One salient characteristic of UK women that my own practice of game has recently given me occasion to reflect on is their wholly transactional mindset when interacting with men. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the phenomenon whereby British women will behave fundamentally differently towards different types of men - both of whom still strangers to her - depending solely upon his perceived SMV relative to her own. The situations I have in mind here are the very initial stages of any new male-female interaction, such as when a woman makes or fails to make eye contact with a man passing that woman on the street. Prior to learning game and improving myself in the process, I used to obtain no eye contact whatever from women in the UK in public. Furthermore, if I did cast a glance in the direction of even a vaguely attractive woman, she would reflexively flick her head either to the side or simply look down towards the pavement; either way, in my blue pill days I simply assumed that women don't make eye contact with men they don't know and that this principle held universally for all men in public. Well, how wrong I was on this one!

One of the most red pill discoveries that I've made of late is recognizing how this principle only applies to men that women don't automatically get the tingles for on first sight. Since applying game, that is, working out and more than anything else, working on my inner game, I've started to get a small, but regular percentage of even good-looking girls, some of whom 15 years younger, checking me out. Not only this, but when I look at them, they make sustained eye contact and even bite their lip on occasion, so I have reason to believe at least some of them like what they see. At first I refused to believe this was happening and chalked it up to either delusion on my part or simply coincidence, but it has kept on occurring ever since I made the aforesaid changes and so I'm forced to accept this as a real phenomenon.

Anyway, to return to the point about the transactional nature of women, it struck me after these changes occurred how women in the Anglosphere tightly control access to every aspect of their interactions with men and that the degree of access a man is afforded varies proportionately to how high she perceives him on the SMV scale, and, what for me is highly significant, that this principle regulates even the smallest details of the interaction, e.g. whether to even acknowledge a man's presence with a cursory glance in his direction or to engage in the briefest of small talk with him should he be stationary in her vicinity. This principle became clear to me, incidentally, after I did my first 100 daygame approaches in my local area. I quickly noticed that a woman's readiness to even enter into small talk with me seemed to be highly correlated with her level of initial sexual attraction and that women here are exceedingly judgemental in deciding very early on in an interaction with a man whether they are willing to give him the time of day, often times even before the man has had a chance to open his mouth, judging this on the basis of his appearance alone.

Now, I know what some of you guys on here will probably be thinking here: That all women are transactional, irrespective of the culture they grow up in, in the sense of being generally more open to interactions with men that they find sexually attractive than those they don't, in addition to whether they think the guys can provide the validation, social proofing, resources, et.c. that they desire. You might also object that the principle applies across the sexes and that we tend to associate with and befriend those whom we find useful to us in some way or other, even if only in terms of entertainment value. I would agree with all of that. But that's not what I mean in this context. My many interactions with women from outside of the Anglosphere have taught me that a woman won't make an automatic snap judgement about a guy simply based upon his appearance and that she will give the guy the time of day to at least get to know him before coming to any decision as to whether she wants to see him again or not. Put another way, a woman from say France or Germany, will at least treat a guy with a certain modicum of respect and acknowledge his presence and engage in some conversation with him if prompted without the hamster making a snap judgement about whether he is of higher SMV than her or not and then immediately calibrating her behaviour to either aversive/dismissive "yes"/"no" answers and a quick run for the exits or, if he gives her the tingles, to remain in his presence and signal modest interest for him to pursue the interaction further with her, as is the standard template for Anglo women. Put another way, a UK woman's decision to even enter into a conversation with a man is - in her's eyes - already a privilege that she confers on him as a reward for him giving her the gingles. It is in this sense that women from the Anglosphere are markedly different and much more conceitedly mercenary - or transactional, if you care for that term - than women from, say, continental Europe, who don't regard the initial stages of getting to know a man as any kind of payment or reward for a man expressing an initial interest in her. By way of an example, I once spoke with an American woman over Skype that I became aquainted with via an online dating site and one of the first things she said to me was, "I don't normally confer a Skype call on a guy that I've met over the internet, preferring that he meet me in person". Her choice of the word "confer" in this context, along with her generally self-absorbed and entitled manner, was telling in this regard and exemplifies the phenomenon under discussion.

