Attraction - Can it be Generated? - An Introduction to Compliance-Based Game

[Teevster]

Lately, due to the confinement, we end up on the forum debating old topics - beating down dead horses.

And I find it awesome that we see typical new school pua theory being presented, and perhaps contrasted with the old school way of thinking. Now what is this so-called "new school" ? well without constructing any new terms here, new school is basically the current paradigm that: game is all about escalating the process, the vibe, and dealing with resistance - basically sealing the deal with women who are already attracted to you.

A key premise to this paradigm is that attraction either is there or isn't. In other words, you cannot create or generate attraction. It has to be there from the get go, and "game" is all about capitalizing on girls who are already into you. "Game" in this case is about sealing the deal and not fuck up - i.e. reduce attraction.

According to this school, behavior and words can reduce her attraction for you, but not generate it. Game is therefore all about screening for girls who are into you, and you may increase your odds by maximizing your fundamentals such as looks, status and wealth. Basically this paradigm is very much in line with the more recent "money, looks, status" crap - just a more refined view of it.

And then we have the otherr view - a view held by a minority (but it was not always like that!) which is the old school view - namely that one can generate attraction, or even create it, and game is not just all about "making it happen", but also generating the (pre-)conditions that makes it happen - i.e. making a girl who is not attracted to you, actually be willing to have sex with you. This view puts a lot more faith in outer game and pick up techniques. We believe in the game.

I am of the latter school, and so is most old schoolers here. Many of those few old schoolers that remain active tend be really good in field - which is not always the case with those new schoolers - although some are really good.


WHY THIS NEW PARADIGM?

Before I answer the question of whether "attraction" can be generated or not - i.e. defending the old school view, I need to mention why this shift in ideology has taken place. I can see a few reasons why, and they are not always ill-intended.

- The pick up industry has an interest in making money. Teaching old school pick up, which is super technical does not sell well anymore. It is too complex for most men, and requires YEARS upon YEARS of practice - as Razorjack (an old schooler) pointed out in another thread. Teaching men complex things is not worth it economically for the pick up industry.
- Learning highly technical game, takes for ever, as pointed out earlier, and you do not get immediate results. Customers become frustrated and end up calling it bullshit, due to the lack of immediate results. For this reason, the industry had to simplfy things and offer a model that gives more or less immediate results.
- The customer base, want simple theories, simple techniques, and frame-works that fit with the everyday doxa (- i.e. women find looks and money attractive - which is by no means wrong, just oversimplified). The customer asked, and the industry responded. This is why current pick up products are mostly run by good-looking naturals, with limited theoretical understanding. RSDMax, has in my book nothing interesting to say. Neither do Julien. ToddV on the other hand do, but again, he was on mASF under the name Xaneus, and was also featured in the game. True old schooler. His game is quite technical compared to the rest.

So there you have it - the commercial actors wanted something that was more marketable, and the consumers wanted simplicity and things that made sense.



CAN WE ACTUALLY GENERATE ATTRACTION?

Or put differently: can we actually get to bang girls who are NOT attracted to us from the get-go? Or is "game" limited to work only on those who are already into us?

In even more nerdy terms: does game only work on "greens" ( - i.e. girls who are attracted to you from the get go)? And should we just move on if a girl is not green? Is game then all about either playing the numbers such as mass approach till you get lucky; or screening for the receptive ones - i.e. look out for those who are interested? Is then the only thing that is within our control, our ability to fix our fundamentals such as looks and status? Which btw is EASIER SAID THAN DONE.

I honestly do not believe so, and I am therefore more optimistic to the possibilities of game. I believe one can make a real impact. Game can actually make girls who are not attracted to you from the get-go... actually want to have sex with you. I believe we do not have to rely only on going for "greens" (i.e. girls who are already into you).

But there is a caveat here - namely that making girls who are not into you from the get go (I have labelled this "baseline attraction" in the past) is not easy. It requires a few things:
- Really tight and powerful game! it takes for ever to learn. You oftentime need VERY strong and powerful material - i.e. things that are so powerful that you hijack her system and you also need to deliver it almost crisp perfect; adjusting most parameters. Hence why it is mostly only experienced guys who can pull it off (takes years to learn as Razorjack pointed out).
- You need to have nothing working against you - i.e. no bad state, no "wild cards" (bad luck such as bunch of cockblocks, annoying friends and so on). You need to have good conditions surrounding you (yep, there is an element of luck at play here).
- You probably need a good state - i.e. high momentum.

So it is easier said than done.

Most of the time, good seducers will, of course settle for girls who are already into them - i.e use game to basically escalate the process and seal the deal, doing more or less what the newer school of seduction is advocating. Nothing wrong with that. I do it to, quite often, more often than I dare admit (well hell, it is more fun and less work going for girl who show interest in you than going for non-compliant women!).

A good seducer is one who can turn women who are neutral ("orange") into greens. The ability of turning girls who are not all over you from the get-go, but who are just neutral ("I won't chase that guy, but I could consider him... if... and only if...") is usually what distinguishes an good seducer from an intermediate one

But I believe one can also turn girls who are actually "red" (i.e. not into you at all) into "greens" - or at least make them consider having sex with you,if not actually make them REALLY want to have sex with you.

I will not lie, it does NOT always work out and it is usually a lot of work, and not always worth it (she better be god damn hot). Obviously, this require REALLY GOOD pick up and seduction skills. Most men don't have that, hence why I do not usually recommend this strategy, and after all, most of the time, "just moving on" is a better call anyway.

That all said, I have so far only made a claim that it is possible to get girls who are not into the idea of having sex with you, into considering or even genuinely wanting to shag you. I have said nothing about whether it is possible to create or generate attraction.

In my book, I do not really know whether or not it is actually possible to create or generate attraction. I am unsure - I admit it!

But I can think of some ways women's baseline attraction (or lack thereof) can be affected.

After all, we must admit that we see the world through filters - which can easily be affected by either internal or external factors. These factors can generate certain biases and affect our judgement. So I question the whole premise of objectivity related to looks and status - and I question even more the objectivity related to human perception of attractiveness. For instance we know that:

- Women on the pill, will become attracted to different men than when they are not on it. The hormones affects her perception of beauty and changes her mechanism of sexual selection.
- Women can find a guy attractive as a result of certain internal filters - i.e. her mood. If she is aroused, she may find more men attractive than when she is not (when I am not horny, find all women ugly - but that's me).
- Her filters can be affected by the way the man make himself perceived (external factors). If a woman is perceiving a man being surrounded by women, she is more prone to find him hot. Other mechanisms are also at play here, such as social proof and "scarcity" and "competition" which are in my book compliance-increasing (and not only "attraction-increasing") factors.
- If a man is in the right "state" and his "vibe" is right, she more prone to find that guy attractive, than when his state is shit. Ever had a shitty night out where you felt "not on fire"? Did you notice how women tended to not find you attractive - or even unattractive, compared to nights where you were on fire, and you felt like being the hottest guy in the world?

Have you ever been to a club and met a girl who gave 0 fucks about you, only to bump into her again few weeks later, on a night where you happen to be on fire (i.e. good state and good vibe) and surrounded by women - this time, her being all over you? I must then ask, where is the objectivity related to female perceptions of male attractiveness?


