Screening game has been high jacked and bastardized

[Skills]

Guys a bit of rambling cause i am just disgusted and fuming (again why i avoid pick up content)

context.- I have not watched pua content for a while, i don't know somewhere along the line i lost interest, i would say the last 5 years, got repetitive and water down and shifted to more of those types of crime youtube channels.....

Sometimes i get guys i am helping or talking sending me videos, one dude sent me some interview with mystery, Zan Perion and couple of mystery wings..... I was soooooooooo bored withing 5 minutes and it was 4 hours(not i only watch 5 minutes), but i got sucked into the pua algorithm...

Fuck my life so i saw the most retarded debate from a dude name locario supposedly a screener fighting with another dude ump or whatever his name is...... Ump was right, It does not matter, my point is i could not believe the none sense of what they are calling now i days screening (ump is how screening was tbh, lotario is blow me in blow me out, no screening) which is why is bastardized....... From this forum the only 2 guys left that used to do screening is me and wrapped mindless (steve jabba posted here for 2 seconds but he is rip), but what we did looks nothing from what mr. locario total idiot is bastardasing as screening and a BUNCH OF OTHER IDIOTS ARE TEACHING.... Screening is NOT BLOW ME IN BLOW ME OUT GAME, has never been that......

When @Chase made the post on neo direct, talking about him and teevester calling it that.... I thought here we go again posturing, cause i have not idea what they were talking about...... Then chase came to my last year review talking about riffing, i rolled my eyes, here we go chase posturing again..... WHOLLY SHIT! Was i million percent off........ Now i finally get it (chase made a post clarifying will post at the end)..... The idiots are teaching women going direct, if the women is not 100% compliant, give them shit test, give dude objection or not into them RIGHT AWAY, they teach to be gone...... Wtf! that was never ever ever ever screening ever.... This is BLOW ME IN BLOW ME OUT GAME, is not screening, nothing to do with what we did with screening, beyond horrible..... I do not want to be associated at all with that... Is not what i did, not what i taught i would never ever do shit like that!..... The context was back in the days the mm was what most schools were teaching or rsd, screening was more like 60, sleazy etc... by the way post tinder is not even as effective or effective in night game you need to actually have game and be able to game groups.

Some observations:

- Screening how it was meant to be went to apps.

- screening required game (it was not spam approaching)

- screening was not blow me in blow me out (you actually game the girl, what you did not want is that during the interaction if it was going nowhere and logistics based on experience not there, stay in set and waste the night context, but you will end interaction at high note with the number or gather number and text her later in the night) again nothing like the none sense, again it was never blow me in blow me out...

- The hotness was there, you would go for the hotest target and devote most of your effort to the hottest target and then from hotter to less hot, you would go for the 6s of 7s as a LAST RESORT, AKA BACK UP..... There was not a 6 become a 9 due to compliance, many times there were 6s and 7s opportunities the screener would pass to go for the 8s and 9s.... there was not 6 becomes a 9 due to compliance none sense...

Guys context, first of all, the screening of back in the days will not work in night game today as it used to inmho, there is just not enough volume or dtf girls(they are in tiktok, insta and dating apps)... second, the you open a girls direct(i mostly opened situationally, barely if ever direct), if she is not automatically compliant from the start, and give you shit! you bail, that was never ever ever how screening was, i never ever did that.....

^ back in the days there was a lot of volume of women, there was not tinder, it was nothing like it looks like today.....

The scales did not change dude to compliance, i can not believe the none sense, a 6 was a 6, 6 did not became a 9 due to compliance, i can't believe the none sense...

Sorry for the rant here is additional post for context:

What Is a "Bad" Approach (Neo-Direct)?

A few years back @Teevster (Alek Rolstad) and I came out against a disturbing low- / no-game trend we have been seeing in a lot of newer guys approaching girls. The trend revolves around making generic looks-based direct opener compliments to girls, with basically no push-pull or flirtation...

www.skilledseducer.com

Debunking ratios.- A more comprehensive look at the "ratios" issue

Ok guys i have done a bunch of posts on spam approaching, ratios, how cold approach should look like etc..... I will post them at the end, but recently i think i am changing my perspective post corona and having guys in my crew that do a lot of day game. Why ratios are important? some people...

www.skilledseducer.com

 

[Chase]

Yeah, it's all a kind of very watered down "blow me or blow me out!" game (which was BradP's thing on mASF back in the day... pretty sure he was the originator of the phrase). The thing is BradP approached with actual game and did not make these half-assed no-game approaches. He would just game girls super hard until they either hooked or blew him out. He was going for ONS too; he was not doing this lame "Can I get your number?" thing after 30 seconds (I went around with BradP in New York City and got to see his game laid out. Night and day difference from these guys).

One of the first approaches I ever did was a neo-direct approach. Some really hot big-boobed skinny girl in my university cafeteria... she had a shirt on that read "All you need is love." I opened her with "Considering your shirt... [pause] can I have your number?" She was like "Huh", had to look down and read her shirt, then laughed politely and said, "Sorry, my phone is busted." I was like well that was dumb and never did another stupid neo-direct opener like that again... all it took was one time.

my point is i could not believe the none sense of what they are calling now i days screening (ump is how screening was tbh, lotario is blow me in blow me out, no screening) which is why is bastardized.......

Good observation. I've been noticing this too. Hadn't fully put my thumb on it.

Guys talk about screening for "interested girls" and get really upset if you don't recommend IMMEDIATELY NEXTING any girl who is not ultra-compliant and chasing after you from the open.

I wrote a post on X telling guys not to text girls date invites starting with "How about drinks on Friday at 8 PM?" when they haven't even checked her schedule yet.

x.com

x.com

Here's how some guys replied to that:

Ehhhh kinda agree kinda don’t. I think as along as you are setting the place and time it doesn’t matter. If she’s interested she’ll suggest another day Vs you opening the whole week up for her

"I'm going to (insert place) on Friday at 8pm. If you are available, you should come"

If she is interested she'll find a way. If not, go anyway. Be sure to tell her how awesome it was if she asks after.

