If you can’t get laid, read this – part 3

In part one and two I’ve talked about the basics, now it’s time to get serious :)

You’ll have to understand how women work.

Imagine a scenario for a moment: you step into a bar or bookstore and you see 3 women; the first one is a playboy superstar in her prime years (a bit plasticy looking but still), the second is a cute girl with above average looks but nothing extraordinary, and the last one looks like an accountant from a 1950’s movie, only a bit more gray and lacking any distinctive positive features. Assuming you’re an average guy you will probably think that you’d hit playboy girl in a second but you happen to realize that she’s going out with oil tycoons and movie stars, so your chances with her are practically nonexistent. Most probably you will not care about the accountant-lookalike because you’re not interested in her sexually. Maybe she has an interesting personality, but hey, you want to get laid here and you’ll have to have an erection for that. That makes the cute girl the best “target” for you.

What I want to actually say here is that women also see and categorize men like this, and most men are invisible accountant-lookalikes for them. Maybe 60-70% or more.

A very important thing to realize though is that women have very different criteria than men when categorizing potential mates. We men look for sings of fertility but women look for sings of resourcefulness. It’s not a character fault of women and it doesn’t make us men superior; it’s just their winning strategy evolution-wise. You don’t have to like it but you have to understand and accept it, then you can use it to your advantage.

So the thing that differentiates accountants from casanovas is how resourceful they look. And here comes a tricky question: it’s okay for us men to look for signs of fertility because they are evident at first sight, but how can women tell how resourceful a guy is just by looking at him? Of course men don’t have their social status written on their foreheads so evolution had to come up with something – and it did :)

Men with resources usually act differently than men without them, and women – unconsciously, might I add – look for these differences in behaviour. When they see a man “acting resourceful” it has the same effect on them as young and beautiful women has on men: arousal. (Again I have to emphasize that it’s not a conscious choice so moralizing about this is meaningless.)

So, “gina tingles” happen when women see something arousing, which for them is the sight of a men who seems to be able to support her children if the need arises.

It is very important to understand here that evolution made sure that women look for behavioural signs and not for actual money. Money means nothing for evolution and thus waving a handful of bills in front of a women will most probably not make her gina tingly. She might like the money itself and might have sex with you for it, but it will be for the money and not because she desired you.

Another important thing to understand that the gina tingle is the mystical “spark” that makes relationships turn sexual. A women without a gina tingle will not have passionate sex with anyone. So if you want sex, you must induce tingles. And that means that you have to look resourceful.
(It’s the same vice versa: if a woman wants a man to have sex with her she’ll have to turn him on, meaning she has to look fertile – young, healthy, etc. If she looks old and ugly, the guy won’t want to have sex with her.)

Think about these things as long as necessary. Keep doing it until you really realize that there is no way to talk or beg or reason yourself into a girl’s pants unless she has a gina tingle. It doesn’t matter at all if you’re a nice guy or rich or good-looking or famous. The only thing that matters is if you look resourceful or not.

And this is the basis of “fake it ’till you make it” which you will hear a lot from game gurus. You’ll have to look resourceful because that’s the only real way of making women attracted. No matter how much effort you put into getting laid, if you keep looking like an accountant you will have no success. This is the reason why king-of-life looking thugs have supermodels fighting for them while accountant-looking billionaires like Bill Gates have to settle for one not-so-stellar-looking golddigger. By his example it’s clear that sometimes resourceful men don’t act/look resourceful and thus they shoot themselves in the foot wrt women. This also means that the secret of getting into women’s pants is not having resources but acting like you have them. Years of study and hard work might land you an above-average golddigger but is it really what you should aim for?

Over at HL’s Greg asked some questions about “fake it ’till you make it”. Here are my answers:

1. “it assumes that most men actually can be good actors
You don’t have to win the Oscar, you just have to improve your body language.

2. “it creates performance anxiety
Anxiety exists already and if you understand that there are methods which can help you the anxiety will lessen. If you understand what did you do wrong and how, and you know you have that fixed, that will help.

3. “Men engage in “macho” behavior – i.e over-acting in an attempt to convince people they are “strong”.
Then they have misunderstood something or their “gurus” have misled them. To look confident you have to be calm and aloof. You don’t have to act like anything, especially not macho.

4. “[game] tells you you must fake yourself to be respected and liked by women
Your body language is not set in stone. Holding the glass of whatever lower than you used to is not “faking yourself”. Not leaning in is not “faking yourself”. Standing in contrapposto is not “faking yourself”. You can actually be yourself, if you get what I mean; you only have to improve how you look. It’s just like wearing better clothes.

5. “Game DOES say you should not try to explicitly impress women, but then contradicts this principle by telling you all sorts of things you need to do to get a good response from women.
But of course. What’s the problem with it? Somehow you have to induce the magical spark, the gina tingle. You have to do something. Women will never come up to you asking for sex. But – and this is a big but – it matters a lot what you do actually. Some things induce tingles, others don’t. But – again a big one – you can do things that induce tingles within the boundary of your own behaviour acceptable to you. You don’t have to do anything horrible or disgusting or dishonest or whatever. You don’t have to become an actor 24/7. You just have to tweak a few things and your rate of succes will rise.

6. “[When I] adopt a”this is me, take it or leave it. I play no Games” approach, I become supremely confident, naturally and spontaneously self-assertive, and enjoy great success.
Well, this IS game :) This is how you gain confidence.