So maybe attraction can in fact be "manipulated" by affecting her perception of you. But this is quite limited I must admit. What if you are not feeling in a top notch mood (state control, is part of "game" - although I must admit you will never have full control over it, not even close), or what if you are not surrounded by women (i.e. you did not get the ball rolling, or the venue was unfit for it, or simply did not feel like it that particular night), is there then nothing you can do? Is your only chance then, to screen for the girl who is receptive, hoping that your maximized looks will do the trick?


COMPLIANCE-BASED GAME

I believe there are things you can in fact do. But I do not honestly believe you can create or generate attraction per.se. Sure you can affect her filters and her perception in order to make her perceive you as more attractive, but I do not believe you can directly generate (or "create") attraction.

But what I do believe however, is that you can INCREASE her compliance (I wrote a post about this in the past). That, you can do.

In other words you can make a girl wanting to have sex with you, without there being any underlying attraction (i.e. "she is not attracted to you"). In other words, attraction itself is not a requirement.

SAY WHAT?

Yes, because as long as there is compliance, and that if the compliance is high enough, she will want to have sex with you (best case scenario) or at least consider it.

You may not create attraction, but you can create desire.

Additionally, if you are able to remove potential resistance, the odds increase even further.

So basically this model looks like this:

Getting laid = Generating desire + removing potential roadblocks (resistance: anti-slut defense, female self control, etc) + Logistics (i.e. handle the situation, the surroundings and so on).


This is why my model for pick up is: "Make her feel desire, and make her feel allowed to act upon those desires" (emotional leading) and if one really wants to add logistics into the equation: "create the context to make her act and feel allowed to act upon those desires" (logistical leading).


Basically what we do is up her compliance.


Well, let me state some examples on how sex can take place without attraction, and purely out of compliance:

- A man pays a hooker. The hooker is not attracted to the guy, but have sex with him for money. The money is what generates compliance. This is not game, obviously, but demonstrates the effects of compliance.
- A man is not attracted to a girl, yet she keeps telling him about her black belt in deep-throating, how she loves getting it in the ass, how she can ride dicks with her asshole, and squeeze and release as she goes up and down (basically sucking your dick with her ass). Chances are, the man will have sex with her. He becomes compliant. And yes, this is how sexual prizing works, and this is what you communicate with sex talk (basically I use this EXACT STRATEGY to create compliance in women - by doing exactly this!).
- A girl or a guy is stuck in a room with someone of the opposite sex. That person they are stuck with is not attractive to them yet keeps behaving in a very sexual way, causing major arousal. Sex is likely to happen - especially if nobody will ever find out what is taking place in that room (ref: "make her feel allowed to act upon those desires). Yes... this a similar scenario to my "house gambit" - where I recreate this context with words.
- A girl just broke up with her boyfriend, and wants to commit revenge on her ex. There is only one guy available to do that with... but he is not her personal 10. Well, because she has a desire to avenge her ego, and the guy available for providing exactly this, the girl will become compliant to him, and perhaps have sex with him.
- A guy is not super attractive, but have a lot of connections, have high social value. The girl may have sex with him.

All these are examples of sex taking place... not because of attraction, but because of compliance. The good thing with this frame-work is that it opens up for many possible strategies. It opens up for the possibility of meeting women who would not "naturally" have sex with you.

Now obviously, I am not saying you can get to fuck EVERY WOMAN on the planet - that is not possible But you get to have sex with more women (a higher percentage of women, a better meet-to-lay ratio) - you can become more selective. The "fucking every women on the planet" is only a goal we stretch toward, not something we can ever reach. But we can get closer to it. This is what game is ALL ABOUT.

At the same time, you do not have a 100% close-rate on girls who are into you (attracted from the get-go) either - I mean wildcards can take place and so on.

And yes good looks create compliance. Lack thereof can cause resistance. I am not denying that. Looks matter, but again, look is subjective. One girls "hot guy" is not the same as another girls "hot guy" - or put differently: One man's trash is another man's treasure".

How is compliance generated? There are many ways one can do that - everything, or almost everything related to "game" - i.e. "techniques"; are designed to increase compliance. Some examples:
- Displaying higher value
- Social proof
- Amping her buyers temperature (arousing her - mind you that this is prone to generating resistance, and the compliance is not sustainable: it fades quickly).
- Compliance ladders such as "yes-ladders"
- Eliciting strong emotional states (hypnosis)
- Showing mixed signals (push & pull, "chase frames" - usually not key in creating compliance, but nevertheless a very powerful tool for amplifying current compliance)
- Logistics ("accidentally" ending up in a room alone with her)

...and so on...

There are of course many other ways to generate compliance. Finding a way to generate compliance, use it in field and perfectionize it, is what "game" is all about to me.

And... I believe there is a hierarchy of compliance switches - namely that some ways of building compliance are superior to others (although this can depend on context, the girls you are dealing with, and even depend on who you are - to some extent). Compliance switches are not all equal and they all have their pros and cons. Some are however "stronger" than other - and the stronger ones may be what is needed to switch a girl who is truly not into you, into willing to consider having sex with you - and perhaps even making her want to have sex with you.

To me, the top three compliance triggers are:

- Social proof
- Hypnosis (generating insanely powerful state - and leave her wanting more of them and so on)
- Sex talk (yes! sexual prizing in particular - demonstrating that you can be a bang of a life time).

And this leads me to my epilogue:


EPILOGUE: BANGING LESBIANS

So as just mentioned, I considered sex talk to be my favorite, and in my book my most powerful tool for generating compliance. I want to exemplify this by giving you a pretty sick example of where "attraction" obviously is lacking, and compliance alone is saving the day.

I am here talking about the times where I pulled lesbians.

And I assume some of you may say: "well if she banged you, she must have been bi-sexual". Well she may have been bi-curious, and if she wasn't I surely turned her into one.

I have been hanging in the gay community for years and I can tell a lesbian girl from a bi-sexual (not always, but the cases I am talking about, are clear lesbians). In this case, the girls in question where:

- Girls who have never EVER been with guys before. One of them , was 32, never been with a guy, the other, has been with a guy, but told me it was when she was younger (over 10 years ago).
- Others are looking and acting more lesbian, yet without being butch. One of them used to work at my local gay bar, and was hooking up with my target's friend... but since it did not work out for either of us, we ended up fucking each other instead (me and my lesbian wing)
- They bang girls like we bang girls. Some have girlfriends, other even married... to women.
- And most importantly, the vibe before and during sex is very different to normal heterosexual intercourse. One girl kept bragging to me about how many girls she has banged and how she banged them (was like talking to a dude) - while she was drinking Jack Daniels from the bottle. The sex itself had a totally different vibe - pussy licking is here the climax and not a preliminary act. Blowjobs are god damn terrible (that is: if she is even willing to suck dick, which is not always the case). The vibe after sex is also different - no kissing, no cuddle, no sweetness - instead she is hungry and wants pizza, or play playstation...

