What's your perspective on BF disqualification in 2025?

[Atlas IV]

There's been a bit of discussion recently around how certain seduction techniques are becoming less effective with Gen Z, which seems to be trending towards serial monogamy moreso than in the recent past.

I have mixed thoughts about boyfriend disqualification. Obviously it's a core part of seduction that enables rapid escalation. Without it, it's an uphill battle getting out of the "potential boyfriend" category and putting yourself in the "lover" category.

At the same time, I feel like there are girls of this generation who will lose interest if you completely disqualify yourself - at least in my recent experience with young Gen Z girls. As we've discussed, hook-up culture is rapidly changing, social skills are deteriorating, and mainstream values are trending towards conservative.

Perhaps the key is to strike a balance - disqualifying yourself while simultaneously projecting the possibility of a future relationship if it turns out you share the right chemistry (and, crucially, explaining that this chemistry exists on three levels - the social, emotional, and sexual).

What do you think about this, gents?

 

[Skills]

There's been a bit of discussion recently around how certain seduction techniques are becoming less effective with Gen Z, which seems to be trending towards serial monogamy moreso than in the recent past.

I have mixed thoughts about boyfriend disqualification. Obviously it's a core part of seduction that enables rapid escalation. Without it, it's an uphill battle getting out of the "potential boyfriend" category and putting yourself in the "lover" category.

At the same time, I feel like there are girls of this generation who will lose interest if you completely disqualify yourself - at least in my recent experience with young Gen Z girls. As we've discussed, hook-up culture is rapidly changing, social skills are deteriorating, and mainstream values are trending towards conservative.

Perhaps the key is to strike a balance - disqualifying yourself while simultaneously projecting the possibility of a future relationship if it turns out you share the right chemistry (and, crucially, explaining that this chemistry exists on three levels - the social, emotional, and sexual).

What do you think about this, gents?

you still want to bed them fast, as fast as possible, but while doing that you want to sub bf possibility potential, but is more important post lay tbh... you just don't want to cause auto rejection comming across to loverish/playerish with most gen z

Date Plans - The lover provider balance keep it ambiguous - troubleshooting

So guys i get many pms, and i see posts about lover provider a lot, people misunderstand the whole thing, this is one of the topics people don't get due to nuances. Ok the lover provider stuff has been discussed to death, and yes it is important, super important..... But as always there are...

www.skilledseducer.com

^ i would but bump all the way to 40% even 50%, the % bf possibility... you just don't want to do too much like 90

 

[Bismarck]

This is an interesting discussion.

Now more than ever it has become socially less acceptable for girls to be in FB relationships or "situationships", even if it's never been easier to fuck them fast (LMR and ASD have all but disappeared due to the Great Sluttening brought about by optical fiber internet making pornography ubiquitous and the attendant hyper-sexualization of the youth. Social media (Instagram is basically OnlyFans light (cred. Orion Taraban) also played a role).

I've suffered pushback for stating black and white that I wasn't looking for anything serious. On the other hand, telling girls that I am open to it while also clarifying that you can have different types of connections and that the cart can't proverbially be placed before the horse (aka the organic way is to start casual) by highlighting that sexual compatibility is paramount has mostly worked.

 

[TomInHo]

I remember seeing this in a Good Looking Loser article that was made I think almost over a decade ago

In the article Chris talked about 3 archetypes of guys

1) Scumbag: This is the guy that gets sex very fast. Of all the types he tends to get sex the fastest because he is sexy and women want to use him just for sex. From his vibe alone they know he will be a fantastic lay

Problem with this guy is for whateva reason women don't want to settle down or build a future with him

So his retention tends to suck

2) Good Guy/ Boyfriend Potential: This guy is similar to the scumbag but he has a bit more depth to him. Women know he is probably a player but he has so many other good qualities that they are willing to risk pursuing a relationship with him.

