What is game exactly, and can it be used to create attraction

[Will_V]

@Will_V thanks interesting point of view as well as Chase's take on attraction, but frankly I think the "work on your self" stuff needs to stay out of the conversation. Yes it has it's place but if it was really necessary losers wouldn't be banging hotties and we all know they do.

What do you mean by a 'loser'? Obviously in some way or other they aren't a loser, or girls wouldn't be interested. Unless you think these girls are getting hypnotized into bed, these 'losers' must have something going on for them. Perhaps it's something to do with their inner game/fundamentals/self?

I have gamed when I'm practically broke, but I never presented as a bum. I had at least one good shirt and jeans, a pair of boots, and a place to bring her.

I'm sure there are guys who could get laid to save their life while looking like they just crawled out of a dumpster (I've never actually tried) but that would be making things unnecessarily difficult for yourself.

I understand some dating coaches want to be "life coaches" too or contribute to society or whatever the fuck but most of us red blooded males just want to fuck women in a way where they actually want to fuck us back. Lets be real. All this "leave her better than you left her", "work on your fundamentals/self", etc has got to be the byproduct of some chick that got into a dating coach's head.

If you want to fuck a woman in a way that they want to fuck you back (as you put it) why is the whole idea of leaving her better than you found her contradictory to that? I don't understand your point.

But who cld blame her. Properly executed game is fucking dangerous. Women would never be able to settle down if all men knew how flip a woman's switches on command. DANGEROUS. Either that or capitalism. I don't think social and capitalism mix. Maybe that's why its arch nemesis is called socialism.

Er no, game isn't just flipping switches in women's heads against their will. It's not a war of brainwashing between the sexes where each one is doing their best to prevent the other from getting what they want while taking advantage of them. This is red pill nonsense.

Also, if fundamentals were so important I'd have bitches lining up.. I don't think I've ever been more disciplined, fit, healthy, and level headed in my life than I am today yet don't see pussy falling from trees. I had to get my ass out there and run whatever game I cld to even get some dates. And frankly I did better when I was a complete loser. I don't even think I needed any game back then.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you post a thread not long ago (which seems you have taken down) suggesting you were in something of a life crisis?

This is a positive, constructive place full of guys doing their best to improve themselves. I suggest taking the opportunity to do the same.

 

[isildur1]

If you're still average-looking after a year in the game, you're probably a retard.

I used to go to pickup lair meetings and meet guys and I would always come away from them thinking, "Why do these guys dress that way? Did they just come from the office? Why are these guys slouching? Why do they have all those tics? Why are they speaking like that? Why can't they hold eye contact?"

There would usually be a few guys dressed in cool clothes, with good posture, who held solid eye contact, talked with a cool voice, and had all their other fundamentals in check, and those were always the dudes who could actually get into decent conversations with girls and sometimes pull ass.

Maybe it's not as bad now since everyone is so sucked into looksmaxxing and so on. Early pickup was a lot of, "Tell me how to say the magic words." I haven't been out with a lair of seduction newbies in a hot minute... not sure lairs even exist anymore.

Anyway, the old saying for gals is



Same goes for men. Though in men's case, we might put a slash and "/unaware" next to "lazy."

Attraction | Girls Chase

www.girlschase.com

Chase

it's true a lot of men are single for a reason - they usually have built in bad habits even lacking the basics of half decent fashion , posture and a bit of muscle

one example:
i was single throughout my time at university and when i went there women often made fun of how pathetic my fashion was - i'd often dress looking like my mum dressed me in no colour co-orditation then one day one of my female friends came up to me and said " you dress like a piece of shit im taking you shopping"

once i made that adjustment to my fashion my blow out rate dramatically decreased - i wasn't slaying it but it made a huge difference - from essentially age 14-20 i dressed like shit my entire life and often thought spending big money on clothes was a taboo and it was seriously affecting how women perceived me .

improving smv is just a crucial part of dating and a lot of daygamers are single because their smv is low, their fashion is shit or their fitness is poor - i was single because my fashion was dire, i was too shy , i wasn't interesting and my body was scrawny it was really that simple . Some wingmen are open to change but others get really sensitive if you critque a sticking point. Or maybe these men aren't around men of much value so they have no idea how to hold themselves to a high standard - there are a lot of social outcasts in this space and of course one of the reasons they are single is that they were a social outcast

 

[Warped Mindless]

The only contention people might have is with something like "Say this line to increase her attraction".

What is attraction?

Though perhaps a bit overly simplistic, attraction is a feeling. It is an emotional state that exist within the mind.

Can you use words to alter a persons emotional state and feelings towards you?

Of course you can.

Give a genuine compliment to a person having a bad day and see how their mood and feelings suddenly change.

Can your actions and behaviors alter a persons feelings?

I think we can both agree the answer is yes.