I have an obsession with fucking lesbian women. I am not doing it often. It is hard and some luck is required. But I enjoy it. Nobody else in my circles understand why I am so into it, but it just happen to be my kink.

Nevertheless, let us get back on track.

How do I get to bang lesbian girls?

Well, we know these facts:

- She does not find men attractive, does not care about my looks.
- In fact, the simple fact of me being a man is a big minus here.
- In other words, she is simply NOT ATTRACTED TO ME.

... otherwise, she wouldn't be a lesbian.

So how did I get to have sex with her?

- Well first and foremost, in all cases where I have managed to pull lesbians, she has either been alone, or isolated from her gay/lesbian friends. In other words, there has been no pair-pressure taking place. This means "less potential resistance" (ref: "making her feel allowed")
- Some luck taking place - she has been willing to talk with me and hear me out. I also had the chance to deliver my verbal game. Maybe she stayed because she found me nice and cool, or maybe because I was able to build rapport with her (I know the LGBTQ+ world by heart)
- But what really triggered the compliance was my use of sex talk - sexual prizing in particular.

In other words, communicating to her indirectly about how sexually experienced I am with women, conveying my abilities to please women, to give them multiple orgasms, to stimulate their mind in bed, to give them new and unexplored sensations while understanding their minds and feelings during the whole intercourse... and so on and on...

.... made them perceive me as a good bang, as a man who could give them the night of their life.... multiple orgasms, serial orgasms, combined orgasms.... make her orgasm in 8 different ways (my 8 types of orgasm routine works well here)... and just not make a big deal out of it.

I made them curious, they became intrigued.

There is one interesting thing about lesbian women, which is that... they are incredibly sexual beings... and they have rarely any hang ups related to sex what-so-ever (no anti-slut defense). This is probably why I am so fascinated by them - to me, they are the display of "pure female sexuality", before society corrupted women. Since lesbians do not follow the hetero-normative doxa, they are not corrupted by it either. It is like "untouched" sexuality. Pure in all its essence. I am tripping now...

Let's get back on track....

In other words, sex talk is not only something that works on lesbian women, which can make them desire having sex with you, but it also works EVEN BETTER on lesbian than on straight women (and it works already fantastically well on straight and bi-sexual women - as many here can witness through their own experience).

But the most important take-away is this:

"When I had sex with lesbians, it was not because they felt attraction toward me"

Sex happened because of compliance - because she wanted to experience me in bed after I conveyed my sexual knowledge and experiences (sexual prizing).

And this concludes it to me.

Best,
Teevster


PS: I know many gay guys get to fuck straight men by offering them "mind-blowing blowjobs" - maybe there is a similar mechanism at play here?

 

[flatron]

No. As Mark Manson said, attraction can only be amplified. Not created.
If you open a girl who thinks you are ugly for instance, that's it. Game over.

People telling you otherwise are just people selling courses, books, etc. They want you to believe that there's some mystical level never caught on film whereby you can jedi mindtrick your way into a girls pants lol. (hypnosis lol)

Todd has resorted to some pretty shady tactics in infields to make it look like he got he lay when she was clearly uninterested and he went home alone. The apparent 'best' are all using tricks (hookers for jmulv, actresses Tom torero etc etc) despite having a mountain of pua knowledge

Most people who think they have elite game are just young, good looking dude.


Game is about not fucking it up with attracted girls. At every level

ps - I'm assuming this was meant to be a discussion and you wanted opinions? If not, and you just wanted a thread for your take on the topic, i'll delete the post

regards

 

[Carousel]

No. As Mark Manson said, attraction can only be amplified. Not created.
If you open a girl who thinks you are ugly for instance, that's it. Game over.

People telling you otherwise are just people selling courses, books, etc. They want you to believe that there's some mystical level never caught on film whereby you can jedi mindtrick your way into a girls pants lol. (hypnosis lol)

Todd has resorted to some pretty shady tactics in infields to make it look like he got he lay when she was clearly uninterested and he went home alone. The apparent 'best' are all using tricks (hookers for jmulv, actresses Tom torero etc etc) despite having a mountain of pua knowledge

Mark Manson is also preoccupied about selling stuff - why is he to be taken any more seriously?

 

[Teevster]

No. As Mark Manson said, attraction can only be amplified. Not created.
If you open a girl who thinks you are ugly for instance, that's it. Game over.

1. I do not care what Mark "Enthropy" Manson has to say about anything.
2. Have you read the post, and actually tried to counter any of my arguments?

People telling you otherwise are just people selling courses, books, etc. They want you to believe that there's some mystical level never caught on film whereby you can jedi mindtrick your way into a girls pants lol. (hypnosis lol)

I do not take for granted what other people tell me. I do not base my knowledge on what others are telling me, I base my knowledge on my own experience. I suggest you do the same.

Todd has resorted to some pretty shady tactics in infields to make it look like he got he lay when she was clearly uninterested and he went home alone. The apparent 'best' are all using tricks (hookers for jmulv, actresses Tom torero etc etc) despite having a mountain of pua knowledge

Perhaps. I have not look to much into it. I am aware of what JMULV (does anyone take that guy seriously?) and Tom Torero have done (I am disappointment with the last one, since when I met him, he came of as a genuine guy...)

Most people who think they have elite game are just young, good looking dude.

1. Most elite gamers are NOT young.
2. Not all of them are good looking dudes - or at least not mind-blownlingly good looking (which elite gamer are you referring to btw?)

Game is about not fucking it up with attracted girls. At every level

That is one aspect of it. I did cover it in my post. I also covered that in my book, there is more to it, but it seems to me that you have not read my post. You should refute my arguments.

ps - I'm assuming this was meant to be a discussion and you wanted opinions? If not, and you just wanted a thread for your take on the topic, i'll delete the post

It is meant to be a discussion - although you are not discussing much. You are just making claims, without any arguments to back them up. You are also not refuting any of my arguments. It is not much of a discussion.

Best,

 

[Razorjack]

Lately, due to the confinement, we end up on the forum debating old topics - beating down dead horses.

And I find it awesome that we see typical new school pua theory being presented, and perhaps contrasted with the old school way of thinking. Now what is this so-called "new school" ? well without constructing any new terms here, new school is basically the current paradigm that: game is all about escalating the process, the vibe, and dealing with resistance - basically sealing the deal with women who are already attracted to you.

A key premise to this paradigm is that attraction either is there or isn't. In other words, you cannot get create or generate attraction. It has to be there from the get go, and "game" is all about capitalizing on girls who are already into you. "Game" in this case is about sealing the deal and not fuck up - i.e. as velasco puts it: reduce attraction.

According to him, behavior and words can reduce her attraction for you, but not generate it. Game is therefore all about screening for girls who are into you, and you may increase your odds by maximizing your fundamentals such as looks, status and wealth. Basically this paradigm is very much in line with the more recent "money, looks, status" crap - just a more refined view of it.

And then we have the otherr view - a view held by a minority (but it was not always like that!) which is the old school view - namely that one can generate attraction, or even create it, and game is not just all about "making it happen", but also generating the (pre-)conditions that makes it happen - i.e. making a girl who is not attracted to you, actually be willing to have sex with you. This view puts a lot more faith in outer game and pick up techniques. We believe in the game.

