UMP Verbal Game Structure LRs

[Velasco]

The two reports I'm about to share are recent LRs posted on the UMP mastermind by Alex Lindberg. On @pinpin's recent thread, I shared his open-to-close verbal game structure. So here, I wanted to provide some examples to go along with the basic structure for inspiration. Alex himself, is a big fan Cialdini's work, so I know my influence/pre-suasion bros will really like these reports.

Alright enough words, just a quick background before we get to the reports, these two LRs are on back to back nights. Both girls actually turn out to be part of the same huge social group lol. The first girl, despite being a virgin, is a 'green' while the second is more a yellowish-green (whatever the fuck that color is) girl. I'm posting both of these, so that you guys can see how he calibrates to each girl, following the same verbal game structure (DHV → Making her qualify → Sexualize → Soft Close) to seal the deal.

Alright. Now without further ado...

Da reports

Enjoy
================================
I'm out with Ciel, I see a brunette girl standing in a massive group.

Alex: "Where are you from?”
Her: "I'm Danish"
Alex: "You're mixed?
Her: "Yes, half Danish half Korean"
Alex: "That's really interesting because I actually met another half Danish half Korean girl in Sydney! You're so much more fun & open minded than regular Danish girls!"
[Preselection DHV + Framing fun & open minded]
Her: "Haha oh really" [Accepts frame]
Alex: "Who are you here with?"
Her: "We're a group of 21 girls"

With the info I currently have at my disposal, it's obvious that the massive group is the main obstacle in this interaction. So therefore, I immediately start framing against cockblocking. I can see in my periphery that some of the friends have that cunty "cockblock facial expression”. Anyways, I will do this by framing them as jealous, insecure & controlling.

I ask her "What's it like travelling in such a big group of girls? I bet there must be so much drama going on."

I want to ease into the cockblock framing which is why I start with "drama".

Her: "Yes. It was good for the first few days but you really get to see people's true colors after a while."
She agrees with the drama. So one step further.
Alex: "I've travelled with girls before so I know how controlling they can become once the jealousy builds up" [Preselection + Jealousy & Controlling framing]
Her: "Yes it's really bad" she agrees.
Alex: "Those jealous girls always prey on the weak."
I want to frame her going along with any cockblock attempt as something very negative she doesn't wanna identify with... and right at this point, one girl comes in to try and cockblock. We both look at each other, and I can see how it "clicks" for her.

Turns out their entire group is heading over to the next venue. Which is only next-door. Me and Ciel HK head over there as well. He mentions how she keeps looking at me. I re-engage, and I make sure that she's faced away from the group so they can't give her the "cockblock eyes" (y'all know what I'm talking about).

I compliance test by seeing if she latches onto my hand if I put it close to hers. She does. I lightly rub her hand while I'm talking. She rubs it back. This indicates a lot of compliance. I put my other hand on her lower back and she moves in closer slightly and is fully relaxed. Another indicator of compliance.

Alex: "Hey, it's too loud to talk over here - lets go sit down there"
Alex: "Have you ever had a boyfriend?
Her: "No I have not"
Alex: "Ok why?"
Her: “I don’t know”
Alex: “So have many guys have you been with?”
Her: “Been with how? Like sexually?”
Booom I know it’s a virgin.
So I cold read “I actually think the reason that you haven’t had sex yet is because you haven’t found a guy that you actually like”
Her: “Yes it has to be the right guy”

I bet you 100,000 Indonesian Rupiah that she doesn’t have a defined criteria for what “the right guy” even means. So I define that for her.

Alex: “Of course!. Look. You’re 20. You need a guy who has a lot of experience and that you’re sexually attracted to.” - I fit both of these criteria. And she also can’t disagree with this statement.
Once she’s agreed, I ask “How adventurous are you?”
Her: “I am”
Alex: “I’d love to take you on an adventure but there’s no way that your friends would let you go with me.” - knowing that she’s going to go against this frame.
Her: "I'm coming with you, I just need to let them know that I'll be gone"

Once you get her to verbally agree that her friends won’t cockblock, she’s going to be more assertive when she tells them that she’s leaving.
Done.
==========================
Note: In Bold is the verbal exchange. Italics are Alex's thought process.

Alex: Open: Are you also Finnish?

I thought they were all Finnish from the way they looked. So I wanted to frame it as a cold read, in hopes that she’d ask how I knew. Then I wanted to segueway into DHV (my ex was from Finland) and then open loop (because all Finnish girls do the same thing). In other words, since it’s early on in the interaction, I’m trying to open up opportunities for me to

• DHV
• Hook her with curiosity on the open loop

Her: Are you drinking water?
I’m drinking water. She asks me why.
Alex: Because I’m not Finnish
It’s a well established stereotype that Finnish people are alcoholics.
Her: (After she tells me she’s from Denmark) Now it all makes sense actually
Bait for her to ask “Why?”. Makes what I’m about to say next have more impact.
Alex: Because Danish girls, whenever I meet them, they always try to get me drunk, every time, it’s so true

• Preselection DHV
• Prize frame

I’m also using Donald Trump-like statements (“every time”, “it’s so true”, “whenever I meet them (classic Donald Trump social-proof technique”). These are all compliance triggers.
Her: I’m not trying to get you drunk
she’s qualifying. She’s justifying her behavior. Since she’s qualifying here, I know I can make her qualify even more.
Alex: But how can I be sure? Like, how can I trust you when I know what every girl around here tries to do with guys?
In Bali, you’ll hear from pretty much every single girl that “every guy here just wants sex”. So I’m framing against that early on.

• “Every girl” = social proof compliance trigger + preselection
• I’m framing girls as sexual predators.
• Stealing that frame

Her: No nooo! It’s the guys who’s bad
Alex: Like… You don’t know what it’s like to be a guy in 2020 with feminism and everything.
I wasn’t intending to frame feminism as something negative here. However, that’s how she interprets it. And she goes against that statement immediately saying, "I’m not a feminist".
Since she’s qualifying, I simply roll with it.
Alex: I’m actually soo happy to hear that!
Rewarding her qualification.
Her: In Sweden, not in Denmark.
She qualifies again (feminism is big in sweden, not denmark). I used “her being from Denmark” as an opening to make her qualify hard. I punished her strategic mistakes maximally without taking it too far & maintaining a non confrontational frame. I capitalized even further by implying preselection DHV’s into pretty much every single sentence that I said.
Alex: Now I actually feel a lot more comfortable
I’m rewarding her qualification which will encourage her to keep doing it later on as well. I’m also strengthening the frame that girls are acting like sexual predators against me and I’m framing it as if she won my trust.
Her: That means you can drink
I’m actually interpreting this as a frame battle. She’s trying to get me to “give in”. I don’t. Not because I don’t want the alcohol or anything, but because it will really hurt any form of attraction that I have right now.
My thought process: I’m currently in control of the frames so that means that I have compliance and likely also a good amount of attraction. Controlling the frame is an attraction trigger. And I’ve also DHV’d quite a lot already. If we think back to the verbal game pyramid (DHV → Making her qualify → Sexualize → Soft Close), I’ve already DHV’d and made her qualify. So, the next step is to sexualize.
Alex: Do you have any new years resolutions?
I use this as a segueway to frame before sexualising
Alex: “I feel like, this is your year for growth.”
I pause and wait for her to verbalise agreement. Since she agreed to this statement, she’ll be more likely to agree to the next one.
Alex: “This year, you should grow a lot and you should be more open minded than last year”
Framing for open minded.
Her: That’s good that’s good, but then you can drink
She agrees with the frames but tries to make me drink again. I simply ignore it and move on. I’m leading the convo forward regardless of what kind of BS she’s trying to do.
Alex: I’m curious though… Have you been more open minded this year than last year?
Listen to her tonality when she says “Yes I have”. She sounds very serious when she’s saying it, at least in contrast to how she sounded earlier. It actually sounds like she has fully accepted the new “open minded” identity that I’ve given her. It also tells me that she is VERY willing to qualify. Likely because I’ve been rewarding that behavior all the way through.
Alex: What’s the most open minded thing you’ve done in Bali?
I ask this because she gave compliance on the question before. It tells me that I can take it one step further.
Her: You can’t ask me that!
The way she said this made me suspect that she may actually be non-compliant to sexual hoops later on. So I’m interpreting this as her hinting towards something that could later become an objection. I immediately challenge/question this by asking her “why?”.
Her: How should I answer that?
This tells me that she doesn’t know how to act around me yet. Quite literally actually. She doesn’t know in which way to respond the question. I’ll set the example first by giving a sexual response myself. By going first the story, I’m using the reciprocity compliance trigger as well.
Alex: Have you done anything like that?
She tries to derail the conversation with "you didn't drink". I simply ignore it. The fact that she's trying to change the topic really confirms my suspicion that there's non compliance towards sexual hoops. I want to get to the bottom of that IMMEDIATELY. Because I want her to reciprocate and invest into the sexual frame that I’m setting.
Her: Not like that… I’m not that bad, I’m a good girl
She’s trying to set the good girl frame.
Alex: I don’t believe that
I do not accept her good girl frame.
Her: WHY??? I’M A GOOD GIRL
So I was right before. She is non compliant towards sexual hoops.
Thought process: It’s a critical moment and I need to get around the “good-girl” frame without giving her any opportunities to prize frame, or coming across as butthurt/triggered/whatever.
Alex: You know what I think? It’s more like “it depends a little bit on the guy that you’re with”.