7. “this is who I am even if you don’t like it and I do not apologize for it. I am not trying to impress you or manipulate you into liking me. Take it or leave it”.
This is exactly the mindset game tries to teach you because this is the mindset of resourceful men. This is supreme confidence and this will make women go crazy.

This entry was posted in Game and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to If you can’t get laid, read this – part 3

  1. Keoni Galt says:

    Excellent response….better than the one I gave!

  2. sestamibi says:

    What are sings of fertility and resourcefulness?

  3. Deansdale says:

    Thanks, Keoni :)

    Fertility is easy: youth, smooth and healthy skin, hourglass figure, etc.
    I will write about resourcefulness in another post tomorrow.

  4. Greg says:

    Thanks, I appreciate the post and help in clarifying my own thoughts on the issue.

    At the end when you say that the “this is me” mindset which I describe as being so effective for me is exactly the one that game says you should have, that gives me hope. The idea that you should make yourself attractive to women by adopting this mindset is good.

    But then when someone says, as roissy does for instance (I am not saddling you with his thoughts. I am using him as an illustration of a major tendency in game theory), that you must be “charming” (or have “unstoppable charm” as he puts it in his inimitable way), or must be an “asshole”, both involve making a strenuous effort to please/impress a woman. Attempting to be “charming” to a woman is the opposite of cultivating a mindset of “this is me take it or leave it”. Being an “asshole” for no particular reason other than to “impress” is the opposite of the “take it or leave it” mentality.

    I guess what I am saying is that the fundamental insight of game is good – that women like confident men, or men who are “resourceful”, in your excellent phrase – but the specific advice on how to become this sort of man militates against this very insight!

    You do NOT exhibit “resourcefulness” by being an asshole for no particular reason – you do it by being yourself and not caring what she thinks. SOMETIMES this means being an “asshole” in (society’s terms), but it does not mean making a special POINT of being an asshole, as so many game people advise.

    The “charming” issue is of particular interest to me because I became good with women specifically when I decided that the idea that it is the mans job to “charm” a woman – so widespread in our society – was a mistake. I shifted to the mentality of “take it or leave it, it is beneath me to charm you. You must like me as much as I like you as I AM”. I shifted AWAY from any effort at charm – and became good with women.

    Yet here we have one of the most eloquent, intelligent, and widely respected game bloggers telling us we must attempt to charm, and apparently not realizing how this might make a man less of a man rather than more and might contradict the fundamental insight of game.

    What are we to make of this?

    I suppose my central point is that the specific advice on how to become a man who exhibits “resourcefulness” is of the type that contradicts the principle of “this is who I am take it or leave it”.

    Am I wrong? Is my mistake one of semantics? IS there a contradiction between the central insight of game – the starting point of game, as it were – and the specific set of practices that has been developed from this insight? Do many of the most common game practices fail to follow its basic insight?

  5. Greg says:

    One one level, you can make yourself more attractive through behavior. On another level, the behavior that is attractive is not caring to do anything to be attractive!!! In other words, you become impressive by not trying to impress.

    Is this only an apparent paradox?

    If this is right, then one of the starting ideas of Game – that adult men have been taught to not try to make themselves attractive to women – is a huge mistake. The situation is rather that the average adult male tries too hard to make himself attractive to women! And instead of teaching men to do anything positive to be attractive, we must teach them to REFRAIN from the attempt of being attractive to women at all!

    Only by letting go of the effort to become attractive to women will you become attractive to them. Only by not TRYING to exhibit “resourcefulness” will you exhibit it.

    IF this is true, then Game should teach men to not care about being charming, to not specifically be an asshole, or specifically to be ANYTHING – it should teach men to make no specific effort to form any impression at all in the mind of women through behavior (as opposed to dress), beyond, perhaps a minimum degree required for normal social interaction.

  6. Deansdale says:

    There are a lot of semantic problems around here :)
    “resourceful”, in your excellent phrase
    I was looking for a word exactly because the phrases used by PUAs cause difficulties for some, and came up with this, but it’s far from perfect. That’s why I’ll write another post about it soon.

    you do it by being yourself and not caring what she thinks. SOMETIMES this means being an “asshole”
    Exactly. But PUAs had to differentiate between the stupid feminist advice “just be yourself” and the proper “don’t care what she thinks” so they’ve decided to describe it as “being an asshole” because most of the times it’s nice guys who need advice about women and for them not caring looks exactly like being an asshole.

    Yet here we have one of the most eloquent, intelligent, and widely respected game bloggers telling us we must attempt to charm
    I think Roissy never advised people to try to “actively” charm women. He said you can charm them by being aloof, indifferent, etc.
    It seems to me that what you say about your experiences and what game bloggers say are 99% the same, there’s only slight differences in how people interpret certain words and concepts. You actually have a quite good understanding of game, it just have to “click” in your head.
    I’m going even further: in your case, you already had “natural game” so there was no need for you to learn “artificial game”. You just screwed up your natural game by thinking about it too much. You tried to go on a journey to reach the point from where you have started.
    If you have a “take it or leave it” mentality and it works then you don’t need any kind of game at all.

    advice on how to become a man who exhibits “resourcefulness” is of the type that contradicts the principle of “this is who I am take it or leave it”
    The problem is that “take it or leave it” won’t work for an invisible guy. You have to look confident, etc, so women will notice you and find you attractive, then you can be aloof.
    The core of the problem is how to teach men to show the signs of attractivness while not caring about the opinion of women.
    The secret might be that you do have to care about what makes ginas tingly, but you have to understand that it’s not what women/feminists/the MSM will tell you.
    It’s a contradiction of sorts that women are attracted to men who don’t care, so you have to “serve their needs” by not caring. But then again, all this is only applicable if you’re already attractive because otherwise noone will give a f*ck if you care or not.
    It’s a rather complex subject on the surface, but I feel we’re very close to describe it in an easily understandable fashion.

