You Don’t Need To Be Witty To Have Game

Reader “disap” clarifies something which I’ve been meaning to explain but haven’t gotten around to doing so:

Once again people are so concerned with the perfect witty comeback. Not everyone can run game like a Californication script.

“We’d be together if you weren’t my mom’s age”

When in doubt, go laconic. Why do you dance to her qualification tune if you really have frame?

Easy responses : “LOL”
: “Totally.”

Or don’t take the shit test so seriously that “you’ve been challenged” and need to respond. This is the wrong mindset. She is just but another girl in the harem, don’t take her so seriously. Agree and Amplify, fallback number two.

Easy responses: “Kids these days, no respect for their elders.”
: “Pfft, I beat your mom at bingo at the senior center last week.”

Unless you got Hank Moody skills, falling back on Laconic/Agree and Amplify are the safest options. In other words, don’t swing for a triple when a simple single will do.

disap is LOL totally correct. Wit, while beneficial to picking up women, is not necessary. Wit, in fact, is a less vital attribute to possess than simply having an uncaring, outcome independent alpha male frame. Sometimes wit, when relied on to excess, can even get in the way of attracting women.

A lot of you beta readers wring your nutsacks whining about your lack of innate wit and how you struggle to find the right words for the pickup occasion. I don’t doubt your perceived inadequacies. Rapier-like wit, like height, has a significant genetic component; though, again like height, what is naturally there can be honed and improved upon by practice (nutrition) and knowledge accumulation (avoidance of environmental insults that stunt height potential) by observing witty men in action.

However, the good news is that, like disap wrote, a laconic, terse, devil-may-care frame will trump a string of try-hard witty ripostes almost every time. ALPHA FRAME, aka the ATTITUDE, is the foundational substructure that scaffolds the social savviness and personality peacocking that drapes over it like a virile raiment. Or, to put it in clearer terms, if you are all wit and no frame, you are an entertainment monkey who arouses women’s brains but leaves their pussies dry. In contrast, if you are all frame and no wit, you are a sexy beast women can’t help but find alluring, even as they gripe about your curt assholery to their friends.

Now, it should go without saying (though this blog does attract its share of stupids and ego-invested contrarians who need it said over and over) that it’s better to have frame AND wit, rather than frame alone. Hank Moody wit is a killer weapon to have in the field, even more potent than having top 10% looks. But, if you had to choose, frame is the better of the two. So banish from your thoughts doubts that your lack of wit consigns you to involuntary celibacy. I’ve witnessed too many overconfident lunkheads without a clever word to say but teeming with the right attitude effortlessly swoop babes to believe otherwise.

Maxim #55: Less talking is always sexier than more talking. If you struggle to find something witty to say to a girl, stop trying. Flailing for the “right” words is approval-seeking beta behavior that women can sniff from across a room.

Corollary to Maxim #55: A grunt or aloof gesture trumps a try-hard, strained, verbose comeback.

When this subject comes up in real life, I like to tell my guy friends to recall those times they were challenged or annoyed by their sisters or some female friends they didn’t find attractive. I ask them to remember how they felt, how they acted, and what they said. Invariably, they all say they remember being cool as cucumbers, dismissive, and even rude. They were careless with their words and cared even less what their sisters or unattractive female friends thought of them. They remember feeling like one might feel if a mosquito was buzzing around one’s head; they just wanted to shoo it away, or tell it to go find the nearest bug zapper. They certainly did not try to impress them with Shakespearean wit.

“Good,” I say. “Now that’s the way you should act when you talk to ATTRACTIVE girls.”

I hope the lesson isn’t lost on them.

Read Full Post »

The Nuclear Neg

“Anonymous” {WARNING: Possible Troll Alert} recounts a self-described nuclear neg he dropped on a girl:

Nuclear Neg made one week ago on an 18 year old has worked.

She had texted “We’d be together if you weren’t my mom’s age”.

I had texted back “Excuse me but, In two years, no guy under 30 will want you and by age 25, no alpha male under 40 will want you”.

She responded “WTF?!! In two years every man on Earth will still want me”

and then we text argued back and forth as I fed her some standard (and short) evo psych lessons which, when read or heard by an inteligent young woman, tend to tame the hamster well.

We ended the first text exchange with her admitting that she’d be no longer attractive to alpha males at age 25 but “that’s a long way off” and I was saying that her expiry date would be more like 22.

Cold silence between us ensued. I held frame and simply dated someone else.

Our mutual friends were aware of a cold war between us for the past week.

But we made peace today, first via text.

Me: It’s wrong to think I was trying to insult you by stating the truth about how the men of your generation will abandon you for the girls of the next generation

(I was still holding frame here – no apologies)

Her: Yeah, but it’s insulting even now that you want to rub that in

(she’s admitted that evo psych speaks the truth)

Me: All I ever wanted with you was to fool around a little like we did (she and her friends had hung around at my place and we sometimes made out) but not have sex because you’re not my type for that. But you made me believe that I was ugly and you didn’t enjoy that.

Her: You didn’t understand at all. I think you’re cute. I don’t just want sex with you. I enjoy the hugging and kissing too.

This complete submission floored me. It’s everything that feminists would say could never happen. They’d say I made the above exchange up. I didn’t.