So I don’t know if a magic like and suddenly cause attraction when none was previously present. But what if you have a period of time, say 20 minutes, where you can combine lots of words/lines, along with corresponding behaviors that are all designed to influence and alter a persons state of mind and feelings?

And what if you approached this person in such a way that they felt curious enough that they would give you this time? (Aka: indirect game)

While one magic line may not create attraction, saying the right things and doing the right things over a certain time period can certainly improve you odds of changing a persons sate of mine.

And if these words, lines, behaviors, and actions were all conducted in a carefully strategic manner all aimed with a certain set outcome in mind…. Would that not be game?

 

[isildur1]

What do you mean by a 'loser'? Obviously in some way or other they aren't a loser, or girls wouldn't be interested. Unless you think these girls are getting hypnotized into bed, these 'losers' must have something going on for them. Perhaps it's something to do with their inner game/fundamentals/self?

I have gamed when I'm practically broke, but I never presented as a bum. I had at least one good shirt and jeans, a pair of boots, and a place to bring her.

I'm sure there are guys who could get laid to save their life while looking like they just crawled out of a dumpster (I've never actually tried) but that would be making things unnecessarily difficult for yourself.



If you want to fuck a woman in a way that they want to fuck you back (as you put it) why is the whole idea of leaving her better than you left her contradictory to that? I don't understand your point.



Er no, game isn't just flipping switches in women's heads against their will. It's not a war of brainwashing between the sexes where each one is doing their best to prevent the other from getting what they want while taking advantage of them. This is red pill nonsense.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you post a thread not long ago (which seems you have taken down) suggesting you were in something of a life crisis?

This is a positive, constructive place full of guys doing their best to improve themselves. I suggest taking the opportunity to do the same.

everyone that i met that did well in daygame had at least some social skills, good fashion , solid sense of purpose and carried themselves well i think these are important factors- i've seen some bums do well too but i've also seen a lot of bums crash and burn for years on end so i don't think outliers make for a definitive argument. Of course why make it difficult for yourself- a lot of the rookies have bad fashion, bad conversation skills, bad social media profiles - a lot of these can be fixed quickly and can help prevent blow outs

the failures were the ones that couldn't take the mental intensity of it- it's not nice being rejected in fact the higher smv men and the best looking men had the toughest time in that aspect because they would receive "more nos" in one daygame session than they'd in their entire lives up until that point. I actually witnessed a bigger drop out rate from the "male 9s and 10s" as the rejection was something they weren't used to. Some men i met were just plain selfish - unwilling to socialise and show interest in getting to know people and treating it almost like a job where they had to clock in and clock out of.

 

[isildur1]

Half of game is not making excuses and doing the damn thing. And how could that be game? Because women like men, as in a masculine being who must take action to get results. They like it when you do it against all odds.

The other half is understanding women. They want the show without seeing the production. You handle the logistics, comfort, and experience. You learn to lead effectively, you learn how to make her feel sexy, you dance and invite her into that dance and give chances to play.

And that all sounds nontechnical because it’s also an art. We as men naturally want to define and categorize to make it all more efficient. But do not do that at the cost of being an artist.

Creativity, vision, hunger, intuition, bravery, boldness, passion, determination, audacity, and positivity, these things are just as important as the tech.

When I see guys doubting the game, all I see are guys who lack the vision, the passion, the boldness, and especially the audacity to claim what could be there’s too.

good post- solid consistency and work ethic is key - yeah i saw a real lack of passion in a lot of wingmen i've met that was probably a contributing factor in a lot of them quitting

 

[JollyRoger]

The only contention people might have is with something like "Say this line to increase her attraction".

With the thousands of variables involved it's really hard to pin down the causality between various behaviour and the outcomes.

What percentage is, attraction is there or not, attraction is created (Mystery Method, Vin DiCarlo, old-school Real Social Dynamics) and what percentage is attraction is being unleashed (60YOC, Captain Jack) is impossible to ascertain.

But from everything that I've seen and personally experienced there are things you can say and do that will improve your odds of getting the results you want. Sometimes that means there are indeed lines you can say that will increase attraction.

 

[orkie123]

What is attraction?

Though perhaps a bit overly simplistic, attraction is a feeling. It is an emotional state that exist within the mind.

Can you use words to alter a persons emotional state and feelings towards you?

Of course you can.

Give a genuine compliment to a person having a bad day and see how their mood and feelings suddenly change.

Can your actions and behaviors alter a persons feelings?

I think we can both agree the answer is yes.

So I don’t know if a magic like and suddenly cause attraction when none was previously present. But what if you have a period of time, say 20 minutes, where you can combine lots of words/lines, along with corresponding behaviors that are all designed to influence and alter a persons state of mind and feelings?