I am of the latter school, and so is most old schoolers here. Many of those few old schoolers that remain active tend be really good in field - which is not always the case with those new schoolers - although some are really good - like velasco himself.


WHY THIS NEW PARADIGM?

Before I answer the question of whether "attraction" can be generated or not - i.e. defending the old school view, I need to mention why this shift in ideology has taken place. I can see a few reasons why, and they are not always ill-intended.

- The pick up industry has an interest in making money. Teaching old school pick up, which is super technical does not sell well anymore. It is too complex for most men, and requires YEARS upon YEARS of practice - as Razorjack (an old schooler) pointed out in another thread. Teaching men complex things is not worth it economically for the pick up industry.
- Learning highly technical game, takes for ever, as pointed out earlier, and you do not get immediate results. Customers become frustrated and end up calling it bullshit, due to the lack of immediate results. For this reason, the industry had to simplfy things and offer a model that gives more or less immediate results.
- The customer base, want simple theories, simple techniques, and frame-works that fit with the everyday doxa (- i.e. women find looks and money attractive - which is by no means wrong, just oversimplified). The customer asked, and the industry responded. This is why current pick up products are mostly run by good-looking naturals, with limited theoretical understanding. RSDMax, has in my book nothing interesting to say. Neither do Julien. ToddV on the other hand do, but again, he was on mASF under the name Xaneus, and was also featured in the game. True old schooler. His game is quite technical compared to the rest.

So there you have it - the commercial actors wanted something to that was more marketable, and the customers wanted simplicity and things that made sense.



CAN WE ACTUALLY GENERATE ATTRACTION?

Or put differently: can we actually get to bang girls who are NOT attracted to us from the get-go? Or is "game" limited to work only on those who are already into us?

In even more nerdy terms: does game only work on "greens" ( - i.e. girls who are attracted to you from the get go)? And should we just move on if a girl is not green? Is game then all about either doing playing the numbers such as mass approach till you get lucky; or screening for the receptive ones - i.e. look out for those who are interested? Is then the only thing that is within our control, our ability to fix our fundamentals such as looks and status? Which btw is EASIER SAID THAN DONE.

I honestly do not believe so, and I am therefore more optimistic to the possibilities of game. I believe one can make a real impact. Game can actually make girls who are not attracted to you from the get-go... actually want to have sex with you. I believe we do not have to rely only on going for "greens" (i.e. girls who are already into you).

But there is a caveat here - namely that making girls who are not into you from the get go (I have labelled this "baseline attraction" in the past) is not easy. It requires a few things:
- Really tight and powerful game! it takes for ever to learn. You oftentime need VERY strong and powerful material - i.e. things that are so powerful that you hijack her system and you also need to deliver it almost crisp perfect; adjusting most parameters of it. Hence why it is mostly only experienced guys who can pull it off (takes years to learn as Razorjack pointed out).
- You need to have nothing working against you - i.e. no bad state, no "wild cards" (bad luck such as bunch of cockblocks, annoying friends and so on). You need to have good conditions surrounding you (yep, there is an element of luck at play here).
- You probably need a good state - i.e. high momentum.

So it is easier said than done.

Most of the time, good seducers will, of course settle for girls who are already into them - i.e use game to basically escalate the process and seal the deal, doing more or less what velasco and the newer school of seduction is advocating. Nothing wrong with that. I do it to, quite often, more often than I dare admit (well hell, it is more fun and less work going for girl who show interest in you than going for non-compliant women!).

A good seducer is one who can turn women who are neutral ("orange") into greens - and I am sure Velasco is able to do this, without being aware of it (he is probably already doing it without knowing). The ability of turning girls who are not all over you from the get-go, but who are just neutral ("I won't chase that guy, but he will do if... if... and only if...") is usually what distinguishes an good seducer from an intermediate one

But I believe one can also turn girls who are actually "red" (i.e. not into you at all) into "greens" - or at least make them consider having sex with you, or even make them REALLY want to have sex with you.

I will not lie, it does NOT always work out and it is usually a lot of work, and not always worth it (she better be god damn hot). Obviously, this require REALLY GOOD pick up and seduction skills. Most men don't have that, hence why I do not usually recommend this strategy, and after all, most of the time, "just moving on" is a better call anyway.

That all said, I have so far only made a claim that it is possible to get girls who are not into the idea of having sex with you, into considering or even genuinely wanting to shag you. I have said nothing about whether it is possible to create or generate attraction.

In my book, I do not really know whether or not it is actually possible to create or generate attraction. I am unsure - I admit it!

But I can think of some ways women's baseline attraction (or lack thereof) can be affected.

After all, we must admit that we see the world through filters - which can easily be affected by either internal or external factors. These factors can generate certain biases and affect our judgement. So I question the whole premise of objectivity related to looks and status - and I question even more the objectivity related to human perception of attractiveness. For instance we know that:

- Women on the pill, will become attracted to different men than when they are not on it. The hormones affects her perception of beauty and changes her mechanism of sexual selection.
- Women can find a guy attractive as a result of certain internal filters - i.e. her mood. If she is aroused, she may find more men attractive than when she is not (when I am not horny, I for instance, find all women ugly - but that's me).
- Her filters can be affected by the way the man make himself perceived (external factors). If a woman is perceiving a man being surrounded by women, she is more prone to find him hot. Other mechanisms are also at play here, such as social proof and "scarcity" and "competition" which are in my book compliance-increasing (and not only "attraction-increasing") factors.
- If a man is in the right "state" and his "vibe" is right, she more prone to find that guy attractive, than when his state is shit. Ever had a shitty night out where you felt "not on fire"? Did you notice how women tended to not find you attractive - or even unattractive, compared to nights where you are on fire, and you felt like being the hottest guy in the world?

Ever been to a club and meta girl who gave 0 fucks about you, only to bump into her again few weeks later, on a night where you happen to be on fire (i.e. good state and good vibe) and surrounded by women - this time, her being all over you? I must then ask, where is thew objectivity related to female perceptions of male attractiveness?


So maybe attraction can in fact be "manipulated" by affecting her perception of you. But this is quite limited I must admit. What if you are not feeling in top notch mood (state control, is part of "game" - although I must admit you will never have full control over it, not even close), or what if you are not surrounded by women (i.e. you did not get the ball rolling, or the venue was unfit for it, or simply did not feel like it that particular night), is there then nothing you can do? Is your only chance then, to screen for the girl who is receptive, hoping that your maximized looks will do the trick?


COMPLIANCE-BASED GAME

I believe there are things you can in fact do. But I do not honestly believe you can create or generate attraction per.se. Sure you can affect her filters and her perception in order to make her perceive you as more attractive, but I do not believe you can directly generate (or "create") attraction.

But what I do believe however, is that you can INCREASE her compliance (I wrote a post about this in the past). That, you can do.

In other words you can make a girl wanting to have sex with you, without there being any underlying attraction (i.e. "she is not attracted to you"). In other words, attraction itself is not a requirement.

SAY WHAT?

Yes, because as long as there is compliance, and that if the compliance is high enough, she will want to have sex with you (best case scenario) or at least consider it.