He is cool and healthy challenge to women

They fantasize about meeting this type of guy and seducing him into a relationship. Women know he is in demand so tend to value him highly

Problem with this type is sometimes he can show too much boyfriend potential upfront and girls might make him wait for sex for a few dates. But he still fucks them relatively quickly (within 2 - 3 dates) because girls know if they don't put out they will lose access to his value

He also tends to have the best retention and relationship control of all the sub types

3) Nice Guy/Boyfriend Material: This is the stereotypical nice guy. He is not sexy at all and pretty boring. Also has weird views about sex and women don't really see him a sexual being

This is the guy that has no awareness of social dynamics or power games when dealing with women. He tends to fall in love very quickly, sometimes even before sex and puts women on a pedestal

To sum it up... he is too easy... he is not a challenge and bores women to death. They will tend to settle with a guy like this when their attempts to rope a good guy into a relationship has failed

Of all the types he is the least sexually successful and has a high probability of getting with a woman that controls the relationship dynamic because he is clueless

Ending Thoughts

When I read that article it made a lot of sense and I think most content on seduction is teaching guys how to channel more scumbag traits. Because most guys that resonate with the content are recovering nice guys and may need to go extreme first to understand the variances in sexual dynamics and destroy limiting beliefs around sex

But in reality it's more of a spectrum and I personally feel all guys should also learn how to switch between Scumbag and Good Guy archetypes. That will give you the highest batting average to close more girls consistently IMO even if some might take slightly longer

The reality is that for women Boyfriend Potential is higher status and can generate more long term compliance than a Scumbag or Nice Guy

 

[Marty]

This is the guy that has no awareness of social dynamics or power games when dealing with women. He tends to fall in love very quickly, sometimes even before sex and puts women on a pedestal

@TomInHo what‘s the best way to avoid having no awareness of social dynamics or power games when dealing with women? A lot of what you wrote resonates with me, especially the part about falling in love very quickly, sometimes even before sex.

 

[TomInHo]

@TomInHo what‘s the best way to avoid having no awareness of social dynamics or power games when dealing with women?

This site does an amazing job on teaching social awareness when it comes to dating. But for the lessons to sink in you have to go out in the field and practice getting a girl from Hi to Bang

At first, some advice might feel counterintuitive, but pushing through this discomfort will help you re-wire your brain and break old habits.

A lot of what you wrote resonates with me, especially the part about falling in love very quickly, sometimes even before sex.

The falling in love quick thing tends to come from inexperience. Especially when you're not used to regular female attention or sex

This lack of experience can lead to emotional attachment too soon and cause you to build fantasies around women you're pursuing

To break free from this, self-awareness is crucial. Recognize it as a real problem, and promise yourself you won’t chase, over-invest, or open up emotionally to someone who hasn’t earned it

For me, a girl doesn’t truly 'exist' in the context of a deeper connection until we've slept together. Before that, she’s just a stranger, and I don’t invest in people who don’t invest in me.

Even after sex, it's still important to show restraint and let her take the lead in pushing for a relationship

Your job is to remain attractive and let her worry about all the bonding and pushing for anything serious. To progress things all you need to do is reward her efforts and let her slowly enter your world... but only when she has shown genuine interest in doing so

The most attractive women want to feel like they’ve earned a man’s commitment, and holding back until she proves her investment makes sure that when the connection does deepen, it’s mutual and not rushed.

 

[Atlas IV]

When I read that article it made a lot of sense and I think most content on seduction is teaching guys how to channel more scumbag traits. Because most guys that resonate with the content are recovering nice guys and may need to go extreme first to understand the variances in sexual dynamics and destroy limiting beliefs around sex

But in reality it's more of a spectrum and I personally feel all guys should also learn how to switch between Scumbag and Good Guy archetypes. That will give you the highest batting average to close more girls consistently IMO even if some might take slightly longer

This is bang on.

Finding your place on that spectrum is how you'll close the most girls, and for most guys the sweet spot will be somewhere between scumbag and good guy.

^ i would but bump all the way to 40% even 50%, the % bf possibility... you just don't want to do too much like 90

Agree with that percentage.

I think making it clear that you don't want to jump into a relationship quickly, without disqualifying the possibility of one in future, is the way to do it.

There are three topics/gambits I often go into which help with setting this frame:
1. Time is irrelevant to connections (e.g. "Have you ever met someone and instantly felt a deep connection, like you've known them for a really long time?")
2. Getting to know someone on all three levels (Gunwitch's Three Keys) leads to good relationships and good sex
3. Comfort and Trust gambit

Usually in that order between fractionating. It's a nice easy way of setting sexual frames. Also making it clear that my perspective is that "people these days jump into relationships too quickly without getting to know each other properly" (i.e. chemistry on all three levels).

Cheers for the input guys!

 

[POB]

Great thread @Atlas IV !

Not much to add here, pretty much agree with everything the guys said,
I would say that you can crank it up just enough that she is going to really see your potential for long-term, but not enough that she would disqualify you as a good lover and great adventure fuck.

