What's new

Sell me on your texting style... Minimalist? Conversationalist? Or Seductive...?

Chase

Chieftan
Staff member
tribal-elder
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
5,976
Howdy gents.

I'm doing a big update on my old article on texting to make it current and a lot more useful.

In one section I talk about the 3 main texting styles. I define these as:

  1. Minimalist: texts are just for logistics. You text as little as possible, and just use texts to get girls on dates

  2. Conversational: you engage in more back-and-forth chatting, banter, and flirtation with girls. Texting isn't just for setting up dates; it's also an attraction tool

  3. Seductive: you get your texting onto sexual, seductive topics, and get girls envisioning sex with you before the date

I'd like to be able to include a quote from a guy for each type of texting on why that style of texting is great.

If you're partial to one of these or the other, I'll ask:

What makes this style so good, in your opinion? What are its advantages over other approaches?

(I'm also rather curious what the distribution of texters is among forum members. So even if you don't have a lot to say about the style, I'd be curious to hear regardless which of these styles you mostly fall under)

Chase
 

Train

Chieftan
tribal-elder
Joined
Feb 3, 2020
Messages
504
Hi Chase,

Still a newb here, but I fall under the conversationalist style.

I'm working to optimize my text game by incorporating more of the two other styles. This is because I have trouble being non-platonic and overtexting (i.e. I send paragraphs vs girls sending 1 or 2 sentences at the most).

I may default to the conversationalist style because my recent pool of girls is from online dating. So I am trying to develop enough of a connection to convince them to meet up. Otherwise I would like to do the connecting in person and use text to "maintain" or keep the flame lit via a minimalist/seductive mix.
 

Rakkum

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
Joined
Apr 2, 2017
Messages
198
I've had success with various styles to a certain degree.

Learning and applying Chase's minimalist texting improved my results quite dramatically. I was much more successful with compliant, down-to-fuck or overall busy women. I found it backfiring with girls who wanted more comfort -- then again, those chick are a bit hard to get out anyhow, at least with the investment effort and time I am willing to spare.

The only time I got a free pizza, lots of (smart)phone sex and a bunch of naughty media from a chick is when I combined a light-hearted, witty beginning that quite rapidly progressed into lots of teasing sexual framing and rich sexual story telling (basically erotica-porn where her and I were the stars!). For me, this does not work so often and the limit is different with different girls who bite in the first place but when it does then it does so big time.

At one occasion, I happened to send a well-written CouchSurfing request to a chick who had already moved out of town. However, we ended up having this long correspondence. Think poetic, soulful, intellectual. Basically, deep diving over long emails. I ended up meeting and bedding her a few months later in her new town. Not effective by any means, though.

My go-to method is the minimalist one spiced up at strategic moments. Whether I opt for witty banter, going deep or sexual depends on what the girl is like, how I feel and what our previous encounters have been like so far.
 

Velasco

Modern Human
Modern Human
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,052
Minimalist (1) is for after she's a fuckbuddy (3 bangs) with occasional once in a blue moon, minimal conversational (2a).

Before them 3 bangs, its minimal conversational (2a) + minimal seductive (3a) (which act as bait for her to eventually initiate the meet up). This is when I be sending girls memes as a conversation starter.

After 3 bangs I rarely send memes as conversational initiators or initiate contact at all, anymore. She contacts me.
 
Last edited:

Teevster

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
1,781
Texting for logistics.
Seduction through video messages for many obvious reasons :)

For texting, I tend to follow Pablo's minimalist approach.
 

Toby2030

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
315
I mostly text for logistics as well. I have written a longer post on my texting style earlier on.
 

Starboy

Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
Joined
Apr 2, 2018
Messages
490
I haven't texted girls consistently in a while since I was a student in college but i'd say back then I was a conversational kind of guy for sure.

I was conversational back then because the context for texting was so much easier when you share the same class,professor do the same schoolwork etc,but after you leave there's really no commonality left. So if you text a girl it's really out of the blue.