Now I may have initially overreacted. The text that set me off only really said that she couldn’t imagine us publicly being a couple and me meeting her mother. But that’s what she’s saying now after I passed the shiite test.

I’m sure PUA experts will find I was quite rough around the edges in that exchange and I maybe wasted a week (in which I dated someone else, no man should ever waste time itself with any woman).

But whether it was necessary or not, the fact remains that I dropped more than one nuclear bomb on a girl who openly believed every man wanted to sleep with her, and the end result so far seems to be that she likes me better than ever.

For those readers thinking there’s a valuable game lesson to be gleaned from the above exchange, you’re right! Allow me to demonstrate what would happen 99% of the time if you followed a script similar to “anonymous”‘s.

You: {Dropping evolutionary psychology knowledge like a boss}

Her: {Blank stare. Trots off to meet a more fun guy}

Fin.

Using evo-psych to burst female delusion and ego bubbles, however logical or truthful or precise your scientific shiv, is a nuclear neg that will bomb you right out of contention. You are as likely to be perceived by a woman as spiteful and vengeful as you are to be perceived insightful and jerkishly aloof.

This internet castle in the woods revels in putting human egos on the breaking wheel and examining the viscera with a microscope, but don’t make the mistake of confusing the cruel dissection for the crimson arts. The former is the why, the latter is the how.

Women do not swoon for logic or reason. Nor are they easily persuaded by appeals to self-reflection. What women LOVE LOVE LOVE is to be seduced, and seduction is the art of dressing profound truth in pleasing lies. Pull back the curtain on the truth, and the reaction of most women will be to leave the scene of the thoughtcrime to find fluffier locales to frolic.

“Anonymous”‘s game does contain some useful grist. First, he may not be lying about how it went down, and her receptivity. My objection to his gom jabbar game is that, broadly applied, most men will experience negative blowback going his route. Unless your frame is immovable granite and your delivery enticingly entitled, and the girl you are hitting on is deemed sufficiently open-minded (or weird), a didactic exposition on male-female sexual psychology and evo-psych principles is liable to leave women cold.

General rule of thumb: Avoid using words like “alpha male” or “expiry date” in a serious manner when seducing women.

Second, the part of his game that I believe was most effective happened with this line:

“All I ever wanted with you was to fool around a little like we did (she and her friends had hung around at my place and we sometimes made out) but not have sex because you’re not my type for that.”

This is just a classic target disqualification line. No need to resort to evo-psych. He avoided the spite trap by first admitting (vulnerability game) that he did enjoy fooling around with her, and only after that admission did he disqualify her with the “you’re not the type to have sex with” line. A simple expectation-crushing push in her direction, and you’ve sparked her curiosity and inverted the male chaser-female chasee roles.

If gom jabbar game is your thing, I can tell you that it is possible to pick up women by verbalizing the intricacies of the seduction process, step-by-step fashion, as it is happening. But this is advanced game that shouldn’t be attempted by any but the most experienced and smoothly self-confident womanizers. Lesser seducers will be tempted to become too self-conscious and self-aware and thus ruin the illusion.

Read Full Post »

Pregnant Pause Game

In reference to my “eye contact game” post, reader “Sword” demurs:

Not bad, only comment is your suggestion that after holding eye contact you come up and dont talk to her, kind of reeks of beta the ‘hey i sure hope she notices me!’

I hope that wasn’t the impression I left, because I agree, sidling up to the girl and waiting for her to say something first while you smile and raise your eyebrows inquisitively in her general direction is truly, epically beta.

No, what I meant was that you should allow a second or two to pass before opening your mouth. This pregnant pause builds tension, which is one of the godly pillars of the kingdom of tingle. When you have exchanged eyeplay with a girl and walked up to her, she will expect you to start introducing yourself right away. For example:

EYEPLAY!

{walk over, stand next to her}

Her: {oh boy oh boy he’s coming over. he’s here! i hope my hair looks ok}

You: Hey.

Her: Hey.

You: I’m Cornholio. {extends hand}

Boring. Sure, she already likes you, so you can afford to be a little predictable. But why fulfill her expectations so patently? Do you know what alpha males never do? Fulfill girls’ expectations! A desirable man demonstrates his higher status by making girls just a leeeetle bit uncomfortable in his presence. You want to get a girl thinking, “What the hell is this sculpted block of manhood going to do next?” For example:

EYEPLAY!

{walk over, stand next to her}

Her: {oh boy oh boy he’s coming over. he’s here! i hope my vaj doesn’t stink}

You: {look at her. smile. bring your drink up to your lips. sip slowly. put drink down. look down. look back at her}

Her: {what’s this? Is he going to speak? criminy, my clit just buzzed. i feel so judgified}

You: They don’t make old fashioneds the way they used to. Oh, almost forgot… hi.

Her: HI! {ORGASM}

See the difference? The pregnant pause, coupled with the unexpected opener, are two of the macronutrients of the female romantic fantasy diet. Recommended daily allowance? Infinity percent!

Besides building welcome tension into a pickup by fucking with a girl’s expectations, the pregnant pause also serves as an underhanded tactic for gauging her running interest in you. If you’re the type of guy who likes to talk a lot, you might have a hard time accurately judging just how much a girl is really into you. You might be too busy yapping to read her body language signals. Plus, the less a girl talks, the less data you have to go on to assess her interest level. The calculated pregnant pause, which you can drop in a conversation at any time, allows you to judge a girl’s interest level by the quickness with which she restarts the conversation. A girl who likes you won’t feel comfortable letting the convo fall silent for very long; she will reinitiate because your silence will be read by her as your declining interest. A girl who is bored with you will use your pregnant pause as a chance to excuse herself.