I’d even argue if the women is unable to meet up during the date/time you suggest and doesn’t at least offer an alternative day/time. She’s not even interested in you in the first place.

But also if she says she has plans and suggests another evening, great

Otherwise, maybe not that into it?

There's a bunch more like that too.

I was like, "What kind of retarded ego-protective slop is this? Guys are so scared of sending a few texts and not getting a date that they will send do-or-die date requests then not follow up if she doesn't chase?"

But on reflection I think it is a kind of non-game where the guy is not actually aiming to maximize lays or percentage but instead screen for maximally interested girls. They're willing to not bang girls they could've banged with a bit more work and instead would prefer to hit the gym or play video games or work on their money or something -- it is a prioritization difference.

If you remember the traffic light fiasco on here from ages ago, it is basically that:

The Traffic Light Method is weak and gay. Respect senior members

Lately there have been a few lame, dumb movements on the Boards. These movements are: Members who think they are hot shots because they follow the Traffic Light Method, who then go and argue with everyone else about it, trying to proselytize this Revolutionary New Method Members who think...

www.skilledseducer.com

All these guys are out there looking for "green light girls", without calling it that.

But that is essentially what modern "game" (outside of the seduction community) has devolved to:

The perpetual hunt for super green girls and bypassing of any girls other than these.

(i.e., not "game", just looking for horny/easy girls)

The idiots are teaching women going direct, if the women is not 100% compliant, give them shit test, give dude objection or not into them RIGHT AWAY, they teach to be gone...... Wtf! that was never ever ever ever screening ever....

Yeah, they're looking for green girls and bypassing anything else.

It's some combination of lack of game + probably lack of motivation + ego defense.

This is normie game these days...

There was not a 6 become a 9 due to compliance.... there was not 6 becomes a 9 due to compliance none sense...

I have seen guys say stuff like this a few times.

I am just like

This is deep cope.

This is the girl who failed with the strong, sexy dude talking about how her ugly nice guy husband is "a TOTAL 10" in her eyes because he was actually willing to stick around.

...

I think the biggest confusion is these idiot normie-tier guys trying to present themselves as basically seduction gurus when in fact they are just dumb normies with no game.

If they were out there saying, "Look this isn't game, this is for guys who just want to do gym and business and video games and are fine only getting laid occasionally with green light girls. If that's you, then listen up," it'd be fine.

But they're trying to make like they're "running game" and it's just sad.

Chase

 

[Skills]

Yeah, it's all a kind of very watered down "blow me or blow me out!" game (which was BradP's thing on mASF back in the day... pretty sure he was the originator of the phrase). The thing is BradP approached with actual game and did not make these half-assed no-game approaches. He would just game girls super hard until they either hooked or blew him out. He was going for ONS too; he was not doing this lame "Can I get your number?" thing after 30 seconds (I went around with BradP in New York City and got to see his game laid out. Night and day difference from these guys).

One of the first approaches I ever did was a neo-direct approach. Some really hot big-boobed skinny girl in my university cafeteria... she had a shirt on that read "All you need is love." I opened her with "Considering your shirt... [pause] can I have your number?" She was like "Huh", had to look down and read her shirt, then laughed politely and said, "Sorry, my phone is busted." I was like well that was dumb and never did another stupid neo-direct opener like that again... all it took was one time.



Good observation. I've been noticing this too. Hadn't fully put my thumb on it.

Guys talk about screening for "interested girls" and get really upset if you don't recommend IMMEDIATELY NEXTING any girl who is not ultra-compliant and chasing after you from the open.

I wrote a post on X telling guys not to text girls date invites starting with "How about drinks on Friday at 8 PM?" when they haven't even checked her schedule yet.

x.com

x.com

Here's how some guys replied to that:









There's a bunch more like that too.

I was like, "What kind of retarded ego-protective slop is this? Guys are so scared of sending a few texts and not getting a date that they will send do-or-die date requests then not follow up if she doesn't chase?"

But on reflection I think it is a kind of non-game where the guy is not actually aiming to maximize lays or percentage but instead screen for maximally interested girls. They're willing to not bang girls they could've banged with a bit more work and instead would prefer to hit the gym or play video games or work on their money or something -- it is a prioritization difference.

If you remember the traffic light fiasco on here from ages ago, it is basically that:

The Traffic Light Method is weak and gay. Respect senior members

Lately there have been a few lame, dumb movements on the Boards. These movements are: Members who think they are hot shots because they follow the Traffic Light Method, who then go and argue with everyone else about it, trying to proselytize this Revolutionary New Method Members who think...

www.skilledseducer.com

All these guys are out there looking for "green light girls", without calling it that.

But that is essentially what modern "game" (outside of the seduction community) has devolved to:

The perpetual hunt for super green girls and bypassing of any girls other than these.

(i.e., not "game", just looking for horny/easy girls)



Yeah, they're looking for green girls and bypassing anything else.

It's some combination of lack of game + probably lack of motivation + ego defense.

This is normie game these days...



I have seen guys say stuff like this a few times.

I am just like

This is deep cope.

This is the girl who failed with the strong, sexy dude talking about how her ugly nice guy husband is "a TOTAL 10" in her eyes because he was actually willing to stick around.

...

I think the biggest confusion is these idiot normie-tier guys trying to present themselves as basically seduction gurus when in fact they are just dumb normies with no game.

If they were out there saying, "Look this isn't game, this is for guys who just want to do gym and business and video games and are fine only getting laid occasionally with green light girls. If that's you, then listen up," it'd be fine.

But they're trying to make like they're "running game" and it's just sad.

Chase

Yes, those may be from those teachers' camp..... Their style is go to girl the structure is: open neo direct >GIVE THE girl your NUMBER,> close with call me so we can go for drinks at 8:00 pm..... if she says like "i am not comfortable, how about i give you my number, or any push back, or any shit test.... she is OUT! unless she offers an alternative, Total autism.... I really don't know how these guys are teaching this none sense and how the students are getting laid.... if the girl is not into the guy right away she is out.... Again, screening was not suppose to be only super green girls, there were green and maybe girls and even red girls....it looked nothing like this....