Then I read your perspective on texting and how you're so business like and your texts are so brief and I thought I HAVE to be like Chase because Chase is right.

So I shifted my mindset to "I need to not text so much because i'm wasting my time and effort to be another tryhard guy chasing the girl and you don't want to chase girls because chasing girls is bad. You have to follow Chase's rules/style to the letter!"

Lol that's really how I thought until I followed Hector on youtube and instagram and saw that his style of game is the complete opposite ot yours. He immerses and invests himself and clearly states his interest. Now i'm not sure how I should text :/
 

fog

Modern Human
Modern Human
Joined
Jul 20, 2015
Messages
1,532
I'm impartial to the styles. Below I highlight two of them I've used before, specifically online.

A. Seductive

Use for:
Quick sex
Characterized by: Explicitly sexual verbals, sexual rapport building, aggressive push-pull.
Summary: This style is ideal for screening in girls who are DTF and will come straight to your place. Escalation to sex is possible within 5-10 minutes after their arrival. There will be little to no resistance.

B. Conversational

Use for:
Dates
Characterized by: Disqualification, qualification, moderate rapport building.
Summary: This style of texting is ideal for screening in girls who will join you for a date (in public). They will be receptive upon meet.
 
Last edited:

HumanWhoLearns

Space Monkey
space monkey
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
100
Lol that's really how I thought until I followed Hector on youtube and instagram and saw that his style of game is the complete opposite ot yours. He immerses and invests himself and clearly states his interest. Now i'm not sure how I should text :/

I think you have to gauge the girl's buying temperature. Is she already into you? If so you can move quickly, if not then you'll want to be more gamey by offering value through humor, etc.
 

HumanWhoLearns

Space Monkey
space monkey
Joined
Jan 25, 2019
Messages
100
For me, I always try to stick to the minimalist approach. It's hard to build repoitre over text with relative strangers. I guess that's part of why I struggle with online dating.
 

DoWhatWorks

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
610
Minimalist (but warm)

I lay conversation foundations when I’ve met them in person so by the time I text it’s to confirm logistics. I love a voice notes & get good responses.

Conversational

Reserved for existing girls I’m already sleeping with. Helps gives them a feeling of “progression” but even this is limited to 2-3x a week and is usually just before I arrange a time to see them next.

Occasionally I’ll give a bit of this to a new girl who I can sense genuinely needs a bit & doesn’t just want the attention. Taken me a while to know the difference!

Seduction

Never done it. Feels thirsty to me and don’t want to be screenshot in some girl group chat. Just talk dirty to me when you see me in person lol
 

ElderPrice

Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
Joined
Jun 11, 2018
Messages
568
Noob perspective here.

Recently I discovered my 'text game' hasn't been working for me at all. I had been employing the advice given in GC articles, assuming I've been employing it correctly, referring to the general 'minimalist' advice - using texting to set up logistics.

Perhaps this works fine with girls that are very interested in you from the get-go, or that are so impressed that they're chasing you from the get-go. This hasn't been the case with girls I meet in person or online, and after sitting at this plateau long enough, I decided to start examining my text game. I really liked @Skills posts on the subject. He's very adamant about avoiding boring text exchanges. In one of his posts, I think he linked (or another poster did) to an outside article showing an example of how to be direct and seductive when it comes to texting on tinder. My results were noticeably better after employing this technique. This technique is almost entirely in your Seductive category.

Then recently, believe it or not I accidentally had a text exchange with a match on Facebook that was far more Seductive than my usual conversations, and it ended better than any previous conversation I've had on the platform. 'Accidental' meaning, I wasn't consciously trying anything new, just the variables with this match sparked a seductive conversation naturally. Anyway, my point being, this conversation was entirely in the Seductive category, and it worked far better for me than either of the other two categories or styles.

My guess on your three categories is that the right style will depend on where you're at with the woman you're communicating with.