You may not create attraction, but you can create desire.

Additionally, if you are able to remove potential resistance, the odds increase even further.

So basically this model looks like this:

Getting laid = Generating desire + removing potential roadblocks (resistance: anti-slut defense, female self control, etc) + Logistics (i.e. handle the situation, the surroundings and so on).


This is why my model for pick up is: "Make her feel desire, and make her feel allowed to act upon those desires" (emotional leading) and if one really wants to add logistics into the equation: "create the context to make her act and feel allowed to act upon those desires" (logistical leading).


Basically what we do is up her compliance.


Well, let me state some examples on how sex can take place without attraction, and purely out of compliance:

- A man pays a hooker. The hooker is not attracted to the guy, but have sex with him for money. The money is what generate compliance. This is not game, obviously, but demonstrates the effects of compliance.
- A man is not attracted to a girl, yet she keeps telling him about her black belt in deep-throating, how she loves getting it in the ass, how she can ride dicks with her asshole, and squeeze and release as she goes up and down (basically sucking your dick with her ass). Chances are, the man will have sex with her. He becomes compliant. And yes, this is how sexual prizing works, and this is what you communicate with sex talk (basically I use this EXACT STRATEGY to create compliance in women - by doing exactly this!).
- A girl or a guy is stuck in a room with someone of the opposite sex. That person they are stuck with is not attractive to them yet keeps behaving in a very sexual way, causing major arousal. Sex is likely to happen - especially if nobody will ever find out what is taking place in that room (ref: "make her feel allowed to act upon those desires). Yes... this a similar scenario to my "house gambit" - where I recreate this context with words.
- A girl just broke up with her boyfriend, and wants to commit revenge on her ex. There is only one guy available to do that with... but he is not her personal 10. Well, because she has a desire to avenge her ego, and the guy available is providing exactly this, the girl will become compliant to him, and perhaps have sex with him.
- A guy is not super attractive, but have a lot of connections, have high social value. The girl may have sex with him.

All these are examples of sex taking place... not because of attraction, but because of compliance. The good thing with this frame-work is that it opens up for many possible strategies. It opens up for the possibility of meeting women who would not "naturally" have sex with you.

Now obviously, I am not saying you can get to fuck EVERY WOMAN on the planet - that is not possible But you get to have sex with more women (a higher percentage of women, a better meet-to-lay ratio) - you can become more selective. The "fucking every women on the planet" is only a goal we stretch toward, not something we can ever reach. But we can get closer to it. This is what game is ALL ABOUT.

At the same time, you do not have a 100% close-rate on girls who are into you (attracted from the get-go) either - I mean wildcards can take place and so on.

And yes good looks create compliance. Lack thereof can cause resistance. I am not denying that. Looks matter, but again, look is subjective. One girls "hot guy" is not the same as another girls "hot guy" - or put differently: One man's trash is another man's treasure".

How is compliance generated? There are many ways one can do that - everything, or almost everything related to "game" - i.e. "techniques"; are designed to increase compliance. Some examples:
- Displaying higher value
- Social proof
- Amping her buyers temperature (arousing her - mind you that this is prone to generating resistance, and the compliance is not sustainable: it fades quickly).
- Compliance ladders such as "yes-ladders"
- Eliciting strong emotional states (hypnosis)
- Showing mixed signals (push & pull, "chase frames" - usually not key in creating compliance, but nevertheless a very powerful tool for amplifying current compliance)
- Logistics ("accidentally" ending up in a room alone with her)

...and so on...

There are of course many other ways to generate compliance. Finding a way to generate compliance, use it in field and perfectionize it, is what "game" is all about to me.

And... I believe there is a hierarchy of compliance switches - namely that some ways of building compliance are superior to others (although this can depend on context, the girls you are dealing with, and even depend on who you are - to some extent). Compliance switches are not all equal and they all have their pros and cons. Some are however "stronger" than other - and the stronger ones may be what is needed to switch a girl who is truly not into you, into willing to consider having sex with you - and perhaps even making her want to have sex with you.

To me, the top three compliance triggers are:

- Social proof
- Hypnosis (generating insanely powerful state - and leave her wanting more of them and so on)
- Sex talk (yes! sexual prizing in particular - demonstrating that you can be a bang of a life time).

And this leads me to my epilogue:


EPILOGUE: BANGING LESBIANS

So as just mentioned, I considered sex talk to be my favorite, and in my book my most powerful tool for generating compliance. I want to exemplify this by giving you a pretty sick example of where "attraction" obviously is lacking, and compliance alone is saving the day.

I am here talking about the times where I pulled lesbians.

And I assume some of you may say: "well if she banged you, she must have been bi-sexual". Well she may have been bi-curious, and if she wasn't I surely turned her into one.

I have been hanging in the gay community for years and I can tell a lesbian girl from a bi-sexual (not always, but the cases I am talking about, are clear lesbians). In this case, the girls in question where:

- Girls who have never EVER been with guys before. One of them , was 32, never been with a guy, the other, has been with a guy, but told me it was when she was younger (over 10 years ago).
- Others are looking and acting more lesbian, yet without being butch. One of them used to work at my local gay bar, and was hooking up with my target's friend... but since it did not work out for either of us, we ended up fucking each other instead (me and my lesbian wing)
- They bang girls like we bang men. Some have girlfriends, other even married... to women.
- And most importantly, the vibe before and during sex is very different to normal heterosexual intercourse. One girl kept bragging to me about how many girls she banged and how she banged them (was like talking to a dude) - while she was drinking Jack Daniels from the bottle. The sex itself have a totally different vibe - pussy licking is here the climax and not a preliminary act. Blowjobs are god damn terrible (that is: if she is even willing to suck dick, which is not always the case). The vibe after sex is also different - no kissing, no cuddle, no sweetness - instead she is hungry and wants pizza, or play playstation...

I have an obsession with fucking lesbian women. I am not doing it often. It is hard and some luck is required. But I enjoy it. Nobody else in my circles understand why I am so into it, but it just happen to be my kink.

Nevertheless, let us get back on track.

How do I get to bang lesbian girls?

Well, we know these facts:

- She does not find men attractive, does not care about my looks.
- In fact, the simple fact of me being a man is a big minus here.
- In other words, she is simply NOT ATTRACTED TO ME.

... otherwise, she wouldn't be a lesbian.

So how did I get to have sex with her?

- Well first and foremost, in all cases where I have managed to pull lesbians, she has either been alone, or isolated from her gay/lesbian friends. In other words, there has been no pair-pressure taking place. This means "less potential resistance" (ref: "making her feel allowed")
- Some luck taking place - she has been willing to talk with me and hear me out. I also had the chance to deliver my verbal game. Maybe she stayed because she found me nice and cool, or maybe because I was able to build rapport with her (I know the LGBTQ+ world by heart)
- But what really triggered the compliance was my use of sex talk - sexual prizing in particular.

In other words, communicating to her indirectly about how sexually experienced I am with women, conveying my abilities to please women, to give them multiple orgasms, to stimulate their mind in bed, to give them new and unexplored sensations while understandimg their minds and feeling during the whole intercourse... and so on and on...