Finally, the incontrovertible fact is that pregnant pauses are self-evidently ALPHA. Watch what betas do when they run out of things to say. They flail. They say stupid shit. Their voice pitch rises. They look around nervously. They pull at their shirt sleeves and do other sorts of insecurity revealing body language mistakes. THEY are the ones who get uncomfortable.

Then watch an alpha male when he wants to take a breather from talking. He stops. He smiles. He slowly exhales. He lets the silence waft over him and the girl like a perfumed veil. He doesn’t force the issue. He doesn’t tug at his clothes, or scratch some body part that doesn’t need scratching. SHE is the one who gets uncomfortable. Her discomfort translates into your perceived higher status, and nudges her into the chaser role where she inevitably feels compelled to reengage you. And from there, it’s like taking pellets from a hamster.

Read Full Post »

Eye Contact Game

“In need of advice” asks:

What is the right move to make when you and a girl hold eye contact from a distance across the room? I’m thinking of some type of direct approach, but what type of line should I open with? Of course the target is generally in a small group, but…

Put yourself in a girl’s shoes. (You sperg types and psychopaths can sit this one out; I understand how difficult empathy is for you.) You are scanning the room, discreetly, hoping to catch an alpha male’s eyes. He sees you. (Or, rather, he sees your pulpeous lips, your sultry eyes, and your bodacious tatas. Thank god for objectification, otherwise you’d never get a date!)

He holds your eye contact for a split second longer than the average beta bear, triggering your discomfort and tingle reflexes simultaneously. You shift a little in your chair to make room for your engorging labia. What happens next will either maintain your state of intrigued arousal, or return you to the previous indifferent baseline.

If the man lowers and raises his gaze repeatedly to confirm that you are, indeed, returning it, you will lose interest fast. What kind of alpha male dawdles while life, and pussy prospects, zoom past him?

If he smiles while holding your eye contact, and then returns to talking to his friends, ignoring you, you are curiouser. Will he rendezvous later to strike up a conversation? Or is he toying with you?

If he waits, steely-eyed, for you to break eye contact (and you are surprised to find yourself always looking away first when a man confidently holds your gaze), then disappears from view, only to reappear at your side ordering a drink for himself (but not for you), you can barely contain your excitement.

If he holds your eye contact without smiling, without frowning, with just the expressionless blankness of a man contemplating the cracks in a sidewalk, and then calmly, slowly moves directly toward you, your anticipation grows and your nerves electrify. You know what he wants, but still you can’t wait to hear how he goes about getting what he wants.

If he looks away and pokes his friend, pointing at you while talking to him, then looks back at you and smiles, you lose interest. You feel your vagina prancing out of the room.

If he bends over and speaks to you through his ass cheeks, Ace Ventura style, you realize he is unattainable and lament that you will have to settle for a more predictable man this night.

I hope you are getting the drift of this exercise in imagined pickup scenarios. There are alpha ways and beta ways to initiate verbal contact after eye contact has been established, and there are multiple and varyingly effective ways for each. Getting strong eye contact from a girl before approaching — an approach I would NOT classify as a cold approach — is something many beta males rely upon because it is, in fact, one of the easiest approaches to execute. It’s the closest thing to a sure thing in non-social circle pickup that there exists.

(Try approaching a girl who doesn’t even notice you, or, worse, who looks away to the side when you try to catch her eye. It’s a whole other beast.)

In my personal experience, a consistently effective approach after strong eye contact — that is, eye contact which you determine is evidence the girl really likes your look and vibe — is to wait for her to unlock eyeplay first, and then simply walk towards her, slowly and deliberately. Usually, she will look up again and see your mighty visage coming toward her, and this will make her nervous. This is good, because a nervous girl is a girl who already perceives you as having higher value, and thus you will have prequalified hand in the seduction.

Once you have reached her side, look away from her momentarily, toward the bar or the crowd. Stand shoulder to shoulder. Allow a few seconds of uncomfortable silence to pass. Now this next step is key: do NOT say anything about liking her, or her liking you. She will be expecting that. An alpha male is rarely one to satisfy women’s expectations. You may go direct with your opener — “you really should work on your distance flirting technique”, “if you wanted to talk to me, you could have just come over and said hi”, “your friends are annoyed that you’re paying more attention to me than to them” — or indirect: address her friends if she’s with a group and act like you only came over to get a drink and socialize. Ask her what she thinks of girls who drink manly drinks. Inform her you made a bet with your friends that you would limit yourself to flirting with only one girl this night.

Whatever you do — and there are plenty of opener tactics in the archives — know that extended eyeplay with a girl makes your job a lot easier. She’s practically announced that she’s ready and willing to give you a chance. Attraction is yours to lose, so all you really need to do is avoid typical anti-game mistakes and know how and when to transition into more intimate rapport.

Read Full Post »

Obedience To Authority Game

We often mischievously note here that women are more prone to herd behavior than are men. That is, on average, your typical woman is more likely to “go along to get along” than your typical man. This is why all sorts of cultural trends — from fashion to food to acceptable modes of posturing — exert stronger influences on women.