 

[Chase]

Just wrote a more fleshed-out & nuanced article on boyfriend disqualification here:

Boyfriend Disqualifiers: Must They Fully Disqualify You?

A boyfriend disqualifier gets a girl to think of you as just a lover, not a boyfriend. When you use these, must you ‘go all the way’ in having her disqualify you – or not? Lately there’s been a fair bit of discussion on the Skilled Seducer Forum about how far you need to go in disqualifying...

www.girlschase.com

Have seen a lot of guys over the years trying to do "extreme boyfriend disqualification" which... while there is a place for it, it also screens out a lot of girls.

 

[Atlas IV]

Just wrote a more fleshed-out & nuanced article on boyfriend disqualification here:

Boyfriend Disqualifiers: Must They Fully Disqualify You?

A boyfriend disqualifier gets a girl to think of you as just a lover, not a boyfriend. When you use these, must you ‘go all the way’ in having her disqualify you – or not? Lately there’s been a fair bit of discussion on the Skilled Seducer Forum about how far you need to go in disqualifying...

www.girlschase.com

Have seen a lot of guys over the years trying to do "extreme boyfriend disqualification" which... while there is a place for it, it also screens out a lot of girls.

Damn, I wasn't expecting an entire GC article about this!

Amazing. Thank you Chase. This really clarifies the subject.

Actually, I have to admit I've been guilty of using those 'outright' boyfriend disqualifiers you mentioned, thinking that was the right way to do it. No wonder I was confused when they backfired. Looks like I had some misunderstandings about the concept and execution.

Telling stories in which you casually mention doing fun things with a female friend is obviously much more subtle, and can be calibrated to the girl's level of sexual experience so that she's just not quite sure if you're banging other girls. Brilliant.

 

[PaulieFlyn10]

Just wrote a more fleshed-out & nuanced article on boyfriend disqualification here:

Boyfriend Disqualifiers: Must They Fully Disqualify You?

A boyfriend disqualifier gets a girl to think of you as just a lover, not a boyfriend. When you use these, must you ‘go all the way’ in having her disqualify you – or not? Lately there’s been a fair bit of discussion on the Skilled Seducer Forum about how far you need to go in disqualifying...

www.girlschase.com

Have seen a lot of guys over the years trying to do "extreme boyfriend disqualification" which... while there is a place for it, it also screens out a lot of girls.

Brilliant article. I definitely have been explicit about boyfriend disqualification in the past.

This article explains things much better

 

[KJ Francis]

Just wrote a more fleshed-out & nuanced article on boyfriend disqualification here:

Boyfriend Disqualifiers: Must They Fully Disqualify You?

A boyfriend disqualifier gets a girl to think of you as just a lover, not a boyfriend. When you use these, must you ‘go all the way’ in having her disqualify you – or not? Lately there’s been a fair bit of discussion on the Skilled Seducer Forum about how far you need to go in disqualifying...

www.girlschase.com

Have seen a lot of guys over the years trying to do "extreme boyfriend disqualification" which... while there is a place for it, it also screens out a lot of girls.

Oh man I am so guilty of this. Thanks for writing, cause it's similar to the "deep diving too early" issue a lot of us were having. Great principle, just not effectively applied.

Whenever I chat with a girl online whose relationship potential is clearly short-term FB but below mLTR, I tend to self-disqualify, knowing I am applying a fine-screen DTF filter so I can go bootycall-or-bust and save myself time going on a date I don't want to attend. It has been rewarding/efficient at times, but I will have to scale this back while transitioning to more cold approaching girls who don't need to use apps.

I think I did it in tandem with an "asshole phase", thinking I have been coming across way too "nice" and with lots of boyfriend value that needed extreme offsetting.

***

@Chase do you have any insight into Ricardus' opener? He said it "implies that [he] dates casually". I expect he doesn't want to reveal is verbatim, but it sounds like he is using his initial opener as lover-frame setting.

Would you say that's more of an advanced technique we should steer away from for now? Maybe approach volume, fundamentals, and sexy vibe must be dialed in to an extreme to be able to accept screening out some women given a larger initial input funnel of interested women? Or conversely maybe he is able to pull them into his frame rather than screen them out, which could be ill-advised for most guys not at his level.

***

Kinda funny example from last week of an auto-rejection... This girl had been super curt and non-compliant when I had a blurry picture up. I changed it and she complimented me (I promise I'm not super good looking), asked if I was married, said we should go for dinner sometime, gave me her number unprompted, then apologized for being mean to me, said she hoped I could find space to forgive her, and promised she would act differently going forward.

