Things I Don't Understand

[Marty]

Introduction

I am starting a thread called "Things I Don't Understand", because I still have a lot of doubts about my abilities. Although I first started dating women as far back as 1996 and began my Girls Chase journey here on the forum and the main site in 2013, I am conscious I still have so much to learn. In practical terms, the difficulties I face are obvious from my field reports. As concerns the knowledge needed as a foundation for improvement, though, there are concepts that come up over and over and, despite my best efforts, I am still in confusion over many of them. For that reason, I've decided to collect them in a single thread.

I will be most grateful for any advice posted here, especially, but not only, from those who have a deeper understanding than I do. Meanwhile, I will continue to add items gradually to my list of "Things I Don't Understand" and will endeavor to explain as clearly as possible what exactly I don't understand about them!

 

[Marty]

Things I Don't Understand #1: Anti-Slut Defense and Slut-Shaming Avoidance (in situations where sluttiness is not even on the agenda)

This is the first Thing I Don't Understand. For these purposes, I am going to assume that there is a nuanced distinction between the two concepts in the header, inasmuch as slut-shaming avoidance refers to a situation where a woman wishes to avoid appearing promiscuous in front of her peers or society as a whole, while anti-slut defense refers to the preservation of a woman's own self-image of modesty and propriety. This may be a misunderstanding of the vocabulary on my part. Nonetheless, I will proceed on this assumption.

Now, it makes perfect sense to me that a woman would generally wish to avoid incurring the disrespect of her acquaintances or of broader society by creating the perception that she is too sexually available, thus undercutting other women's price and helping to create a race to the bottom, which might result in her reputation being harmed or her being ostracized by her peers in the form of "slut-shaming". Similarly, in the case of "anti-slut defense", I can see that a woman might pride herself on her virtue and tightly restricted attainability and, though it is not quite as obvious as the first case, it also makes good sense that she would wish to protect this self-perception by acting accordingly except in rare circumstances.

What makes absolutely no sense to me, however, is why these concepts are invoked in situations where "sluttiness" doesn't even appear to be in the cards. Yet here on the forum, "ASD" seems to be one of the most common terms in field report threads, cropping up all over the place seemingly at every stage of a seduction.

For example, if a man asks a girl out to dinner within possible earshot of her friends, and tries to grab her number to set it up, why would slut-shaming even be a concern? He's not propositioning her for a one-night stand. He's proposing a first date, which is not only perfectly acceptable, it is actually encouraged by today's social standards. Similarly, why should "kino", or loving touch, "trigger ASD"? Nothing "slutty" is being proposed by the man, nor tolerated by the woman. Why would a woman fear "slut-shaming" if seen leaving a venue in a man's company? Bystanders have absolutely no insight into what will happen thereafter.

In summary, ASD and Slut-Shaming make sense to me as concepts, however unjust they may be, if the lady is actually contemplating doing something "slutty", or considered as such by society; or being crudely maneuvered into it, such as by a man pointedly suggesting a one-night stand. They make absolutely zero sense if a man is proposing the first of what might be several dates, as far as anyone can tell; or accompanying her somewhere to see that she gets there safely, wherever that may be; or expressing his passion for her through natural, physical human contact.

Any explanations offered will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Teevster]

Now, it makes perfect sense to me that a woman would generally wish to avoid incurring the disrespect of her acquaintances or of broader society by creating the perception that she is too sexually available, thus undercutting other women's price and helping to create a race to the bottom, which might result in her reputation being harmed or her being ostracized by her peers in the form of "slut-shaming". Similarly, in the case of "anti-slut defense", I can see that a woman might pride herself on her virtue and tightly restricted attainability and, though it is not quite as obvious as the first case, it also makes good sense that she would wish to protect this self-perception by acting accordingly except in rare circumstances.

This has actually been written about in social psychology. Check out the works of Roy Baumeister (his papers - the most famous being "sexual economics").

For example, if a man asks a girl out to dinner within possible earshot of her friends, and tries to grab her number to set it up, why would slut-shaming even be a concern? He's not propositioning her for a one-night stand. He's proposing a first date, which is not only perfectly acceptable, it is actually encouraged by today's social standards.

Not sure this would be a case that would trigger ASD. If she is hesitant, the resistance is likely caused by something else. In some cases, it could be related to her accepting dinners too easily, who may make her come off as loose and whory.

Similarly, why should "kino", or loving touch, "trigger ASD"? Nothing "slutty" is being proposed by the man, nor tolerated by the woman. Why would a woman fear "slut-shaming" if seen leaving a venue in a man's company? Bystanders have absolutely no insight into what will happen thereafter.