The close cousin of lemmingitis (falling in step with fads) is obedience to authority. If you are apt to align your lifestyle with whatever is the latest fashion, (and ostracize those who don’t), you are probably also apt to blindly obey high status authority figures telling you what is good for you. If true, then we might speculate that women make better cultural foot soldiers for whichever elite authority is most tangible in their lives, owing to women’s greater propensity to accept authority dictums without question.

We may add to this speculation not only personal observation and confirmatory heaps of anecdotes, but in addition scientific evidence that women are, indeed, more obedient to authority than are men. Courtesy of reader uh pointing us to this Milgram experiment replication:

Charles Sheridan and Richard King hypothesized that some of Milgram’s subjects may have suspected that the victim was faking, so they repeated the experiment with a real victim: a “cute, fluffy puppy” who was given real, albeit harmless, electric shocks. They found similar findings to Milgram: half of the male subjects and all of the females obeyed to the end. Many subjects showed high levels of distress during the experiment and some openly wept. In addition, Sheridan and King found that the duration for which the shock button was pressed decreased as the shocks got higher, meaning that for higher shock levels, subjects showed more hesitance towards delivering the shocks.*

Always remember: All female participants in the Milgram obedience to authority experiment continued shocking the puppy despite their tears.

Half of the men stopped.

Girls love cute things, but they love powerful authority figures even more.

I’m glad to report that, thanks to the yeoman efforts of this blog, there is a growing awareness of female nature settling firmly in the minds of Westerners (and a smattering of Finns. I kid, I kid! Sort of.) Like male nature, female nature is not all bad, nor is it elevated above men’s (it’s different than men’s, but not any less degraded). Le Chateau’s campaign to RAISE AWARENESS about women’s true nature helps bring balance to the social conditioning force, which for generations has defaulted to the side of pristine women and fallen men. This grand rectification will BEGIN THE HEALING of a society teetering on the precipice of choking to death on a morass of self-asphyxiating lies, and get more than a few men laid in the process.

We know that women are more instinctively obedient to authority, but the reason perhaps eludes those of us with less experience navigating the twat trenches. This female impulse to servitude is both an evolved moral mechanism to reinforce in-group cohesion (and thus secure resource blessings to their children) and a manifestation of their desirous attachment to alpha males, of whom the most obvious archetype are those alpha males wielding authoritarian power.

This knowledge dovetails nicely with game principles. Mystery was always fond of repeating that women are evolutionarily configured to desire “leaders of men”, (along with “protectors of loved ones” and “preselected by women”). I’d expand this axiom to include leaders of women, because the man who can corral a roomful of women to do his bidding is, in many ways, a sexier specimen to women than the man who leads a battalion of men. See, for example, any fashion photographer.

Authorities are, by definition, leaders of men and women. You, the beta male who wants more choice in women, can leverage women’s instinct to obey confident leaders to your hedonistic advantage. Try this sometime (if it is out of character for you, which will be the case, I bet, for at least 80% of my male readers):

• Order, don’t ask, a girl to do something with you. Telling her she’s coming with you to Bar A or Event X is, you will find hard not to notice, far more invigorating to her libido than asking her the same.
• If you are buying a meal or a drink for your girlfriend, choose her option and unhesitatingly order it for her. I have had girls exclaim with surprised glee how awesome it was that I caught them off-guard with this bold move. (Note: Do not default to buying shit for girls you haven’t yet fucked.)
• Spontaneous sex in dangerous places. Again, command her, don’t ask. Asking a girl to have risky sex will always get a “no” answer, which is funny because not asking will almost always get you a “yes” reaction.
• Simply command a woman to do something that makes her a little uncomfortable. Authority is best proved by the victim’s follower’s degree of submission. Tell her, for instance, to skinny dip. Or pilfer a pack of gum. Or go down on you at a movie. Or bury the body in the backyard. Or betray her feminist principles (always a laugh riot).

Ordering a girl to do something, particularly something risky, may sound like an easy proposal, but don’t be fooled: it will feel a lot more difficult than it is if you aren’t used to doing it. Couple your natural aversion with the feminist tankgrrl shrikegeist enshrouding secular societies, and it can seem quite the daunting task to the average beta bear. But the rewards, I assure you, are well worth it. The man who can tap into those ancient Phlegethon viscera coursing through women’s primal souls will have the key to untold pleasures of the penis and the heart.

Women may feel distress when they have to obey an authority telling them to do something they normally wouldn’t, but that distress is an optic fiber pipeline straight to their vaginas. When they experience the one, they inevitably experience the other. You don’t need to be an actual authority figure to trigger this female lust instinct; you just need to accurately portray such authority over the women you want to desire you. And like the accomplished actor, such portrayals will eventually lodge their way into the filament of your being, and the distinction will cease to meaningfully exist.

*If you’re interested, and you should be, here’s a Milgram experiment follow-up which found ethnic and national differences in willingness to obey authority.

Read Full Post »

What Do You Do If A Girl Calls Your Disqualification Bluff?

Disqualifications — false or genuine — are a powerful pickup tool. Pulling the rug out from under a girl who autonomically believes you desire her is a lickety-split way to raise your status vis a vis her status, and thus delight her hypergamous reflex. The fact is, women are constantly in a disqualification state of mind: she glides through the masses of maledom programmed to disqualify as many suitors as possible, and to settle upon the one man who is the best of all the men she can attract with her looks and youth.