And what if you approached this person in such a way that they felt curious enough that they would give you this time? (Aka: indirect game)

While one magic line may not create attraction, saying the right things and doing the right things over a certain time period can certainly improve you odds of changing a persons sate of mine.

And if these words, lines, behaviors, and actions were all conducted in a carefully strategic manner all aimed with a certain set outcome in mind…. Would that not be game?

I never understand how people question game when it is presented in this manner.

Even if game only helps when there is at least a minimum attraction, without game, many oppprtunities would be lost.

Fundamentals increase your leads, game helps you convert more of those leads.

With game being experience, skill, and techniques that help you convert.

 

[bgwh]

What is attraction?

Though perhaps a bit overly simplistic, attraction is a feeling. It is an emotional state that exist within the mind.

Can you use words to alter a persons emotional state and feelings towards you?

Of course you can.

Give a genuine compliment to a person having a bad day and see how their mood and feelings suddenly change.

Can your actions and behaviors alter a persons feelings?

I think we can both agree the answer is yes.

So I don’t know if a magic like and suddenly cause attraction when none was previously present. But what if you have a period of time, say 20 minutes, where you can combine lots of words/lines, along with corresponding behaviors that are all designed to influence and alter a persons state of mind and feelings?

And what if you approached this person in such a way that they felt curious enough that they would give you this time? (Aka: indirect game)

While one magic line may not create attraction, saying the right things and doing the right things over a certain time period can certainly improve you odds of changing a persons sate of mine.

And if these words, lines, behaviors, and actions were all conducted in a carefully strategic manner all aimed with a certain set outcome in mind…. Would that not be game?

If you use that definition, yes. If any feeling or state increase that increases the odds of sex is attraction, then yes. But the people who have the contention define attraction more narrowly, as do social scientists.

 

[bgwh]

But from everything that I've seen and personally experienced there are things you can say and do that will improve your odds of getting the results you want. Sometimes that means there are indeed lines you can say that will increase attraction.

Sure, if you use the definition of attraction whereby "attraction is anything that increases the odds of sex happening". The people who have this contention feel that such a definition is too broad.

For example if you inform your fb that your room mates are out of town and left you the inflatable pool, did you "boost her attraction". I mean telling her this would boost her excitement to come over and bang you.

You changed her state to that of an increased excitement for wanting to come over and bang you, which she is less inclined to do when your roommates are around... But did you "create attraction" by informing her about the roommates?

Do you maybe see why some people might have an issue with stretching definitions that much?

All of this to say, if people accepted this definition of attraction, then every person on the planet would agree that "words can create attraction". So the point of contention lies in the definition.

 

[Warped Mindless]

If you use that definition, yes. If any feeling or state increase that increases the odds of sex is attraction, then yes. But the people who have the contention define attraction more narrowly, as do social scientists.

Semantics.

Also, until you find me a social scientist that has spent 20 years cold approaching women and racked up a ton of lays from it; I don’t put much stock in what they think about attraction or seduction.

Sure, if you use the definition of attraction whereby "attraction is anything that increases the odds of sex happening". The people who have this contention feel that such a definition is too broad.

For example if you inform your fb that your room mates are out of town and left you the inflatable pool, did you "boost her attraction". I mean telling her this would boost her excitement to come over and bang you.

You changed her state to that of an increased excitement for wanting to come over and bang you, which she is less inclined to do when your roommates are around... But did you "create attraction" by informing her about the roommates?

Do you maybe see why some people might have an issue with stretching definitions that much?

All of this to say, if people accepted this definition of attraction, then every person on the planet would agree that "words can create attraction". So the point of contention lies in the definition.

That situation is ultimately a strawman.

In this situation she likely had some level of attraction for you (even if it were a very small level), and then her desire to fuck you was fueled by favorable logistics.

Like men, women enjoy sex and if they get an opportunity for easy sex with a dude they feel comfortable with, and they happen to be horny, often they will take that opportunity.

Nothing in your scenario would disprove anything I said.

I have a feeling people are going to want to argue the definition of “attraction” instead of focusing on the overall message.

Im showing you the forrest, stop focusing on a singe tree.

 

[bgwh]

Semantics.

Also, until you find me a social scientist that has spent 20 years cold approaching women and racked up a ton of lays from it; I don’t put much stock in what they think about attraction or seduction.

That situation is ultimately a strawman.

In this situation she likely had some level of attraction for you (even if it were a very small level), and then her desire to fuck you was fueled by favorable logistics.

Like men, women enjoy sex and if they get an opportunity for easy sex with a dude they feel comfortable with, and they happen to be horny, often they will take that opportunity.

Nothing in your scenario would disprove anything I said.

I have a feeling people are going to want to argue the definition of “attraction” instead of focusing on the overall message.

Im showing you the forrest, stop focusing on a singe tree.