This however is a typical ASD-triggering case. The main issue is not that touching itself causes ASD - but more that "her accepting" you touching without resisting, may cause ASD - which in turn causes resistance. By accepting the touching - that is, the sexual advance, she is accepting the frame that you are trying to fuck her. If she accepts this easily, or if she comes off as accepting it too easily, either to herself, her peers, or even you, she may be perceived or perceive herself as a slut. That's how it work.

Bystanders have absolutely no insight into what will happen thereafter.

True, but it is not about what is, that male logic. It is about how she feels, and what anchors linked to past emotions tells her.

Very important distinction.

-Teevster

 

[Marty]

By accepting the touching - that is, the sexual advance, she is accepting the frame that you are trying to fuck her. If she accepts this easily, or if she comes off as accepting it too easily, either to herself, her peers, or even you, she may be perceived or perceive herself as a slut. That's how it work.


True, but it is not about what is, that male logic. It is about how she feels, and what anchors linked to past emotions tells her.

Very important distinction.

Thank you so much, Alek. Very helpful.

 

[Marty]

Things I Don't Understand #2: Non-Supplication without "Hiding the Banana"

This is perhaps the Thing I Don't Understand that troubles me the most.

One of the first pickup concepts I ever learned was making intentions clear. In fact, I learned it before I even discovered that Girls Chase existed—I believe I picked it up first from the SoSuave site, circa 2010. There, the colorful expression of "hiding the banana" was used, to express what one should not do, and the delightful image this conjured up stuck with me.

The problem is that anytime I make intentions clear and report on it here on the forum, multiple advisers tell me I am "pedestalizing" or "supplicating"—that is to say, violating another core pickup concept. I have difficulty finding the balance between the two: Indeed, it is unclear to me where the boundary even lies.

(To be clear, I am not quibbling with these commentators, I am accepting their critique and laying it out here plainly for better understanding.)

Here's an example. I reported on this forum my opening message to a girl on a dating app, where I made it clear that my interest was purely sexually motivated by commenting on her clothing and how it flattered her feminine appearance. The purpose of this was to allay any concerns that I might be just looking for someone to chat with, attempting to deceive her, bore her to tears, or anything else really other than the romantic purpose of online dating. @Tryst helpfully responded by telling me that I was conveying the following message:

please fuck me please fuck me please fuck me please please please

...which was sort of my intention, of course, but certainly not in such a self-humiliating way.

Later in the thread he confirms that I am pedestalizing her. This seems to trip me up time after time: I try to make sure that my intentions come across like a blast from a ship's horn, as this lesson was learned early and well. Occasionally, this works perfectly, but in other cases it results in one of the following outcomes:

1. I get led by the nose, since the woman perceives that I am supplicating, as described above
2. The woman gets exasperated and tries to shove me back in a "provider" box with a comment such as: "Shut up about my body already, buy me flowers"
3. The woman perceives me as unserious and autorejects, massively overestimating my experience, or, on very rare occasions, is frightened by my passion

Hilariously, sometimes the woman even verbalizes that she never had any doubt about my intentions being sexually motivated.

Items 2 and 3 above have been addressed elsewhere, but in this post I'm aiming to resolve item 1. At one point in a recent video on the Girls Chase YouTube channel, Don't Start Your Villain Era, @Hector Papi Castillo actually talks about making intentions clear and then proceeds directly to non-pedestalization (clip begins at 10:35, and the relevant section runs for about 35-40 seconds):

How can I ensure non-supplication without accidentally straying into banana-hiding territory? As before, any explanations offered will be greatly appreciated.

 

[KJ Francis]

Hi Marty!

A few thoughts popped up that might help with ways to think about the balance...

Implicit sexual intent is more flirtatious than explicit sexual intent. Hector's direct explicit sexual intent to me always seemed off the cuff, like an offhand comment completely devoid of neediness and unattached to any proposition. Like "of course I think you're beautiful... So anyways..." Kind of like Chase recommends moving on from the topic immediately after chase framing so she cannot reject the frame.

It also seems in the attainability area of the VAC attraction model. So your value is good, but attainability too high.

I think the GC articles surrounding "I am the prize" could help. Instead of you chasing, it's flipping her to chase you.

Online, this is addressed in Skills' thread about online process 101. The process is designed around getting her to qualify herself to you.

In person, maybe more physical escalation than verbal intent could help, while you deep dive getting her to describe her qualities to you.

 

[Marty]

Implicit sexual intent is more flirtatious than explicit sexual intent. Hector's direct explicit sexual intent to me always seemed off the cuff, like an offhand comment completely devoid of neediness and unattached to any proposition. Like "of course I think you're beautiful... So anyways..."

