The other day I got an email from Scotty Flamingo, completely out of the blue. You may be familiar with him. I met Scotty in person when I visited NYC about a decade ago, and we had a lot of fun hitting the clubs together. He is has a small YouTube channel with quite a few videos. Check it out here: https://www.youtube.com/@brianharris4080
Scotty focuses on quick pulls. He is a really cool guy and about as non-mainstream as it gets.
Appreciate it man !!! Pleasure talking with you
Hi Scotty. Since you’ve been in this for a while, I assume you can talk from experience for guys who are not super-young.
If you don’t mind, what’s your age, and chicks you typically pick up? What ages of clients do you work with?
I am speaking to Alek Novy.
I think this kind of black and white thing is caused by his side as well. Because here we brought out all the nasty sides of 30-40ish women so when Alek talked about banging 19-20ish chicks, we assume that he is only interested in that particular demography. I was on the same boat like you too. I even thought that Alek’s looks has declined and was reacting to changing circumstance.
I don’t think it has a lot to do with IQ.
Hey Alec, thanks for the comment. I’m 37 and I work with guys of all ages. I’d say 23 and up. And as far as the types of checks I usually get generally Spanish black sometimes white. You can email me here – bharris11501@yahoo.com
Reason I ask is because as of lately we’ve been discussing if it even makes sense to bother with this kind of stuff post 35. Sugar dating seems like a better investment if you want hot, young and fertile.
Any 35+ clients? And by types of chicks I mean their ages.
@Alek, that’s how they got Cody Wilson. You worried at all about inadvertently banging an underage girl doing that?
“hot, young and fertile.”
Idk why fertile matters anyways, it’s just sterile sex in the end. Just fuck 25-35 year olds that take care of themselves. Hell, chicks in their late 20s and 30s often go fucking crazy sexually. Not a bad deal if you just want non-committal sex.
Lol, was this comment serious? Did you actually think the saying means people will actually pull out a fertility test? 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
It’s just a cliche saying kind of telling why we’re attracted to women that age. Consciously you’re not interested in fertility, but BIOLOGICALLY the reason why younger women are hotter is BECAUSE they’re more fertile. It is markers of fertility that make a woman hotter.
So saying “hot and fertile” is just like saying “hot and hot”. It’s just a way of reinforcing the point. The two are synonymous.
Now obviously, if a chick has some genetic disorder and she’s infertile because of it, but still just as hot, you’ll still be just as attracted to her. I think you way over-read into that line man. Chillax 😀
@Herkerderker. That’s a dumb question. How did you even manage to misread it that badly? When you’re a 40 year old guy, even 25 year old women are young to you.
More specifically, women become suddenly much less attractive exactly at the time they starting losing fertility. At 29 it starts going down. Again “fertile” is just a synonym for sexually attractive, because we’re not attracted to infertile women.
I gotta say these last two comments are starting to make me afraid to comment again. I sometimes really wonder how sometimes they’ll be a string of commenters who just manage to misread something in the most uncharitable way possible, and then attribute it to you.
Look, guys, I’m not going to spend 10 minutes proofreading my comments to put in all the caveats to prevent the most uncharitable reading. Too much work. I come here in between work breaks, and comment something quickly. It’s not my job and I’m not getting paid for it.
One last clarification, due to the insane levels of misreading. I already clarified in another thread that I would do a mix of everything. Some fit 40 year olds, 35 year olds, some 27 year olds, some 25… Some chicks from sugar, some free, etc etc.
How the fuck does someone come in and misattribute to me that I would have communicated something equivalent to “so you only want to have sex with chicks who are max fertile, that’s extreme”. Only if you ascribe extreme bullshit it onto me that I never said. And then herkerderker took it to a whole other level of extremity.
The reason I brought up younger, is because when you’re 40, banging 40 year old chicks is a given. You literally can have tons of sex with 40 year olds with zero effort. They literally throw themselves at you.
I actually wanted to bring this up in an open thread. I think dating coaches should also share age to give context. For example, 23 year old guys banging 31 year old women is not a feat. 40 year old guy banging 29 year olds is a feat requiring skill and advice. You don’t need help banging 35 year olds.
“Ooooh but why are you so obssed with 29 year olds, 35 year olds can be great too”. I know you fucking doofus. The best sex I had ever had in my life was when I was 25 and she was 40. Super freak.