Yes, it is semantics, defining the meaning of things is literally semantics yes, and nobody is arguing with you. In fact as I said if people accept your definition of attraction, everyone would agree with the statement that words can create attraction, if that's what you mean by attraction.

 

[Chase]

Nice discussion so far.

Here are a few things I think a lot of guys miss:

• It is possible to be very good-looking or very muscular and still be very average. Most facially attractive and/or well-muscled men are average dressers with average posture and average everything else, and come across as overall average men. A lot of guys who are highly fixated upon facial beauty or muscle size miss this. Same deal with status, especially if it is not 'sexy' type status. There are not many girls out there going, "OMG, it's Bill-Fucking-Gates! The billionaire creator of Windows! EEEEEE!!!!" and throwing their panties at him. Likewise, there are not many chicks in offices going, "Holy dripping snatch Batman, it's my boss's boss's BOSS! The ultimate boss of status in this subdivision of Mega Corp Inc.!!!"
  
  
• Attraction is kind of moot without sufficient trust to back it up. A large part of what seduction is is the establishment of trust. Your average guy has no idea how to do this effectively, especially not with women he's just met. He only knows how to do it gradually, over time, via social circle; or, occasionally, he gets a hit with a loose girl whose trust filter is set to "trust every guy except the creepiest of the creepies." Even if a girl feels a decent initial spark of attraction, if the guy is mediocre at establishing trust she will suppress that feeling and deny she ever felt it.
  
  
• Raw attraction itself occurs a lot more easily and with a lot more people among both sexes than I suspect most people realize. That ugly girl with an okay body who was eye-fucking you on the street the other day probably triggered some attraction in you, which you maybe then suppressed. If she was alone in a room and coming onto you you might still have suppressed it. But if she spent enough time talking to you, touching you, making you feel comfortable with her, showing you she's a really cool person and doesn't have red flags you need to worry about, etc., you'll probably bang her. Women have this same thing going on with the various men they see. Once again, there is a trust factor in play.
  
  
• Even just showing romantic/sexual interestedness in someone triggers the "Would I or wouldn't I?" thought process. Unless there is something extremely off-putting about you in a given woman's eyes, you are not usually going to trigger a knee-jerk, "Eww, I would NEVER!" Only a small chunk of the men a woman meets are actually 'contenders' who are showing her that they are in the mating market and hunting for mates. Most of these guys back off at some point and remove themselves from contention (or seem to her to do so), too.

A lot of guys try to take the 'brain' out of courtship by focusing on some other signal:

• Looks
• Muscles
• Money

But human females aren't gorillas (looking for the biggest, strongest male), or peacocks (looking for the most beautiful male), or bowerbirds (looking for the richest male with the biggest, shiniest bower). They are human females, and human females first and foremost evaluate potential mates' brains:

Sexual Selection and the Power of Fitness Indicators

Survival of the fittest only goes so far in explaining our adaptations. The rest comes down to sexual selection – and the fitness indicators we use to convey our qualities. Pop quiz: what do these six men have in common? A self-made multimillionaire A bulked up bodybuilder A renowned painter A...

www.girlschase.com

They do so via externally produced behavior and other externally visible indicators of brain mutation load.

(one of the problems that brainy men have getting good at pickup is that a woman of a lower IQ lacks the ability to evaluate the quality of a too-much-higher IQ male, so he often ends up looking unattractive due to the 'evaluator problem' unless/until he figures out how to dumb down his game. Unfortunately for brainy men, there are way, way more 90-110 IQ women than there are 110-140 IQ women)

I should probably write longer on some of these topics, but I figured I'd throw this out there because I think a lot of this stuff tends to slip through the cracks in game/attraction discussions.

Chase

 

[donjuan77]

What do you mean by a 'loser'? Obviously in some way or other they aren't a loser, or girls wouldn't be interested. Unless you think these girls are getting hypnotized into bed, these 'losers' must have something going on for them. Perhaps it's something to do with their inner game/fundamentals/self?

I have gamed when I'm practically broke, but I never presented as a bum. I had at least one good shirt and jeans, a pair of boots, and a place to bring her.

I'm sure there are guys who could get laid to save their life while looking like they just crawled out of a dumpster (I've never actually tried) but that would be making things unnecessarily difficult for yourself.



If you want to fuck a woman in a way that they want to fuck you back (as you put it) why is the whole idea of leaving her better than you found her contradictory to that? I don't understand your point.



Er no, game isn't just flipping switches in women's heads against their will. It's not a war of brainwashing between the sexes where each one is doing their best to prevent the other from getting what they want while taking advantage of them. This is red pill nonsense.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you post a thread not long ago (which seems you have taken down) suggesting you were in something of a life crisis?

This is a positive, constructive place full of guys doing their best to improve themselves. I suggest taking the opportunity to do the same.

Losers as in losers.