Then I totally hit her rejection nerve with a variation of the ol Ricardus line "I like being single".

And she flipped right to "Well I have an end goal here and you don't particularly match that. I'm not even going to waste my time meeting you".

So maybe a little calibration of lighter, implied bf disqualification In person could have salvaged that one...

 

[Chase]

@KJ Francis,

I think I did it in tandem with an "asshole phase", thinking I have been coming across way too "nice" and with lots of boyfriend value that needed extreme offsetting.

Seems to be a common thing, yeah.

@Chase do you have any insight into Ricardus' opener? He said it "implies that [he] dates casually". I expect he doesn't want to reveal is verbatim, but it sounds like he is using his initial opener as lover-frame setting.

Would you say that's more of an advanced technique we should steer away from for now? Maybe approach volume, fundamentals, and sexy vibe must be dialed in to an extreme to be able to accept screening out some women given a larger initial input funnel of interested women? Or conversely maybe he is able to pull them into his frame rather than screen them out, which could be ill-advised for most guys not at his level.

Was that a dating app opener?

I'm not sure. If he told me about it, I forgot what it was.

Can't help on that one, I'm afraid!

Kinda funny example from last week of an auto-rejection... This girl had been super curt and non-compliant when I had a blurry picture up. I changed it and she complimented me (I promise I'm not super good looking), asked if I was married, said we should go for dinner sometime, gave me her number unprompted, then apologized for being mean to me, said she hoped I could find space to forgive her, and promised she would act differently going forward.

Then I totally hit her rejection nerve with a variation of the ol Ricardus line "I like being single".

And she flipped right to "Well I have an end goal here and you don't particularly match that. I'm not even going to waste my time meeting you".

So maybe a little calibration of lighter, implied bf disqualification In person could have salvaged that one...

Haha... well, if you're doing that on apps, you're basically hard-screening for sex positive chicks who won't make much fuss about hooking up.

I know a guy whose whole strategy revolves around this... though he is a bit smoother than that and does not slam the door to relationships the way that line does... but he is basically screening like that due to being sick of having reserved girls come out onto dates then be unable to lay them.

That may or may not be what you're going for here.

I'd probably stick to BF disqualifying in person, yes.

Stick to deflections or vague comments about wanting to "not rush" and "explore where things go" when it's still online.

Chase

 

[KJ Francis]

Was that a dating app opener?

I'm not sure. If he told me about it, I forgot what it was.

Possibly, but I assumed cold approach since it was in the context of discussing M3. I asked if he set early sexual frames verbally and he wrote:

Yes, but very subtly, even in A1. My opener hints that I date casually, seeing someone but not serious with her. Then in A2 I start framing for sexual fracture, in A3 I start framing against jealousy and so forth.

LR - First ever night, street to car in less than half an hour

One daytime warm-up approach, then first ever night approach. Ignored three or so times, then first ever night approach lay. * * * Caught her staring at me while she drove by. I saw her park and doubled back through the flower gardens. Coming back around, she was sitting on the grass in the...

www.skilledseducer.com

So on second glance, his opener itself conveys that he actively has another partner?? Now that is some extreme boyfriend disqualification! Lol.

I can't imagine it's something like "you remind me of my lover" since he says multiple times how subtle it all is.

Haha... well, if you're doing that on apps, you're basically hard-screening for sex positive chicks who won't make much fuss about hooking up.

Yes, haha depending how hot she is. There are 0-date tier girls, 1-date tier girls, etc.

Stick to deflections or vague comments about wanting to "not rush" and "explore where things go" when it's still online.

Good tip, thanks. Will do.

That may or may not be what you're going for here.

Yeah it wasn't smooth haha I didnt want to waste any time on that one. What I am going for is to gtfo apps. Currently moving to a bigger city to get this skillset handled in the real world.

 

[DonGately]

'I like things being casual at first, and if it lasts then we can see where it goes,' something like that. I never outright reject the BF possible. But, when asked 'why are you single,' I do reply, "I like being single. I have a lot going on in my life btw work, friends, family, travel.'

If she seems pro-slut I just say I'm looking for casual, NSA. Has worked great.

For me it doesn't come up a lot because I'm dating college/grad-school chicks and they see me as the busy, older, successful businessman who can only see them 1x a week.

I know a few of them have fantasized about marrying me someday but never has one asked me nor told me 'you're my boyfriend, right?'