  7. Deansdale says:

    The situation is rather that the average adult male tries too hard to make himself attractive to women!
    Every game guru tells you not to try too hard because it is a definite turn-off for women.
    But the problem is not that most men try too hard, but that they do things that do not work. Like buying drinks.

  8. Samvel says:

    Here is an analogy I came up with regarding why women don’t get tingles when a man shows them money: It is the same as a woman giving a man a doctor’s certificate proving how healthy her ovaries are, and how fertile she is.

    That doesn’t arouse a man because it is indirect proof of her fertility. Our sexualities look for direct proof, which is looking young and healthy.

    Women too look for direct proof of our resourcefulness.

  9. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Alluring Edition

  10. John Rambo says:

    Why American men should boycott American women


    I am an American man, and I have decided to boycott American women. In a nutshell, American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don’t know how to cook or clean, don’t want to have children, etc. Therefore, what intelligent man would want to get involved with American women?

    American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.

    This blog is my attempt to explain why I feel American women are inferior to foreign women (non-American women), and why American men should boycott American women, and date/marry only foreign (non-American) women.


  11. Deansdale says:

    Thank you Samvel, that’s a perfect example.

  12. Marcin says:


    Thanks for putting the basic truths that the “game” established over the past two decades in such a simple way in these three posts.

    I’m one of the men who suffered at least to an extent from being a nice-guy type and from being raised by my mother primarily and by the MSM bullshit here in Europe. For the past several years I have been recreating myself, reinventing myself as a new person that is no longer led astray by the feminist jibberish and societies widely accepted lies. While I’m not a PUA, at least don’t consider myself that, I’ve found genuine release and peace of mind from learning about actual social and interpersonal dynamics. It has been a tough road and I’m not there yet, but I feel inspired by your elegant and concise laying out of the essence of what this endevour really is.

    Really I think that the lack of clarity and vision in the community hinders the potential growth and transformation of many wimps, betas, nice-guys or nerds into full fledged men. They get ridiculous lists and lines instead of the simple truths laid out without the bullshit. Thats how you get the over the top PUA’s who have traded a sick existence of RPG and Warcraft for hours of sarging and field reports, instead of becoming confident full of life people who just attract women as they go about their shit.

    Wow I’m getting a bit long here, but basically I want to say again it’s such a fucking shame that the bad or mistaken application of the fundamental rules of the game renders success elusive for so many people who really could have good successful lifes if only they changed the smallest things about their beliefs and behaviors.

    Anyway, Thanks again for the inspiration your writing gave me.

  13. Greg says:


    Sorry was away for a bit and couldn’t respond, but I want to respond, because I think the issues are important, and while I feel we have gained added clarity I think the basic issues still remain unresolved. I also feel you have a clearer grasp of game and are freer of self-aggrandizing tendencies that tend to make discussion with game people so frustrating, so your thoughts are interesting to me. I wish I could organize my thoughts better, but it isn’t easy for me, so I’m just gonna let them flow out haphazardly and trust that the ideas will emerge clearly.

    When you tell a person he must make his body language attractive, you are telling him he must try to please others. When you tell him he must be cocky, you are telling him to please others. You cannot then tell him not to be concerned with the reactions of others, because you are contradicting what you just said. You are necessarily cultivating in him a concern with the reactions of others. There is no way around it. Now consider if you just told him “go out there and don’t worry about your body language. Don’t care how others perceive it. Be yourself”. What would happen? He would go out there, relax, lose anxiety, and his body would naturally arrange itself into a pose of relaxed nonchalance which would be perceived as “confidence”. I reverse the perspective of game – I believe poor body language that telegraphs low confidence is the RESULT of not being natural and trying to impress others with your body language. Telling a guy he should try to adopt impressive body language is the worst thing you can do, and results in those stiff, rigid, macho guys we all see at the clubs and bars, with their stiff, erect shoulders, staring rigidly ahead, clearly un-relaxed, un-graceful, and unnatural. No on is impressed by them.

    The point is that you think that confidence and not caring are two separate things, and no one will care that you don’t care if you don’t manifest confidence. My point is that not caring is itself a manifestation of confidence – the two are identical and inseparable – and that if you genuinely don’t care then your body language and behavior will organically and naturally organize itself in ways that reflect confidence and inner strength.

    One of the basic theories of game is that men have been educated to “be themselves”, but I think that’s false. Society does not, and never has, conditioned men to “be themselves”. ALL societies, by their very nature, condition men to do certain things to be liked and certain things to be impressive. Game uses the phrase “be yourself” in a very peculiar sense – what is really meant is “how you’ve always acted up till now”. But how you’ve always acted up till now for most adult men is how society has conditioned them to act – in other words very far from “being themselves”. Game may be right that you should not simply act “how you’ve always acted up till now”, but Game is WRONG when it claims that you have always been “yourself” up till now, and must now learn specific new ways to please others.

