Need some Motivation?

I recently received a very short message by a guy I met in the US:

I would just like to say thank you for all you have taught me. I had my first closet pull in a club tonight. What a rush!

So, what does this tell us? If you don't go out, your life will probably be less exciting.

Read More

PUA Comic

A friend (thanks, Neill!) pointed me towards a website named PUA Comic, which makes fun of the community via comic strips. I like the idea, which is why I support it via a link from this blog. Besides, it has made me laugh twice so far, which is at about the same level as Vin DiCarlo's recent newsletter.

Here's a snippet:

...and here's the rest of this particular comic strip if this piqued your interest.

Keep an eye on PUA Comic! I sure will.

Read More

Classic Post: "Good" Bad Sets vs "Bad" Bad Sets

In my discussion of feeltheburn's post "The Fishermen Realization" I mentioned an old post of mine with the title “Good” Bad Sets vs “Bad” Bad Sets. Some of you may remember it, but since it is buried in the depth's of the Internet and also because I have taken the content of my old blog offline, I decided to re-post it on my forum.

“Good” Bad Sets vs “Bad” Bad Sets was one of the most important posts I have written --- not necessarily in terms of its influence on others, but on the influence it had on me, because it is the summary of my experiences as a seducer, and sitting down and really thinking about the issues why some interactions just didn't go anywhere made me aware that what the seduction industry/community wants to tell you is mostly nonsense and the truth is much simpler and easier to grasp. In fact, this article "set me free". Afterwards, I focussed a lot on "streamlining" my game until it couldn't possibly get more minimalistic. Part of the last sentence is also a bit of a teaser, since there were many encounters (=successful seductions) which I have written up but not released yet.

But without further ado, here's the article, which I have written over a year and a half ago.

Enjoy!

Read More

The Fishermen Realization

A user on my forum who goes by the name of feeltheburn wrote a most insightful post with the title “The Fishermen Realization”, which deals with one of the core issues of “pickup”, which is also the least addressed one since it undermines the justification for the existence of this shady industry. You won’t find many people openly talking about it, because you couldn’t sell a “bootcamp” if you told this to people. But enough with building expectations and wetting your appetite to read this most insightful thread!

Here’s a quote from the post to set the scene. All of you can probably relate to it.

So a PUA comes back from a night out and writes a FR. You read about him going out spotting the girl across the room, moving in, surrendering to the vibe, the build up of sexual tension, about magical eye contact that charms the girl like a spell and the grand finale of him butt fucking her in her apartment.

And what actually happened was he went in a venue got blown out with 5-10 girls either directly by the girl rejecting them or indirectly via 'feeling the ground' (by hovering near her, forcing eye contact, touching them, dancing in her direction/near her etc. ) and then stumbles upon a girl that doesn’t reject him and they hook up.

I couldn’t agree more.

However, because the proponents of the seduction industry, due to their obvious financial interests, have to claim that “anyone can succeed with girls” --- but not just regular girls, you can get actresses, supermodels and strippers, too. They are all yours for the taking if you just learn some inane "routines" and dress like a harlequin!

Unlike the previous caricature, which sadly is a reality if you look at the sales pitches of Love Systems et al., a much more realistic perspective is that it’s simply the girls who are doing the choosing, which leaves us with exactly two possible outcomes:

1. She likes you --- and therefore it doesn’t matter what you say and do
2. She doesn’t like you --- and therefore it doesn’t matter what you say and do

There is of course a third category, the “grey zone girls”, as I call them in my free ebook “Debunking the Seduction Community”, where you can f*ck things up because the girl is only somewhat interested, but at the same time not disinterested enough in you to tell you to take a hike. This is indeed the only area where “game” plays a minor role, but it’s less important than you might think because the girl will quickly decide whether 1) or 2) is the case. Speaking from my own life and adventures, the instances where I had to actively “game” a girl for a long time were rather rare if not almost unheard of. As a side note, a prime case was the girl I wrote about in the chapter “Against considerable Resistance” in my paperback book Sleazy Stories.

But let’s not stray too far from feeltheburn’s post "The Fishermen Realization". Here’s another quote from him:

At this point of the game I really think that its all about looking good and approaching.

This is probably the most succinct summary of what it takes to get girls I have ever come across. If you are not approaching, you will have a hard time getting laid, no matter how good looking you are. Girls will hardly ever do all the work for you. Of course this doesn’t mean that all hope is lost if you are not good looking. Also, consider the fact that you are probably a lot better looking than you think you are. (And if not, then stop eating fast food and start exercising.)

Surely, companies such as Mystery Method, Love Systems, PUA Training, Real Social Dynamics rather have you shelling out thousands for dubious “in-field training” instead of telling it like it is, which would then save you a ton of money and wasted effort. Skipping the misguided and confusing theories of 99% of pickup companies and dating coaches --- to me they are nothing but a source for entertainment --- would allow you to focus on drastically improving your odds by working on what really counts.

Here is more from feeltheburn:

Good looking guys who approach a lot get laid. Bad looking guys who go approach a lot get laid but less and by girls who are less hot. As far as cold approaching is concerned, the only people that do improve are the good looking ones that read the articles and just start to approach women. The only reason they didn't get laid is because they didn't make themselves available to pussy and thats it, no magic and fairy dust and pixies, just hard cold reality. The good looking ones get regularly laid by hot girls in a year or two after being exposed to the community, the bad looking ones won't get laid regularly by them in 200+ years.

I am also starting to believe that for every good “field report” there are 129847 ones that could be written about the same person getting destroyed (rejected) by a girl and that (as long as “approach anxiety” is taken care of) seduction is a numbers game and doesn't really have any room for improvement in that regard.