• “What I think?” = plausible deniability for me. It’s simply my theory or opinion. I’m not trying to say it as an objective fact but more so my subjective opinion. She can’t argue against it!
• “A little bit” = easier for her to agree with. It’s lower compliance than “it depends on”.

She IMMEDIATELY says “Yes it does” with 100% agreement. Now when she has agreed to that initial statement, I can double down on it.
Alex: If you’re with a guy that you feel like you can’t “show your wild side to” because he’s gonna judge you and stuff, then OBVIOUSLY you’re gonna be like a good girl
She responds “YES!!” so I double down again
I want to use language that appeals to her senses, with words such as “feel”. Subtle but makes it easier to say yes.
Alex: But if you’re with a guy that 1. Knows what he’s doing 2. You trust him 3. You’re attracted to him
So I’ve already framed myself as having all of these qualities. I’m displaying sexual authority (Knows what he’s doing) by questioning her “good girl frame”. I already framed her as “winning my trust” earlier so she already trusts me because I flipped it on her and 3. You’re attracted to him (I’m assuming that she is). I’m painting a picture where I’m the guy she does NOT have to be a “good girl” with.
She says yes which means I can go further again.
Alex: Then with this guy… You don’t feel the need to be a “good girl”, you know?
Adding “you know?” at the end will make her say yes simply due to linguistics. It’s a magical trigger-word. It just works to get “yes”.
Her: I like to be bad but not with everybody.
So she has fully accepted the frames that I’ve set now.
Alex: Of course not. It has to be with the right type of guy.
Implying that’s me.
Her: But I shouldn’t tell you
She’s still giving that BS. However I can’t push for an answer here so I need to try a different angle now. I think the reason behind the non-compliance is she simply doesn’t want to be “too easy”.
Alex: You don’t need to tell me anything. I already know exactly who you are.
Thought process: I need to make the most out of her non compliant answer and use it as a segueway to a topic where I can gain compliance again. I’m also still strengthening the frame that she’s NOT a “good girl”. Never will I ever agree with that frame.
Her: You don’t… You can not read me. I’m not readable
I interpret this as her “good-girl” frame cracking. That I’ve seen through it completely and she has realised it.
Alex: You’re actually a pretty easy read
I want to take it one notch further.
Alex: But that’s a good thing because you remind me about a lot of girls that I’ve been with before.
I need to calibrate now because I feel like her emotions are swaying too much in one direction.
Her: I’m not like a lot of girls… I’m different
Alex: Oh really? Hey if that’s the case… then that’s really good! What do you think makes you different from most girls around here?
I capitalize on this and make her qualify further.
Alex: You have humour??? Hey if you can make laugh… that’s like the most important thing for me.
This is something that you’d read in a magazine like Cosmopolitan or some shit. “The most important quality in a man is that he can make me laugh”. So I just steal that and I think it’s a pretty funny way to reinforce my prize frame. Rewarding her qualification again.
She keeps qualifying. “I’m a funny girl”
Alex: It has to be in the moment
She was talking about how she can’t just make a joke on the spot. She says yes to it having to be in the moment.
Alex: I feel like it’s always… so much better in the moment
Trying to sexualise with my tonality
Her: Yes but it’s really tough to make you laugh when you’re not drinking
I’m interpreting this as her saying “I’m trying to break your frame and take control over the conversation but I can’t”.
Alex: Ah you’ll get there…
Keep on trying buddy. One day.
She now grabs me and makes out. Right after she makes out with me, her friend comes in. I had the suspicion that she was trying to give me shit. But my girl immediately jumps in and says that “I’m a nice guy”, which means that cockblock should fuck off. She starts talking about falling with her motorbike. I don’t want the conversation to derail, so I simply ignore what she said and try to sexualise again. “I’m actually curious about something.” wait for “what”? pause. then
Alex: Do you like when guys pull your hair?
Her: Yes!!
Alex: Do you like to be choked as well?
Her: YES!!
Difference in tonality on how she answered “hairpulling” and “choking”. She likes choking more.
Alex: Do you like being spanked as well?
Her: I really like that
Alex: Have you ever been tied up?
I only use this hoop if they’ve responded really enthusiastically to the other ones. Which she did.
Alex: Perfect. We’re gonna have so much fucking fun.
Verbal game pyramid again. (DHV → Making her qualify → Sexualise → Soft close)
Soft close + assuming that we’re gonna go together later + rewarding. She’s enthusiastic about it.
Her: But you have to tell me why you’re not drinking and why you’re listening to music
If I don’t answer this right now it could bring up some weird concerns. It’s almost as if she’s suspecting that I’m a recovering alcoholic or something. I simply say new years resolution.
Her: Apparently you’re good at it
Concern dealt with
Alex: Where in Bali do you stay?
I need to get the interaction back-on-track immediately after that concern was dealt with. I start building up towards the pull by asking where in Bali she lives.
Her: Where are you from?
She’s starting to ask me “get-to-know-you” questions. I interpret this as if she wants to fuck now but needs to actually know something about me first.
Friend comes in. My tonality shifts completely when the friend comes in. I don’t want to show any form of interest towards the friend whatsoever. For multiple reasons. I don’t want her there. I don’t want to accidentally cause attraction with her (which is actually so easy because you’ve already got preselection from girl #1). I don’t want to create a situation where the friend is attracted to me. That’s begging to be cockblocked. So I give her minimal investment. One word responses.
Alex: He’s Australian
I try to send away the friend to one of my wings from Sydney who was also in Bali.
Her: “I have a dream where I…”
She’s opening up to me about her dreams. It’s really cute actually.
Alex: That’s gonna be so fucking good + “I understand you fully”
Giving her what she needs emotionally right now. But it’s still not the right type of emotional state you want her in when pulling. Want to bring it back to sexual. “I have a question for you” again wait for her “what?"
Alex: Do you….like oral?
Very enthusiastic YES!
Alex: Do you like receiving or giving?
Just gathering info on her preference so that I can use it later on when trying to pull. I also want that verbal commitment because she's investing into the frame.
Alex: That’s perfect because I kind of have a rule…
She IMMEDIATELY says “yes???” so she’s really intrigued about this now
Alex: If I take a girl home, I’m gonna go down on her first for at least 25-30 minutes or I won’t fuck her. That’s like my rule.
I’m adding “That’s like my rule” at the end. I want it to come across as “that’s my rule. If you don’t like or respect my rule then this won’t happen”. The focus is completely on her pleasure, which must be a theme throughout your interactions or there simply won’t be much appeal for her.
Alex: Because to me… there’s nothing hotter than a girl just cuming over and over and over right before I fuck her.. That’s really hot
Since she was receptive to “my rule”, means that I can take it really sexual now. And I want her to know that there's a really big value proposition for her and that it's 100% going to be amazing for her.
Her: NO YOU CANNOT DO THIS TO ME NOW… BECAUSE THE CLOCK ISN’T THAT MUCH
This is a VERY clear sign that I should just keep doing this. But she also expressed that she thinks it’s too early to go. She’s actually right. It’s super early - about 11.30PM on a Saturday night. I don’t even wanna leave either since it’s my first interaction of the night.
Alex: Imagine I take you home, and lay you down on my bed, and I give you the best massage of your fucking life so that you’re feeling fully comfortable and relaxed, I run my tongue across your clit and I give you 10-15 oral orgasms
I talk about oral and choking again because these will be the most appealing to her. I gathered that information earlier on the “choking” hoop because her tonality went up in contrast to the other’s.
She grabs me and makes out again.
Her: You cannot do this to me. It’s really not fair.
It means that it’s working really well. She’s really horny right now
Alex: Sometimes it’s not fair
I wanna stay in the frame of me making her sexually frustrated. The frame of HER WANTING IT, NOT ME.
Her: I have the whole night in front of me
So her concern is that she doesn’t wanna miss out on the entire night. I agree with her but wanna see how far I can take it anyway for the audio.
Alex: So how far do you live from La Favela?
Starting to set up the pull again.
Her: I’m travelling with 21 girls
Because she’s in the same group as the Danish virgin from the other LR LOL. I caused a lot of drama in this group unknowingly.
Alex: But are they like cool girls?
I want to start framing it as them being weird if they’re trying to cockblock. This is step 1.
Alex: So they wouldn’t be weird when we go back together and come back later?
Step 2 of anti cockblock framing
Alex: I live in Canggu so it’s better if we go to yours
Try to go for the pull to her place because I live far away
Her: Ok that’s fine I only have one roommate and he’s my friend
Alex: OK but do you have the key?
I don’t want to walk half-way through the venue for her to realise that she doesn’t have a key. We need to go back and get it etc. Wanna get that out of the way right now.
Alex: Allright. I know the guy at the door so he’ll let us back in again.