    There is the related idea that expressing your true nature, for many men, will not be pleasing to women, that you must do things that do not reflect your true nature to be pleasing to women. This contains two errors. One is what pleases women, and the other is what men would do naturally left to their true natures. If you think cockiness is pleasing to women, that might be true. If you think arrogance is pleasing to women, that might be true. If you think being an asshole is pleasing to women, that might be true. If you think being aloof is pleasing to women, that might be true. These are probably the most common things advanced by game people as what is pleasing to women. Yet I think what is pleasing to women is “confidence”, and I don’t think any of those things reflect it.

    All self-inflation is always a sign of a fragile ego. Cockiness is a sign of a fragile ego. So is arrogance. So is being an asshole. All excessive display of “ego” is a sign of having a fragile ego. A confident, healthy ego expresses itself in a normal, natural way. Being aloof, while better than the others mentioned, can easily be interpreted as being anti-social or even afraid of social contact, so is no infallible sign of “confidence”.

    The second element is what human nature is like left to itself. I believe that left to themselves, all men have a natural urge to be self-assertive and to stand up for themselves and respond to challenges to their egos. Yet what keeps them from doing so? FEAR of other people’s reactions! A desire to “please” or “impress” others. The challenge then becomes to free people from preoccupation with others reactions so that this spontaneous urge to self-assertion cab be “liberated”.

    Telling a person to stand a certain way so others will like you is to encourage fear of others reactions, to cultivate a preoccupation with others minds, and to suppress their natural urge to self-assertiveness. Same goes with being cocky or being an asshole or being aloof. All suppress your natural, organic, and spontaneous urges to healthy self-assertiveness and replace it with artificial constructs that are not convincing and undermine the core of your inner strength.

    I think the issue of making the message of Game clear is of vital importance. I think the issue of purging those aspects of Game which are undermining the efforts of men to achieve true confidence – and I think Game is literally infested with such elements, to the point where it is useless to many, perhaps even most, men – is of the hugest importance. Game is IMPORTANT, but it has become so overlaid with false messages that contradict it’s central insights that it is almost a useless tool. And the culprits are all of us, not just the snake-oil gurus, but the most popular and well read sites. Roosh and roissy, two of the best and most read sites, contain some gems but are rife with some of the most shockingly bad advice out there. And the problem is not them, they are some of the best writers of game out there, but the fact that certain very damaging ideas have been allowed to take over everyone’s basic idea of what game is about. For instance roissy says you should be “cocky” – yet being “cocky” is one of the surest signs of having a fragile ego. All excessive self-inflation is a sure sign of low confidence. That a writer of his intelligence can make so elementary a mistake is indicative of the general intellectual corruption that has set in.

    The whole atmosphere of roissy is terrible for developing true self-confidence – while he is a pleasure and a delight to read, the atmosphere of his site is one of excessive self-inflation. Arrogance, cockiness, self-promotion – all I have to do is read one or two pages of his site to destroy my ability to get women. I absorb the atmosphere almost imperceptibly, go out into the field and become “arrogant”, and then am surprised that women don’t find it attractive. The truth is, of course, self-inflation is always a sign of poor ego development. And yet roissy is terribly seductive, and he clearly means well, and sometimes he even says the right thing, but the next day he contradicts himself.

    It may be the case that SOME men intuitively gravitate towards the healthy aspects of game and simply ignore the bad aspects without being fully aware of what they do – and report incredible success with game – but I don’t think they are the majority. I think most men struggle with the contradictory message and I think most game writers have been taken over by a false perspective – the “fake it in order to please” perspective which leads them to give such bad advice. I further believe that the roots of game, n the 70s, was precisely a rejection of this paradigm, and that game has traveled far from its roots and reintroduced precisely what was originally seen as the source of failure with women. Which is ironic, but not so unusual with ideological movements.

    Let us be absolutely clear – game as it is currently purveyed essentially tells you you must please women. Any way you slice it, this is the import of much of its advice. More often game aims at “impressing” women, even if it avoids this word, it amounts to the same thing. Yet essentially pleasing women is the mainstream message of society.

    Game does not reject the message of society – that you must try to be liked or be impressive – it merely tells you to do other things than perhaps you were told up till now. But it effectively functions within the same social paradigm – it does not break from it and offer us a new way of looking at social relations. It looks at social relations the old, familiar way, just gives different advice. To be sure, you are telling him to do different things than he was told before, but you have not yet broken out of the old way of looking at social relations.

    Yet game in its roots in the 70s was precisely the rejection of this paradigm! It was the introduction of a radical new way of looking at social relations, as not trying to please or impress. Game preserves a kernel of this radical insight, but evidently later writers on game found it too radical to maintain, because now game is all about using body language and behavior to “impress”.

  14. Greg says:

    Game as it originally was developed in the 70s eliminated one basic aspect of our social conditioning – the need to impress or please others. When you eliminate that, you liberate your natural inner urge to healthy self-assertiveness. That’s why it was so radical and so successful. It utterly rejected the traditional paradigm of social relations and replaced it with a new way of looking at things that required great daring and courage – as who really has the courage to not care if women like them? (Certainly not the game writers of today).

    Little by little, game has re-introduced that perspective, even as it continues to pay lip service it. Game will make some reference that you must not impress women, but when you look at it’s specific advice, that is precisely what it tells you to do. I suppose the original insight really was too radical for most men, it was too great a break from traditional ways of looking at social relations, and it was, worst of all, emotionally unsatisfying.