Thus, an interaction between a man and a woman in the Anglosphere is always a binary proposition, unlike in other parts of the world, in that at all times the woman is highly self conscious of her actions and needs to decide at the earliest stages in any interaction with a man whether he is a "creep" or "hawt". Incidentally, the very concept of "creep" is simply a derogatory term that feminists have created to express revulsion at attention from men that are deemed to be of lower SMV than themselves, rather than an objection to the attention they receive as such; this can be observed by a man of comparatively higher SMV having the "right" to look and receive stares back by the women concerned - the very same women that react indignantly when a man they deem to be of lower SMV deigns to pull the same stunt. Given that I've been on different occasions both of the guys I've just described above, I feel I have a strong basis to comment here.

One of the things that has crossed my mind is how this phenomenon of transactionality of Anglowomen may be responsible in no small part for the record levels of thirst in the Anglosphere. By refusing to even allow an average guy from making contact with a woman - through her virtual burka of aversive glances and other tactics involving not seldom the deployment of her iPhone as a deflection shield to signal disinterest at the earliest stages of any possible encounter - men immediately judged to be of lower SMV-status are not given the chance to demonstrate any worth to the woman in other ways and immediately disregarded. This may then be leading to men disproportionately approaching women online rather than offline, thus fuelling the creation of bottleneck thirst traps such as online dating websites and the explosion in female attention whoring platforms otherwise known as social media, where women collect beta orbiter adulation like monarchs soaking up the sycophantic adulation from those seeking their favour.

Although I'm not too advanced in game, like yourself, I too have noticed the lack of eye contact (which was plentiful prior to the explosion in dating and social sites).

Kinda related; the typical average guy has no sexual outlet with a woman, and thanks to the high cost of hookers (especially in the UK), he has nowhere to turn for any type of female attention.

While I do agree that Anglosphere women are probably the worst when it comes to attitude, I don't have any idea why people shit so much on the UK dating market when London is the epitome of "Sex and the City" style carousel riding single life for women across Europe and the Middle East.

When I used to live there, Baltics were my bread and butter. You have Eastern European college students, Asians fresh off the boat, 2nd generation Muslims raised with daddy issues and are willing to explore the Western lifestyle, aspiring foreign models, young professionals, man fuck English women. You guys see so much tourist and expat traffic that one can go his entire life without even having to talk to one.

Edit: As rudebwoy said. Yeah they're stuck up. So what? Up your SMV and attack

Maybe time to move somewhere else in the UK, as in London.

Ten different posts about the same thing won't change anything.

Raise your SMV and then you won't worry about girls making eye contact. You should be at a point where you don't care about eye contact, if you like her then open her.

As The Thing said, I would concentrate on foreign girls. You have that luxury, so many moving to your shores everyday. A lot better than Canada, NZ and Australia.

I don't know if guys are sorta missing the point, or just adding on. The point isn't that OP is suffering(from what I can tell). It's that there as something fundamentally wrong with current UK/Anglo places. In that sense, "moving on" won't change the fact that the place is horrible. Eye contact isn't that important in a pickup sense, but it's important in a "what girls are like" sense.

Some of us are very analytical(autistic?) and so we really want to know the "why" behind things. For instance, it's this level of RVF analysis that associated the ugliness/fatness/cuntiness of Anglo(UK/Aus/NZ) girls to the huge amount of alcohol related violence guys in those countries have. Would likely never have stumbled on that link myself even though it's very, very obvious in hindsight.

I am not missing the point, he has posted numerous threads on this topic and the thirstiness of guys in different countries.

Yeah Anglo places are tough going, what can you do.

You can move, which isn't always easy. You can stay and grind it out or you can simply complain.

Quote: (02-19-2016 04:10 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

I am not missing the point, he has posted numerous threads on this topic and the thirstiness of guys in different countries.

Yeah Anglo places are tough going, what can you do.

You can move, which isn't always easy. You can stay and grind it out or you can simply complain.

I understand your point, Rudeboy and others, but the point of my post wasn't to complain at all, but actually to underscore that there is such a gaping disparity between interacting with women as a man in the Anglosphere compared to elsewhere and to try and shed some light on how this difference might account, at least in part, for the phenomenon of the huge thirst to be found in Anglosphere nations.

The point is it's not complaining. It's analysis.

Edit: Looks like OP got to it before me

So what if I told you I know many guys living in the UK and they love it.

They feel no need to travel.

I will say they are in London.

I myself use to live there and women were not a problem, the weather and the food were.

The important thing is if the analysis is right or not. As Little Dark would say, this thread is not going in the direction I was hoping for. You should ask them if they agree. Then we can discuss everyone's opinions on this and/or the reasons why things are this way(or if he's wrong).