The "leave her better off than you found her" thinking is just dumb and false. Just some train of thought prob concocted by some marketer to counter act the cognitive dissonance nice guys may feel at the thought of picking up women. It paints women as damsels in distress that need your rescuing as if. Fact is she'll be worst off bc she'll be a little older and a little looser after you're done with her.

Flipping switches in their head AGAINST THEIR WILL? Huh? So you ask a woman for her permission before you run push-pull, tease, or flirt with her? Because I don't know what you're talking about. And I'm not "red pill" as in the community of men who hate women. They are the epitome of losers. I define them as men who have given in to the resentment a man may feel towards a woman for being "rejected" or whatever the case may be. These men blame women for all their problems. And the men on YT who enable these idiots are even worse. I may have used the term "red pill" incorrectly in a previous post.

Yes, moment of weakness. Doesn't mean I don't have my shit together in one or more areas of life.

 

[Warped Mindless]

Fact is she'll be worst off bc she'll be a little older and a little looser after you're done with her.

Interesting.

So don’t feel that a woman is generally better for having met you?

I do.

Even if I decide not to keep her in my life, at the very least she got to meet a fun and interesting person, experience a whirl wind seduction in a masculine way that women don’t get to experience often (because the vast majority of men don’t know how to do this stuff), and had good sex. And after we part she has the fond memory of us just as I have many fond memories of women long gone from my life.

I’d she she benefited from that.

Do you not believe you benefit women? If not I’d challenge you to ponder “why” and consider if maybe looking at things differently could be of help to your overall results …

 

[Will_V]

Losers as in losers.

The "leave her better off than you found her" thinking is just dumb and false. Just some train of thought prob concocted by some marketer to counter act the cognitive dissonance nice guys may feel at the thought of picking up women. It paints women as damsels in distress that need your rescuing as if. Fact is she'll be worst off bc she'll be a little older and a little looser after you're done with her.

Flipping switches in their head AGAINST THEIR WILL? Huh? So you ask a woman for her permission before you run push-pull, tease, or flirt with her? Because I don't know what you're talking about. And I'm not "red pill" as in the community of men who hate women. They are the epitome of losers. I define them as men who have given in to the resentment a man may feel towards a woman for being "rejected" or whatever the case may be. These men blame women for all their problems. And the men on YT who enable these idiots are even worse. I may have used the term "red pill" incorrectly in a previous post.

Yes, moment of weakness. Doesn't mean I don't have my shit together in one or more areas of life.

It's very clear you don't understand the female mind. A woman is a submissive. That means it's in her nature to be passive, it's in her nature to place herself in a position where she is acted upon by a man, and it's in her nature to judge him based on how she responds emotionally to him. It's in her nature to show acceptance of him, not with words, but by reflecting the positive emotion he creates in her, opening herself to him so he can take further action upon her, and being submissive to him and following his lead.

All this is a natural part of female psychology and physiology. It has nothing to do with secret switches that she's trying to hide from you.

Within that female framework, there are techniques that work more or less better to create excitement, stimulate her emotions, arouse her, and clarify obstacles, but fundamentally they don't change anything about her desires, what she is as a woman, or the process by which she is brought into a sexual experience. In a general sense, all women are passive, all women need to be approached by a man, all women need to be stimulated and aroused by a man, all women need to be led by a man. That's how it's always been since the beginning of time, and how it always will be (unless we all turn into AI or something, at which point seduction might be a moot point).

Once you understand that, you have the question: if women love sex and want sex, how are they going to get it? If they cannot initiate, approach, or lead?

Well, that's why she dresses up sexy, puts on makeup, stands there somewhere you can approach her, and if she likes you, it's why she smiles at you as you talk to her, shows excitement and 'lets' you push all her oh-so-secret switches, and comes with you when you invite her home. It's all because (drumroll) she wants it.

 

[Bismarck]

Interesting discussion again. Digging these summer threads, keep ‘em coming.

Wanted to add an insight that a hot brunette 36-year-old Canadian of Italian stock who takes SSRI blockers gave me during post-coital last week.

She said that if she sleeps with a guy on the first date it’s usually because she doesn’t take him seriously, in other words that she sees no value in him outside of a physical relationship.

She said that while that wasn’t the case with me, she still slept with me on the first date because she knew she would never see me again (she was a tourist here on holidays who I met on a tour I gave).

This is interesting because I remember Chase’s main product used to be called OneDate, and its entire emphasis was on managing to sleep with a beautiful girl after one date and then make her into a girlfriend. This is also, as far as I know, the way Chase generally goes about smashing chicks (first date sex), having even written in one of his articles that girls view a man as most powerful when he manages to fuck her on the first date (she is even more attracted to him if she lets him go in raw), then less powerful if with a rubber, less on second date, less on third, etc.

So what gives?