That's a very astute observation, @KJ Francis! Come to think of it, I've found in the past that women act pleasantly flustered when I toss in a compliment offhandedly and move swiftly on. Might it look something like this?

Marty: Oh hey! Have you just moved into this building?​

Girl: Yes, hello!​

Marty: I never knew I had such a beautiful neighbor. Anyway, what's your name?​

It also seems in the attainability area of the VAC attraction model. So your value is good, but attainability too high.

Great, that gives me a good pointer. I find that model the most relatable—it's the original and best.

 

[KJ Francis]

That's a very astute observation, @KJ Francis! Come to think of it, I've found in the past that women act pleasantly flustered when I toss in a compliment offhandedly and move swiftly on. Might it look something like this?

Marty: Oh hey! Have you just moved into this building?​

Girl: Yes, hello!​

Marty: I never knew I had such a beautiful neighbor. Anyway, what's your name?​

Great, that gives me a good pointer. I find that model the most relatable—it's the original and best.

Can't take credit!

How to Flirt with a Girl

The other day I got told I was a very good flirt. And, I suppose, I am. Of course, I wasn't always a good flirt... well, perhaps I was always at least a little bit of a flirt. What's it matter if you know how to flirt with a girl or not? In fact, it matters a good deal. Flirting is how you...

www.girlschase.com

Subtlety & Implication + Wit & Chase Frames

Yeah that sounds like a great indirect-direct opening! Situational and genuine interest. Doing it like that before a simple ask like her name is very easy for her to respond to before you move on. For extra implication, you could say something like I thought all my neighbors were wrinkled old ladies. Maybe too negative but just an example. Or I thought all my neighbors were too out of shape to come dancing with me (while you slowly look her down then up and drink her in).

After that, I think direct statements of interest are best as rewards after compliance. Also once on a date while discussing eye contact and singular attentive focus (like creating a bubble with someone), I slipped in the middle of a sentence that I found her face captivating. So it was not the subject of the sentence or hung as the end of it that put any owness on her to verbally respond.

 

[KJ Francis]

*onus (not owness)

Wouldn't be right to leave a spelling error on a Marty thread

 

[Skills]

Things I Don't Understand #1: Anti-Slut Defense and Slut-Shaming Avoidance (in situations where sluttiness is not even on the agenda)


What makes absolutely no sense to me, however, is why these concepts are invoked in situations where "sluttiness" doesn't even appear to be in the cards. Yet here on the forum, "ASD" seems to be one of the most common terms in field report threads, cropping up all over the place seemingly at every stage of a seduction.

Just think of it as timing being off, and resistance.... Forget about anti slut defense as a term when you see it in most reports is that bad timing, low investment/interst, or resistance

For example, if a man asks a girl out to dinner within possible earshot of her friends, and tries to grab her number to set it up, why would slut-shaming even be a concern? He's not propositioning her for a one-night stand. He's proposing a first date, which is not only perfectly acceptable, it is actually encouraged by today's social standards.

that is not slut shaming... bad example watch this video it will help you with specific sample minute 7:20 (I would watch the whole video if you have time)

Similarly, why should "kino", or loving touch, "trigger ASD"? Nothing "slutty" is being proposed by the man, nor tolerated by the woman. Why would a woman fear "slut-shaming" if seen leaving a venue in a man's company? Bystanders have absolutely no insight into what will happen thereafter.

kino/physical escalation does not trigger asd, unless is done by someone that does not know how to kino properly and the RIGHT TIMING, second a proper kino/escalation is done with EXTREME DISCRETION, i can for example be escalating on the women in front of her dad with the gun, and his brother with the machete and her mom with the beisball bat, they should not be able to see it... My point is proper escalations are done protecting her SOCIAL PROOF.... Escalation no protecting social proof, uncalibrated, and more importantly bad timing cause resistance or rejection of advances which is = asd but again we call asd resistance/lack of discretion think about it that way so is easier...

In summary, ASD and Slut-Shaming make sense to me as concepts, however unjust they may be, if the lady is actually contemplating doing something "slutty", or considered as such by society; or being crudely maneuvered into it, such as by a man pointedly suggesting a one-night stand. They make absolutely zero sense if a man is proposing the first of what might be several dates, as far as anyone can tell; or accompanying her somewhere to see that she gets there safely, wherever that may be; or expressing his passion for her through natural, physical human contact.

Any explanations offered will be greatly appreciated.

yes you totally have a flawed understanding of what it is.... watch the video i posted and read my responses carefully, and again don't think about it as "slut" you are focusing on term which is confusing.... women now a days don't worry or care about slut is a term obsolete. again think about it in terms of resistance, social proof protection, low interest, and bad timing...