solid enough to minimise the countless way to fuck up a pickup for an ONS.
Your process is basically the same in steps Sleazy (!)from what I can tell reading your books.
Maybe u can’t see that.
Aleks process seems similar from what I’ve read how he gets ‘Chad Treatment for quick sex even tho he’s not a Chad.
The process is look for signals of interest, approach, banter to set up a dynamic and ur high status , escalate physically and calibrate , isolate chick and influence chick to extract her from location A to ur location B to fuck the chick. That’s basically it no? Same same.
Location may be Bathroom stall, car , bedroom wherever.
Is that accurate or not.
There is banter and there is influence that is not being taught in ur books and I think it’s better to be an asshole than to improvise or be nice to max results for a quick fuck.
And a script is easier to work for a newbie than to ‘improvise and don’t Fuck it up’.
I was taught that in a commission only sales job.
The script works , there’s guys making money using the script don’t try to improvise to suit the customer. Learn how to work the script .
That’s how Jordan Belfort taught his newbie stockbrokers to get rich like him. Work the script exactly like The Wolf. Overcome the objections , influence by any means and make the chick on the phone buy the stock. Today.
Replace stock with” sex”
Actually not that I think about it let me clarify something important I left out.
I dis think the magic trick gimmicky shit.
But could see they were goofy and pussy – so I took them and took the total piss when I did them. I made them all Sleazy , Sexy and realised they were a great excuse to start touching a girl .my motto was ‘how can I use this to escalate?’
My mantra has always been ‘it’s not what u say it’s way u say it”
Example A ‘Palm Read’ – I made it sexy, make it obvious as snow to her it’s a pick up gimmick and make it sexual and end it with “ see that line here ? That’s your BLOWJOB line.” 🙂 haha and lolz at the end.
That’s much better imo than directly saying “u look like u give great blowjobs” at the early stages of the interaction.
I made everything I said sexual through my tone of voice etc.
that’s how I see things as “ working the script”.
I “worked” what I had. Everything dimension I had to make myself sexy to the chick.
The shit that always worked I kept in. The others I jettisoned. And added my own inventions as I went along. But I tried to minimise to eventually make it all as quick as possible from A->B.
I think that’s a better way to approach learning pickup.
The fundamentals should be worked in tandem over a longer timeframe (of course !) to improve attractiveness to lay hotter chicks. down the track.
You live in a dreamworld. Words will not make her attracted to you. However, you can obviously ruin a perfectly good interaction that would have led to sex by being a weirdo.
That learning curve for a newbie as I see it would be.
Use all the steps and work the script
->take 3 hours to get an ONS
Make it repeatable
Drop unnecessary shit
-> take 2 hours
Optimise it and make bolder moves
-> take 1 hours
Optimise it and make even bolder moves and add new fun locations close by (parking lots , alleyways, your car parked close by)
-> 30 minutes
Optimise and strip the verbals back altogether quick pulls
-> 5-15 minutes
Something like that roughly.
Sleazy Please look over my last 3 or 4 replies if u have the time. You’re cherry picking small bits out imo.
Does pickup resemble a sale to u or not.
Does influence play a part to u.
Does banter play a part for u.
Are the 2 broad steps I outlined re Scotty the basic summary of what’s going on.
Is your process pretty much the same as MM in sequential steps.
Is what Alek outlined not the same as The Game by Strauss as I have compared.
Do u think important parts of ‘the process ‘ of pickup are being left out as I’ve outlined in the Sale analogy.
No dude.
I’m not in the dreamworld of ‘looks don’t matter’ and ‘words create attraction’.
I’m saying ‘it’s more a case of not WHAT u say rather the WAY it’s said’ . How something is said matters and can convey a completely different message to the words being said.
A guy with great verbal skills can talk to a chick about The Weather. But in doing so his voice tone and prosody and choice of words may convey lots of other things.
It may convey the message “ I am talking about the weather ,but we both know I’m really talking about sex and I’m talking to you because I think you’re hot and I’m down to fuck you tonight.”
All that is not conveyed by the words themselves . It’s conveyed by the way it’s said and how the guy is standing and holding her hand, smiling and looking at her.
Perhaps that can’t be stated directly for various reasons as it would fuck up the pickup.
She receives the message loud and clear and signals back to him “I’m down too, please proceed with taking me from A to B to fuck me”
all of this is indirect.
Does that make any sense?
Because comms works on many channels as u well know.
It all comes back to what u said about Scotty being good at communicating and an exceptional conversationalist. That was my point that makes total sense.
I don’t see exceptional conversational skills or voice shit being taught because the idea seems to be “words don’t matter,be normal-don’t Fuck it up”
That’s a real skill and it’s appreciated because it’s indirect. Not direct and clumsy like Jimmy in the video with Jeff Magic.
Am I right or am I right.
Try bullet points or an outline and I assure you we can deal with your arguments.