 

[BigPapa]

@Velasco I must confess , even though we are quite opposite in what we are pursuing and final objectives as of yet , some of things that you write about I find them top notch

 

[Skills]

Just a shameless suggestion. just to keep with the seduction community traditions, again just a suggestion.... We should not post lay reports of other people under lay report, this one would have been better posted on that verbal structure thread, instead of in lay reports, in sedfast for example the lay reports needed to be current, not from other places, and not from other people...

 

[Velasco]

Pinpin's asked for guys to share their verbal structure. Nobody answered except DML. And subsequently the thread died. So I posted the one I saw on the UMP group. Posting the LRs over there VS here, would not only have derailed pinpin's thread, but also have lead to less exposure to these LRs (nobody's gonna click pinpin's thread for LRs) which I felt could give guys some ideas about where they can improve their own verbal structure (the lack of responses to pinpin's thread indicates to me, that a lot of guys dont actually have a verbal game structure (I shared my own in Klimax's thread. But because I didnt make it a separate post, probably less guys have seen it unless I deliberately link to it), so they can use this one as inspiration to create their own) or steal some of these concepts. I'm also not going to obey community traditions because someone tells me to. Sorry.

 

[Skills]

that a lot of guys dont actually have a verbal game structure (I shared my own in Klimax's thread. But because I didnt make it a separate post, probably less guys have seen it unless I deliberately link to it), so they can use this one as inspiration to create their own) or steal some of these concepts. I'm also not going to obey community traditions because someone tells me to. Sorry.

i did a post and a video doing my verbal structure... from teevester.... is just that it has been repeated to death, so i thought it would be boring (most guys here do second generation verbals and variations).... But yes, you have good intentions, but it is just weird, at least to me...

How to sex talk for dummies (The 8 Orgasms Routine) featuring Teevester aka Tva_Oslo - The Skills Method

I can guarantee you that if you fully implement and do exactly as i said and field test it you will have a high probability of this working, but again … Continue Reading →

www.theskillsmethod.com

 

[Teevster]

I checked this report as per the recommendation of Velasco.

I would love to see @Pablo ”Pelusita” Garcia 's comments to this report.

Here are my comments, but first a disclaimer:
- I commented on this post as I was reading it, trying to put myself in the situation, and predict the next moves. Sometimes my prediction was in line with the guy in the report, sometimes it was not. This allows to present an alternative view and offer comments that are more intimate to the report.
- I may at times criticize what the guy in the report is doing. It is easy for me to see mistakes (or things I consider mistakes), or places where one could act better (or where I think I could have acted better). But knowing the field, it is very different from being locked inside my appartement and analyzing a report. The field is stressful and you need to act swiftly and quick. Therefore, mistakes and sub optimal decisions are made, It is the nature of the field.
- Nevertheless, I still believe my comments to be useful. I do not consider this report a beginner report (far from it), but rather one of the more advanced kind, and therefore, I will comment it as such. This means that instead of applauding every single move, I will be critical and come with suggestions and different analysis, in order to contribute additionally to the report.


Edit: As I read the first report, which I found not so interesting, I was a bit more critical to the guy in the report. As I moved on to the second one, I realized good things where taking place, and things got better and better. You may notice this in my tone (how it progressively changes).

That in mind, let us get into to it:

The two reports I'm about to share are recent LRs posted on the UMP mastermind by Alex Lindberg. On @pinpin's recent thread, I shared his open-to-close verbal game structure. So here, I wanted to provide some examples to go along with the basic structure for inspiration. Alex himself, is a big fan Cialdini's work, so I know my influence/pre-suasion bros will really like these reports.

Alright enough words, just a quick background before we get to the reports, these two LRs are on back to back nights. Both girls actually turn out to be part of the same huge social group lol. The first girl, despite being a virgin, is a 'green' while the second is more a yellowish-green (whatever the fuck that color is) girl. I'm posting both of these, so that you guys can see how he calibrates to each girl, following the same verbal game structure (DHV → Making her qualify → Sexualize → Soft Close) to seal the deal.

Alright. Now without further ado...

Da reports

Enjoy
================================
I'm out with Ciel, I see a brunette girl standing in a massive group.

Alex: "Where are you from?”
Her: "I'm Danish"
Alex: "You're mixed?
Her: "Yes, half Danish half Korean"
Alex: "That's really interesting because I actually met another half Danish half Korean girl in Sydney! You're so much more fun & open minded than regular Danish girls!"
[Preselection DHV + Framing fun & open minded]
Her: "Haha oh really" [Accepts frame]
Alex: "Who are you here with?"
Her: "We're a group of 21 girls"

With the info I currently have at my disposal, it's obvious that the massive group is the main obstacle in this interaction. So therefore, I immediately start framing against cockblocking. I can see in my periphery that some of the friends have that cunty "cockblock facial expression”. Anyways, I will do this by framing them as jealous, insecure & controlling.

I ask her "What's it like travelling in such a big group of girls? I bet there must be so much drama going on."

I want to ease into the cockblock framing which is why I start with "drama".

Her: "Yes. It was good for the first few days but you really get to see people's true colors after a while."
She agrees with the drama. So one step further.
Alex: "I've travelled with girls before so I know how controlling they can become once the jealousy builds up" [Preselection + Jealousy & Controlling framing]
Her: "Yes it's really bad" she agrees.
Alex: "Those jealous girls always prey on the weak."
I want to frame her going along with any cockblock attempt as something very negative she doesn't wanna identify with... and right at this point, one girl comes in to try and cockblock. We both look at each other, and I can see how it "clicks" for her.