 

[Chase]

if she says like "i am not comfortable, how about i give you my number, or any push back, or any shit test.... she is OUT! unless she offers an alternative, Total autism....

She can't even offer to give the guy her OWN number?

GIRL: "Will you take my number?"​

​

BOY: "No thank you; you did not follow instructions properly. I am no longer interested."​

Are these guys just keyboard jockeys or are they doing autistic spam approaches and laying 1 out of 1,000 girls and calling it "game"?

 

[Spike]

Just watched up to 45 mins of that video. Locario was right.

At 42:55 he asks markus, if he met a girl and he spent 30 minutes talking to her, getting to know her, doing all the attraction triggers and then he finally sleeps with her, does that mean she has high standards?

markus says, yes she has high standards because he past her “tests”

then locario says, that same girl that he put her through the tests to see if she has high standards, fucks another guy in the club in 5 minutes, does she still have high standards?

markus responds that wouldn’t happen because in Markus’s mind only a girl with low standards (to him low standards = the girl is a 6) would do that. Girls with high standards (high standards = girl is a 9 according to Markus) would never.

“Every girl that I didn’t sleep with in 5 minutes. Met another guy that she slept with in 5 minutes.

“Every girl I slept with in 5 minutes, met a guy who she made wait”

^ very true

I have been fortunate enough to be the the guy these girls have slept with in 5 minutes. Were these girls sluts? Were they 6s? Did they have low standards? No, no, and no.

They all lacked sexual experience (good tell I’ve found is they don’t exactly know how to arch their backs yet when you put them in the doggy position. Also that their pussy tastes and smells delicious), model looks, with “high standards” (only because they aren’t fucking new guys when they go out) that let me fuck them quickly.

Gonna watch the rest of the video

I wrote a post on X telling guys not to text girls date invites starting with "How about drinks on Friday at 8 PM?" when they haven't even checked her schedule yet.

i also don’t think this is bad advice. In the report I shared, I suggested a day first without checking the girls schedule. She wasn’t available that day and then simply offered an alternative day (because she was interested) like the guy who responded to you on X said.

 

[Chase]

Just watched up to 45 mins of that video. Locario was right.

At 42:55 he asks markus, if he met a girl and he spent 30 minutes talking to her, getting to know her, doing all the attraction triggers and then he finally sleeps with her, does that mean she has high standards?

markus says, yes she has high standards because he past her “tests”

then locario says, that same girl that he put her through the tests to see if she has high standards, fucks another guy in the club in 5 minutes, does she still have high standards?

markus responds that wouldn’t happen because in Markus’s mind only a girl with low standards (to him low standards = the girl is a 6) would do that. Girls with high standards (high standards = girl is a 9 according to Markus) would never.

lol

i also don’t think this is bad advice. In the report I shared, I suggested a day first without checking the girls schedule. She wasn’t available that day and then simply offered an alternative day (because she was interested) like the guy who responded to you on X said.

Bear in mind the difference between "worked this time" vs. "works consistently."

"Throw out a time and wait to see if she counteroffers" will work with high interest girls who are also not overly shy or inexperienced.

It leaves a lot of other girls on the table though.

Depends on what the guy is after, I suppose...

-C

 

[PaulieFlyn10]

This is what's popular in the community. I knew Chase was spot on when he wrote those articles... because that's what modern day puas & Red pill guys are teaching: LMS Maxx then screen till you find a girl that's down.


That's why it's IMPORTANT to watch what's happening NOW so you can get context of what people are doing

Most guys believe those super direct blow out approaches are the best. To them, if she's not down from the start then she's not for you. Total nonsense. But that's what's popular these days

 

[PaulieFlyn10]

She can't even offer to give the guy her OWN number?

GIRL: "Will you take my number?"​

​

BOY: "No thank you; you did not follow instructions properly. I am no longer interested."​

Are these guys just keyboard jockeys or are they doing autistic spam approaches and laying 1 out of 1,000 girls and calling it "game"?

It's red pill, alpha male trope. "She does what I say. Period. Or she isn't really interested"

Confirmation bias is why it's so popular

 

[Chase]

Most guys believe those super direct blow out approaches are the best. To them, if she's not down from the start then she's not for you. Total nonsense. But that's what's popular these days

It's red pill, alpha male trope. "She does what I say. Period. Or she isn't really interested"

Confirmation bias is why it's so popular

These SAME guys that believe this ALSO go on and on and on about how the "average girl" nowadays is a total slut, bangs dozens of guys, cheats left and right, is hypergamous, etc. etc. Even when that is the opposite of what is happening:

"Women Didn't Use to Be So Slutty or Have So Much Sex"

Women did not use to sleep around so much or be so promiscuous. Except, well, the men of the past had this very complaint about the women of THEIR days! So ur take is —- you don’t really think the average social media modern girls (19-30yo) bodycount is higher than pre social media era? I know...

www.girlschase.com

What type of game are these guys running though? "Screen for the girls who will jump on a dick fastest with minimal/zero game purely based on initial vibe/looks and who immediately comply without you even taking them through the courtship process."

Little wonder these idiots have this entrenched view on women.

Their approach is screening out all the conservative girls, reserved girls, low count girls, etc., that they claim to want

 

[Spike]

Bear in mind the difference between "worked this time" vs. "works consistently."

I used to ask girls what their schedule looked like. most of the time would happen is, they would pick a day far out from the day I met them. And in between that time (from when I originally met them and the future date they suggested because that’s when they think they would be free) it would fizzle out. Another thing that would happen is they would pick a day they were available. I would agree. And then the day of, something would come up or they would just not respond when it came closer to the time we agreed to meet. Something “came up”. Leaving you to ask her again, when is she next free?

In my experience, the sooner you meet up from the first time she met you the better + girls are spontaneous (so even tho a girl might not think she will be free on a Wednesday night (causing her to not offer up Wednesday night when she’s thinking about her schedule), she can be, simply because you offered that date and made her think about it. “Oh yeah I actually can meet him that night”

inexperienced

There you go making the same mistake Markus did

Depends on what the guy is after, I suppose...