So, if you're texting with a girl that's fully sold on, invested in, or chasing you, then I imagine you don't need much more than Minimalist texting. If she isn't there yet, you may need some Conversational texting. And if she's not entirely thinking about you as someone to sleep with quickly, you may need some Seductive texting.

Just my two cents.
 

West_Indian_Archie

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Feb 6, 2020
Messages
390
Conversationalist/Maximalist

Minimalists
- There are guys out there that say "strictly logistics". These dudes are idiots. Just because you got her contact information in a good situation, doesn't mean she's DYING TO GO OUT WITH YOU. Often times a man has to respark that initial energy, and blow that spark into a fire. By going to strictly logistics, he doesn't make any text snafus, but he more often than not makes a warm lead go cold. Logistics only is appropriate only for guys that have fat pipelines of girls coming in AND already good text game.

The sexy texters. In my opinion, rookies always want to sexualize something, but don't have the female understanding or social dynamics knowledge to do so properly. Trying to get the girl wet, trying to get her to send pics, maybe works in the moment, but it often induces ASD, often makes the guy look thirsty, or worse yet - the ramp up and release kills her desire for the real thing. Let's not even get into your texts being circulated in her friend group. (and to the press!)

The veteran can get away with sexuality dripping from his every pore. Sexy in silence, sexy on instagram, sexy when he speaks, sexy in text. But the rookie is not calibrated well enough to do it.

At best, he'll screen out prudes (which is most women when they don't know the guy) and screen in the girls with the highest possible buying temperature. And he still has to have the logistics set up PERFECTLY to close her.

The seducer's ideal - Very few texts, very few words, personalized, plausibly deniable, evergreen but maximum emotional impact.

When couples spend a lot of time together, they have a shared history. A lot can be conveyed from one person to another with "a look". Only they know what they're saying to each other and what things mean.

That's what a player should strive for with his texts.

Every text he sends should aim for that ideal, their own secret language, their own special code.

Which means you must be a conversationalist.

Most rookies don't have the pipeline or overall seductive appeal to barely say anything.
Most rookies have not calibrated their sexual persona.
And most rookies don't write well enough or know how to create that shared history with a girl to "mix/max" their effect on women via text.

All that is left is learning how to express yourself via text, and proactively taking steps to do so.

The conversationalist knows how to handle a

"WYD" received at 7:37 am (which is a text I got today)

The minimalist, the sexy texter, and the rookie would not.

WIA
 

ulrich

Modern Human
Modern Human
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
1,723
@Chase, ever since I discovered the "how to text" article, I switched to minimalist and have absolutey no regrets.
My conversations are now direct, efficient and I get more dates per number.

However, a lot of times I notice that I don't have enough rapport with girls (specially if met online) and I need to lapse back to conversationalist for a short time in order to build that comfort.
I don't like it but girls sometime need that comfort before moving forward. I try to make those conversations deep and fun but SHORT (20 messages max) before making anoher invite.

I have tried the seductive style but it has neverworked for me.
I guess I feel a little ashamed of writing overtly sexual things in messages... I tried it with a couple of girlfriends but they brushed me off easily.
There is a friend of mine who can get sexual pictures from women very easily, I wish I could do that.

If you ever write a post on how to ask for sexy pics (not sure if legal) I'd definitely read and apply it.
 

Teevster

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
1,781
Minimalists - There are guys out there that say "strictly logistics". These dudes are idiots. Just because you got her contact information in a good situation, doesn't mean she's DYING TO GO OUT WITH YOU.

True, but let us now consider she is not one of those girls who are "dying to go out" with you, in which case texting is probably the weakest tool at your disposal to turn things around. A text is just a text, and although I can agree that letters can have a huge impact on the human brain (literature), most texts are pretty short. Not only does long texts look bad but most women will also respond in pretty short messages. The texting will at best only be superficial.

If you cannot touch her, see her, or be there in present to stimulate her, then the content of your words must matter as that is the only thing you have left. However you cannot deliver the strong powerful content over texting.