    People WANT to be able to “control” and “manipulate” others – it gives men a feeling of power and control. Telling men that they should give up this desire is emotionally unsatisfying. It is PLEASANT to think that by standing a certain way women will like you – more, it gives you a feeling of control. Telling men they should stop caring is asking them to commit an act of DARING and COURAGE. Most men perhaps find that hard, so they resort to nostrums.

    But we must recover the original radical insight of game. It is common for religions, philosophies, and ideologies to be watered down and even completely betray its founders radical vision as time goes on, because most men would rather be emotionally satisfied with nostrums than do something that requires daring or courage.

    Buddhism is one paradigm case. Its founders vision was of a stark godlessness – that salvation lies in you and not in the supernatural – but this was unsatisfying to most men, so little by little the supernatural element crept back into Buddhism to the point where today it is utterly superstitious and believes in Gods. Of course, it pays lip service to the original insight, and “interprets” its belief in Gods in various ways, much as game gurus will “interpret” their advice to do certain things to please women as not incompatible with the mentality of “be yourself and don’t care about pleasing others”. Thus people want to have their cake and eat it too.

    But we must resist this urge.

  15. Deansdale says:

    Greg: “When you tell a person he must make his body language attractive, you are telling him he must try to please others.
    There is a pathological “fear” of doing anything which might please women in the PUA community. And anti-game fanatics say the stupidest things about this too. There is nothing wrong with pleasing women as long as it’s not the core of your being or behaviour. First of all, any civil human being consideres pleasing others a good thing. Second, you go out to have a good time, which implies you will chat with people you like or love, and both of you will care about if the other is having fun. That’s not a sin, that’s how normal people operate. Third, you have to do something. And that might as well be funny.
    Let’s use a stupid metaphor: your goal is to have sex with a woman – let’s compare it to a horse race where your goal is to cross the finish line. You have to do something to make the horse go faster, but others give you stupid advice, like kiss the horse’s ass. You try it but the horse won’t go any faster. In this situation what you have to do is not giving up on making the horse going faster but to apply methods that work, like using a spur. All the beta niceguys out there tried to “please women” the wrong way, and some of them arrived to a conclusion that men must not please women, but it’s BS. It works only if you forget about women altogether but then you’ll never get laid.
    Thing is, guys should recognize game for what it is: a self-improvement program, which has the side-effect of making women attracted to you. Become more calm and confident for calm’s and confidence’s sake, not to please someone else. That someone else will be more attracted to you anyways.

    Now consider if you just told him “go out there and don’t worry about your body language. Don’t care how others perceive it. Be yourself”. What would happen?
    Probably nothing, because guys who don’t have succes still won’t have it if you just tell them “do nothing”. That’s the “natural alpha fallacy”, ie. those guys who are already attractive think that it’s natural that women are attracted, so the advice they give to non-naturals is shite.
    Being attractive is a state, and it’s an axiom that not every guy is in that state, so, they somehow have to reach it, meaning they have to do something to get there. “Be yourself” is good advice only to those who don’t need any advice at all.

    I believe poor body language that telegraphs low confidence is the RESULT of not being natural and trying to impress others with your body language
    This theory is a bit too twisted. I reckon many guys are just plain old nervous when they are around women. Their body language is introverted and emits signs of nervousness, fear, etc. You can’t say that a shy 14 yo kid is nervous because bad PUA advice. He most probably doesn’t even know what ‘body language’ is.

    Telling a guy he should try to adopt impressive body language is the worst thing you can do, and results in those stiff, rigid, macho guys we all see at the clubs and bars, with their stiff, erect shoulders, staring rigidly ahead, clearly un-relaxed, un-graceful, and unnatural.
    That is why one of the core advice of PUAs is to relax. Have fun, don’t take yourself or the girls too seriously, have a drink if it helps. Be calm, cool, aloof. If beginners are looking like the scarecrows you described then they misunderstood something or they really can’t relax – in wich case PUA advice won’t make any difference.

    One of the basic theories of game is that men have been educated to “be themselves”
    We have arrived at the island of semantic difficulties.
    95% of the time you hear the advice “just be yourself” it’s the BS women tell men which kinda’ translates to “just try again”. It is totally different from what you’re saying, ie. “don’t give a flying fuck about what others think”.
    But guys can’t just “turn confident” by pressing a button or something. It is true that body language mirrors the state of mind but it’s not that easy to change your mind when you’re shy, nervous, etc. Basically your advice to nervous men is “don’t be nervous” but sadly it doesn’t work. If it was that simple…

    Game is WRONG when it claims that you have always been “yourself” up till now, and must now learn specific new ways to please others.
    Game theory never claimed that. So much so that this is one of my main points in Now really, WTF is game?:
    “The feminist zeitgeist indoctrinates all kids with the notion that men should be submissive to women under all circumstances, in addition to being nice, peaceful and “romantic” (…) Game is nothing more and nothing less than the awakening of your long-supressed alpha tendencies.”

    All self-inflation is always a sign of a fragile ego. Cockiness is a sign of a fragile ego. So is arrogance. So is being an asshole.
    “Fragile ego” is just a feminist buzzword without any actual meaning in my book, it’s just empty shaming language. Anyone mentioning it only tries to scare people away from something with it.
    Cockiness is a sign of cockiness, nothing less, nothing more.
    If you are nervous but you try to act cocky nonetheless then that’s a stupid act but still not a sign of fragile egos or whatever.