Just doing my best to screen out the flakey ones (or cause otherwise interested girls to become flakey).

 

[Atlas IV]

In my experience, the sooner you meet up from the first time she met you the better

Yeah, we all agree on that obviously.

+ girls are spontaneous (so even tho a girl might not think she will be free on a Wednesday night (causing her to not offer up Wednesday night when she’s thinking about her schedule), she can be, simply because you offered that date and made her think about it. “Oh yeah I actually can meet him that night”

The problem with doing this is that you risk generating negative compliance, which will be harder to recover from.

What if she responds "I'm busy Wednesday"? Now your only option is to roll off for a couple of days and ping her again later, because if you immediately propose another date/time you're gonna look desperate.

If you'd simply asked "what's your schedule like this week?" you could have avoided the negative compliance and fixed the date much more easily.

 

[TomInHo]

I saw the Locario vs. UMP interviews —It was super entertaining

But after being in this space for a while, I’ve noticed a pattern: guys get locked into their way of doing game and argue endlessly about which method is superior.

Personally, I wouldn’t screen the way Mr. Locario does, but I get why some guys do. He doesn’t want to waste time and prefers to focus only on the most interested women. Meanwhile, Markus from UMP is fine with putting in the extra effort to turn a “yellow light” into a “green light” for the close

- The hotness was there, you would go for the hotest target and devote most of your effort to the hottest target and then from hotter to less hot, you would go for the 6s of 7s as a LAST RESORT, AKA BACK UP..... There was not a 6 become a 9 due to compliance, many times there were 6s and 7s opportunities the screener would pass to go for the 8s and 9s.... there was not 6 becomes a 9 due to compliance none sense...

I don’t completely agree with the idea that a 6 can "become" a 9 through compliance, but I get where they’re coming from. Their focus is on compliance above all else.

The main issue with that mindset is they seem to take any form of resistance way too personally, treating it as outright rejection.

Let’s be real—if all else is equal, most men would prefer a compliant 9 over a non-compliant 9. Locario just takes that idea to the extreme in his teachings

Good observation. I've been noticing this too. Hadn't fully put my thumb on it.

Guys talk about screening for "interested girls" and get really upset if you don't recommend IMMEDIATELY NEXTING any girl who is not ultra-compliant and chasing after you from the open.

I wrote a post on X telling guys not to text girls date invites starting with "How about drinks on Friday at 8 PM?" when they haven't even checked her schedule yet.

Yeah, there’s a large market for that style of game. I think it’s a reaction to men getting tired of wasting their time, so they adapted the only way they knew how

There's a bunch more like that too.

I was like, "What kind of retarded ego-protective slop is this? Guys are so scared of sending a few texts and not getting a date that they will send do-or-die date requests then not follow up if she doesn't chase?"

But on reflection I think it is a kind of non-game where the guy is not actually aiming to maximize lays or percentage but instead screen for maximally interested girls. They're willing to not bang girls they could've banged with a bit more work and instead would prefer to hit the gym or play video games or work on their money or something -- it is a prioritization difference.

Is it really “non-game,” though? It might be different from your approach, but it clearly gets these men what they want

They’re not interested in learning persuasion—they just want women who are naturally compliant from the start

It’s basically “Just Be Yourself” repackaged as game, which is why so many guys love it. They’re not optimizing for the highest number of lays—they’re optimizing for finding women who already align with them

The execution might be a little off, but I get the logic and how they arrived at their conclusions

If you remember the traffic light fiasco on here from ages ago, it is basically that:

The Traffic Light Method is weak and gay. Respect senior members

Lately there have been a few lame, dumb movements on the Boards. These movements are: Members who think they are hot shots because they follow the Traffic Light Method, who then go and argue with everyone else about it, trying to proselytize this Revolutionary New Method Members who think...

www.skilledseducer.com

All these guys are out there looking for "green light girls", without calling it that.

But that is essentially what modern "game" (outside of the seduction community) has devolved to:

The perpetual hunt for super green girls and bypassing of any girls other than these.

(i.e., not "game", just looking for horny/easy girls)

Pretty much

There was not a 6 become a 9 due to compliance.... there was not 6 becomes a 9 due to compliance none sense...

I have seen guys say stuff like this a few times.

I am just like

This is deep cope.

This is the girl who failed with the strong, sexy dude talking about how her ugly nice guy husband is "a TOTAL 10" in her eyes because he was actually willing to stick around.

You should look up assortative mating. I think that's what may be really going on there

For these guys, a 6 becomes a 9 because they feel a strong sense of compatibility. And a lot of men actually want that.

There’s even an old song from 1963 that @StrayDog shared with me that sums it up perfectly:

Just read the comments lol... and here are some of the lyrics

"If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So for my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you

If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So for my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you

A pretty woman makes her husband look small
And very often causes his downfall
As soon as he married her and then she starts
To do the things that will break his heart

But if you make an ugly woman your wife
Ah you'll be happy for the rest of your life
An ugly woman cooks meals on time
She'll always give you peace of mind"

I think the biggest confusion is these idiot normie-tier guys trying to present themselves as basically seduction gurus when in fact they are just dumb normies with no game.

If they were out there saying, "Look this isn't game, this is for guys who just want to do gym and business and video games and are fine only getting laid occasionally with green light girls. If that's you, then listen up," it'd be fine.

But they're trying to make like they're "running game" and it's just sad.

Chase

In my opinion, “no-game” is still a form of game, which is why I find these conversations so interesting

I’m not emotionally attached to game. I just like fucking girls and use whatever strategy gets me what I want

But I also get that other men have different priorities and vastly different interpretations of game. Sometimes, the differences are shocking

That’s what makes it fun, though. You absorb what’s useful, discard the rest, and have some interesting discussions along the way

 

[Chase]

@TomInHo,

Is it really “non-game,” though? It might be different from your approach, but it clearly gets these men what they want

If it was, I wouldn't care.

Being on X now though, my eyeballs are bleeding from how much these men complain about women.

It is just a never-ending procession of complaints.

You know what they say: the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

If the wheel is squeaking, that's its way of telling you its in dire need of a good greasin'.