Knowing this, the appropriation by the pickup artist of the female prerogative to disqualify is a classic example of flipping the seduction script and deviously moving the woman into the chaser role, where she is more likely to perceive you as higher status and sexually desirable. Psych 101 and various books on influencing friends and clients touches upon this stuff, but of course the estimable textbooks don’t follow the logic down the crimson road of poon hunting.

There are four primary types of disqualification. Briefly, I will describe them here, before tackling the subject of this post’s title.

1. Preemptive self-disqualification

Introduced by Mystery, this is a statement you make to a girl that lets her know, in so many words, that you aren’t a serious prospect. You do this by disqualifying yourself. Examples: “I’m gay”, “I’m in a relationship”, “I’m not interested in dating at this point in my life”, “I have the AIDS”, “I poop myself during scary scenes in movies”, “I’m a male feminist”.

This type of DQ (disqualification — I don’t feel like typing the whole word out because my pinky finger isn’t working, fuck you acronym haters) is called “preemptive” because it short circuits a girl’s hypergamous instinct by robbing her of the opportunity to disqualify you first. It essentially reverses the chaser-chased dynamic, and upturns millions of years of evolutionarily molded female expectation. All of this works on the subconscious level. In the heat and fury of a real live social interaction, these game tactics fly under a girl’s conscious radar, barely perceived by anyone but her omnipresent war room hamster and the hotline the fevered critter has to the gina general at the front.

The preemptive self-DQ is intended to act as a bitch shield runaround: a girl is less likely to blow you out if you make her think you’re not available to her in the first place.

2. Target disqualification

Self-explanatory, this is a tactic whereby the man disqualifies the girl from being a serious mating prospect. Owing to the greater chance that Target DQ can be perceived by the woman as sour grapes, this is a more aggressive, and thus riskier, form of DQ, its risk weighed against a potentially more rewarding payoff. Examples: “You seem like you’d make a great friend”, “You’re not really my type”, “You’re a good girl, I’m nothing but trouble… we would never work”, “I’m glad you’re off the market” [just assume she’s off the market], “Phew, so nice to talk to a girl who isn’t trying to flirt with me”, “Since your vagina is cemented shut by a rare disease, I can talk to you like you’re one of the guys”, “You’re the first lesbian I’ve met in this town”.

The Target DQ is less about lowering a woman’s bitch shield than it is about instigating a woman to qualify herself to you. It’s a more proactive DQ compared to the PSDQ above, serving as it does as an immediate status differential cue to the woman that she has to do something to correct the imbalance to the natural order of things. This “something” usually involves convincing you, the incorrigible player, that she is hot and sexy and goodtogo. PSDQs are female disqualification — aka rejection — avoiders or neutralizers, while TDQs are meant to coax women into self-qualifying.

3. Handicap Principle self-disqualification

This is a sub-genre of vulnerability game, and promoted by Charisma Arts (A Wayne Elise aka Juggler production). Basically, you bring up some faux embarrassing thing about yourself — some minor personality flaw that you blow up into significance — and reveal it to the girl. The theory behind the Handicap Principle is that women perceive men who are comfortable “handicapping” themselves — either through bright plumage (peacocking) or through admission of beta characteristics — as alpha males, because who else but an alpha male would be strong and powerful enough to shoulder a weak beta flaw without suffering any hit to his overall status?

Be careful with the Handicap Principle. First, it’s a theory, an elegant one to be sure, but one that remains, as far as I know, largely unproven by evolutionary biologists. The degree to which HP might apply to humans is unknown. At some great enough level of flaw possession, the Handicap Principle must surely break down, and we see evidence for this in the many stories of alpha males who became beta in relationships and then lost their women’s love. Personally, I think the Handicap Principle is easily confused with the theory of sexual selection, but that is a topic for a future post.

Nonetheless, it is true that women coo for the alpha male who unloads a perfectly timed admission of (cute) self-abnegation. Examples: “Oh man, I’m so bad at figuring out if women are flirting with me or not”, “I don’t dance, I’ve got two left feet”, “Ever since an unfortunate childhood trauma, I’ve had a fear of puppies”, “Black people scare me”.

The trick is to admit your “flaws” with utmost confidence and unconcern. Don’t say them as if you’re waiting to judge her reaction. They should be spoken off-the-cuff, almost as if you’re unaware that there is a girl standing there listening to you. NEVER admit to a real beta flaw that would repulse most women; i.e. “I go limp when a woman makes more money than I do”.

4. Beta bait disqualification

Another Juggler specialty, the idea behind the BBDQ is to disqualify yourself as a sucker for women’s flirtations. This is a minor school of DQ that you probably won’t use or need very often, but when you do use it, its power is undeniable. Women will very frequently try to “tease out” beta males by complimenting men and judging them on their reactions. Does the man express a little too much appreciation for her compliment? BETA. Does he seize upon her compliment as a springboard to ask her out? BETA. Does he say “Wow, no girl has ever said something so kind to me before!”? BETA.