.... made them perceive me as a good bang, as a man who could give them the night of their life.... multiple orgasms, serial orgasms, combined orgasms.... make her orgasm in 8 different ways (my 8 types of orgasm routine works well here)... and just not make a big deal out of it.

I made them curious, they became intrigued.

There is one interesting thing about lesbian women, which is that... they are incredibly sexual beings... and they have rarely any hang ups related to sex what-so-ever (no anti-slut defense). This is probably why I am so fascinated by them - to me, they are the display of "pure female sexuality", before society corrupted women. Since lesbians do not follow the hetero-normative doxa, they are not corrupted by it either. It is like "untouched" sexuality. Pure in all its essence. I am tripping now...

Let's get back on track....

In other words, sex talk is not only something that works on lesbian women, which can make them desire having sex with you, but it also works EVEN BETTER on lesbian than on straight women (and it works already fantastically well on straight and bi-sexual women - as many here can witness through their own experience).

But the most important take-away is this:

"When I had sex with lesbians, it was not because they felt attraction toward me"

Sex happened because of compliance - because she wanted to experience me in bed after I conveyed my sexual knowledge and experiences (sexual prizing).

And this concludes it to me.

Best,
Teevster


PS: I know many gay guys get to fuck straight men by offering them "mind-blowing blowjobs" - maybe there is a similar mechanism at play here?

Thanks for this post, the first half (old school vs new school) cleared up a lot of things for me since coming back to the seduction community. Since I know nothing about the new school, I honestly thought it was an evolution of old school. I was left scratching my head in several threads why some guys were so vehemently opposed to the possibility of ugly guys being able PU hot chicks or broke dudes being in LTRs with beautiful women. I was also wondering why the new generation of guys weren't pushing the boundaries much much further than what the old schoolers did.

Now it clicks, the new school stuff is a simplified subset of the old school stuff requested by popular demand. This is a big aha moment for me.

As for the 2nd half of your post, especially about the lesbian / gay stuff, I never understood the dynamics until now. Interesting, not my thing, but still interesting none the less.

 

[Razorjack]

No. As Mark Manson said, attraction can only be amplified. Not created.
If you open a girl who thinks you are ugly for instance, that's it. Game over.

People telling you otherwise are just people selling courses, books, etc. They want you to believe that there's some mystical level never caught on film whereby you can jedi mindtrick your way into a girls pants lol. (hypnosis lol)

Todd has resorted to some pretty shady tactics in infields to make it look like he got he lay when she was clearly uninterested and he went home alone. The apparent 'best' are all using tricks (hookers for jmulv, actresses Tom torero etc etc) despite having a mountain of pua knowledge

Most people who think they have elite game are just young, good looking dude.


Game is about not fucking it up with attracted girls. At every level

ps - I'm assuming this was meant to be a discussion and you wanted opinions? If not, and you just wanted a thread for your take on the topic, i'll delete the post

regards

Yeah, I get it now. Funny I couldn't understand how you younger guys with your energy levels weren't taking seduction to the stratosphere (I'm facepalming myself for not getting this sooner)

Sad and a bit disappointing I have to say, I was seriously looking forward to guys like you taking an old timer like me to school, so I could learn a new thing or 2.

But basically, you've already put a limit on how good you're going to get.

 

[Fluxcapacitor]

@Teevster dude! Really love the thread, your epilogue has helped me understand some of my encounters with lesbians better but not all of them. I'm also off the same mentality that you can have success with a lot more than greenlight girls.

Playing devil's advocate on this (not that I agree with @flatron reply because there isn't an argument to anything you discussed) he mentioned if a girl thinks your ugly it's game over which isn't totally wrong. The argument I will put forward to this using your epilogue is you said this lesbian girl gave you time off day. This gives you an opportunity to use your verbal game and other techniques.

If she didn't give you time off day and walked off it wouldn't have been possible.

I'm not sure if availability can sum this up but if a girl is totally not interested in your time and won't talk to you nothing can flip this around in this moment. Social proof and pre selection or something to make her re evaluate you is all you can do - unless it's her availability that's the issue. This can be out of your control. It would be alot off hard work to build compliance from this.

I guess maybe a baseline of compliance? If they're so un compliant and anti social to you you're out. Obviously. But how many extremely harsh rejections do you face? If you're totally socially clueless and uncalibrated you'll scare them off which is the opposite of seduction haha.

 

[Razorjack]

If you guys don't mind, I'll rant a bit about my take on attraction.

I never worried about whether a woman was attracted to me or not, to me this was too much of a limiting belief.

Instead I assumed that every woman was attracted to me. I adjusted my mindset to not only believe this but to live and breathe it.

So when I was out picking up women, there was never any doubt in my mind whether a woman was attracted to me or not, I only needed to trigger her awareness of her attraction for me.

Here's an example:

Before I developed the Asshole Rockstar, it was a bit more work but it typically went something like this.

1. I see a girl that I want at a nightclub
2. She doesn't show interest even after making eye contact
3. Did I think she wasn't attracted? NO! I thought "she just isn't aware of how attracted she is to me yet."
4. So how do I trigger her awareness? Tactics
5. Option #1: cute couple routine -
   1. wait for a guy to approach her
   2. before he has a chance to run his game, I jump in with "Hey, you two make such a cute couple!"
   3. Even better if my target is with a girlfriend - say to the girlfriend - "don't you think they make a cute couple"
   4. This ends up short-circuiting the other guy's entire interaction with her and gets her curious about me - triggering her awareness of her attraction for me
6. Option #2: Blatant social proof
   1. Find another girl close by my target that is already aware of her attraction for me and is showing it
      
   2. Hit up the 2nd girl and set it up so we're touching each other in directly in front of my target so that there is no way she can miss seeing us
   3. Turn up the heat with the 2nd girl until the first one starts to stare and/or be hypnotized / fascinated - awareness triggered
7. Option #3: Variation of blatant social proof
   1. This one worked very well on the high status seeking girls
   2. Find a 2-set (2 girls who came to the club together) near my target
   3. position myself and the 2-set again in front of the target where she can't help but notice us
   4. do the 3-some drinking tequila routine (me and the 2-set do tequila body shots on each other, me on both girls and the girls on each other) in front of my target
   5. watch the target's buying temp go through the roof! LOL!

I had a whole handful of these tactics, but just to summarize: worrying about attraction just made pick up so much more complicated, it was much easier to assume it and take it from there.

After developing the Asshole Rockstar, the tactics became even simpler, I just need to place myself in her awareness radius and/or line of sight

***Ok, rant over****

And now back to our regularly scheduled program...... carry on

 

[greenleaf]

I guess maybe a baseline of compliance? If they're so un compliant and anti social to you you're out. Obviously. But how many extremely harsh rejections do you face?

Yeah, most of my 'no girls' either simply ignore me/put their palm in my face as if to say 'fuck off' (this is more in clubs etc) or they'll just clam up and not reply to anything i'm saying, give me the bare minimum replies and clearly want me to go away lol. Some are socially available and will talk etc, but you can just tell there isn't attraction there from their end. Like, at all lol. Just not her type

But i'm in the UK. We don't really talk to strangers as much here - Maybe it's better in the US in terms of the 'baseline compliance'

I'm interested in the '' VERY strong and powerful material - i.e. things that are so powerful that you hijack her system'' that the OP mentions.