Turns out their entire group is heading over to the next venue. Which is only next-door. Me and Ciel HK head over there as well. He mentions how she keeps looking at me. I re-engage, and I make sure that she's faced away from the group so they can't give her the "cockblock eyes" (y'all know what I'm talking about).

I compliance test by seeing if she latches onto my hand if I put it close to hers. She does. I lightly rub her hand while I'm talking. She rubs it back. This indicates a lot of compliance. I put my other hand on her lower back and she moves in closer slightly and is fully relaxed. Another indicator of compliance.

Alex: "Hey, it's too loud to talk over here - lets go sit down there"
Alex: "Have you ever had a boyfriend?
Her: "No I have not"
Alex: "Ok why?"
Her: “I don’t know”
Alex: “So have many guys have you been with?”
Her: “Been with how? Like sexually?”
Booom I know it’s a virgin.
So I cold read “I actually think the reason that you haven’t had sex yet is because you haven’t found a guy that you actually like”
Her: “Yes it has to be the right guy”

I bet you 100,000 Indonesian Rupiah that she doesn’t have a defined criteria for what “the right guy” even means. So I define that for her.

Alex: “Of course!. Look. You’re 20. You need a guy who has a lot of experience and that you’re sexually attracted to.” - I fit both of these criteria. And she also can’t disagree with this statement.
Once she’s agreed, I ask “How adventurous are you?”
Her: “I am”
Alex: “I’d love to take you on an adventure but there’s no way that your friends would let you go with me.” - knowing that she’s going to go against this frame.
Her: "I'm coming with you, I just need to let them know that I'll be gone"

Once you get her to verbally agree that her friends won’t cockblock, she’s going to be more assertive when she tells them that she’s leaving.
Done.

You already know my opinions about this first report:

1. Girl was DTF from the get-go. Going to vegas with 21 of her friends as a virgin and hearing all her friends talking about men dicks would make her feels excluded. Hence she actually felt peer pressure to get dick so that she could at last become one of them. Yes, he did not fuck around and sealed the deal.

2. Some great pacing he did not put any emphasis on really helped in the initial hook, by talking about "how it is traveling with female friends".

3. His idea on handling his friends can backfire greatly, because it is a confrontative friend. Women have this sisterhood loyalty, and if you try to frame her friends negatively, you may cause some major resistance and hostility as a mean to defend her peers ("who are you to talk like this about my friend, stranger"). The strategy is therefore risky - few rewards and lots of risks.

I have reflected upon this in retrospect. Considering she is going out with 21 friends, she is very unlikely close to most of them. Hence she does not feel that much of a loyalty to her friends as she normally would if she went out with close friends. Hence this is why she was more compliant to follow the guy's frame rather than act defensive.

==========================
Note: In Bold is the verbal exchange. Italics are Alex's thought process.

Alex: Open: Are you also Finnish?

I thought they were all Finnish from the way they looked. So I wanted to frame it as a cold read, in hopes that she’d ask how I knew. Then I wanted to segueway into DHV (my ex was from Finland) and then open loop (because all Finnish girls do the same thing). In other words, since it’s early on in the interaction, I’m trying to open up opportunities for me to

• DHV
• Hook her with curiosity on the open loop

Great decent opener. Make her talk. But I fail to see any open loops or DHV's here.

Neverheless the opener does the job.

Her: Are you drinking water?

I’m drinking water. She asks me why.
Alex: Because I’m not Finnish
It’s a well established stereotype that Finnish people are alcoholics.
Her: (After she tells me she’s from Denmark) Now it all makes sense actually
Bait for her to ask “Why?”. Makes what I’m about to say next have more impact.
Alex: Because Danish girls, whenever I meet them, they always try to get me drunk, every time, it’s so true

• Preselection DHV
• Prize frame

GREAT hook game.

I’m also using Donald Trump-like statements (“every time”, “it’s so true”, “whenever I meet them (classic Donald Trump social-proof technique”). These are all compliance triggers.

Her: I’m not trying to get you drunk
she’s qualifying. She’s justifying her behavior. Since she’s qualifying here, I know I can make her qualify even more.

This is mental masturbation. She is qualifying, because a compliant and non-compliant girl alike would respond something like this.

Alex: But how can I be sure? Like, how can I trust you when I know what every girl around here tries to do with guys?

In Bali, you’ll hear from pretty much every single girl that “every guy here just wants sex”. So I’m framing against that early on.

• “Every girl” = social proof compliance trigger + preselection
• I’m framing girls as sexual predators.
• Stealing that frame

Great use of implied social proof. He seems quite good at it.

Her: No nooo! It’s the guys who’s bad
Alex: Like… You don’t know what it’s like to be a guy in 2020 with feminism and everything.

Good reframe.

I wasn’t intending to frame feminism as something negative here. However, that’s how she interprets it. And she goes against that statement immediately saying, "I’m not a feminist".
Since she’s qualifying, I simply roll with it.

That is a qualifier on the other hand.

Alex: I’m actually soo happy to hear that!
Rewarding her qualification.

Smart and very key, Many guys forget to reward girls for good behaviour - i.e. rewarding them when they qualify ... by qualifying back. Good job here.

Her: In Sweden, not in Denmark.
She qualifies again (feminism is big in sweden, not denmark). I used “her being from Denmark” as an opening to make her qualify hard. I punished her strategic mistakes maximally without taking it too far & maintaining a non confrontational frame. I capitalized even further by implying preselection DHV’s into pretty much every single sentence that I said.

This is a more a "factual" statement than qualifier. Mental masturbation here.

Alex: Now I actually feel a lot more comfortable

I’m rewarding her qualification which will encourage her to keep doing it later on as well. I’m also strengthening the frame that girls are acting like sexual predators against me and I’m framing it as if she won my trust.

But... I see nothing wrong with treating it as a qualifier though. Good move, and he also frames himself as the prize - adopting Swinggcats "meta-frame" here.

Her: That means you can drink
I’m actually interpreting this as a frame battle. She’s trying to get me to “give in”. I don’t. Not because I don’t want the alcohol or anything, but because it will really hurt any form of attraction that I have right now.

Women call this "flirting". But ok.

My thought process: I’m currently in control of the frames so that means that I have compliance and likely also a good amount of attraction. Controlling the frame is an attraction trigger. And I’ve also DHV’d quite a lot already. If we think back to the verbal game pyramid (DHV → Making her qualify → Sexualize → Soft Close), I’ve already DHV’d and made her qualify. So, the next step is to sexualize.

Good game plan here. His game (with the focus on qualifying) reminds me a lot of old school @Razorjack style. I am sure he still uses a lot of this to this day.

*Social frame (DVH + Frame control/meta frame) => sexual frames.

It reminds me a lot of my old 2009-2010 model... and guess what, it works. My old model was very similare, but as following:

*Make her Chase you (applying the Swinggcat's "Meta Frame" by using cold reads, open loops, and a LOT of push and pulls as well as qualifier) and once she started chasing, I would use this compliance to sexual things, by making my push and pull more sexual, or apply escalation (GWM inspiration). I would also have a lot of silly gambits such as my sex dices and other weird.

I also had some Mystery Method inspirations too, but a bit less than this guy here. The reason being was the over-emphasis on social value (and the way social value was framed) not fitting my high school context back then. Hence it did not work that well for me back then. That all said, I still kept using DHV stories (swinggcat also talk a lot about that ) and social proof a LOT. Social proof is probably that tool that have fascinated me from day1.

I focused a lot on "making her chase" instead, primarily applying push and pull and I was actually shockingly good with (actually better than I am with it now) and qualifying/disqualifying followed with sexual framing.

The issue I had with this type of method was that concepts such as push and pull and qualification, only work if there is a baseline attraction/compliance that is beyond just " being willing to talk to you". For how qualification and disqualification work, if there is nothing to play with, no compliance to play around with? It simply won't work. A girl who has 0 compliance or 0 attraction cares nothing about the mixed signals you give her, or how you qualify or disqualify her. In fact qualification in this situation will only backfire.