But if a woman compliments you, and your reaction is to ignore it, downplay it, or even disagree with her (without veering into self-deprecation territory), she will think ALPHA. Examples: “Thanks, but this actually isn’t my favorite shirt”, “You like these shoes? You’re easy to please”, “Yes, that bulge is my penis. Now you’ve made me self-conscious”.

The BBDQ is both a self-disqualification and a target disqualification. You deny the woman’s positive assessment of you, while simultaneously denying her power over your emotions. It is a very subtle art form that, when mastered, is chick crack to women’s status discernment modules. A successful BBDQ is only superficially a signal of modesty; underneath the calculated modesty is a heat-seeking missile aimed straight at a woman’s id heart that explodes in a fireball of lust for your total lack of interest in winning her approval.

***

DQs are one of the most difficult game techniques for noobs to grasp. They are tangentially related to negs, and like the neg, they are often abused and misused by beginners. Their power is also their danger; because they work so well, men new to the game have a tendency to throw them out at awkward moments, and with too much expectant fervor. They then come across as creeps and try-hards, and wind up providing fodder to bitches to later log into the social media borg to mock the hapless betas who tried to run game on them.

(Leave it to a woman to mock a man for trying. You don’t hear too many men mocking fat chicks who make a real effort to lose weight by going to the gym and eating right. But then, in some respects, men simply have more compassion and empathy than do women for the opposite sex. But I ingest.)

The keys to getting your DQ money’s worth are timing, context and delivery. Too soon –> weird. Too late –> spiteful. Too unrelated — > try-hard. Too forced –> creepy. Too self-deprecating –> beta. Too nasty –> sour grapes.

But even when you have timing, context and delivery down pat, you will sometimes get your DQ called out by a woman.

You: “I’m not looking for anyone right now.”

Girl: “Good, because neither am I.”

***

You: “You’re a good girl, I’m trouble… we would never work out.”

Girl: “Yeah, I guess I am a good girl.”

***

You: “I’ve got a weird fear of puppies. Goes back to a childhood incident.”

Girl: “That’s fucked up.”

***

You: “Thanks, but this isn’t my favorite shirt.”

Girl: “Yeah, now that I look at it closely, it’s not a very good shirt.”

Don’t worry. These kinds of reactions, as plausible as they are in writing, and as much as cunts will cackle that they will respond like this to players whenever one of them tries to hit on their skanky carcasses, are blessedly rare. Most girls will be too high on their torqued emotions to call out a player’s DQ bluff so directly. The hamster is simply not that rational; hence, why he’s called the rationalization hamster, devoted to creating rationale out of nothing at all.

But DQ bluff-calling does happen, and more often to newbs than to experienced PUAs. When a newb gets his DQ bluff called, the result can be hilarity (not to mention the newb’s demanding his money back from some overpriced pickup seminar he attended). A great illustration of a newb’s DQ bluff being called out was provided by Juggler in this post.

ASPIRING NOOB: “I could. But I’m not going to. I’m an all out there kinda guy. I’m going to this fab party later. If you’re lucky I might invite you.”

GIRL: “No thanks.”

“Aww. You’re playing hard to get. That’s so cute.”

“Whatever.”

“I hear an accent. Where are you from?”

“Nowhere.”

“Ha. Nowhere. That’s funny. Can I buy you a drink?”

“Yes. I’ll take a piña colada but don’t even think about dropping a roofie in there. I’m not going to hook up with you.”

“Whoever said anything about hooking up? You’re more of the kinda girl I see as a friend.”

“Good.”

“Good. So what’s your name?”

If a girl isn’t already invested in the conversation with you, a DQ is less likely to have the intended effect. If you walk up to a girl cold and start spouting off about how you just want to be friends with her and you aren’t available for dating, what kind of reaction do you think you’ll get? Do you imagine girls will start qualifying themselves to you on the spot? No, you have to first reel her in and dangle the promise of your interest before unloading the soul-sucking DQ.

Many PUAs, like Tyler Durden, recommend a preemptive approach to DQing; that is, you train yourself to sense when girls are about to disqualify you, and disqualify them before they get a chance. Often, this occurs during the late comfort stage of the seduction, when the girl is beginning to feel pangs of guilt about the release of her inner slut which looms on the horizon. Other PUAs, like Mystery, advocate active DQs early in the attraction phase, as a direct method for building attraction. Still others say to avoid them entirely, as the risk of delving into “sour grapism” territory is too great to assume.

I will say this about DQs:

They are supposed to sound spontaneous. The best DQs are unexpected and off-the-cuff. If it sounds like a line, it will backfire. If it sounds like you thought about it beforehand, it will backfire. Body language and facial expression are important conveyors of indifference and spontaneity.

Never DQ from a position of weakness. If you are working overtime to keep a girl’s attention, a DQ will only lower your value even more. Remember, DQs are FALSE disqualifications. When you DQ as a last resort to keep a girl around, it is no longer false; it is a real disqualification.

If a girl calls out your DQ, my best advice is to ignore it and change the subject, OR readily agree with her in return. A pinpoint DQ destroyer, while rare, is not to be trifled with. You want to avoid at all costs the impression of being flustered or annoyed or dispirited by her agreement with your DQ. Just roll with it, as if you’re glad she agreed with you, and reassess if she’s worth your continued effort to bed.