It’s just in the context of advice, help with getting laid. Again, no 40 year old needs help banging 40 year old (or even 35 year old chicks). It’s like drinking water from a fountain.
Reading the old archives and the whole confirmation that “Attraction cannot be created” through the debate with the PUA peddlers back then,its easy to forget that closing the deal (with attractive women),is still,a skill. Just not the “creating attraction” part.
I think one of your old analogies,is that if you approach 10 women,even if you’ve correctly read the signals and deduced that all of them are attracted,you might only manage to get one of them.
Anyway,it seems the path to succeeding in seduction and business aren’t that different. You might be familiar with the recommendation of having “multiple streams/sources of income”. You seem to be applying that strategy as well for your sex life. (Free sex with attractive enough women your age when the opportunity arises,some effort/investment for the younger/hotter ones,sugar daddying,and then there’s straight up paid sex,etc.)
Definitely a smart move.
Exactly. It’s similar in business as well. The best solutions are often a combination of different things. A multi-layered combination approach tends to work best. Most people think in black and white terms.
That’s why if I even mention the topic of banging 25 year olds, the immediate projection is “so why do you only want to bang 25 year olds?? Did you know that 35 year olds can fuck well?? Duuuuurr”. Because most people aren’t thinking in terms of combinations and multi-layered approaches.
“I think you way over-read into that line man. Chillax ????”
Lmao! Listen buddy, I love ya and you’re a wealth of information. And I’m not going to lie, when you go on these rants they’re part of what I like about ya.
I honestly didn’t think you were being redundant when you used the term fertile. But still, I imagine that as I get into my 40s and am approaching my 50s that I just won’t really care about banging 19 year olds that much. I’m just making an innocuous and personal point here. Basically, if I wasn’t interested in fathering children and as long as whatever chick that was in front of me made my dick hard then I wouldn’t care if she was 38.
I don’t think sugar dating would ever be a viable option for me personally as I imagine it’s monetarily too exorbitant. It has to be one of the most expensive options, or at least I imagine it being that way. Since you have the infrastructure in place to status max then that to me seems like the most cost effective solution even if you have to sacrifice some level of fertility or whatever. Also, why choose sugar dating over prostitution assuming it is legal where you are? Companionship? Don’t sugar baby relations usually mean actual dating and hooking up in exchange for like you paying them an allowance or covering their rent, taking them shopping etc.? I really don’t know honestly. Seems kind of like something I’d rather avoid.
@Alek, Idk much about sugar dating. I’m assuming it happens on a sugar dating website, in which case it’s been shown women can misrepresent themselves as being of age. Was curious if you were worried about that possibility
I didn’t invent the line, it’s a common line. It’s like saying “Hot & Sexy”.
Here you go again, you’re doing it again. First you went with the most extreme example (19), and you’re doing it right before talking about the other extreme (38 year olds).
You’re projecting an “amount of caring”. This is something that I have to deal with people outside of the blog. Don’t expect it from people on here.
You can’t even mention something without people thinking you “care about it a lot”, because most people engage in such simplified black&white thinking and can’t fanthom you might be interested in a 100 things at 1% each. If you mention one thing, they assume you are interested in the thing at 30-100%. Because they are like that.
Neither would I. More either-or and black&white thinking here. Has it ever occured to you that two things can be true at the same time?
If a fit 38 year old starts hitting on me, I go ahead and bang her, yes. And? What’s your point. Would you ONLY bang 38-40 year olds? Come on now. Don’t fucking bullshit me. No human male in the history of human males would be fine with only having sex with only 38 year olds. That has never happened, and will never happen.
And again, you’re engaging in Either-Or thinking.
You’re engaging in Either-Or thinking. Either one does the most expensive type of this, or not at all. There are levels to this, it’s not black and white.
Listen, stereotypical sugar-dating is where a really old man pays really young chicks a lot of money for company and takes them on yachts and gifts them ferraris. That’s just the stereotypical, cartoonish example. It’s a much wider category than that. Nowadays they have something called “splenda dating” just to differentiate. Which is for non-rich guys, and not spending much (or at all).
It’s like regular dating, just with some gifts here and there. Also, young students are super-duper cheap.
You’re engaging in Either-Or thinking. You can’t imagine a multi-layered approach that involves multiple ideas at the same time where they intermingle.
Sugar Dating is a LOT CHEAPER for attractive guys. A LOT. Even some chads engage in it, because they pay to SAVE TIME. Same goes with if you build status etc.