I had a very similar insight some time ago, which led me to write my article “Good Good Sets vs Bad Good Sets”, because it struck me that writing field reports, while helpful when you are starting out and have some fundamental issues to fix, are pretty much rubbish once you’ve gotten a handful (or two) of girls or so.

This is the reasoning behind this drastic statement: Sometimes you have a “great interaction”, but the girl would not fuck you even if you were the only guy around, simply because there is virtually zero sexual interest from her side. However, seemingly competent guys, blind to this fact, all too often happily write up the stories of their encounters and ask, “But how could I have gotten her?”

Those reports are sometimes really painful to read, because they could be dealt with quickly by saying, “Never in your life.” Those are the “bad good sets”, which seem to trip so many guys up. On the other hand, the “good good sets” are where there was simply a logistical issue that prevented you from getting laid. Some possible reasons are: there was an attendant in the bathroom, it was cold outside, and you’ve had to work the next day. Or maybe you’ve pissed off her friend… In any case, in those instances it is possible to point out what the problem was. In the other case it’s not.

Apart from that, it’s essentially nothing but bullshit and mental masturbation.

Read More

According to Vin DiCarlo, working out is killing your Chances with Women

I was just browsing PUAHate.com after a long absence and found that hilarity these days comes in boat loads. There were not one but two threads mocking fun at Vin DiCarlo's latest newsletter.

In case you don't know Vin, he used to post on mASF as "Woodhaven" and was provided one of the most extreme cases of over-analysis I have ever seen. "Ever" in this context means: in all my life, no matter the subject. A prime example is his "escalation ladder", which is supposed to teach you how to escalate to sex and includes eye openers such as "pinching her cheek". I don't want to know how many Asperger patients run around and try to replicate Vin DiCarlo's procedure on unsuspecting women.

Anyway, not only has Vin strange ideas on how you are supposed to "escalate", he is also concerned about your overall well-being, which is why in his latest newsletter, he recommends you to not work out in order to increase your chances to getting laid. This may sound like nonsense, and that's because it really is. Let's quote the first part of it (emphasis not in the original):

The more time you spend in the gym,
the less time you're likely to spend with
a beautiful woman...

Seems wrong. Seems like guys with
big muscles, pumping iron get laid all
the time...

Seems like you see them out in bars
and clubs with women hanging all over
them...

But the truth is: Some of the men with
the most in-shape bodies you've ever
seen are TERRIBLE with women.

I've got a friend named Tyler.

First of all, the "I've got a friend X" technique is just one of the shady methods of copywriters and Internet marketers use in the hope of sounding more believable to their hopefully gullible audience. Whenever you read such a sentence, you can substitute it with "I have no idea what the f*ck I've just pulled out of my a**, but I'll just dream up a story to justify it".

This imaginary Tyler apparently got laid in high school, but once he picked up bodybuilding in college --- Ta Daa! --- he just can't get laid anymore, despite looking like a stud, because even though he was already "big"...

He wanted the "perfect shape."

The shape Men's Health and other
magazines say is attractive to women.

And the more he worked on himself,
the more he worried that he wasn't
perfect.

Because even if you thought Tyler
looked great... He knew he could gain
another inch on his biceps.

He thought women noticed his shoudlers
were uneven.

He thought women knew he wasn't as
"big" as he could be.

By the way, Vin, nice typo! Apart from that, if you dare to go to a club or leave the house --- you will get a ton of attention if you are in shape and wear clothes that accentuate your body. Being overweight is a deal breaker par excellence and if you are obese, then it doesn't matter how confident you are. Such honesty probably wouldn't sell stuff like Vin's ebook "The Attraction Code".

Indeed, one of the absurd conclusions people reading Vin DiCarlo's newsletter are supposed to make is that "inner game" trumps everything else, including a great body, and working on a great body will only make you insecure. His imaginary friend Tyler only would have to go somewhere, and he will get attention from women. Some will even throw themselves at him. Certainly more than a guy wearing plateau shoes who is desperately trying to hide his 20 kilos of excess baggage under his shirt.

Having a great body of course doesn't mean that you have to look like Arnold in his prime. In terms of muscles "more" is not necessarily better, but in terms of body fat, "more" is always worse. The only exception I can think off is if you are anorectic, which you probably aren't. So got out and hit the gym, but at the very least lose some weight. If you like going to the gym --- which I don't do either --- then have a look at Scooby's Home Body Building Workouts, a great free resource, which I have already recommended some weeks ago.

Read More

Interview with Rockstar Pickup

I've mentioned it some weeks ago, but now it is finally online. The host of the Norwegian blog RockstarPickup has interviewed me some weeks ago, and now you can read it. I talk about my background, basics of seduction and some of my pet peeves. I'm sure you'll get something out of it.

Here is a teaser:

How would you define your game?

I don’t believe in “game”. All those pickup companies try to sell you the idea that “game” is the great equalizer that, no matter how you look, how popular you are, how old you are, and how little money you have, will get you “strippers and supermodels”, as those sales letters love to wax lyrical about. However, if you look what’s going on around you, you will be hard-pressed to find a case where an ugly gnome pulls Scandinavian models off the catwalk. My “game” is deeply rooted in reality, not theory, which is why it follows three simple steps:

1) Find your scene or environment
2) Focus on receptive girls
3) Don’t fuck it up

After you have read my interview, feel free to check out the rest of RockstarPickup. They also host an interview with my friend TVA_Oslo, which should very well be worth your attention.

Read More

Sleazy Stories in German submitted to Publisher

Today I've finished one of the major milestones I had set for myself this year: the translation of my paperback Sleazy Stories into German. It is now on the desk of the publisher and will go through the usual proofreading and layouting process.

I don't know the release date yet, but I will post it as soon as I know. It should be in stores and available online in autumn or winter.

Read More