The upside to a failed DQ is that, later, if the girl is into you and starts to return your interest, you can remind her of the claim she made earlier about not wanting this to go anywhere. A pullback at a moment when the girl MOST WANTS TO PULL INTO YOU is like sticking TNT up her hamster’s anus. You are beginning down the road of building your own slave harem.

Preemptive DQs — the type of DQ that occurs before you have built adequate interest in the girl (think Mystery Method-style) — can work great IF you don’t linger on them waiting for a reaction. You drop the DQ, ignore whatever reply she gives in return, and plow. The goal is subconscious infiltration, leading to script flipping.

Mystery-style preemptive DQs work best on hot girls. Since hot girls are the most likely to assume every man wants them (justifiably), a quick correction to the contrary can temporarily scramble their status differential discernment algorithms.

Be careful about DQing 6s and 7s. You can easily blow a girl out of the water and render yourself unattainable to them.

If you’re going to agree with a girl’s DQ nuke, don’t make a production out of it. For example:

WRONG WAY TO AGREE WITH GIRL’S DQ NUKE

Girl: “Good. I just want to be friends too.”

You: “Yeah, yeah, friends. That’s what I want to.” [pained expression belies your words]

RIGHT WAY TO AGREE WITH GIRL’S DQ NUKE

Girl: “Good. I just want to be friends too.”

You: “Cool. So… you see that guy over there? I think he wants you. That’s the way to do it. Stare hard.”

In Juggler’s example above, when the NOOB says “If you’re lucky I might invite you”, he’s expecting the girl to reply something along the lines of “Wow, you must think you’re special”, a shit test to which the NOOB thinks he is well-trained to parry. But instead, she deflates him totally with the cold “No thanks”. The NOOB is now left flailing, hurling more DQs at her in hopes one will stick.

The best defense against the deflating DQ nuke is to simply avoid putting yourself in the position where such nukes are likely to happen. If you pace yourself, the likelihood of triggering a DQ nuke goes way down. Should one happen to you, one that is particularly disheartening, you may consider bailing.

You: “If you’re lucky I might invite you.”

Girl: “No thanks.”

You: “Ok. See ya.”

A good player knows when to cut his losses.

However, if you see an opening and want to continue working on her, AGREE AND REDIRECT.

You: “If you’re lucky I might invite you.”

Girl: “No thanks.”

You: “Yeah, come to think of it, it’s probably better you don’t come. My ex might start a fight with you.”

OR

You: “Well, I suppose now I can make room for my Mom to come with me.”

OR

You: [fake look of indignation] “Invite… REVOKED.”

OR

You: “Great, now who am I gonna set up my friend with?”

OR

You: “Damn, I guess I’ll have to buy my own drinks.”

This has been an introductory course in DQs and sidestepping DQ nukes. The subject material is advanced, so I encourage the commenters to flesh it out for the 1 billion readers who are hanging on your every word.

Read Full Post »

Wayne Elise, Pacing, And Conversational Context

Wayne Elise, aka Juggler, is a fairly well-known and well-regarded pickup artist. He’s been in the business for a while, and his game guides, while occasionally derivative, are grounded in the basic reality of male-female psychosocial sex differences and thus useful to aspiring womanizers. He emphasizes the “warmth & connection” part of seduction, but tends to engage in a little too much PUA strawman bashing (probably in order to attract a wider audience). I, for one, am getting tired of reading “evolved” pickup artists caricature the neg with the same ignorant glee that feminists do.

Quibbles aside, he has some good insights, and this post at his blog exemplifies that. I’ll examine it here because his analogy of seduction to letting out a “rope of personal history” is very good, and a lesson that a lot of newbs would be wise to take into account.

Imagine a stranger next to you. They reach out and take the end of your rope from you. They begin reeling it into their arms. So long as you allow it, the rope passes from the floor around your feet, through your hands and collects in the arms of this other person.

This is the beginning of someone getting to know you. The details they learn about you in the first few minutes may be give-aways such as your taste in high-fidelity stereo speakers and the fact that your mouth goes crooked when you smile. But soon they could be exposed to a slice of your dead-kitten sense of humor. Then later it could be your feeling toward relationships. Eventually it could be your sexual preferences. And on and on.

Through this process of information transfer, you stop feeling like a stranger to the other person. You begin to feel like a friend or potential lover.

This is an artsy reinterpretation of the comfort stage of Mystery’s Attraction => Comfort => Seduction three-stage process. Women feel attraction for the aloof alpha, but they also feel more bonded — and hence more open to sexual surrender — to men with whom they have mutually shared personal information. The details of a life are the building blocks of a woman’s romantic imagination.

Now, of course, you can boldly lie about your details if you’d like, but unless you are a clinical sociopath you’ll find it easier to remain internally consistent and externally congruent if you don’t deviate too far from your real life history. This goes double if you plan to stick with a girl for longer than three months.

A reader may reasonably ask, “How do you reconcile women’s love for aloof alphas with their love for ‘getting to know each other’?”

The answer is in the conversational tension, as Elise says.

People won’t appreciate learning about your life-details if you just give them up. That would make you sort of a life-detail slut. […]

People appreciate hearing the amazing things you have to say more if they desire them first. Don’t push. Instead, counterintuitively, you should resist.

Returning to our metaphor. You want to keep your conversational partner in a state of wanting more – pulling on your rope, sort of speak. While, at the same time, YOU want to be in a state of resistance – keeping the length of rope between the two of you taunt. This tension gives you control over the transfer of your life-details.