 

[topcat]

Interesting discussion again. Digging these summer threads, keep ‘em coming.

Wanted to add an insight that a hot brunette 36-year-old Canadian of Italian stock who takes SSRI blockers gave me during post-coital last week.

She said that if she sleeps with a guy on the first date it’s usually because she doesn’t take him seriously, in other words that she sees no value in him outside of a physical relationship.

She said that while that wasn’t the case with me, she still slept with me on the first date because she knew she would never see me again (she was a tourist here on holidays who I met on a tour I gave).

This is interesting because I remember Chase’s main product used to be called OneDate, and its entire emphasis was on managing to sleep with a beautiful girl after one date and then make her into a girlfriend. This is also, as far as I know, the way Chase generally goes about smashing chicks (first date sex), having even written in one of his articles that girls view a man as most powerful when he manages to fuck her on the first date (she is even more attracted to him if she lets him go in raw), then less powerful if with a rubber, less on second date, less on third, etc.

So what gives?

It means she’s more likely to sleep with a guy for whom she has no greater plans for, on the first date.

The man she makes wait is the man she likes beyond purely sexual value. It’s a guy she has the luxury of having the power to make wait for sex (which implies she has more control over the situation than he does).

The man who she sleeps with on the first date she likes “less” simply because the only value of his she has access to is sexual (the less here being quantitative, not qualitative). It could be argued that he actually has more value qualitatively.

Regardless, the guy she sleeps with in the first date has more of a chance getting the relationship HE wants from her (if he can show long term value) than the guy she makes wait and has far more control over the direction of the relationship than his counterpart.

 

[Chase]

She said that if she sleeps with a guy on the first date it’s usually because she doesn’t take him seriously, in other words that she sees no value in him outside of a physical relationship.

She said that while that wasn’t the case with me, she still slept with me on the first date because she knew she would never see me again (she was a tourist here on holidays who I met on a tour I gave).

This is interesting because I remember Chase’s main product used to be called OneDate, and its entire emphasis was on managing to sleep with a beautiful girl after one date and then make her into a girlfriend. This is also, as far as I know, the way Chase generally goes about smashing chicks (first date sex), having even written in one of his articles that girls view a man as most powerful when he manages to fuck her on the first date (she is even more attracted to him if she lets him go in raw), then less powerful if with a rubber, less on second date, less on third, etc.

So what gives?

Yep, doesn't "take him seriously" as in "lacking in potential as a serious relationship."

Dating/sex/romance is a reproductive arms race, where you are competing against a range of other men.

Most guys are competing for the boyfriend role. Be as impressive as possible: show off your money, status, success, reliability, dependability, that you aren't going anywhere, etc. If you want to compete on those terms, not only are you likely facing some very stiff competition if she is a highly desirable girl, but she is also going to test the bejesus out of you, probably find something that disappoints her, and you end up on a back shelf anyway as she audits all her other potential, and equally (or more) impressive suitors.

As a seducer, you get to 'slide in the back door' ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) by having her conclude "Oh. Well this guy is not a long-term candidate", at which point she just asks herself: "Well, would I bang him or not?" If you're not sexy, you go to the friend zone. If sexy, go to the fuck zone. Much simpler logic and none of the heavy vetting the boyfriend candidates go through.

Telling Women You're NOT Boyfriend Material

Last weekend I spoke at a gathering of the San Diego pickup community. One of the things I skirted over briefly, due to time constraints, but that guys asked me to spend a little more time on and seemed very interested in hearing about, was on disqualifying yourself as a boyfriend.

www.girlschase.com

The thing is, once you're fucking the girl, the power shifts back to your side. Once you've fucked her on multiple occasions, she converts, and it is almost impossible for her to avoid getting at least somewhat attached. At that point, she starts looking extra close to see if there is any chance you MIGHT actually make a decent boyfriend (because she attached now, so... she WANTS you to).

If you have boyfriend value (and most men do), it is not very hard to gradually let more and more of that "slip out" while you are seeing her, so that she increasingly concludes she has found a diamond in the rough: this guy she THOUGHT was just a quick fling actually turns out to be a pretty awesome boyfriend candidate too!

How to Get Girls You're Sleeping with to Want You as a Boyfriend

Sometimes girls sleep with guys they don’t want to date. Here’s how to get a girl to want you as a boyfriend even if she doesn’t think she does (at first). Most guys struggle to get together with the girls they really want. Girls slow game them, won’t put out, or turn flakey or start ghosting...

www.girlschase.com

She's yours at that point. It doesn't matter if all the other suitors are way richer, higher status, have cooler stories, friends with celebrities, whatever it is. You're fucking her, they're not. You're the one she's been cementing a physical and romantic bond with for months, flooding her brain with oxytocin, with her discovering more and more things about you she likes, like a kind of treasure hunt that keeps revealing more and more treasure. Sometimes these guys will find out who she is dating and they do this funny double take, and you can literally see them thinking, "Whaaaaaa... she is dating THAT guy? Why the hell is she with HIM and not ME? I've got this great job, I own a really nice place, I am a nice and charming guy, I was courting her for MONTHS, we were getting SO close, I KNOW she was into me... all of a sudden this guy comes out of NOWHERE and gets her and WHAT THE FUCK IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE AT ALL!!!!11!!"