    It seems to me that we disagree on some aspects of game’s history and theory, but that’s not a problem for me. I will continue answering your comments but I’ve been sitting here for hours and my eyes are getting tired so it will have to wait for a bit.

  16. Greg says:

    Well, much time has passed and I was not able to come back to this post until now. Thanks for the respones though. You are probably right that we have certainly unbridgable differences, and that is of course perfectly fine between reasonable men. There are a few points I want to clarify and make, though.

    1) Being pleasant to people you enjoy and love is not trying to “please them” – it is being authentic because that is a natural expression of your state of mind towards them at that time. No, not all trying to please others is wrong, that is surely true. In fact, trying to please others in itself is not what is wrong – it is doing things you don’t actually feel merely to please others that is the problem. It is pretending to feel things you don’t feel, merely to impress or please others, that is the problem. If you genuinely feel affection and good will for someone, there is nothing wrong with wanting their happiness.

    Not pleasing someone is what is the problem, FAKING yourself to please is what is the problem. There is a crucial difference there. Now of course we all fake ourselves somewhat just to get by socially, but we all know there are people who do this to a greater or lesser degree, and we all respect those who don’t do it too much even if they are not the most civil people – we feel we can at least trust them and they exude a certain strength.

    You say that since we have decided that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with pleasing women (and I agree with you), what is needed is to please them the right way rather than the wrong way. But it seems to me you nomit the crucial distinction I made above. The correct conclusion, it seems to me, is that there is nothing wrong in pleasing women if that is an authentic expression of your mental state, but if it isn’t, then misrepresenting your mental state in an effort to please or impress will not only make you feel weaker, but be percieved as weaker by women.

    If you feel affection, by all means express it – but if you don’t, don’t fake it. If you feel anger express it (in an appropriate way), but if you don’t, don’t fake it just because you think you “should” feel anger and the woman will be “impressed” it. If you feel like acting in a way that might be labelled “asshole” but that you think is right anyways, do it – but don’t be an “asshole” just because you think someone will like it.

    That is what I am talking about. That strikes me as authentic confidence and strength. Being an “asshole” when you don’t truly wish to be because you think another person will be impressed by it strikes me as weak, and rather pathetic.

    2) The “natural alpha” idea is interesting and probably lies at the root of our difference. I believe that all human beings have a natural impulse to self-assertion and standing up for themselves, but are inhibited by fear of others reactions. If you take away caring how others react, I think all humans will be naturally self-assertive and will naturally stand up for themselves. If this is true, then a “natural alpha” can be defined as someone who is less afraid then others of how people will react to his real self- in other words a “natural alpha” is merely a normal human being minus one element that goes into the makeup of the normal human being – fear of how others percieve him. In other words, a “natural alpah” is merely a normal human male being “authentic”, and the challenge becomes how to become more “authentic”, not to learn a set of behaviors that please others. Being “authentic” will naturally release an in-built set of behaviors that will be found attractive in a normal, congruent, and appropriate way.

    You are right that being attractive is a state and telling a guy to be the way he is NOW (conditioned by society) is not “enough” – but I do not suggest that. I suggest we tell a guy to change how he is NOW – but in the direction of being himself more.

    3) You say men are nervous and anxious in terms of body language around women, and that telling them to “do nothing” will not help this. I think here you have not understood me. The point is, WHY are men bodily nervous around women? Because they are enxious to please them (impress them). I do not say is because of bad PUA advice, I say it is because of the messages in our culture that we must be anxious to please others, and also because of our desire to impress others. In other words they are already not “doing nothing” – their starting point is very much “doing something”. When we get men to stop “doing that something” (being anxious to please), their body language will be relaxed and confidence.

    When game says go out and stand in this and this a way, it is merely perpetuating this anxiety to please or impress others, and thus failing to remove the cause of your nervous body language. Instead of getting relaxed confident body language, you get stiff, rigid body language that seems like a painful parody of “confidence”.

    4) You say it is one of the core theories of PUA to tell guys to relax. If this is so, you don’t get guys to relax by telling to them to monitor their body languuage and stand in a specific way in order to be “impressive”. That is the opposite of relaxation. So if what you say is correct, this would be another example of game being internally inconsistent and saying it wants to create a particular state of mind and then telling you to do the exact thing that will kill that state of mind. That game does this so often is my big problem with game.

    6) My advice is NOT simply “don’t be nervous”. It is much more complex than that (well, not much more, but enough more). My advice is that “you are nervous because you are trying to impress others and make them like you, and you believe you have to do that by faking who you truly are. Stop faking how you truly are and you will no longer be nervous. When you are no longer nervous, your body language will automatically convey this”. There is a big difference here between simply telling people “don’t be nervous”, which I agree doesn’t work.

    7) We seem to be in perfect agreement when you state that feminist society has socialized men to be inauthentic and game should merely aim to liberate innate alpha tendencies. That is essentially my entire, basic point of view. I believe, however, that the WAY to liberate a mans essential alpha tendencies is to lessen his preoccupation with how others percieve him, and that game in large parts does NOT do that, but does the exact opposite.