The key in my opinion is to only take the contacts of super solid deals and opt for better strategies:


I tend to prefer the minimalist approach as it:
- Creates the element of mystery - doesn't reveal too much about you, and allows her to construct some ideas of oyu (very powerful, however it requires strong compliance from her - doesn't work if she doesn't give 2 fucks about you)
- And it doesn't activate the "validation loop" - in other words It dodges the deadly frame of my becoming some kind of validation source to her.
- It cuts right past the whole texting "back-and-forth" trap which can be deadly. It is a trap women are desperate to throw you into.

So my strategy is:
- Have a very solid interaction IRL (i.e. as in "I could maybe have pulled her right there and then if logistics were better" type of setting) and take her details. Proceed to sending minimal texts and enjoy all its benefits.
- If I am not having that "golden hook" , or if I am unsure whether the girl is fully compliant or not, I will change strategy to video-messaging as this has almost all the benefits of seeing her in person (and from there, escalate things).

That's how I do thing.

Best,
Teevster
 
a good date brings a smile to your lips... and hers

Skills

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
4,645
Conversationalist/Maximalist

Minimalists
- There are guys out there that say "strictly logistics". These dudes are idiots. Just because you got her contact information in a good situation, doesn't mean she's DYING TO GO OUT WITH YOU. Often times a man has to respark that initial energy, and blow that spark into a fire. By going to strictly logistics, he doesn't make any text snafus, but he more often than not makes a warm lead go cold. Logistics only is appropriate only for guys that have fat pipelines of girls coming in AND already good text game.

The sexy texters. In my opinion, rookies always want to sexualize something, but don't have the female understanding or social dynamics knowledge to do so properly. Trying to get the girl wet, trying to get her to send pics, maybe works in the moment, but it often induces ASD, often makes the guy look thirsty, or worse yet - the ramp up and release kills her desire for the real thing. Let's not even get into your texts being circulated in her friend group. (and to the press!)

The veteran can get away with sexuality dripping from his every pore. Sexy in silence, sexy on instagram, sexy when he speaks, sexy in text. But the rookie is not calibrated well enough to do it.

At best, he'll screen out prudes (which is most women when they don't know the guy) and screen in the girls with the highest possible buying temperature. And he still has to have the logistics set up PERFECTLY to close her.

The seducer's ideal - Very few texts, very few words, personalized, plausibly deniable, evergreen but maximum emotional impact.

When couples spend a lot of time together, they have a shared history. A lot can be conveyed from one person to another with "a look". Only they know what they're saying to each other and what things mean.

That's what a player should strive for with his texts.

Every text he sends should aim for that ideal, their own secret language, their own special code.

Which means you must be a conversationalist.

Most rookies don't have the pipeline or overall seductive appeal to barely say anything.
Most rookies have not calibrated their sexual persona.
And most rookies don't write well enough or know how to create that shared history with a girl to "mix/max" their effect on women via text.

All that is left is learning how to express yourself via text, and proactively taking steps to do so.

The conversationalist knows how to handle a

"WYD" received at 7:37 am (which is a text I got today)

The minimalist, the sexy texter, and the rookie would not.

WIA


^ this you get it! text for logistic is throwing shit to the wall to see what sticks.... Doesn't work, it is getting lucky, i don't understand why "Seducers" give such horrible advise...
 

Skills

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
4,645
True, but let us now consider she is not one of those girls who are "dying to go out" with you, in which case texting is probably the weakest tool at your disposal to turn things around. A text is just a text, and although I can agree that letters can have a huge impact on the human brain (literature), most texts are pretty short. Not only does long texts look bad but most women will also respond in pretty short messages. The texting will at best only be superficial.

If the text is done right, she will invest, and if done right she will get to the point"dye to go out with you"

If you cannot touch her, see her, or be there in present to stimulate her, then the content of your words must matter as that is the only thing you have left. However you cannot deliver the strong powerful content over texting.