There's no denying that Anglo guys have an insane amount of thirst which also makes for less trustworthy relationships if you're trying to make friends with new guys. Or going out solo and having to deal with guys looking for a fight. Or seeing girls turned off because of bad approaches. Etc.

If the analysis is legit then we can even predict when countries/societies would "fall" into this pattern in advance or those already in might get better/worse.

Afaik OP isn't in London anyway.

Quote: (02-19-2016 04:31 PM)Centurion Wrote:  

The important thing is if the analysis is right or not. As Little Dark would say, this thread is not going in the direction I was hoping for. You should ask them if they agree. Then we can discuss everyone's opinions on this and/or the reasons why things are this way(or if he's wrong).

There's no denying that Anglo guys have an insane amount of thirst which also makes for less trustworthy relationships if you're trying to make friends with new guys. Or going out solo and having to deal with guys looking for a fight. Or seeing girls turned off because of bad approaches. Etc.

If the analysis is legit then we can even predict when countries/societies would "fall" into this pattern in advance or those already in might get better/worse.

Afaik OP isn't in London anyway.

Actually, this is something that motivated my OP, since I'm very much in the process at the moment of working out which country in Europe to move to and having an idea as to why most guys have it so hard in the UK would at least give me a heads up on important red flags which need to be heeded when considering a move to another place outside of the Anglosphere.

Having said that, I still believe that it's a worthy question to ask why there is such a high degree of thirst especially in the Anglosphere, even compared to other Western European countries, such as France and Germany, both of which are hardly held up as pussy paradises by those who either live there or have visited them.

So, as a response to Centurion, I'll leave the following questions for discussion: Do RVFers agree that women in the Anglosphere interact with men in a highly transactional way, such that even reciprocating in a conversation initiated by a man is regarded by the woman as an act of sexual favour towards him that he has already "earned" by dint of his perceived higher status? And, if so, do you agree that this modus operandi of Anglo women contributes in any significant way to why men are so thirsty there?

Quote: (02-18-2016 06:37 PM)Feldeinsamkeit Wrote:  

One salient characteristic of UK women that my own practice of game has recently given me occasion to reflect on is their wholly transactional mindset when interacting with men. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the phenomenon whereby British women will behave fundamentally differently towards different types of men - both of whom still strangers to her - depending solely upon his perceived SMV relative to her own. The situations I have in mind here are the very initial stages of any new male-female interaction, such as when a woman makes or fails to make eye contact with a man passing that woman on the street. Prior to learning game and improving myself in the process, I used to obtain no eye contact whatever from women in the UK in public. Furthermore, if I did cast a glance in the direction of even a vaguely attractive woman, she would reflexively flick her head either to the side or simply look down towards the pavement; either way, in my blue pill days I simply assumed that women don't make eye contact with men they don't know and that this principle held universally for all men in public. Well, how wrong I was on this one!

One of the most red pill discoveries that I've made of late is recognizing how this principle only applies to men that women don't automatically get the tingles for on first sight. Since applying game, that is, working out and more than anything else, working on my inner game, I've started to get a small, but regular percentage of even good-looking girls, some of whom 15 years younger, checking me out. Not only this, but when I look at them, they make sustained eye contact and even bite their lip on occasion, so I have reason to believe at least some of them like what they see. At first I refused to believe this was happening and chalked it up to either delusion on my part or simply coincidence, but it has kept on occurring ever since I made the aforesaid changes and so I'm forced to accept this as a real phenomenon.

Anyway, to return to the point about the transactional nature of women, it struck me after these changes occurred how women in the Anglosphere tightly control access to every aspect of their interactions with men and that the degree of access a man is afforded varies proportionately to how high she perceives him on the SMV scale, and, what for me is highly significant, that this principle regulates even the smallest details of the interaction, e.g. whether to even acknowledge a man's presence with a cursory glance in his direction or to engage in the briefest of small talk with him should he be stationary in her vicinity. This principle became clear to me, incidentally, after I did my first 100 daygame approaches in my local area. I quickly noticed that a woman's readiness to even enter into small talk with me seemed to be highly correlated with her level of initial sexual attraction and that women here are exceedingly judgemental in deciding very early on in an interaction with a man whether they are willing to give him the time of day, often times even before the man has had a chance to open his mouth, judging this on the basis of his appearance alone.