They’re not interested in learning persuasion—they just want women who are naturally compliant from the start

It’s basically “Just Be Yourself” repackaged as game, which is why so many guys love it. They’re not optimizing for the highest number of lays—they’re optimizing for finding women who already align with them

The execution might be a little off, but I get the logic and how they arrived at their conclusions

Yeah, I know they're not interested in persuasion. They want a magic pill. It's always been this way. Guys gravitate to whatever seems "very easy" and appears to promise "easy great results."

Back in the day you could go in a club, run some flash game, girls would act all amazed, and students watching you would have their minds blown. Didn't matter if none of the girls went home with you later. Didn't matter if flash game made it harder to pull girls later. The students imagined that you could lay any one of those girls and wanted to do the same.

They do this with the 'rizz' videos now. Dudes make these approaches that will not get them laid, post them, other guys see the girls smiling and assume, "Wow, that guy talked to her and made her smile! She's all about it!" then imagine this dude will be getting laid (but he won't).

I could shoot a video approaching girls to tell them about "my 1 feet pinus" and guarantee you I could get them laughing and touching me and dudes would think it was amazing game and that it must get me laid a lot. Maybe it could if I ran some GM-style game... but I'd have to totally change my style to make it work so it wouldn't actually work. But it'd make for great TikTok content and could launch a whole movement of men approaching women to talk about their "1 feet pinus".

(that said: there's a meta-argument here that what most men are really looking for is "dream" and "entertainment" and "hope" and not reality-generating solutions)

You should look up assortative mating. I think that's what may be really going on there

For these guys, a 6 becomes a 9 because they feel a strong sense of compatibility. And a lot of men actually want that.

I have tons of studies on assortative mating in One Date and the better part of an entire chapter on it in my upcoming book.

One of the earlier articles on Girls Chase was on the subject and we have an entire category devoted to it (Mate Choice > Assortative Mating).

So yeah, I am familiar.

(I realize they are mating assortatively. However, when they talk about it in this way, they reframe a metric that is generally considered more or less objective into a highly subjective one. Nothing wrong with subjective ratings, but when a neg is a compliment and a screen is really a qualify and you chasing her is really her chasing you -- or when a "6 can become a 9" -- it's impossible to have any kind of non-feelings-centric conversation about this stuff. There's a time and a place for feelings and ephemera, but it should not be attempting to adopt non-feelings-centric metrics then redefine them into feelings-centric ones. Then the conversation just gets hopelessly muddled, as some guys will be talking about one thing while others talk about another one, and as Confucius puts it "the people cannot tell head from foot")

Just read the comments lol... and here are some of the lyrics

"If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So for my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you

If you want to be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty woman your wife
So for my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you

A pretty woman makes her husband look small
And very often causes his downfall
As soon as he married her and then she starts
To do the things that will break his heart

But if you make an ugly woman your wife
Ah you'll be happy for the rest of your life
An ugly woman cooks meals on time
She'll always give you peace of mind"

Yeah, it's satisficers vs. maximizers.

They did a study on this. Satisficers (who value comfort above all) are happier the uglier their wives are. The satisficers with the ugliest wives are actually the happiest satisficers.

Meanwhile, maximizers (who value having/being the best above all) are happier the more beautiful their wives are. The maximizers with the most beautiful wives are the happiest maximizers.

In my opinion, “no-game” is still a form of game, which is why I find these conversations so interesting

I’m not emotionally attached to game. I just like fucking girls and use whatever strategy gets me what I want

But I also get that other men have different priorities and vastly different interpretations of game. Sometimes, the differences are shocking

That’s what makes it fun, though. You absorb what’s useful, discard the rest, and have some interesting discussions along the way

I love every type of game that works.

I have talked to all kinds of players and am always the #1 guy telling PUAs to quit arguing over methods if I can tell both guys' methods work.

The metric I use to judge whether a metric works however is whether the guy pulls ass and is happy with his results.

The dudes who pull ass tend to be in a happy place and have good opinions of women, thanks to operant conditioning: they are getting lots of REWARDS (i.e., the kinds of women they want, sucking and fucking them and giving them devoted relationships).

You will not find a dude with satisfactory game with negative opinions on women.

When dudes start complaining, it means there is a hole in their game.

The more they complain, the louder their complaints, and the broader and deeper those complaints are, the bigger and more are the holes.

These dudes pushing neo-direct all do the same red pill complaints about women: hypergamous, high body count, unfaithful, fickle, won't stick around / will dump you, etc. etc.

If you are a doctor, and a patient comes in saying, "Doctor, my stomach is in constant pain and I can't keep any food down," you don't say, "Well son, it sounds like your diet is the right diet for you and I am happy to see that diet working out." Instead you say, "Let's take a look at what might be wrong here and see if we can't figure it out."

If you then notice that a whole spate of patients come in complaining of the same symptoms, and they are all eating exactly the same things in the exact same ways, you don't say, "It seems like this new trendy diet is really working out!" but instead you say, "This new trendy diet SUCKS!"

Even if the patients try to tell you, "It's not the diet, doctor; it is that food in general is much worse these days! It doesn't matter what I eat; all the food is crap!" if you are aware of plenty of other people not having these problems you are going to know these guys saying this are wrong.

That is the position we are in right now.

These guys are all doing this stuff, then complaining that there is a huge problem with modern women, that women are all giant sluts, all their standards are impossibly sky-high, that they are impossible to please, and so on and so forth.

Then they say "Well it has nothing to do with the stuff I am doing though!" when no one who is not doing this stuff is having these problems with women.

Chase

 

[Spike]

If you'd simply asked "what's your schedule like this week?" you could have avoided the negative compliance and fixed the date much more easily.

I see that you skipped past the part where I said I used to ask that question and my explanation for why I don’t anymore

What if she responds "I'm busy Wednesday"? Now your only option is to roll off for a couple of days and ping her again later, because if you immediately propose another date/time you're gonna look desperate.

I want to pay close attention to the first couple of texts between this girl and I.