    7) Re “fragile ego” – it may be that feminits misues this phrase, but I don’t see how you can say it has no meaning. But if you don’t like it, we can use any other phrase, like “lack of confidence”. Surely you acknowledge there are some instances where people who lack confidence nevertheless wish to pretend to others that they don’t lack confidence, and that they “overcompensate” by acting out or acting over the top confident, and this comes off as weakness rather than true confidence. This seems to me a widespread phenomenon, and unfortunately one that is often encouraged by game. If you deny this phenomena of overcompensating behavior exists, then we probably will just to disagree about that. But I think it is a huge problem with game that it often encourages overcompensatory behavior.

  17. Greg says:

    Now just a few comments of a more general nature –

    First, I want to point out that there are contradictions in the message of game as it currently stands. It may be perfectly alright to try and “please” women, but that contradicts the idea that you have to approach women with an mindset of “this is me take it or leave it”. You can have either one attitude, or the other, but not both – for they contradict each other. The problem with game is that it sometimes tells you to adopt the “tke it or leave it attitude”, and sometimes tells you not to. The result is a certain amount of confusion. People are inconsistent in their actions and don’t quite know what to do.

    This is an important point – it may be that the correct thing is to take some actions to please women, and some actions not to please women. But it needs to be acknowledged, then, that the message of game is not to adopt a mentality of “this is me take it or leave it”. Quite aside from whether or not the right course is to please women or not try to please them (or impress them, or whatever), we have to admit that trying to please them is not the same as acting out of an inner authenticity.

    The question of course arises and is posed by game people – what, though, if all your natural impulses tell you to be weak and placating? What about those men who are “authentically” weak? Should they be authentic too? The answer, I believe, and you may disagree, is that there no such men if we look at the matter closely enough. I think it a natural human impulse to be self-assertive and stand up for ourselves, and that what makes us not do so more often is fear of the reactions of other people, that they will not like us or be impressed with us. If that is true, then a “natural alpha” can be defined as one who for some reason or other has less of a need to be liked by others and less of a need to impress others – in other words, a “natural alpha” is one who is more willing to be “authentic” and NOT fake his behaviors. If we want to nurture this mindset in others, then we would have try to lessen their preoccupation with the reactions of others and focus more on what they truly want to do regardless of how others react. If that is the case, then any message which increases preoccupation with how others percieve you – such as body language, cockiness, etc, – will tend to weaken you and make you more anxious and less “alpha”.

    However, this is true ONLY if I am right that every man has a natural impulse to self-assertion and self-defense and it is only fear of others that is inhibiting him. In other words my belief is that men are only weak through fear of others, and you make men strong by eliminating this fear of others, and you do this by lessening preoccupation with others perceptions of you. Since many aspects of game increase preoccupation with how others percieve you ( and in fact tell you to tailor your personality to others expectations), game tends to make men weak. But since there are some aspects of game which tell you to not care how others percieve you, game makes you strong.

    So game as it now stands containst a multiplicity of messages that are often inconsistent. I suspect that those who experience success with game are people who have an internal gift for extracting the gold from the dross – they just intuitively adopt the good aspects of game and ignore the bad, without quite knowing what they do and withought having a belief system that matches their actions. If you ask them how to be good with women, they will give you much bad advice, not knowing exactly what it is they are doing right. Such people have a capacity for often acting in ways that contradict their official belief system without being unduly disturbed – they don’t feel an urgent neeed of being logically consistent. But not everyone is like that.

    I believe that element in game which is good and genuinely helps men get better with women are those messages which tell you to be who you are and not apologize for yourself. Sometimes this message is transmitted with great clarity and force. To the extent that a man adopts this element of game, either intuitively without knowing exactly what he is doing or consciously, he gets better with women, to the extent that he adopts the other elements of game – like focusing on body language or putting on an act of cockiness, all things which are in explicit, inescapable contradiction to the idea of “this is me take it or leave it” – I think a man will get worse with women.

    This is why you see a wide divergence in the success people have with game (well, one of the reasons, but a very important one I believe).

    If you take a piece of game advice, for instance like be an “asshole”, and you apply this literally, you are in big trouble. Literally, being an asshole means going out and being gratuitously and pointlessly mean to women. This will only antagonize women. The thing about the advice to be an asshole is that what is really meant is only a very specific kind of behaviour, often behavior that is not intrinsically mean but that our effeminate society has chosen to label as being a “jerk”. In many other societies these behaviors are quite acceptable, and they usually involve merely standing up for yourself. But you won’t understand this if you read a game blog, see the advice that you need to be an asshole, and take that literally. Only after reading dozens of passages and seeing dozens of descriptions of behavior, a man MIGHT be able to realize that the word “asshole” in the game community is not to be taken quite literally, but that it only applies in some situations and in some ways. And there is very little advice on exactly how, and in what ways, a man should be an “asshole” – there is just general advice to be an asshole, which may be disastrous if not understood correctly, or taken too literally.

    But this isn’t only a problem of taking something literally or not – the state of mind that is attractive to women is not really being an asshole, it is a state of mind that sometimes shows itself in behaviors that our effeminate society labels being a “jerk”. Game people have noticed this and have come to the wrong conclusion – that in general, being an asshole is attractive. That’s why they describe the necessary state of mind as being an “asshole”, when in fact it is merely an occasional expression of a prior state of mind that often expresses itself in other ways, and that it is only approrpiate to be an asshole in specific ways.

    Back to the idea of being authentic vs being inauthentic and whether it is possible to achieve strength and confidence – and thus, become attractive to women -through being inauthentic, my belief is that people are only truly confident when they are being authentic.