So baseline compliance generated by attraction (looks etc) or through social proof was required to make such system work. Choosing the "attraction route" requires either some luck, or the use of a numbers game (never been my style) or a lot of screening. I was in fact pretty heavy on screening for a while - all until I bettered my hook game, and realized that all I needed was "just making her willing to talk to me".

I stopped using this method gradually as I discovered sex talk and sexual prizing. Because I did not need much baseline compliance, beyond the "just allow her to let me talk to her" (which is a pretty low baseline), because sex talk would make her both chase me, and set the sexual frame AT THE SAME TIME. It also gave me much more control and allowed me to set even juicier frames. So gradually, over the years I walked more and more away from such model.

That all said, this method works great in some contexts - such as louder and more chaotic environment. However, I tend to favor the following strategy:

Screening/social proof = > approach = > hook = > push and pull/open loops/qualifying and disqualifying + physical escalation = > pull.

Unless you can go deep and juicy with sex talk, I think physical escalation is better. But this is just an opinion.



(It faded out when I discovered sexual prizing and sex talk)

Alex: Do you have any new years resolutions?

I use this as a segueway to frame before sexualising
Alex: “I feel like, this is your year for growth.”
I pause and wait for her to verbalise agreement. Since she agreed to this statement, she’ll be more likely to agree to the next one.
Alex: “This year, you should grow a lot and you should be more open minded than last year”
Framing for open minded.
Her: That’s good that’s good, but then you can drink
She agrees with the frames but tries to make me drink again. I simply ignore it and move on. I’m leading the convo forward regardless of what kind of BS she’s trying to do.
Alex: I’m curious though… Have you been more open minded this year than last year?
Listen to her tonality when she says “Yes I have”. She sounds very serious when she’s saying it, at least in contrast to how she sounded earlier. It actually sounds like she has fully accepted the new “open minded” identity that I’ve given her. It also tells me that she is VERY willing to qualify. Likely because I’ve been rewarding that behavior all the way through.
Alex: What’s the most open minded thing you’ve done in Bali?
I ask this because she gave compliance on the question before. It tells me that I can take it one step further.
Her: You can’t ask me that!
The way she said this made me suspect that she may actually be non-compliant to sexual hoops later on. So I’m interpreting this as her hinting towards something that could later become an objection. I immediately challenge/question this by asking her “why?”.

Good compliance ladder use. I don't use this but it was a cool trick.

Her: How should I answer that?

This tells me that she doesn’t know how to act around me yet. Quite literally actually. She doesn’t know in which way to respond the question. I’ll set the example first by giving a sexual response myself. By going first the story, I’m using the reciprocity compliance trigger as well.

ASD coming... I see it coming...

Alex: Have you done anything like that?

She tries to derail the conversation with "you didn't drink". I simply ignore it. The fact that she's trying to change the topic really confirms my suspicion that there's non compliance towards sexual hoops. I want to get to the bottom of that IMMEDIATELY. Because I want her to reciprocate and invest into the sexual frame that I’m setting.

And it came... If this was the wrong girl, it could have fucked him over. He got lucky she was not one of those "heavy ASD" type of girls.

He escalated this too far. Started well and then fucked it up a bit - he is lucky that the damage was minor.

I think he should have gone slower and smoother. I also think he could have "cut it" before reaching the "resistance triggering" point. From there switch into ASD busting techniques,while maintaining an open loop. Here he would have at least 3x more powerful game.

I am curious to see how he handle this resistance and proceeds.

Her: Not like that… I’m not that bad, I’m a good girl
She’s trying to set the good girl frame.

Also known as ASD: or to be more exact: purity frame.

Alex: I don’t believe that
I do not accept her good girl frame.

Purity frames attempts must always be denied, so good one right there. However just "denying it only makes sure you don't reinforce the frame (as a result of you not accepting it), however it does not SOLVE the problem - at least not directly.

But let us see how he moves on from here - that interests me... a lot.

Her: WHY??? I’M A GOOD GIRL

So I was right before. She is non compliant towards sexual hoops.
Thought process: It’s a critical moment and I need to get around the “good-girl” frame without giving her any opportunities to prize frame, or coming across as butthurt/triggered/whatever.

And here we see how that does not actually.... solve the problem...

I am again curious to see he will proceed, despite having his underlying frame (working against him - and yes you can get laid while having underlying frames working against you).

He is obviously right that he should not come off as a butthurt lol.

Alex: You know what I think? It’s more like “it depends a little bit on the guy that you’re with”.

Overall a good and satisfying and safe response. I cannot really say otherwise.

However, I personally would have prefered to DESTROY that purity frame TOTALLY - LIKE TOTAL ANNIHILATION.

How?
* Question why this is synonymous to or the definition being a good girl?
* Why being prudish (she was not prudish in this case) or closed minded is being good ("isn't a good girl an open-minded, free spirited and independent woman?").
* Framing how good girl frame is bad for HER and HER sexual joy.
* Framing how being a "bad girl" is beneficial for her psyche, for her physics, for her pleasure, for her quality of life, for the quality of her sexual life, for her future relationships with real men (use of listing is an option).

These are brief options. As you may have guessed, these "responses" are very "Teevsterian". But again, I comment this report as I would any other reports.

I think the results of this would be better, because not only do you reframe it totally, and basically destroy her shitty frame, but you almost set VERY beneficial frames instead. Again, following my good old mantra "all resistance is an excuse to set a stronger and better frame".

The issue with his strategy is that he operated "within" the shitty frame she sat. And therefore, it is less ideal. He accepts her frame, but tries to tone it done. It is obviously a weaker than than just "DESTROY IT" and reframe it into more benenficial frames. Here, he buys a bit too much into her frame. Is that a big problem? Maybe, or maybe not. I can be at times. Wondering if this will have any impacts later on (remember I am commenting as I read this).

However, he does state something obvious about her (and women in general), which gives an element of pacing. I think that may be the strength here.

“What I think?” = plausible deniability for me. It’s simply my theory or opinion. I’m not trying to say it as an objective fact but more so my subjective opinion. She can’t argue against it!

It is a weasel phrase.

“A little bit” = easier for her to agree with. It’s lower compliance than “it depends on”.

Also a sneaky weasel phrase.

She IMMEDIATELY says “Yes it does” with 100% agreement. Now when she has agreed to that initial statement, I can double down on it.

Obviously, the result of her pacing. He may double down, but the a-sexual frame of her being a "good girl" is still maintained.

Alex: If you’re with a guy that you feel like you can’t “show your wild side to” because he’s gonna judge you and stuff, then OBVIOUSLY you’re gonna be like a good girl

YES YES YES!!!!!

Ok, actually this is GREAT. He maintained the "shitty frame" to use it for contrasting - "i.e your shitty frame holds true if an only if only you deal with X shitty guys, however does not apply with Y right guy - i.e. me".

I did not see this coming. This was a GREAT play. It is also something I would do myself.

He failed to mention that the pacing before hand, make her more immersed and more compliant to agree to the suggestion presented above. I think this is a key moment worth mentioning.

She responds “YES!!” so I double down again

Typical response you get from this.

I want to use language that appeals to her senses, with words such as “feel”. Subtle but makes it easier to say yes.

I think he is talking about rich descrptions here, even though "feel" is an embedded command.

Alex: But if you’re with a guy that 1. Knows what he’s doing 2. You trust him 3. You’re attracted to him

LISTING ladies and gentlemen. used in the context of "contrasting".

Now this report is turning into a breath of fresh air!

So I’ve already framed myself as having all of these qualities. I’m displaying sexual authority (Knows what he’s doing) by questioning her “good girl frame”. I already framed her as “winning my trust” earlier so she already trusts me because I flipped it on her and 3. You’re attracted to him (I’m assuming that she is). I’m painting a picture where I’m the guy she does NOT have to be a “good girl” with.
She says yes which means I can go further again.