Now, I know what some of you guys on here will probably be thinking here: That all women are transactional, irrespective of the culture they grow up in, in the sense of being generally more open to interactions with men that they find sexually attractive than those they don't, in addition to whether they think the guys can provide the validation, social proofing, resources, et.c. that they desire. You might also object that the principle applies across the sexes and that we tend to associate with and befriend those whom we find useful to us in some way or other, even if only in terms of entertainment value. I would agree with all of that. But that's not what I mean in this context. My many interactions with women from outside of the Anglosphere have taught me that a woman won't make an automatic snap judgement about a guy simply based upon his appearance and that she will give the guy the time of day to at least get to know him before coming to any decision as to whether she wants to see him again or not. Put another way, a woman from say France or Germany, will at least treat a guy with a certain modicum of respect and acknowledge his presence and engage in some conversation with him if prompted without the hamster making a snap judgement about whether he is of higher SMV than her or not and then immediately calibrating her behaviour to either aversive/dismissive "yes"/"no" answers and a quick run for the exits or, if he gives her the tingles, to remain in his presence and signal modest interest for him to pursue the interaction further with her, as is the standard template for Anglo women. Put another way, a UK woman's decision to even enter into a conversation with a man is - in her's eyes - already a privilege that she confers on him as a reward for him giving her the gingles. It is in this sense that women from the Anglosphere are markedly different and much more conceitedly mercenary - or transactional, if you care for that term - than women from, say, continental Europe, who don't regard the initial stages of getting to know a man as any kind of payment or reward for a man expressing an initial interest in her. By way of an example, I once spoke with an American woman over Skype that I became aquainted with via an online dating site and one of the first things she said to me was, "I don't normally confer a Skype call on a guy that I've met over the internet, preferring that he meet me in person". Her choice of the word "confer" in this context, along with her generally self-absorbed and entitled manner, was telling in this regard and exemplifies the phenomenon under discussion.

Thus, an interaction between a man and a woman in the Anglosphere is always a binary proposition, unlike in other parts of the world, in that at all times the woman is highly self conscious of her actions and needs to decide at the earliest stages in any interaction with a man whether he is a "creep" or "hawt". Incidentally, the very concept of "creep" is simply a derogatory term that feminists have created to express revulsion at attention from men that are deemed to be of lower SMV than themselves, rather than an objection to the attention they receive as such; this can be observed by a man of comparatively higher SMV having the "right" to look and receive stares back by the women concerned - the very same women that react indignantly when a man they deem to be of lower SMV deigns to pull the same stunt. Given that I've been on different occasions both of the guys I've just described above, I feel I have a strong basis to comment here.

One of the things that has crossed my mind is how this phenomenon of transactionality of Anglowomen may be responsible in no small part for the record levels of thirst in the Anglosphere. By refusing to even allow an average guy from making contact with a woman - through her virtual burka of aversive glances and other tactics involving not seldom the deployment of her iPhone as a deflection shield to signal disinterest at the earliest stages of any possible encounter - men immediately judged to be of lower SMV-status are not given the chance to demonstrate any worth to the woman in other ways and immediately disregarded. This may then be leading to men disproportionately approaching women online rather than offline, thus fuelling the creation of bottleneck thirst traps such as online dating websites and the explosion in female attention whoring platforms otherwise known as social media, where women collect beta orbiter adulation like monarchs soaking up the sycophantic adulation from those seeking their favour.

I thought I was the only one.

Quote: (02-19-2016 04:48 PM)Feldeinsamkeit Wrote:  

So, as a response to Centurion, I'll leave the following questions for discussion: Do RVFers agree that women in the Anglosphere interact with men in a highly transactional way, such that even reciprocating in a conversation initiated by a man is regarded by the woman as an act of sexual favour towards him that he has already "earned" by dint of his perceived higher status? And, if so, do you agree that this modus operandi of Anglo women contributes in any significant way to why men are so thirsty there?

I definitely think you're onto something, even if you may not be completely right or even if it doesn't explain everything. I don't go out enough to tell. The question that pops into my mind is- are orbiters (or I guess in general guys with girl friends but not necessarily orbiters) more or less thirsty? I suspected more, but your theory would suggest less, I don't know for certain. That may or may not explain why guys orbit in the first place.

My main belief for thirsty guys is the lack of attractiveness and the annoyingness of the girls. Going with my gut here, I wouldn't be thirsty if girls shunned me as long as they were hot(no eye contact etc). But even if girls were moderately open, if only 10% were above a 7 I'd definitely be tempted to scramble for a girl. Same with annoyingness. The less desirable an average girl of society is, the more we want a girl of a given desirability. Modern western society at least seems to manifest this as thirst.