Any examples? I've read and experimented with material from about every PUA book on earth (mystery, rsd, ross Jefferies, NLP articles/FR's on this site etc etc) and am yet to find something that can hijack her system and force attraction in me so i'm assuming it's nothing I've heard of, but i'll be happy to try it out after this corona mess!!

 

[Razorjack]

@Bacchus

I admit again, your knowledge is astounding, this is the new level stuff was talking about..... Err wait a minute, are you running that verbal persuasive stuff on me! LOL!

Seriously good stuff, unfortunately for me, trying to PU like you guys do would short-circuit my brain, I'd have a lot of trouble doing it

But when you describe this, the effect it's having on the girl, then I can relate:

I've gamed chicks at modelling competitions and fashion shows. . . with many handsome male models walking around. But when I got one of these girls immersed in a conversation with me, she felt like reality is distorted and nobody existed except the two of us. While I was speaking to a runway model at one of these competitions. I still had a very strong awareness. . . of other stunning women in the vicinity. Just like any horny man would.

I do something similar, I call it "soul-gazing" not sure if there is a routine / tactic for it. I decided one day that this was the effect that I wanted to experience this together with my target, so I experimented until I figured it out.

The way I do it is slightly different from how you're doing it:

While me and the girl are talking face to face, I start by staring deeply into her eyes, then focus on looking past her eyes and piercing her soul with my gaze as I'm telling a story or asking a question and listening to her talk. Girls seem to go in a time-distortion trance and they become completely unaware of everything around them except the 2 of us.

The big difference however between your version and my way, is that I also wanted to "lose myself" in the time-distortion with her. So I also become completely oblivious to everything around me. But this was specifically how I wanted to PU, after some years pick up started to feel too robotic and mechanical, I wanted to feel like I was falling in love with every new girl I approached.

The fact that you can maintain a strong awareness was never something that I had considered. Cool!

 

[Fluxcapacitor]

@greenleaf dude! Night game in clubs is my main game and I'm also in the UK. I've never had a palm in my face but I've had girls immediately walk off or flat out ignore me. The ones that put there palm in your face I highly doubt you can hijack their system with any method. I could be wrong but there's no baseline here you'd need to peak her interest through pre selection or social proof similar to razorjacks options.

I disagree with having to find a social girl that thinks you're hot. This is a limiting belief. Similar to teevster I've bedded a couple lesbians and they definitely wouldn't have found me hot. You just need to find a girl compliant enough as teevster discusses in the post he builds compliance.

If they give you an inch you take a mile. Like seducing girls who object because they're married or got a boyfriend, if you handle the objections you can get success. You just need an in, someone totally closed off to everything is to much of a bad start in my opinion and you'd be better looking for a more receptive target.

 

[Velasco]

game is all about escalating the process, the vibe, and dealing with resistance - basically sealing the deal with women who are already attracted to you.

That is a good way to put it

I view the seduction process (from meet to close) the same way as the sales process. After all, I have a post on here titled, "sanders sales method = game". In his book, "The Sandler Rules: 49 timeless selling principles and how to apply them", David Mattson, dedicates 3 principles to the art of prospecting:

Prospecting is the act of identifying those individuals who have enough of an interest in your service to have a more substantial conversation with you. Your goal is to weed out the suspects (anyone you might be able to sell your service to) who don’t qualify as prospects as quickly and efficiently as possible. There will be many more people who don’t need your service than people who do. if you focus on the emotionally charged, undesirable aspects of prospecting - the inevitable turn downs and rejections that are part of the process and nothing more - rather than on the more distant end results of the process, you set yourself up for frustration and disappointment.

Prospecting is to sales, what screening is to seduction.

So I have a service/product (looks/fundamentals). And I want to sell it to customers who have enough of an interest in my service, to take have a conversation further (give me an opportunity to charm her).

So you go out approaching girls to determine if she is interested (I will use the phrases "interested" and "attracted" interchangablely) in you or not. If yes, then you'll then want to turn that interest/attraction (which is either there or not) into arousal (make her feel desire). Then lead that arousal to sex (logistical leading). Yes my seduction model is based off your approach

Looks get your foot in the door, game converts that foot in the door to sex.

I recently gave a basic overview into my screening process here:

https://www.skilledseducer.com/thre...urself-discussion-w-velasco.22716/post-114728

A good seducer - and I am sure Velasco is able to do this, without being aware of it (he is probably already doing it without knowing) namely that he can turns girls who are "neutral" into green. The ability of turning girls who are not all over you from the get-go, but who are just neutral ("I won't chase that guy, but he will do if... if... and only if...") is usually what distinguishes an good seducer from an intermediate.

Yes. She is interested. (despite her not being all over me, like a green, she still wants to hear more). She is not telling me to fuck off (not interested in my service).

So basically this model looks as following:
Getting laid = Generating desire + removing potential roadblocks (resistance: anti-slut defense, female self control, etc) + Logistics (i.e. handle the situation, the surroundings and so on).

How is this different than

game is all about escalating the process, the vibe, and dealing with resistance

Escalate the process = generate desire (sex talk/prizing). Dealing with resistance = anti-slut defense, female state control).

The only issue is see that we have here is in the attraction phase of the seduction (which you admit you don't even know if its even possible to create it. I am saying you can't).

You say sex talk can create compliance in women (despite them not being physically attracted to you. If we were to take this one step further, this would mean that a fat grotesque old man can create compliance in women via sex talk DESPITE her not being physically attracted to him). Yes, but can it create compliance, if the girl does not view you as physically attractive? (RED girls). In my experience, greens and neutrals respond quite favorably to sex talk. Reds really don't want to hear it, cause they're not interested.

Sell your services to those who are interested in your services (and pass your qualifications (whatever you value in girls) rather than trying to win over girls that really don't want to hear it) You will both be happier for it

 

[pinpin]

The ones that put there palm in your face I highly doubt you can hijack their system with any method.

Embedded commands - ''Are you putting your palm in my face because you FEEL HORNY'??. (That'll make her feel horny for you )

 

[Chrance]

“You may not create attraction, but you can create desire.”

if something is an object of your desire, then it is attractive to you. Desire and attraction are different words pointing to the same thing.

If you are bored, you desire stimulation, so scrolling the web can become attractive to you.
If you’re tired, you desire rest, so a bed becomes attractive to you.
If you are hungry, you desire food, so food, becomes attractive to you.

Attraction is an emotion that literally alters with your attention moment by moment. Old school tries to alter it, new school either says “impossible” or “too hard not worth it”

Creating desire and creating attraction are the same thing unless there’s an explanation (not a verbal trick, but something in physical reality that distinguishes the two) that creates a distinction. I see none. Just semantics difference

What @Teevster are you referencing when you say “attraction” and “desire”?

 

[Teevster]

“You may not create attraction, but you can create desire.”

if something is an object of your desire, then it is attractive to you. Desire and attraction are different words pointing to the same thing.