LR - It can be this easy

www.skilledseducer.com

my first text after “hi” was asking her if she would like to get together again.

did she respond “yes that would be great”

nope. Just a shit test. Which is something some girls like to do to guys they’re attracted to.

Did I freak out that she didn’t comply to my answer? And therefore freak out that I’m now creating negative compliance where I’ll have to roll off and ask her again? Nope. She SAW that I asked her out.

she goes “what a gentleman” I responded “bad boy on the outside, sweet boy in the inside” and that’s it I dropped it.

She picked up the conversation again, this time quoting, where I asked her out, asking if this “would be a dinner thing orrrr” (again shit testing me with that “orrrr” to see I really am a “sweet boy on the inside (even tho in reality she knows I’m not. We’re just flirting)).

My point is that it takes two to tango. If I ask a girl out. And ask her if she’s available on a specific day and she only responds that she’s busy that day. What does that tell you about her. Girls aren’t stupid. She knows that if she wants to get together with me, she can offer an alternative. Showing me that yes she would like to meet up again because she’s interested in me.

So there’s no reason for me to roll off and ping again. This girl gets filed into the not interested cabin. I don’t waste anymore time than necessary on this girl and move on to other things. Because I respect my time and you should too.

But hey maybe she’s slow and it takes her a bit to register that if she doesn’t offer an alternative date to this guy, she will miss out. And then pings you a couple hours/days later, “but I’m free Saturday?”

Takes two to tango.

 

[Skills]

Just watched up to 45 mins of that video. Locario was right.

At 42:55 he asks markus, if he met a girl and he spent 30 minutes talking to her, getting to know her, doing all the attraction triggers and then he finally sleeps with her, does that mean she has high standards?

markus says, yes she has high standards because he past her “tests”

Wait, i am not endorsing ump, ump has madona whore complex, and does a water down weak version of teevester second gen... And i personally don't like his game style..... However i can see ump students at least getting laid vs the structure locario is advising.... I used to do what ump does when doing screening game, screening game when i did it looks more closely like markus than locario was my point... I used the video as the example of the none sense of what is being called screening which is not is blow me in blow me out, i will show you how screening was done back in the day, looks nothing like this.... Only guys that are left that could compare are me and wm, the guys jumping in the post, were post that era... it is not even optimal now a days, specially that structure is BEYON RETARDED.....

then locario says, that same girl that he put her through the tests to see if she has high standards, fucks another guy in the club in 5 minutes, does she still have high standards?

Yes totally agree spike he has maddona whore...

markus responds that wouldn’t happen because in Markus’s mind only a girl with low standards (to him low standards = the girl is a 6) would do that. Girls with high standards (high standards = girl is a 9 according to Markus) would never.

“Every girl that I didn’t sleep with in 5 minutes. Met another guy that she slept with in 5 minutes.

“Every girl I slept with in 5 minutes, met a guy who she made wait”

^ very true

I have been fortunate enough to be the the guy these girls have slept with in 5 minutes. Were these girls sluts? Were they 6s? Did they have low standards? No, no, and no.

They all lacked sexual experience (good tell I’ve found is they don’t exactly know how to arch their backs yet when you put them in the doggy position. Also that their pussy tastes and smells delicious), model looks, with “high standards” (only because they aren’t fucking new guys when they go out) that let me fuck them quickly.

Gonna watch the rest of the video

Correct spike you are right, but again you are missing the context of the post, has nothing to do with markus who has maddona whore teaching a weak water down bastardize version of what teevester does...

i also don’t think this is bad advice. In the report I shared, I suggested a day first without checking the girls schedule. She wasn’t available that day and then simply offered an alternative day (because she was interested) like the guy who responded to you on X said.

Spike i want you to field test just soft closing first, also check out this post, will increase odds, i think chase point is not to go into a negative compliance loop by not knowing her schedule first, to be optimal...

Calls & Texts - How to properly hard close (set up logistics for meet up)

A hard close is defined as finding out when the girl is available for you 2 to meet and arranging the meeting (logistics).... I specifically advice this after you get high investment and properly soft closing a girl. A basic structure is to ask "how does your schedule looks like?" or "how...

www.skilledseducer.com

 

[Skills]

This is what's popular in the community. I knew Chase was spot on when he wrote those articles... because that's what modern day puas & Red pill guys are teaching: LMS Maxx then screen till you find a girl that's down.


That's why it's IMPORTANT to watch what's happening NOW so you can get context of what people are doing

Most guys believe those super direct blow out approaches are the best. To them, if she's not down from the start then she's not for you. Total nonsense. But that's what's popular these days

yes when chase wrote the first i though he and teevester were posturing, i did not know guys were really doing stuff like that.... but yes i agree he and teevester were right... again i got confirmation bias, cause the guys in my group none of them were doing blow me in blow me out game... nor did i see guys in the forum doing that...

 

[Skills]

@TomInHo,



If it was, I wouldn't care.

Being on X now though, my eyeballs are bleeding from how much these men complain about women.

It is just a never-ending procession of complaints.

You know what they say: the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

If the wheel is squeaking, that's its way of telling you its in dire need of a good greasin'.



Yeah, I know they're not interested in persuasion. They want a magic pill. It's always been this way. Guys gravitate to whatever seems "very easy" and appears to promise "easy great results."

Back in the day you could go in a club, run some flash game, girls would act all amazed, and students watching you would have their minds blown. Didn't matter if none of the girls went home with you later. Didn't matter if flash game made it harder to pull girls later. The students imagined that you could lay any one of those girls and wanted to do the same.

They do this with the 'rizz' videos now. Dudes make these approaches that will not get them laid, post them, other guys see the girls smiling and assume, "Wow, that guy talked to her and made her smile! She's all about it!" then imagine this dude will be getting laid (but he won't).

I could shoot a video approaching girls to tell them about "my 1 feet pinus" and guarantee you I could get them laughing and touching me and dudes would think it was amazing game and that it must get me laid a lot. Maybe it could if I ran some GM-style game... but I'd have to totally change my style to make it work so it wouldn't actually work. But it'd make for great TikTok content and could launch a whole movement of men approaching women to talk about their "1 feet pinus".