You see the guys who are flipping out on red pill sites or on Reddit talking about how girls always go for those bad guys or guys who are all wrong for them, blah blah blah, losers, etc. They are talking about us. Of course, we are not actually losers (well, most of us anyway ) but to these guys who prioritize all the stuff mainstream society tells them they are supposed to prioritize in order to be "winners" we look like "losers" and they cannot understand why women go for us, and worse, end up in long-term relationships with us.

It's all because those sexy "losers" (who are not actually losers... just lovers) don't bother dumping their energy into competing with men on heavily contested mainstream success markers.

They just make themselves sexy and enticing, bone the chicks they want, then keep around the ones they like best.

It's a lot more efficient. I'm an efficiency nut. It's why I recommend it.

Seducer her as a lover; then, as she keeps coming back for more, gradually let her figure out that you're a keeper, too.

Chase

 

[Zoro]

Interesting discussion again. Digging these summer threads, keep ‘em coming.

Wanted to add an insight that a hot brunette 36-year-old Canadian of Italian stock who takes SSRI blockers gave me during post-coital last week.

She said that if she sleeps with a guy on the first date it’s usually because she doesn’t take him seriously, in other words that she sees no value in him outside of a physical relationship.

She said that while that wasn’t the case with me, she still slept with me on the first date because she knew she would never see me again (she was a tourist here on holidays who I met on a tour I gave).

This is interesting because I remember Chase’s main product used to be called OneDate, and its entire emphasis was on managing to sleep with a beautiful girl after one date and then make her into a girlfriend. This is also, as far as I know, the way Chase generally goes about smashing chicks (first date sex), having even written in one of his articles that girls view a man as most powerful when he manages to fuck her on the first date (she is even more attracted to him if she lets him go in raw), then less powerful if with a rubber, less on second date, less on third, etc.

So what gives?

Yep, doesn't "take him seriously" as in "lacking in potential as a serious relationship."

Dating/sex/romance is a reproductive arms race, where you are competing against a range of other men.

Most guys are competing for the boyfriend role. Be as impressive as possible: show off your money, status, success, reliability, dependability, that you aren't going anywhere, etc. If you want to compete on those terms, not only are you likely facing some very stiff competition if she is a highly desirable girl, but she is also going to test the bejesus out of you, probably find something that disappoints her, and you end up on a back shelf anyway as she audits all her other potential, and equally (or more) impressive suitors.

As a seducer, you get to 'slide in the back door' ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) by having her conclude "Oh. Well this guy is not a long-term candidate", at which point she just asks herself: "Well, would I bang him or not?" If you're not sexy, you go to the friend zone. If sexy, go to the fuck zone. Much simpler logic and none of the heavy vetting the boyfriend candidates go through.

Telling Women You're NOT Boyfriend Material

Last weekend I spoke at a gathering of the San Diego pickup community. One of the things I skirted over briefly, due to time constraints, but that guys asked me to spend a little more time on and seemed very interested in hearing about, was on disqualifying yourself as a boyfriend.

www.girlschase.com

The thing is, once you're fucking the girl, the power shifts back to your side. Once you've fucked her on multiple occasions, she converts, and it is almost impossible for her to avoid getting at least somewhat attached. At that point, she starts looking extra close to see if there is any chance you MIGHT actually make a decent boyfriend (because she attached now, so... she WANTS you to).

If you have boyfriend value (and most men do), it is not very hard to gradually let more and more of that "slip out" while you are seeing her, so that she increasingly concludes she has found a diamond in the rough: this guy she THOUGHT was just a quick fling actually turns out to be a pretty awesome boyfriend candidate too!

How to Get Girls You're Sleeping with to Want You as a Boyfriend

Sometimes girls sleep with guys they don’t want to date. Here’s how to get a girl to want you as a boyfriend even if she doesn’t think she does (at first). Most guys struggle to get together with the girls they really want. Girls slow game them, won’t put out, or turn flakey or start ghosting...

www.girlschase.com

She's yours at that point. It doesn't matter if all the other suitors are way richer, higher status, have cooler stories, friends with celebrities, whatever it is. You're fucking her, they're not. You're the one she's been cementing a physical and romantic bond with for months, flooding her brain with oxytocin, with her discovering more and more things about you she likes, like a kind of treasure hunt that keeps revealing more and more treasure. Sometimes these guys will find out who she is dating and they do this funny double take, and you can literally see them thinking, "Whaaaaaa... she is dating THAT guy? Why the hell is she with HIM and not ME? I've got this great job, I own a really nice place, I am a nice and charming guy, I was courting her for MONTHS, we were getting SO close, I KNOW she was into me... all of a sudden this guy comes out of NOWHERE and gets her and WHAT THE FUCK IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE AT ALL!!!!11!!"