Good observations here. I agree with them. I fail to see where he conveyed that he was a sexual authority, but nevermind. Good job here.

He could have juiced it up by contrasting even further, adding more emphasis on "what type of guys" she should not open up with, in order to contrast it EVEN MORE with the guys who she should upon up with.

Alex: Then with this guy… You don’t feel the need to be a “good girl”, you know?

Adding “you know?” at the end will make her say yes simply due to linguistics. It’s a magical trigger-word. It just works to get “yes”.

I like the idea of using the weasel like phrase of "you know".

Her: I like to be bad but not with everybody.

So she has fully accepted the frames that I’ve set now.

ASD cracked. Well played.

Alex: Of course not. It has to be with the right type of guy.

Implying that’s me.

Nice "leading" post "pacing".

Her: But I shouldn’t tell you

She’s still giving that BS. However I can’t push for an answer here so I need to try a different angle now. I think the reason behind the non-compliance is she simply doesn’t want to be “too easy”.

Honestly, he did not "deserve" that one. Damn, I though he did a good job earlier. Some girls can just be pain in the ass.

But that said, I still believe that it would have had more firepower if he applied the solution I suggested earlier - i.e. destroy the frame totally rather than work within it.

And then, this would still not exclude the contrasting, because he could easily move into


Teevster: "but i know you do not feel necessarily comfortable expressing this part of you to everyone, after all, it is a matter of fact, that many men, are judgemental, not open minded and frankly enjoying this good girl part... but then.. (contrasting) there are other men who happpen (self-point/linkage perhaps?) who like quite the opposite: we ("we" = linkage, using "they" would not have had the same linking effect) want to see women as who they truly are, the bad girl they love to be, the openness of their adventurous and curious soul... now to me (linkage), this is the highest form of feminine beauty (ref: purity gambit)

And then... conclude with the compliance ladder (yes ladder?) that he used (I now copy past what he said):

Alex: If you’re with a guy that you feel like you can’t “show your wild side to” because he’s gonna judge you and stuff, then OBVIOUSLY you’re gonna be like a good girl.
Alex: But if you’re with a guy that 1. Knows what he’s doing 2. You trust him 3. You’re attracted to him
Alex: Then with this guy… You don’t feel the need to be a “good girl”, you know?

Now, it is easy for me as a smartass behind my computer to judge and criticize and "say you should have done X and Y". I was not there first and foremost, and secondly I am fully aware of how stressful real life interactions can be - you do not operate on full capacity. Hence, there can never be anything such as perfect game. However, what I did share above is something I can with security say would have been something I would have said, since those things are second nature to me. I am after all the guy who obsessed with this aspect of game for years, and it is my strenght.

Nevertheless, the report is NOT over yet, and I am super curious to see how he proceeds.

Alex: You don’t need to tell me anything. I already know exactly who you are.

I do not know why, but I like this firm and bold response. Not my style, but I like it.

However, it can trigger some resistance such as "you do not know me" or "there is no way you can know who I am". This can be a bit detrimental.

Thought process: I need to make the most out of her non compliant answer and use it as a segueway to a topic where I can gain compliance again. I’m also still strengthening the frame that she’s NOT a “good girl”. Never will I ever agree with that frame.

I think at this point in time, this is the right way of proceeding.

Her: You don’t… You can not read me. I’m not readable

And there we go.

I interpret this as her “good-girl” frame cracking. That I’ve seen through it completely and she has realised it.

He is in the process of cracking it, and she is resisting that frame he is trying to set. It would have been better if I destroyed it like I suggested. Because remember always that the more you buy into a frame and the longer the frame stands, and the longer she kind of controls it (which is the case here), the harder it is to crack it and re-frame it. We see him here struggle with exactly that.

Alex: You’re actually a pretty easy read

I want to take it one notch further.

Ok, he keeps up with the bold attempt. Hit or miss at this point. Now he is moving into a style that is very different to mine, and I can therefore not predict the next step.

Alex: But that’s a good thing because you remind me about a lot of girls that I’ve been with before.

I need to calibrate now because I feel like her emotions are swaying too much in one direction.

'

Ok, he is reinforcing his "bold" frame (it is somewhat resembling a form of "force-framing" at this point, which are hit or miss) with social proof. I am not a fan of using this bold framing attempts, that said I think it is a wise move to add some implied social proof to boost his frame and up her compliance (in accepting the frame he is forcing).

Her: I’m not like a lot of girls… I’m different

Sadly, it was not enough.. and the "hit of miss" aspect for such bold "force framing" is really coming into fruition, sadly in the wrong direction: more resistance.

Alex: Oh really? Hey if that’s the case… then that’s really good! What do you think makes you different from most girls around here?

I capitalize on this and make her qualify further.

All things considered, when things don't work out, change subject, or reframe the conversation into a new subject. Good damage control. He did not fall into the sunk cost fallacy of sticking to something that did not seem to work. Instead he switched it up.

However, to my belief, this could have been slightly avoided.

That said, this allows for an interesting report.

Alex: You have humour??? Hey if you can make laugh… that’s like the most important thing for me.

This is something that you’d read in a magazine like Cosmopolitan or some shit. “The most important quality in a man is that he can make me laugh”. So I just steal that and I think it’s a pretty funny way to reinforce my prize frame. Rewarding her qualification again.
She keeps qualifying. “I’m a funny girl”

"Assume attraction fully + qualify the girl" - this is like reading @Razorjack anno 2004 ish.

Alex: It has to be in the moment

She was talking about how she can’t just make a joke on the spot. She says yes to it having to be in the moment.
Alex: I feel like it’s always… so much better in the moment
Trying to sexualise with my tonality
Her: Yes but it’s really tough to make you laugh when you’re not drinking

Damn, those tests that poor fellow is getting...

I’m interpreting this as her saying “I’m trying to break your frame and take control over the conversation but I can’t”.

I agree with his interpretation here.

He has done a good job by sticking to his guns, and staying firm onto his frame. He also has passed the 1000000 tests she has been passing at him. The more tests he keeps passing, the more her compliance towards him will go up.

That said, even with higher compliance up, it does not entail the frame(s) of the interaction are beneficial - the bad frames ("i am not a bad girl" and "I won't be opening up to you - I won't show you those sides" ) still remain despite the up in compliance.

Alex: Ah you’ll get there…

Keep on trying buddy. One day.
She now grabs me and makes out.

Compliance indeed. However, I am not sure if the resistance is fully gone because the bad frames still remain. Maybe the compliance will make him get the pull despite that. This is fully possible if he is lucky. Otherwise he will be dealing with additional tests and resistance in the future with this girl. To his benefit though, he does have compliance which WILL make dealing with those issues much easier.

Right after she makes out with me, her friend comes in. I had the suspicion that she was trying to give me shit. But my girl immediately jumps in and says that “I’m a nice guy”, which means that cockblock should fuck off

Compliance indeed. Lucky break here, because withtout that compliance, he would have been forced to deal with the friend. But let us not "create" problems where they do not exist.

She starts talking about falling with her motorbike. I don’t want the conversation to derail, so I simply ignore what she said and try to sexualise again. “I’m actually curious about something.” wait for “what”? pause. then

Good move.

Alex: Do you like when guys pull your hair?
Her: Yes!!
Alex: Do you like to be choked as well?
Her: YES!!
Difference in tonality on how she answered “hairpulling” and “choking”. She likes choking more.
Alex: Do you like being spanked as well?
Her: I really like that
Alex: Have you ever been tied up?

Good compliance ladder us here. He is pretty good at that.

Yet, I do find these moves pretty bold. There was afterall a lot of potential resistance floating in the air. I would have been cautious. That said, it seem like it payed off here. I do not have any clear indicators of why that is here, but maybe it could be due to the fact that he she accepted him as a potential lover as a result of:
- Partly deal with her resistance
- Passing all her tests.

Alex: Perfect. We’re gonna have so much fucking fun.