(that said: there's a meta-argument here that what most men are really looking for is "dream" and "entertainment" and "hope" and not reality-generating solutions)





I have tons of studies on assortative mating in One Date and the better part of an entire chapter on it in my upcoming book.

One of the earlier articles on Girls Chase was on the subject and we have an entire category devoted to it (Mate Choice > Assortative Mating).

So yeah, I am familiar.

(I realize they are mating assortatively. However, when they talk about it in this way, they reframe a metric that is generally considered more or less objective into a highly subjective one. Nothing wrong with subjective ratings, but when a neg is a compliment and a screen is really a qualify and you chasing her is really her chasing you -- or when a "6 can become a 9" -- it's impossible to have any kind of non-feelings-centric conversation about this stuff. There's a time and a place for feelings and ephemera, but it should not be attempting to adopt non-feelings-centric metrics then redefine them into feelings-centric ones. Then the conversation just gets hopelessly muddled, as some guys will be talking about one thing while others talk about another one, and as Confucius puts it "the people cannot tell head from foot")



Yeah, it's satisficers vs. maximizers.

They did a study on this. Satisficers (who value comfort above all) are happier the uglier their wives are. The satisficers with the ugliest wives are actually the happiest satisficers.

Meanwhile, maximizers (who value having/being the best above all) are happier the more beautiful their wives are. The maximizers with the most beautiful wives are the happiest maximizers.



I love every type of game that works.

I have talked to all kinds of players and am always the #1 guy telling PUAs to quit arguing over methods if I can tell both guys' methods work.

The metric I use to judge whether a metric works however is whether the guy pulls ass and is happy with his results.

The dudes who pull ass tend to be in a happy place and have good opinions of women, thanks to operant conditioning: they are getting lots of REWARDS (i.e., the kinds of women they want, sucking and fucking them and giving them devoted relationships).

You will not find a dude with satisfactory game with negative opinions on women.

When dudes start complaining, it means there is a hole in their game.

The more they complain, the louder their complaints, and the broader and deeper those complaints are, the bigger and more are the holes.

These dudes pushing neo-direct all do the same red pill complaints about women: hypergamous, high body count, unfaithful, fickle, won't stick around / will dump you, etc. etc.

If you are a doctor, and a patient comes in saying, "Doctor, my stomach is in constant pain and I can't keep any food down," you don't say, "Well son, it sounds like your diet is the right diet for you and I am happy to see that diet working out." Instead you say, "Let's take a look at what might be wrong here and see if we can't figure it out."

If you then notice that a whole spate of patients come in complaining of the same symptoms, and they are all eating exactly the same things in the exact same ways, you don't say, "It seems like this new trendy diet is really working out!" but instead you say, "This new trendy diet SUCKS!"

Even if the patients try to tell you, "It's not the diet, doctor; it is that food in general is much worse these days! It doesn't matter what I eat; all the food is crap!" if you are aware of plenty of other people not having these problems you are going to know these guys saying this are wrong.

That is the position we are in right now.

These guys are all doing this stuff, then complaining that there is a huge problem with modern women, that women are all giant sluts, all their standards are impossibly sky-high, that they are impossible to please, and so on and so forth.

Then they say "Well it has nothing to do with the stuff I am doing though!" when no one who is not doing this stuff is having these problems with women.

Chase

10000%

 

[TomInHo]

If it was, I wouldn't care.

Being on X now though, my eyeballs are bleeding from how much these men complain about women.

X is known to be a very toxic space. Similar to reddit

And that's what most of social media is nowadays. Both men and women complaining about each other

They do this with the 'rizz' videos now. Dudes make these approaches that will not get them laid, post them, other guys see the girls smiling and assume, "Wow, that guy talked to her and made her smile! She's all about it!" then imagine this dude will be getting laid (but he won't).

Yeah does rizz videos are pretty cringe. But you know if it inspires guys to get off their ass and start making some approaches I'm all for it

Once they get in field reality will with them. And some men will adapt and improve while others will stay complaining. Like how it has always been really

I could shoot a video approaching girls to tell them about "my 1 feet pinus" and guarantee you I could get them laughing and touching me and dudes would think it was amazing game and that it must get me laid a lot. Maybe it could if I ran some GM-style game... but I'd have to totally change my style to make it work so it wouldn't actually work. But it'd make for great TikTok content and could launch a whole movement of men approaching women to talk about their "1 feet pinus".

Honestly maybe you should

Attention is currency and after you get their attention maybe you can teach them what you consider real game

Could do viral tik toks and shorts to get some top of funnel attention then do reframes in a free lead magnet for example

(that said: there's a meta-argument here that what most men are really looking for is "dream" and "entertainment" and "hope" and not reality-generating solutions)

Sometimes hope is the first step no?

Yeah, it's satisficers vs. maximizers.

They did a study on this. Satisficers (who value comfort above all) are happier the uglier their wives are. The satisficers with the ugliest wives are actually the happiest satisficers.

Meanwhile, maximizers (who value having/being the best above all) are happier the more beautiful their wives are. The maximizers with the most beautiful wives are the happiest maximizers.

Yeah i find those differences fascinating

I love every type of game that works.

I have talked to all kinds of players and am always the #1 guy telling PUAs to quit arguing over methods if I can tell both guys' methods work.

The metric I use to judge whether a metric works however is whether the guy pulls ass and is happy with his results.

The dudes who pull ass tend to be in a happy place and have good opinions of women, thanks to operant conditioning: they are getting lots of REWARDS (i.e., the kinds of women they want, sucking and fucking them and giving them devoted relationships).

You will not find a dude with satisfactory game with negative opinions on women.

Interesting

Well I think you talking mostly about guys on X. But my original post was referencing guys like Mr Locario that is an extreme screener

It's funny because he also complains about his audience complaining about women

He is the guy that says a compliant 6 becomes a 9, and he doesn't seem to view women negatively and is happy with his results

When dudes start complaining, it means there is a hole in their game.

The more they complain, the louder their complaints, and the broader and deeper those complaints are, the bigger and more are the holes.