You see the guys who are flipping out on red pill sites or on Reddit talking about how girls always go for those bad guys or guys who are all wrong for them, blah blah blah, losers, etc. They are talking about us. Of course, we are not actually losers (well, most of us anyway ) but to these guys who prioritize all the stuff mainstream society tells them they are supposed to prioritize in order to be "winners" we look like "losers" and they cannot understand why women go for us, and worse, end up in long-term relationships with us.

It's all because those sexy "losers" (who are not actually losers... just lovers) don't bother dumping their energy into competing with men on heavily contested mainstream success markers.

They just make themselves sexy and enticing, bone the chicks they want, then keep around the ones they like best.

It's a lot more efficient. I'm an efficiency nut. It's why I recommend it.

Seducer her as a lover; then, as she keeps coming back for more, gradually let her figure out that you're a keeper, too.

Chase

I want to get your thoughts on my experiences because what you're talking about seems different to what I've encountered.

For every girlfriend I've had, we slept together quickly. Either the same night we met or the next. And then we started dating basically right away.

And the way I run things is basically heavy on the emotional connection. Like a sensual deep-dive. Close proximity, eye contact, massage, and heart-to-heart words exchanged. Maybe it's the natural poet/artist in me, combined with my interest in woo-woo shit like astrology and energy, but it seems to get them very comfortable and open with me.

I wasn't doing it on purpose either, it's just the way I had genuinely felt with these girls. I was very attracted to them, and I wanted to explore our connection, and of course I wanted sex, and I liked them enough to date. It all kind of flowed into each other.

It did not feel like what you're describing, where it was lighthearted and non-serious fun, and then she caught the feels.

I guess maybe it's possible that they indeed didn't take me seriously long term, but liked me enough to keep sleeping with me and then we just kept dating once she was hooked, and MY experience was simply what I described above.

But I have my doubts, especially because I've never been good at one night stands. I just cannot get into the idea. If I'm attracted to her I want to see her again and again.

I don't doubt my heavy handedness on the emotional connection actually gets in the way with certain girls. I could use a lesson in keeping things more light hearted.

 

[Chase]

@Wick,

I want to get your thoughts on my experiences because what you're talking about seems different to what I've encountered.

For every girlfriend I've had, we slept together quickly. Either the same night we met or the next. And then we started dating basically right away.

And the way I run things is basically heavy on the emotional connection. Like a sensual deep-dive. Close proximity, eye contact, massage, and heart-to-heart words exchanged. Maybe it's the natural poet/artist in me, combined with my interest in woo-woo shit like astrology and energy, but it seems to get them very comfortable and open with me.

I wasn't doing it on purpose either, it's just the way I had genuinely felt with these girls. I was very attracted to them, and I wanted to explore our connection, and of course I wanted sex, and I liked them enough to date. It all kind of flowed into each other.

It did not feel like what you're describing, where it was lighthearted and non-serious fun, and then she caught the feels.

I guess maybe it's possible that they indeed didn't take me seriously long term, but liked me enough to keep sleeping with me and then we just kept dating once she was hooked, and MY experience was simply what I described above.

But I have my doubts, especially because I've never been good at one night stands. I just cannot get into the idea. If I'm attracted to her I want to see her again and again.

I don't doubt my heavy handedness on the emotional connection actually gets in the way with certain girls. I could use a lesson in keeping things more light hearted.

Well, there is definitely that too!

That is just good old fashioned "checks all her boxes and/or she has no strict reservations / no other pressing suitors / is happy to just go with it and see where things lead." You'll get that with girls who are ready and willing for a guy and you meet the criteria and run it in smooth.

Some girls will be fully on the boyfriend hunt. They can be in the later phases of the boyfriend hunt. They are through the phase where they are excitedly dating around, vetting guys carefully, putting them through hoops, etc. Now they are tired of it and ready for a guy who seems good enough to just move things forward with them.

Some girls are monkey branchers who don't like to be single long at all. Basically not long after they are single, they are already looking for a guy to go with.

Some girls are super chill, they don't have long-term plans, they aren't doing heavy vetting, and instead they are just going with whatever feels right in the moment. If hooking up with you is what feels right, they'll do that. If continuing to see you feels right, they'll do that. If it turns into a relationship and that feels right, they'll do that. Etc.

There's more than one way to skin a cat in seduction, in large part because there are a lot of different cats who respond better to somewhat different kinds of skinning

Chase