    Every time you are artificial and fake you become weaker. Trying to represent more than you naturally are will not make you more than you are, nor will it convince others that you are more than you are. Strangely, trying to fake strength actually makes you feel weak, through an interesting psychological mechanism – it makes you lose your inner balance and inner center of gravity.

  18. Greg says:

    One more, perhaps minor, point I wish to make – you say game teaches you to be aloof and calm, but this is not true. Many game people teach you to be outgoing and social. Mystery and Neill Strauss go so far as to say an Alpha is always smiling, which is the opposite of aloof. It seems that a wide variety of behaviors, often diametrically opposed, are considered attractive by women. To me, this is a clear indication that the essence of the state of mind women find attractive cannot be aloofness and calmness, or outgoingness and socialness, because both at different times by different men cause attractiveness. Clearly, there is a prior state of mind that in some men can express itself as aloofness and calmness, and in other men can express itself as social outgoingness full of smiles, that is what is attractive.

    As far as I can see this state of mind can only be authenticity – those men who do not feel social do not fake it, and the authenticity is seen and respected by women, and those men who do feel social do not fake aloofness, and their authenticity is seen and respected by women.

    Whether I am right about that or not, it has to be admitted that since both aloofness and smiling sociability and outgoingness are seen as attractive by women, neither can be of the essence of the state of mind that women find attractive, and any game theory which says you must be aloof, or must be outgoing, is missing the point and looking at the symptoms and mistaking it for the essence. This misunderstanding a momentary symptom for the essential state of mind is one of the mistakes that make game theory as it stands today so very useless, in my view.

  19. Kingdom Come says:

    I agree with what Greg is saying.

    There was a time when I was in a packed bar, doing my usual thing, which was not a lot.

    When it suddenly occurred to me that I didn’t need to bang all of the women there.

    The shift at the time in my mindset and my body was practically instantaneous, I instantly relaxed both in mind and body, all pretense, objectives and agendas totally vanished.

    And I thought hhmmm what do I want to do here, looked around, went and got a local street mag and basically sat in the corner of the bar reading it, with no real concern for anything else.

    Paradoxically within 5 minutes I had a gorgeous woman who I hadn’t seen before then sidle up next to me, I was barely even paying attention to her and only noticed because she seemed to be “hanging around” me and it seemed to me she was trying to get my attention and I was feeling a definite “vibe” from her.

    So I said hello to her. The rest was history as they say in the classics, I was cocky, I was funny, I called her on her bullshit all the “standard game” stuff, but with no real effort on my part, nothing that I didn’t want to do or was called to do, I get an instant invite to her place, she cooks me dinner, an orbiter rocks up, looks at me looks at the dinner, says, and I quote, “who are you, she never cooks for anyone” and I still got laid that night, she was trying to close me all night long.

    The most amazing feeling and state, it lasted all of 3 days, doubts, worry, bullshit, questioning myself on how and why this has happened, great way to stuff yourself up if your interested.

    Same thing happened another couple of times.

    Haven’t been able to “do” it since, but to me this is real “game” for what its worth.

    Trying to get to this state won’t work, “being” like this all the time is for me what its about.

  20. Brian Holbrook says:

    You, Mr. Dean, are a gigantic effin’ tool. Considering all of the toolishness out here in Internet-land it takes a certain breed of douche to distinguish himself. You, sir, are that douche. Not only are you pushing misogynistic, PUA, bullshit, you are also a pretty terrible writer. Seriously. You don’t need a blog, you need a thesaurus and a dictionary.

  21. Deansdale says:

    you need a thesaurus and a dictionary
    Considering english is not my first language it’s pretty good that you’re the first and only commenter to say this.

    Not only are you pushing misogynistic
    Yeah, yeah, we all know the shit, it’s kind of boring now. Quotes or GTFO.

    PUA, bullshit
    Now that you chose to criticise my writing I can’t help but wonder WTF you need that comma for. Anywayz, if you think PUA stuff is BS then why do you read it? Idiot.

    The next time you comment here without adding anything of value I will delete it.

  22. Retrenched says:

    Any time you write about women or talk about them without either pedestalizing them or supplicating to them in some way, you’re always going to be called a “misogynist” by someone. It’s one of those words that has been misused to the point that it has no real meaning anymore.

  23. Deansdale says:

    I often visit the site ‘the best article every day’ and a few days ago they had an article with sex advice to women. It was the usual stuff: don’t expect the man to be perfect or to do everything in bed, be active, adventurous, etc. Naturally some feminist retards showed up crying “misogyny”. Turns out the article was written by a women :]
    I sometimes wonder, do these people know the actual meaning of the word misogyny? It’s the hatred of women. Where is this hatred in my blog posts? Do I seem to hate women? I know I certainly don’t so I don’t give a f*ck about haters. They just spew generic BS.

  24. will says:

    Are you fucking kidding me? Humans don’t behave like the animals that they surely are. We fuck the hottest people we can find, and those who fuk ugly people, simply are failing at sex. Stop saying stupid shit like “lower your standards”. No such thing. Reject ugly people, try to fuck hot people. If no hot people wants to fuck you, die a virgin. It’s not a fucking problem.

  25. bleh says:

    This is the first “be confident” article I’ve read that doesn’t make me want to slash the writers throat. Be “calm and aloof.” Fuck that’s me! All the fucking so-called “Alpha males” showed led me to believe that those two traits are the opposite of confident.

  26. Allo, Enjoying the persistence you put into your blog and extensive information you provide.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s