Bold, but she did qualify to him by responding in a sexual way to his compliance ladder above - hence in this context, this move is totally in its place.

Verbal game pyramid again. (DHV → Making her qualify → Sexualise → Soft close)
Soft close + assuming that we’re gonna go together later + rewarding. She’s enthusiastic about it.

I like this. I have too been experimenting with number closing girls, even though I plan pulling them later! I do not know why, it seems to up their compliance. I have many ideas on why this seems to work, but I won't get into them here since this is already getting quite long.

Her: But you have to tell me why you’re not drinking and why you’re listening to music

If I don’t answer this right now it could bring up some weird concerns. It’s almost as if she’s suspecting that I’m a recovering alcoholic or something. I simply say new years resolution.

Yes, he has to deal with this "social frame" issue sooner rather than later.

Her: Apparently you’re good at it

Concern dealt with
Alex: Where in Bali do you stay?
I need to get the interaction back-on-track immediately after that concern was dealt with. I start building up towards the pull by asking where in Bali she lives.

Good move, screening for logistics.

Her: Where are you from?

She’s starting to ask me “get-to-know-you” questions. I interpret this as if she wants to fuck now but needs to actually know something about me first.
Friend comes in. My tonality shifts completely when the friend comes in. I don’t want to show any form of interest towards the friend whatsoever. For multiple reasons. I don’t want her there. I don’t want to accidentally cause attraction with her (which is actually so easy because you’ve already got preselection from girl #1). I don’t want to create a situation where the friend is attracted to me. That’s begging to be cockblocked. So I give her minimal investment. One word responses.

I agree with everything here. I also like how he de-escalate the vibe when her friend comes in. Good play. However, it is not to avoid her friend falling for him - This rarely happens. However it is a smart move to avoid triggering ASD in your girl, and avoid the friend to become defensive.

Alex: He’s Australian

I try to send away the friend to one of my wings from Sydney who was also in Bali.
Her: “I have a dream where I…”
She’s opening up to me about her dreams. It’s really cute actually.
Alex: That’s gonna be so fucking good + “I understand you fully”
Giving her what she needs emotionally right now. But it’s still not the right type of emotional state you want her in when pulling. Want to bring it back to sexual. “I have a question for you” again wait for her “what?"

I consider this useless fluff and rapport talk.

Alex: Do you….like oral?
Very enthusiastic YES!

She is a keeper.

Bold moves but again, the compliance ladder is going the right direction. This guy is truly a master at compliance ladder - an oftentimes underestimated tool. I find his use of compliance ladder to be the most inspirational aspect of his report.

Alex: Do you like receiving or giving?

Just gathering info on her preference so that I can use it later on when trying to pull. I also want that verbal commitment because she's investing into the frame.
Alex: That’s perfect because I kind of have a rule…
She IMMEDIATELY says “yes???” so she’s really intrigued about this now

Reminds me of my old "secret lover" frame: "I have a rule". (External link to Thundercats seduction blog).

"I have a rules"

"First rule is that happens between you and I stay between you and I"
"Second rule is that we are not allowed to judge each other for our desire and pleasures"
"Third rule is... GET FREAKY"

Something along those lines ( had longer post in this back then, on mASF 2009-10).

Alex: If I take a girl home, I’m gonna go down on her first for at least 25-30 minutes or I won’t fuck her. That’s like my rule.
I’m adding “That’s like my rule” at the end. I want it to come across as “that’s my rule. If you don’t like or respect my rule then this won’t happen”. The focus is completely on her pleasure, which must be a theme throughout your interactions or there simply won’t be much appeal for her.

Old school sexual prizing. Remind me of my old style (which worked, but was more of a glasscanon). Ah with all these yearsm I have become so risk averse, so mechanical. I miss all this wildness from back then. Have the years made me more into a pussy? I think so. Closing in to 30 now, I can clearly see the "older" in me.

I was much more direct with my sex talk back then, saying things like "i love licking pussy", "I lick pussy for a long time , since I love her juicing all over the place" and so on.

See my my threads with the old reports here.

Alex: Because to me… there’s nothing hotter than a girl just cuming over and over and over right before I fuck her.. That’s really hot

Since she was receptive to “my rule”, means that I can take it really sexual now. And I want her to know that there's a really big value proposition for her and that it's 100% going to be amazing for her.

Nostalgic indeed. Does not only work, but there is charm in that boldness - and when it works, it fucking works. I think women like boldness. But it can backfire, and my future obsession with meet to lay ratio has sadly killed all the charm in my game. When things become over-polished, they lose their charm.

- feeling nostalgic-

Her: NO YOU CANNOT DO THIS TO ME NOW… BECAUSE THE CLOCK ISN’T THAT MUCH

This is a VERY clear sign that I should just keep doing this. But she also expressed that she thinks it’s too early to go. She’s actually right. It’s super early - about 11.30PM on a Saturday night. I don’t even wanna leave either since it’s my first interaction of the night.

Alex: Imagine I take you home, and lay you down on my bed, and I give you the best massage of your fucking life so that you’re feeling fully comfortable and relaxed, I run my tongue across your clit and I give you 10-15 oral orgasms

I am in general not the fan of communicating that "you will do X (sexual thing to her)" because it can triggers resistance. But I think at this point, it is fair to keep up with it, since she is compliant to him, and he is basically just sealing the deal.

I talk about oral and choking again because these will be the most appealing to her. I gathered that information earlier on the “choking” hoop because her tonality went up in contrast to the other’s.
She grabs me and makes out again.

The boldness paid off. The material he delivered was very prone to cause resistance, but also VERY powerful. He was lucky here, it turned out to be very powerful here. The glasscanon is doing his work.

Her: You cannot do this to me. It’s really not fair.

It means that it’s working really well. She’s really horny right now

And it is powerful indeed. He has reached the point of no return. At this point he needs to move on to just seal the deal.

Alex: Sometimes it’s not fair

I wanna stay in the frame of me making her sexually frustrated. The frame of HER WANTING IT, NOT ME.

Nice touch - leaving her wanting more.

Her: I have the whole night in front of me

So her concern is that she doesn’t wanna miss out on the entire night. I agree with her but wanna see how far I can take it anyway for the audio.

NOOOOOOOOOOooooOOOO!

He should persist and seal the day.

@Gunwitch 's ghost voice is behind me telling me "Close the deal while iron is hot"

and...

"You never know fo sho! until you make the ho say no".

Gunwitch's ghost was not there in this moment.

Alex: So how far do you live from La Favela?

Starting to set up the pull again.

Thanks! I was afraid for a moment here!

Her: I’m travelling with 21 girls

Because she’s in the same group as the Danish virgin from the other LR LOL. I caused a lot of drama in this group unknowingly.

LOL. We used to call this "social circle infiltration" back in the days. No judging, we were nerdy!

Alex: But are they like cool girls?

I want to start framing it as them being weird if they’re trying to cockblock. This is step 1.
Alex: So they wouldn’t be weird when we go back together and come back later?
Step 2 of anti cockblock framing

Much better way of going at it then in the first report, because it frames her friend as cool, rather than assholes. It avoids triggering that "sisterhood loyalty" shit that could cause hostility.

Alex: I live in Canggu so it’s better if we go to yours

Try to go for the pull to her place because I live far away
Her: Ok that’s fine I only have one roommate and he’s my friend

Well played. I was afraid for a moment.

Alex: OK but do you have the key?

I don’t want to walk half-way through the venue for her to realise that she doesn’t have a key. We need to go back and get it etc. Wanna get that out of the way right now.

Not asking this, can lead to mistakes you will never forget (don't ask me how I know).

Alex: Allright. I know the guy at the door so he’ll let us back in again.

Nice.