Sugar Dating is expensive if you’re an ugly 60 year old who has nothing going for him except an ability to pay. If you have a great lifestyle and lots of status, and you’re in the category of “I would have banged him for free”, that’s the best option.
Most of the sugar-daddy people I’ve been watching are doing it to save time, not because they can’t get it for free. You’re paying so she doesn’t fall in love and so you can focus on your work instead of texting clingy chicks all day.
Btw, 38 year olds ARE WORSE AT THIS than younger chicks. They become super duper clingy and they won’t let you get any work done. They’ll text you 2201 times a day about where you and what you are doing, and when is the marriage coming.
Yes prostitution is illegal. Secondly, there are no sugar-datting websites where I’m at. All the major sugar-dating websites have either 0 or a total of 2 girls on there (both of them haven’t logged since 2000).
Again, it feels kind of weird that you’re having me defend something I never said (because you’re using the most extreme black and white definition of sugar dating), and something which is 5% of my overall lifestyle.
It’s just something I’d throw in here and there and it flows naturally with the rest of my lifestyle. Yes, I have status with lots of hot chicks. However, some of the younger ones are on the fence and they need 5% to push them over the edge. I don’t have to adopt a fucking identity of either being the “SD guy” or the “gets laid from status guy” or the “fucks old chicks for free” guy. That’s how low IQ individuals operate since their brains can’t adopt multi-layered approaches.
This isn’t because I’m older. I would use leverage where I can to save time. It’s about WHAT’S MOST EFFICIENT at any given time in any given situation. Stop thinking in black and white either/or categories.
And again, fucking the older 38 year olds who throw themselves at you isn’t a magic pill, because THEY ARE THE MOST clingy. The reason they throw themselves at you is because you’re desperate. Unless you block her right after sex, just the amount of messages and call you’ll have to deal with has a MONETARY cost involved. She’s more expensive than a little gift for some younger girl.
Maybe because we don’t know a variety of types of sugar-dating, thus making lots of assumptions based on the common stereotype.
Exactly my point. This is something I expect from low-iq indivudals, not regulars on this blog. I don’t make confident statements on topics I know nothing about.
Dude, I’m not saying or implying half the shit you’re accusing me of. You’re legitimately extrapolating a ton of assumptions from like two paragraphs of me just riffing. It’s not about you.
But you wrote entire paragraphs about me, and what I’ll be doing, and then say it doesn’t involve me. It doesn’t even matter if it involves me or not, you are engaging in some really huge misunderstandings of how things work and lots of black and white thinking.
Even if it is 100% about you, the ideas about the black and white thinking is still the same. So if it is about you, then you would ONLY bang 38 year olds, and never bang a 22 year old just because the 38 year old is easier on the upfront?
I’m just informing you of all the logical fallacies you’re making. A 38-year old is only easier on the upfront, but on the backend there’s a ton more drama.
Even if it is all about you, the perception that sugar-dating is a “ton of money” means you have a very cartoonish and unbalanced understanding of things. You’re thinking in extremes, instead of levels, layers etc.
Okay, fine. I concede. Can I honestly ask you how does sugar dating even work in your opinion or from your understanding? I am making assumptions about it based off my limited understanding of it. To be clear, I ASSUME it requires a lot of time and money to pull off which manifests itself in getting to know a sugar baby, dating her—basically providing her incentives in the form of time/resources and occasionally banging her. The pay off, in my mind, is you can get consistent access to young 8-9/10 chicks as well as companionship in the form of them putting their best foot forward, otherwise you would just drop her if she was difficult or a bitch. I would actually be interested in learning more about if not simply for the sake of curiosity.
Ok, we’re getting somewhere. Curiosity is always better than assumptions. Btw its not just assumptions about sugar-dating that are the issue. I mention a younger-chick, and the immediate assumption is “so you only want to bang younger? Why only younger??”.
Back to your questions. In essence sugar-dating is a wide umbrella term for any type of dating where she gets something more out of the relationship than just your effort/looks, as in traditional dating.
If you use it really widely, you can even throw in an example like this: You’re an older but famous DJ and dating hot young chicks and taking them with you to shows and taking pictures with them, they get status and attention from it, taking them on your your with you (so they get the gift of travel, accommodation) etc.