What Elise is describing here are the classic pickup techniques known as “assuming the sale”, (i.e., this chick wants to know me better, so I’m gonna hold out until she’s throwing money at me to buy my product), and “pacing” (i.e., cat string theory; cats respond more enthusiastically to string that is being pulled away from them). There is a broader category heading that all of this could be put under: Overconfidence.

People may not consciously be aware of pacing but they respond to it.

Pacing that’s too fast deflates the tension out of an interaction. Imagine throwing all your rope into someone’s arms. There’s no more for them to want or seek.

But pacing that’s too slow makes people feel bored and as if the interaction isn’t going anywhere.

Knowing the balance only comes with real-world practice. Generally, the balance will be the same for most women you meet because women, like men, share generalizable psychological properties with their sex.

Elise offers an example of good conversational pacing (and also some good shit test passing):

PUA: “That was a famous tennis player,” he adds. “He – got – mad – at – people. Probably before your time. I was just trying to guess your age.”

PREY: “How old do you think?”

“I’m afraid I can’t answer that question.”

“Why can’t you answer that question?”

“Because if I do then all the tension will leave the conversation. As it stands, you want to know my guess and if I give that up I’ll lose your interest.”

“I promise you won’t lose my interest.”

“Fine. But first, let’s sit down and make ourselves a bit more comfortable, if that’s alright. Then I’ll tell you all about yourself. I’ve been told I have an intuitive nature.”

They sit down on the couch nearby.

“Where are your friends? Perhaps they should join us.”

“Don’t worry about them. I’m a big girl. I can take care of myself.”

“I bet you can. Okay, I think you’re twenty eight.”

She hits him in the shoulder.

“Okay. Twenty six?”

“You’re really bad at this.”

“I know. My credentials might have been over-stated.”

“How about you? How old are you?”

“Older than you. Let’s just put it this way. I’m your real father. I remember your mom. She was hot back in the 80′s.”

“She still’s hot.”

“I’m sure she is. People of any age can be sexy. [ed: female ego bait. the purpose of these pretty lie pebbles is to lull the woman into a state of reception to the man’s sexy taboo-breaking.] But personally I end up dating girls who are uh…”

“What?”

“Younger, mostly.”

“Why do you do that?”

“Well, there’s a long answer to that question and a short answer.”

“What’s the short answer?”

“They’re hotter.”

“Okay, what’s the long answer.”

“I can’t really tell you. I’d have to show you.”

This is a textbook exhibition of flirting aka pacing. Women love this sort of “pulling teeth” kind of conversation because it signals to their hindbrains that the man engaging in it is not seeking their approval. And a man who is not interested in a woman’s approval is regarded by her evolved alpha male-detection cortical system as a man who likely gets plenty of female attention, and thus possesses the genes that would give her potential sons with him the same advantageous mating market genes.

Elise also illustrates bad conversational pacing with this example:

GAME NOOB: “I ride a fixie. Want to see my fixie porn?”

GIRL: “I have no idea what you’re talking about. Look. I didn’t ask to know anything about you. Perhaps you can hold some thoughts back.”

“I could. But I’m not going to. I’m an all out there kinda guy. I’m going to this fab party later. If you’re lucky I might invite you.”

“No thanks.”

“Aww. You’re playing hard to get. That’s so cute.”

“Whatever.”

“I hear an accent. Where are you from?”

“Nowhere.”

“Ha. Nowhere. That’s funny. Can I buy you a drink?”

“Yes. I’ll take a piña colada but don’t even think about dropping a roofie in there. I’m not going to hook up with you.”

“Whoever said anything about hooking up? You’re more of the kinda girl I see as a friend.”

“Good.”

“Good. So what’s your name?”

Elise takes some gratuitous shots here at well-worn PUA disqualification lines (“You’re more of the kinda girl that I see as a friend”), but his overall point is that bad pacing — that is, giving away the store — can render otherwise effective PUA lines like “That’s so cute” embarrassingly try-hard and pathetically transparent.

The difference between a sour grapes disqualification and a cool-as-fuck disqualification is timing. When you’re chasing — when you’re on the losing end of a pickup attempt — your DQs will be perceived by her as spiteful sour grapes. When you’re being chased — when you have pickup hand — she will perceive your DQs as challenges and redouble her efforts to win your grudging approval.

Which, I believe, really gets at the core of why game-haters and feminists and traditionalist pedestalizers have found it easy to lampoon certain aspects of game philosophy. Yes, the neg is very easy to make fun of when you put it in the mouth of a generic, socially awkward noob, like Elise has done above, who practically assaults a woman with approval-seeking behavior and regurgitated PUA lines delivered with pressing urgency at the wrong times. But put the neg in the mouth of an accomplished seducer who understands the value of teasing women with crumbs of information, and of pulling back at just the right moments, and suddenly that same neg is explosive pussy dynamite.

All great philosophies and theories of the mind throughout history have had their old guard detractors who latched onto digestible concepts that offered possibilities of being distilled into simplistic caricatures and thus made meaningless outside of their philosophical and practical context. To this day, the neg continues to be mistakenly thought of as a brazen insult by the prestige press and their manboobed and feminist lackeys, and there seems to be no let-up to their determination to remain unschooled hicks in matters of seduction.

Read Full Post »