Yes you can... I deliver for example the 8 orgasms routine over text, and i even copy and past a lot of your articles lol, it works...

The key in my opinion is to only take the contacts of super solid deals and opt for better strategies:

Every contact taken should be a solid contact...


I tend to prefer the minimalist approach as it:
- Creates the element of mystery - doesn't reveal too much about you, and allows her to construct some ideas of oyu (very powerful, however it requires strong compliance from her - doesn't work if she doesn't give 2 fucks about you)

minimalist make you look thirsty, "how does your schedule look like" = desperation she has not invested, this low odds... Texting causes mystery cause if done right she will picture a "you" version that is in her segment of imagination that does not even exist, i am the king of disappointment lol... They picture me as this dude that does not exist through text...

- And it doesn't activate the "validation loop" - in other words It dodges the deadly frame of my becoming some kind of validation source to her.

^ if done incorrectly, if done correctly she will invest...

- It cuts right past the whole texting "back-and-forth" trap which can be deadly. It is a trap women are desperate to throw you into.

^ if done incorrectly...

So my strategy is:
- Have a very solid interaction IRL (i.e. as in "I could maybe have pulled her right there and then if logistics were better" type of setting) and take her details. Proceed to sending minimal texts and enjoy all its benefits.

^ this is a MUST regardless of strategy, though if there is no solid interaction, a bunch of good texter can flip it... (but my advice is super solid interactions a must)

- If I am not having that "golden hook" , or if I am unsure whether the girl is fully compliant or not, I will change strategy to video-messaging as this has almost all the benefits of seeing her in person (and from there, escalate things).

^ not all of us are photogenic in person or video, plus this kills the "mystery" plus she needs to jump through too many hoops to do this (could be good if she agrees, but a lot of women won't agree to this, they like to get pretty, look right etc..)
 

Teevster

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
1,781
If the text is done right, she will invest, and if done right she will get to the point"dye to go out with you"

I think the problem we are having and that we will keep having is that we will risk talking past one another. My earlier post to WIA was more a clarification than a debate..

You may believe that I was trying to religiously defend a categorical position such as "it is always impossible to seduce a girl over text". But truth is, I did not. My name is not Blackdragon.

You CAN probably turn a girl around with text. Again anything can work. The question is NOT about whether something works or not, but whether it is a good (the best) strategy - as in the most powerful and most efficient strategy.

This changes everything. I care only about what works the best on most girls possible. I care about nothing else.

To clarify: I am not saying it is impossible to seduce a girl through texting (i.e. get her from 0 to 100 with the help of letters). What I am trying to say is that it is probably the worst strategy in regards to:
- Efficiency
- Strength
- Time and investment from your end.

Basically:
1. Minimal texting is the best call with compliant girls
2. Video-messaging (and back in the days, calling) was a better way to deal with those "not-so-compliant" girls.


But, I feel this was not really the answer you were looking.

So I will provide some more info.


Before I continue, I hope we can agree on these two premises:
1. Texting is a weak form of communication (lack of control and lack of presence and so on - weak, in comparison to IRL interactions)
2. Some girls are bombarded with texting (over IG, FB, Snapchat and so on)

So this brings us to the instawhores: which guys like you and me are prone to bump into, since we are doing night game. The chances goes up even higher if you happen to go to gay clubs (as the fashion/instagram crowd goes there) or high end venues/clubs with selective crowds (where people go to be "seen" rather than hooking up). I deal with tons of women like that due to the venues I usually frequent..

Now let us say you are dealing with one of these attention seeking women: how much impact will your text have on a girl with 8000 instagram followers (who also have snapchat, tinder and so on). It will probably have little impact, and in the rare cases where it does, I believe the cause was that she was into you despite your magical texting (either from the get go or as a result from interacting with you IRL).

Sure, I know my good old 8 types of orgasm routine is powerful, but what is it worth if the girl will just ignore your text because she just happens to receive at least 50 texts from different guys? (and the number 50 here is not even exaggerated).