Sugar Dating works best when it’s a chick who would have banged you even without these benefits, but she would have asked for a ton of pursuing and jumping through hoops. Which is what most chicks do. Unless you’re a male model 10, you know that chicks will put you through all kinds of hoops to where you need to PROVE how serious you are and that you’re INVESTING in her.
Well, as it turns out, on this planet, with human females YOU CANNOT get laid without some investment (unless you’re 5 points in looks above the chick, and she’s a super slut). YOU HAVE to invest in one way or another. That’s not a choice you can make. You can’t choose NOT TO invest.
People who make a lot of money do so because they understand that time is money. Entrepreneurs are really fond of this kind of dating because it SAVES MONEY. It’s cheaper than “vanilla dating”. It’s CHEAPER to buy her a $70 gift than invest $2200 equivalent of labor convincing her you’re a serious prospect.
“Back to your questions. In essence sugar-dating is a wide umbrella term for any type of dating where she gets something more out of the relationship than just your effort/looks, as in traditional dating.”
I’m going to have to make another assumption and say that these arrangements are generally explicit. Otherwise, I imagine the chick is going to over step the boundaries of the relationship and push for commitment or some shit (it could just be implicit and you simply drop her once she crosses a specific boundary). Based off the definition you provided I would also have to imagine that you would need to be stationed in a metro area for it to work. In my case, if I decide to stick it out in rural America then I’m forced to play by women’s rules regarding jumping through hoops and investing a ton of time that might not even elicit a pay off.
People just say what comes up in their minds. I admittedly thought that sugardaddy involves a lot of money too.
But we can avoid imposing our misconception on somebody else by asking questions to clarify things, instead of writing a whole declarative paragraph.
Like: “Oh I thought sugar-daddy was about…”
Oh wow CQV thank you i’ve now learned so much more about human interaction bleep bloop now onto getting laid mode PS Alek please be my friend
I am speaking to Alek Novy.
I think this kind of black and white thing is caused by his side as well. Because here we brought out all the nasty sides of 30-40ish women so when Alek talked about banging 19-20ish chicks, we assume that he is only interested in that particular demography. I was on the same boat like you too. I even thought that Alek’s looks has declined and was reacting to changing circumstance.
I don’t think it has a lot to do with IQ.
Nobody in my circle does this, in fact we often tell each other stories about how most people do this, and how annoying it is.
Like if I said I bought an oven, and want to learn how to make better pizzas at home, it shouldn’t be normal for you to say “OH WOW SO YOU’RE ONLY GOING TO EAT PIZZA FROM NOW ON!!?!?” or “So you’re becoming a professional pizza chief??” or “OH WHAT’S WRONG with restaurants, why did you decide to NEVER EVER eat from a restaurant again?!?!”.
Then I don’t know why it is easy for the minds of us to think in absolutes instead of seeking the happy middle paths.
In real life, things should be less susceptible to this kind of thinking, I suppose.
@Alek Novy
Do you think the reason why this blog make people think black and white is because the peculiarity of Sleazy’s writing style?
I have re-read many of my old comments and come to see that I had grossly misunderstood him. Perhaps because his language was provocative, confrontational and polemical. This seems to elicit a strong reaction in his readers.
When I read Assanova, I have a feeling that he is able to communicate many subtleties and yet maintain a rather soft and calm voice.
Take for example, the simple proposition that everyone who is reading this blog agree:
1. When it comes to short-term flings and one night stand, looks is the only category women are looking for. They decide it at first sight, and no other actions on the part of a man can alter it. She either wants you or she doesn’t, and the bar of looks is very high.
2. When it comes to dating and marriage, many other factors such as wealth and social status can sway a woman’s choice of men.
Then there will come a whole hosts of new people who think looks is everything that ever matters in BOTH category of attraction, or they think that if you get a woman NOT by looks but other factors, then you are a loser.
But there are lots of subtleties that are not considered:
1. A woman might not tolerate ONS even from a highly attractive guy because she just doesn’t do it. She might even withhold sex from him to see who he is. She might very well choose a less attractive man who is successful and settle down with him. After all, that’s a very nice outcome.
2. A girl might have sex quickly with that one handsome guy, but parts way with him and is looking for a boyfriend. She might not be that promiscuous and just happen to have quicker sex with him, which doesn’t imply that she would do the same with any guy, or any guy soon. You can still date and seduce her, you are not a loser.
I am a virgin, so those scenarios may not be correct, but I guess you can understand what I mean.
Nah, I see this everywhere, it’s not particular to this blog. In fact, it’s less common on this blog.