Overall remarks:

The Good
- Amazing use of compliance ladders.
- He is using a risky strategy of bold direct sexual lines. It is risky, but he keeps his frame strong, and therefore it has a higher chance of it working. I also suspect high momentum (and good "state" ) to manage to pull this off somewhat consistently. Not sure how well this works for him when his momentum is low and his state has crashed. I know that I would struggle (and even in my younger days) I would struggle using such boldness when I was not on fire. Good news was, I was more often on fire when I was younger. But when I was not, things simply did not work out for me. Hence why I switched to more risk-averse and technical stuff as I grew older - for more consistency.
- Good at handling tests. Resilient like a rock.

The Bad:
- Sadly he does act in ways at times that triggers necessary tests. Playing into her frame (I pointed out where and how) and being overly bold and "forcing with the framing" triggered in my book a lot of unnecessary resistance and tests.
- The boldness in sexual framing maybe have caused additional ASD
- He handled ASD a bit too much within her frame.

But again, in pick up it is all about "choosing your poisons" and all material has its cons. Maybe he chose these cons deliberately because he either enjoys or is very skilled at dealing with the side-effects of the material. I.e. he loves being bold, and do not mind dealing with the resistance that comes.

Could be.

Nevertheless an interesting and refreshing read.

Best,

 

[Velasco]

Great decent opener. Make her talk. But I fail to see any open loops or DHV's here.

That's what he was trying to do. He was hoping she'd say she was finnish, so that he could talk about how his ex was from finland, and then when she inquiries "how did you know?" he'd go, "because all finnish girls do the same thing" (the open loop) (the DHV would be the preselection from having dated a finnish girl like her, and knowing something about finnish girls, which she'll agree with. The preselection effects are felt after she verifies his statement as true (truism) (which he did not get a chance to do here, because his cold read was wrong (she is actually from Denmark).

She is qualifying, because a compliant and non-compliant girl alike would respond something alone like this.

The important thing here is that she IS qualifying (like if every girl, regardless of compliance level, would respond the same way, then the follow up tactic (implied social proof = DHV) can be used on any girl) Which is the springboard to his next move. "Alex: But how can I be sure? Like, how can I trust you when I know what every girl around here tries to do with guys?"

Because I did not need much baseline compliance, beyond the "just allow her to let me talk to her" (which is a pretty low baseline), because sex talk would make her both chase me, and set the sexual frame AT THE SAME TIME. It also gave me much more control and allowed me to set even juicier frames. So gradually, over the years I walked more and more away from such model.

Are saying you use sex talk, as a way to hook girls? or can you explain this further. provide an example of a LR, where you hook non-compliance girls via sex talk?

Obviously I use sex talk too, but I do so, immediately after I've hooked (my hooking strategy is double spike her BT (opener is a spike, then spike her follow up response) which I use as leverage to ask for small investment, reward that investment, then curiosity open loop her)+isolated (mini or full isolation) girls. like this report:

Pulling Off a Lay When You’re Sick & Dog-Tired: A Report

Welcome back. Today I will continue where I last ended it. Just to recap my previous post where I discussed going out and meeting women when you social momentum was low (or “negative” – as in “not feeling like it”), I discussed a few things and I used one of my nights out in Bulgaria where I...

www.girlschase.com

And it came... If this was the wrong girl, it could have fucked him over. He got lucky she was not one of those "heavy ASD" type of girls.

So he realized it after she tried to change the subject. and you realized it a step earlier, when she didn't know how to respond to his "What’s the most open minded thing you’ve done in Bali?" question. Was that the "resistance triggering" point? or was it when he volunteered a sexual story of his own to give her an idea of how he wants her to respond to his question. Which according to him, would trigger the reciprocity principle (offer value so they'll be more likely to be receptive to a request).

From there switch into ASD busting techniques,while maintaining an open loop.

ah so you mean, he shouldn't have volunteered his sex story, because she'd get ASD from it, and instead just say something like, "actually I'll tell you later". then go straight into Anti-ASD frames.

* Question why this is synonymous to or the definition being a good girl?
* Why being prudish (she was not prudish in this case) or closed minded is being good ("isn't a good girl an open-minded, free spirited and independent woman?").
* Framing how good girl frame is bad for HER and HER sexual joy.
* Framing how being a "bad girl" is beneficial for her psyche, for her physics, for her pleasure, for her quality of life, for the quality of her sexual life, for her future relationships with real men (use of listing is an option).

yes these are excellent. Very along the lines of my style (which was influenced by your articles lol)

He failed to mention that the pacing before hand, make her more immersed and more compliant to agree to the suggestion presented above. I think this is a key moment worth mentioning.

He doesn't use the word "pace" in his LR. but he is aware of its effect. the fact that if she agrees with a statement (that she'd be very likely to agree with) she'd be more likely to comply with his follow up.

He could have juiced it up by contrasting even further, adding more emphasis on "what type of guys" she should not open up with, in order to contrast it EVEN MORE with the guys who she should upon up with.

good idea

the more you buy into a frame and the longer the frame stands, and the longer she kind of controls it (which is the case here), the harder it is to crack it and re-frame it.

good point. will keep this in mind.

The more tests he keeps passing, the more her compliance will go up.

this is actually interesting. So this is what this guy named YaReally said was his secret weapon to hook hot girls. He would purposely go up to them and purposely say retarded shit to provoke them into shit testing the fuck out of him, just so that he could pass them (I use a similar style, in the beginning of my hook strategy (the double spike)) This was his way of passing the hook point with hot girls despite being an average looking dude (according to him).

That said, even with higher compliance up, it does not entail the frame(s) of the interaction are beneficial - the bad frames ("i am not a bad girl" and "I won't be opening up to you - I won't show you those sides" ) still remain despite the up in compliance.

so what do you mean by "compliance" here? The willingness to keep talking to you? So compliance is not enough to get a lay? you need to set good frames as well.

I think women like boldness. But it can backfire

How so? if you've preempted this by setting Anti-ASD frames, why would she still resist boldness?

Not asking this, can lead to mistakes you will never forget (don't ask me how I know).

Lmao

But again, in pick up it is all about "choosing your poisons" and all material has its cons. Maybe he chose these cons deliberately because he either enjoys or is very skilled at dealing with the side-effects of the material. I.e. he loves being bold, and do not mind dealing with the resistance that comes.

Just like me

Nevertheless an interesting and refreshing read.

Thanks again for taking the time to go through this report and providing excellent feedback.

 

[greenleaf]

The issue I had with this type of method was that concepts such as push and pull and qualification, only work if there is a baseline attraction/compliance that is beyond just " being willing to talk to you". For how qualification and disqualification work, if there is nothing to play with, no compliance to play around with? It simply won't work. A girl who has 0 compliance or 0 attraction cares nothing about the mixed signals you give her, or how you qualify or disqualify her. In fact qualification in this situation will only backfire.

Not to sidetrack this thread, but this is a super interesting thing to read from you. Unless i'm reading it wrong and missunderstanding, it seems to confirm what all of my infield experience over the years has shown me. Basically that lots of this stuff (disqualifying, pushpull, qualifying etc) only works on girls who were already into me from the second they saw me! But then doesn't that go against most PUA wisdom? (Most coaches teach breaking rapport, negs, disqualification, etc as a way to MAKE her attracted, usually straight after the open, whereas, in my experience, I don't think this has ever worked lol. As you say, without baseline attraction/compliance, it simply won't work. And sometimes, as you say, it can even 'backfire' to the point you'd have been better off never doing it)

 

[Velasco]

@greenleaf

In the following paragraph of the one you quoted, he explains that that's why he moved away from that method. Qualifying/disqualifying only works if you've already got a good level of attraction working for you (BEYOND just willing to talk to you)

I stopped using this method gradually as I discovered sex talk and sexual prizing. Because I did not need much baseline compliance, beyond the "just allow her to let me talk to her" (which is a pretty low baseline), because sex talk would make her both chase me, and set the sexual frame AT THE SAME TIME.

However I would argue, a "pretty low baseline" is STILL baseline attraction (she's at least willing to hear you out) Granted it's not as high as the level you'd need it for the disqualfying/push/pull route to work, but it's certainly there.