I simply do not believe texting work on these women unless she is deadly into (as a result from your IRL encounter). In which case, minimal texting is key, because it sets you apart from all the needy internet guys who messages her all the time. It is key that you are not "one of them". I will let Pablo take over the discussion from here, since he is THE expert with these women (actually better than I am - and I am not doing too bad either).

But hey, not all women are like that? And yes I agree. And from my experience,those women with who I have in fact managed to have intense some back-and-forth with through texting, where even things got sexual, have usually been:
- More reserved women (as in reserved socially - i.e. not active on social media, nor partying every week end etc)
- More geeky women
- More introverted women
- And also average looking women, or ugly girls (not claiming you only deal with those!)
- I will leave out girls I have already fucked from this equation.

By no means am I saying these women are of lower calibrated than the typical instawhore, in fact I consider them superior to them. The women listed above can be equally hot if not hotter than those attention whores.

But the point is, they are just a fraction of women. Some will be attention whores (ALL women are attention seeking and all can throw you into the validation loop, but the instawhore is just a much more hardcore version) and some will be more... normal.

So... you may say "ok ok, then seducing through texting work on these more NORNAL women" and on the other hand, it may simply not work on instawhores.

Well sure, but then again you never truly know who is she TRULY is. Maybe she secretly has an instagram with 15 000 followers (this innocent girl I once met had 12500 followers on IG) . I am fully aware that in most cases one could easily tell whether a girl is of such type, but sometimes it is not that easy.

That said, with my strategy I do not have to worry about any of this, since my strategy WORKS on both categories of women. But not only does it work with the typical Instawhore, but it works EVEN BETTER with the girl who may had been receptive to "texting-seduction".

But I think you and I are dealing with a slight difference in demographics. Maybe your demography is more... limited. I can understand why a guy your age would find those instagram girls annoying. I do not blame you for this, but one needs to take this into consideration.

To finish things off, I want to mention that to this day, I still have not read a single STEP-BY-STEP guide on how to seduce a girl from 0 to 100 through texting in a way that is easy to reproduce (by others) and that gives a clear model on how to proceed in most situations.

Until one can provide me with that, I will stand by my words.

And empty claims that I "do things wrong" (what am I doing "incorrectly" may I ask) will simply not hold, and I doubt any serious readers will fall for such trollish rhetorics. I know what I am doing lol.


Best,
Teevster
 
Last edited:

Teevster

Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
1,781
A little key pointer here:

^ not all of us are photogenic in person or video, plus this kills the "mystery" plus she needs to jump through too many hoops to do this (could be good if she agrees, but a lot of women won't agree to this, they like to get pretty, look right etc..)

I agree that a video message would kill the mystery. But again, this is you misunderstanding my message above (whether you did so deliberately or not). If compliance levels are high, then go for the minimalist texting right away and seal the deal. Here you will get the benefits from things like the element of mystery and so on.

But as I mentioned, this element of mystery can only exist if there is high level of compliance already. If this compliance is lacking, it simply won't work.

In which case, I would go for video messages since I can acquire so many more benefits with going for this strategy as I wouldn't get the benefits from coming of as mysterious anyway.

-

The arguments concerning being photogenic are just flawed and you know it. Because these arguments would apply for IRL interactions as well... and I doubt you would claim anything so absurd as "texting is better than IRL interactions" because "some people are more photogenic than others" or "not photogenic enough for IRL interactions".

"Photogenic" does not apply to videos (or at least much less than pictures since it is much more alive.

Hey, why have I not seen you uses this exact arguments against online gaming (that is all about your pic)??? This is a question I am really asking myself ATM.

Your other point about making her "going through hoops"s equally flawed, since all you got to do is send her a video message instead of a bunch of letters. She doesn't need to agree to much more than when you text her (just like with texting, she has to open her app and that's it).

Seems like you are stuck in an old paradigm.

-Teevster
 
Last edited:
Top