It’s just that I have a high opinion of the readers/commenters of this blog, as my impression is that everyone reading this blog (minus uber) is much higher IQ than average. I still hold that view even when I admonish commenters on here.
I engage in the comments here precisely because people are a lot smarter, aware and thinking then people elsewhere. I don’t think I can create a social circle where I can meet people to have these kinds of conversations with.
In fact, it’s precisely because I have such a high opinion of the commenters on here that I get annoyed/upset when they pull out something you’d expect from an average person. I wasn’t expecting it.
To switch gears a bit and talk about the subject of black and white thinking, I believe that it may have less to do with IQ in many instances and more to do with being psychotic or highly neurotic. In the former (highly autistic people fit this bracket), these people have an external locus of control and resort to idealistic and devaluing thinking—literally black and white. Neurotics will do this as well, but the difference is that you can still reason with someone who is neurotic. They’re still capable of reason and can potentially be convinced with objective facts whereas with the psychotic person (many of our leaders unfortunately) they are operating from a mode where they don’t understand objective reality at all, and instead project some inner fantasy onto the world and to people. A good example is Andrew Tate. Watch him debate lefty Hasan Abi and not be able to draw from anything other than personal experience. In comparison, neurotic people (probably a much more significant portion of the population) are still somewhat rooted in objective reality yet actively fight against it wishing things were different, which can lead to black and white thinking.
I think it’s more societal trends than personality type. I’ve seen this phenomenon growing over the past 20 years. Everything is getting more polarized, more simplified, nuances are getting more erased. Personalities become famous by being more polarizing etc.
For example the best way to become a famous fitness personality is to say “Always eat this, never eat that”, etc etc.
You don’t think that perhaps societal trends like divorce rates, one of many, are helping to produce higher amounts of pathologically psychotic narcissists and codependent neurotics? Even if you answered yes to that question it doesn’t necessarily correlate to the prevalence of more so-called black/white thinking, but I think it does. Infants and toddlers are extremely vulnerable and very easy to psychologically damage to an irreversible degree.
I think a lot of it has to do with that min-maxxing thing which is promoted by everyone. All succesful/famous examples are minmaxxer.
You never see examples of well-rounded people who got a great life by doing 20 things well. It’s always minmaxxers who obsessed with one thing, even though it’s lowest ROI and riskiest strategy to adopt.
Yet. because this is what people associate with ambition or success, any time you mention any striving to improve in something, people immediately assume you’re trying to minmax it.
I’m not convinced that’s the cause of widespread black/white thinking, it just sounds more like a symptom of mental illness.
I said mental illness but it could also just be brain damage in the form of attention deficits by children being raised by electronics (neglected).
Pretty interesting watching Scotty’s video below , him calling out red pill “nonsense” .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j8gk7MYC1E
A guy who has face tattoos, body tattoos, buff as fuck with a total Bad Boy image ..talking about ‘Protector -provider ‘ being nonsense and not a factor for a woman to select a dude.
Hahaha. Oh The irony the irony..
Cmon dude. The reason chicks select a ‘Bad-Boy’ is that he looks like a protector bro.
That’s why hot women are attracted to Bad Boys ie. Strippers and bikers.
Cos BBs look like they can handle other dudes fucking and hassling with them.
The provider part .. doesn’t matter at that point , if the guy is alpha that’s an honest signal . they’ll try work their magic and all their tricks to try change him to Provider down the track 😉 stage #2.
hey , I’m not saying’ good looks’ arent the decider from second 1 ,but that’s the truth above re protector esp with hot chicks.
Plus also love how he lays out MM basically step by step.
Flirt (banter), lead, isolate, escalate (influence ?) etc
Gotta give props where due, old nerdy Erik codified that shit and those steps in his book before anyone else (afaik) 😀
TL:DR
‘Protector’ is evolutionarily hard-wired and always will be. Protector = safety.
‘Provider’ is more debateable in this day and age.
I particularly liked when he said “they (red pillers) act and talk about this stuff (protector, provider, leader) like it’s written on your forehead…”
I’m like -dude it is literally written, in ink, on your forehead, as you are speaking those words.
Too funny 😀
Anyone have any thoughts on this ?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDVxcPeNgTcNVjDQXDGyktg
Scotty’s old youtube is gone. Here is his new one.
Thanks, Maou. Hopefully Scotty drops by again soon. I was MIA last time he was here.