These dudes pushing neo-direct all do the same red pill complaints about women: hypergamous, high body count, unfaithful, fickle, won't stick around / will dump you, etc. etc.

Well that is interesting because Mr Locario does go very direct and sometimes Neo-Direct. And he also complains about men consuming too much redpill

He makes fun of hypergamy a lot and thinks it's nonsense. So even though he uses neo-direct it seems like you both agree on a lot of things

If you are a doctor, and a patient comes in saying, "Doctor, my stomach is in constant pain and I can't keep any food down," you don't say, "Well son, it sounds like your diet is the right diet for you and I am happy to see that diet working out." Instead you say, "Let's take a look at what might be wrong here and see if we can't figure it out."

If you then notice that a whole spate of patients come in complaining of the same symptoms, and they are all eating exactly the same things in the exact same ways, you don't say, "It seems like this new trendy diet is really working out!" but instead you say, "This new trendy diet SUCKS!"

Even if the patients try to tell you, "It's not the diet, doctor; it is that food in general is much worse these days! It doesn't matter what I eat; all the food is crap!" if you are aware of plenty of other people not having these problems you are going to know these guys saying this are wrong.

That is the position we are in right now.

These guys are all doing this stuff, then complaining that there is a huge problem with modern women, that women are all giant sluts, all their standards are impossibly sky-high, that they are impossible to please, and so on and so forth.

Then they say "Well it has nothing to do with the stuff I am doing though!" when no one who is not doing this stuff is having these problems with women.

Yeah, you and Mr Locario have the same views for sure. Very interesting because you both have drastically different styles but come to the same conclusions about how modern men behave in how they consume the dating content

 

[Skills]

Yeah, we all agree on that obviously.


The problem with doing this is that you risk generating negative compliance, which will be harder to recover from.

What if she responds "I'm busy Wednesday"? Now your only option is to roll off for a couple of days and ping her again later, because if you immediately propose another date/time you're gonna look desperate.

If you'd simply asked "what's your schedule like this week?" you could have avoided the negative compliance and fixed the date much more easily.

correct....you learn well, atlas good job, @Spike begging you read and field test

 

[Skills]

I saw the Locario vs. UMP interviews —It was super entertaining

But after being in this space for a while, I’ve noticed a pattern: guys get locked into their way of doing game and argue endlessly about which method is superior.

I call that posturing, however crap is crap..... blow me in and blow me out method is crap, has always been crap, i have never seen anyone in pua advocating blow me in blow me out game, the screeners were all in nexasft before your time, none were advocating that, ever...

Personally, I wouldn’t screen the way Mr. Locario does, but I get why some guys do. He doesn’t want to waste time and prefers to focus only on the most interested women. Meanwhile, Markus from UMP is fine with putting in the extra effort to turn a “yellow light” into a “green light” for the close

^ this is fine, not the way he goes about teaching how to do that.... Cause it does not work,, the odds are extremely low...

I don’t completely agree with the idea that a 6 can "become" a 9 through compliance, but I get where they’re coming from. Their focus is on compliance above all else.

The main issue with that mindset is they seem to take any form of resistance way too personally, treating it as outright rejection.

Let’s be real—if all else is equal, most men would prefer a compliant 9 over a non-compliant 9. Locario just takes that idea to the extreme in his teachings



Yeah, there’s a large market for that style of game. I think it’s a reaction to men getting tired of wasting their time, so they adapted the only way they knew how

^ there are way better ways to teach screening does not look anything like that, there are guys in the forum that screen @Skjöldr for example, his game look nothing like that... nor even pancake mouse game looks anything like that.....

Is it really “non-game,” though? It might be different from your approach, but it clearly gets these men what they want

They’re not interested in learning persuasion—they just want women who are naturally compliant from the start

It’s basically “Just Be Yourself” repackaged as game, which is why so many guys love it. They’re not optimizing for the highest number of lays—they’re optimizing for finding women who already align with them

^ you can teach the same in way better ways, there is no way this dudes getting laid...or if they are, burning immense amount of leads..


here is how we used to do it, again looks nothing like that, here is by a young skills 2015:


"How does a screener game looks like:

1.- presentation.- The typical screener is a dude that is in shape, dress somewhat cool for his type of demographic, cool haircut, maybe a tatoo or 2, facial hair.... In other word he looks cool and above average and typically dress to a particular niche audience. The ones online will get professional pics (dude, bd, etc..), the other ones will post shirtless pics (gll, therevelifestyledesign etc..)

2.- pre-approach.- The majority either hoover, mingle, throw some type of approach invites(eye contact is big with some screeners, i personally don't do eye contact), they are good at reading body language and dtfness due to experience or analyze the group/social dynamic (what is her deal, who is she with etc...). or just put himself in a situation were he can have a convo or get open. The online ones, look for pics of girls that are their type and mass spam them)

3.- Open.- Some will just flat out approach an open even without approach invites. Others will approach like they just "ups happen to be there" my style, post some type of feel of receptiveness.. Most openers are direct, some are situational, in the open there will be some type OF ESCALATION, for example milking the intro, a touch, something... Physicality is extremely important for screeners...

4.- fluff.- The goal of the screener is to display his attractive personality during the interaction(aka the so call game), but the main focus is on escalation and moving things forwards toward SEX (even if the goal is not sex on the same day, but physicality is extremely important for the screener above everything else)

5.- unlike the ridiculous bs being spit out in sedfast lately, if she ain't dtf, does not mean is over. The screener will just get the number and CONT. the interaction some other time via text/facebook/phone, later the same night, second meet, text etc... But he will not devote tremendous amount of time if the girl is not a go, he rathers spend that time on other women, and game that women either later(if somewhat receptive, invested) or not at all (if based on experience he knows there is nothing there). I will emphasize that the goal if is not sex is a very solid interaction, most of screeners gauge interaction mainly by the receptiveness of physicality and investment on the girl."



^ please tell me were those that look like open neo direct> give the girl the number> close with take out your phone i will give you my number so we can meet at 8 pm for drinks....


^ guys in the forum please field test the locario retarded structure and post here your lay report....