I tend to avoid debates about semantic like the plague, since I find them totally useless. I have spent too much time in my life debating such and it offers very little in return.

But for a quick response: no they are not the same.

You may look at definitions online, yet the term has to be used in a context. In this context, we are talking about attraction in the context of pick up and seduction. Attraction here is related to a girl being drawn to you, oftentimes used to describe an emotional feeling towards YOU as A PERSON . a very particular and specific person. It is often used to describe the strong initial feeling, or "spark" a girl have for you - before you even open your mouth.

Desire... "wanting something" - "a feeling of wanting something". It is not PRIMARILY related to you as a person (but could be - and if it is, it is not necessarily related to you in particular), and it could also be related to a thing, an attribute, an offer.


For instance, I make her desire having sex with me, through say, sexual prizing. It does not mean she desires ME as a PERSON (i.e. is attracted to me) but desires to experience my skills, my knowledge and so on. The idea here is that, if somebody else conveyed the same thing (the same way), she would in theory feel the same desire (of course, that's rarely how things goes IRL, but that's the idea). Again, desire can be related to an attribute; an attribute such as me being able to provide good sex. But in theory, anybody could create that desire in her if they they did everything right.

In pick up, attraction is usually related to the "someone", not to the "something". To the something, the term "desire" is commonly use.

You can say "I am attracted to Sophie". But you wouldn't say that "I am attracted to cuddling". That would be silly.

However, you may very well say "I desire Sophie", and you may also very well say "I desire some cuddling". However here, your feelings for Sophie seem to be more fluid (i.e. up to change anytime - it is purely contingent) than if you said "I am attracted to Sophie".


"Desire" therefore seems to be a more fluid term than "attraction" which seems more set in stone,

Again they do not fully mean the same thing.

But to sum up if we look away from general semantics, and go back to what the terms are used for in pick up:
"Attraction" is a feeling a girl have for YOU as a person.
"Desire" is something you elicit.


This posts explains the distinction well

Sorry for unclear definitions. These terms are usually taken for granted in this community, and generally, semantic discussions of this sort tend to be avoided.

If you feel like discussing the semantics between attraction and desire, please make your own thread.

If you are bored, you desire stimulation, so scrolling the web can become attractive to you.

Again, the term is pulled out of context. Also you wouldn't say "I am attracted to scrolling down the web". Such proposition would be silly.

If you’re tired, you desire rest, so a bed becomes attractive to you.

Once again, you do not say that you are "attracted to your bed".

If you are hungry, you desire food, so food, becomes attractive to you.

But you are not "attracted to a pizza"....

Attraction is an emotion that literally alters with your attention moment by moment.

Not if we follow the idea of "attraction" describing a feeling she has towards YOU as a PERSON. It is directly linked to you. Desire is, in theory something anybody could generate - it is not as dependent of you - it is in fact independent of "you".

Old school tries to alter it, new school either says “impossible” or “too hard not worth it”

No, you can not that easily alter her level attraction, as precised in my thread. You can however build compliance - i.e. desire.

Creating desire and creating attraction are the same thing unless tcehere’s an explanation (not a verbal trick, but something in physical reality that distinguishes the two) that creates a distinction. I see none. Just semantics different

Desire is vague, more open to fluctuation. Attraction is related to "her liking YOU" and therefore more set in stone (although I mentioned, affected her perceptive filter, may have an impact).


Honestly, I hate the philosophy of language. I also see no purpose in semantic discussions. It is not a subject that interests me to be honest. I use the current terminology - for pragmatic reasons and use "taken for granted" terms, so that I can move on to discuss the stuff that really interests me: pick up.

EDIT: If it make things more understandable for you, you may change "desire" with the word "compliance". They are not synonymous, but in this post, they are more or less used to describe the same thing.
EDIT2: When one talks about desire, one oftentimes ask "what type of desire". "I have a desire for Sophie", but what kind of desire do I have? Attraction, is usually always emotional or/and sexual. "I am attracted to Sophie" is emotional and sexual.

Best,

 

[Teevster]

Embedded commands - ''Are you putting your palm in my face because you FEEL HORNY'??. (That'll make her feel horny for you )

Good luck.

Best,

 

[Chrance]

Thanks for the link. You may not like semantics but your response was informative. Personally still don’t see the difference and I see a lot of issues in that link but that’s fine. Not that important

 

[Skills]

Embedded commands - ''Are you putting your palm in my face because you FEEL HORNY'??. (That'll make her feel horny for you )

How many times you field tested this and it worked out for you???? Please don't bother answering....


By that point nothing is likely to work, it is too late, unless you engage her later.... You want to avoid getting to that point.....

 

[Gunwitch]

You say sex talk can create compliance in women (despite them not being physically attracted to you. If we were to take this one step further, this would mean that a fat grotesque old man can create compliance in women via sex talk DESPITE her not being physically attracted to him). Yes, but can it create compliance, if the girl does not view you as physically attractive? (RED girls). In my experience, greens and neutrals respond quite favorably to sex talk. Reds really don't want to hear it, cause they're not interested.

Sell your services to those who are interested in your services (and pass your qualifications (whatever you value in girls) rather than trying to win over girls that really don't want to hear it) You will both be happier for it

Those are all valid points for a beginner (especially, so they can build up a foundation of good reactions) or intermediate (putting notches on the belt for pleasure and ego).

Hell i'm in this 20 years, I almost prefer a "Red" for the challenge, the "game" of it.

Teev is hyper advanced in all this and his points are REALLY valid for that/his level of game though. I give your post a thumbs up though cause I know you from other places and know you are a legit dude yourself and are willing to listen and learn from others. Even here you presented your case well for that you're doing that works for you that's a counter argument. I suspect you'll eventually get bored (like I did with pure Gunwitch Method alone results) and move onto more of the covert influence side of things yourself though.

Whatever you're doing, you can be doing better if you aren't working some of the better modern influence tech, no matter how good you are.


Gun

 

[greenleaf]

The ones that put there palm in your face I highly doubt you can hijack their system with any method.

Yeah, I guess not. That's a 'no girl' right there.

I don't think all 'no girls' are that clear, and I think sometimes we credit the game when really she was just into you. I pulled a girl on new years eve and every little neg or tease of whatever seemed to land and it looked like I was a game jedi to my friends lol

But compare that to this absolute stunner that I really wanted to bang at a wedding I was at a few weeks before. I opened her. I also had some 'social proof' from a pretty girl who also was telling the target lots of goood things about me (mystery says this is very powerful dhv/social proof). I then teased her, used emotional language with NLP stuff, sex talk etc, influence tech etc, but it was all for nought. She just wasn't attracted to me so it didn't go anywhere. I'm convinced that nobody in the world could have pulled her in my body lol. She ended up kissing the handsome best man who didn't run game at all lol (he didn't bang her though. luckily!)

Similar to teevster I've bedded a couple lesbians

I've banged one too, actually lol. Mentioned it before in a different thread. It was quite funny actually because after we'd been chatting, at one point she was teasing me that I looked a bit like a lesbian (I think because I can't grow a facial hair at all lol) and she was telling me i'm kinda cute etc. It took a few hours but I banged her back at her place