Quote: (02-19-2016 04:16 PM)Feldeinsamkeit Wrote:  

Quote: (02-19-2016 04:10 PM)rudebwoy Wrote:  

I am not missing the point, he has posted numerous threads on this topic and the thirstiness of guys in different countries.

Yeah Anglo places are tough going, what can you do.

You can move, which isn't always easy. You can stay and grind it out or you can simply complain.

I understand your point, Rudeboy and others, but the point of my post wasn't to complain at all, but actually to underscore that there is such a gaping disparity between interacting with women as a man in the Anglosphere compared to elsewhere and to try and shed some light on how this difference might account, at least in part, for the phenomenon of the huge thirst to be found in Anglosphere nations.

Think I can give you a bit of explanation on this. I'm Born and raised in the French part of Canada (Quebec), I was mostly exposed to the Quebec way of living where it's all about being comfortable, while having the most fun, and accepting not making Bank. Comfort is our key. While it is far from the Neomasculine ideal, women over there at least respect you in private (Roosh manifestation) if you have some manly qualities, and take care of yourself. And that's the reason why Quebec bitches are either fully with you, or hate you to the fullest.

While feminism is also big in Quebec, the let's have fun part of the culture, which slightly remains French, thanks to the language difference from the rest of Canada, and especially from Hollywood. And I assume it's the same from every country where English is not the main language.

Quebec hoes have somewhat of a masculine attitude, but they don't have that rooted hatred for men the same way Hollywood and Anglo academia has been preaching. The language provides a bit of protection to get you out of that Hollywood mindframe.

Quebec TV is somewhat of a small village as the popular actors might be on 2-3 mini series that play at the same time. I was over there in the new year, and I could actually enjoy watching TV as the series showed men being somewhat masculine & leaders.

Ever since I fully realized this notion, I stopped being so harsh at Anglo culture because how can you remain sane, and keep your local culture when you speak the language of Hollywood? Have access to the same books, documentary and such? Impossible! We're already adults when we can fully comprehend the language over here (for the most part), so we're already grown& have those let's have fun values set ( to much fun though). I believe in the future that every city will become a Seattle, DC or Toronto, just like Poland turned as Roosh mentioned. Non anglo speaking places will just take more time to generate shitty, super man hating women.

The bottom line is this:

The age old contract of pussey for resources has been broken by the government in the west.

The government takes your resources and distributes them to women, and you don't get any pussy in return like the old days.

In countries without welfare, they still need to perform for the resources.

So in the west, its just the top 10% getting the recreational pussy instead of everyone getting pussy in return for the resources.

I understand that the top 10% of men are getting a boatload of hot ass, but this idea that everyone else is going without really conflicts with my life experience. Tons of apathetic, barely normal looking, go-nowhere losers are banging cute young women in the anglosphere.

Heck, when I lived in London I was a broke virgin bitch (didn't work out at the time either, and wore large non-ironic glasses) and still had plenty of attention from women.

On one hand we bemoan female easiness and having low self worth on here, but then we're going to turn around and be upset because chicks are busy and have personal standards and are not willing to roll out the red carpet for every dude who passes their way???

Perhaps we are talking about different age groups here, because nearly every decent looking girl I have come across in the anglosphere between the ages of 18-25 has been reasonably friendly and relatable. If we are talking about chicks who don't take care of themselves or who self-mutilate or who fall outside that age group... well... why do you care about them at all? *

* excluding a decent woman who has been widowed or something like that

I think the OP is a little too apocalyptic in his vision.

But he's essentially right that women outside of the Anglosphere are much more open to talking to men.

Part of that is that they're still interested in having families.

In the Anglosphere, and the West, women have other interests.

The other part of his question is whether women's higher standards drives male thirst - and I think that it's overall seduction by society's new flashy baubles that is increasing the thirst.

Average Men have had to ramp up their dating technology since the feminist and sexual revolution. No longer was being a good man and good provider enough to get a wife.

Many men met the challenge....but now there are things really competing for men's interest. Porn, Video Games, food...lots of personal pleasures provided by the best corporations out there - they're drawing men away from interacting with women and counteracting current female behavior.

There's a gulf between men and women, that only seems to be noticed by men in that gulf.

Alpha Men and All the women are on the dance floor, but a good # of men are holding the wall, and the majority aren't even at the club.

Those men are invisible to women, but the women aren't invisible to them.

What would be a normal level of thirst goes to great heights because there are so many ways to not interact with women, with people, with society.

Basically 3rd parties and outside agents have pushed the system out of equilibrium.

But this is the new normal.

You're not rolling back suffrage, or women's right to work. The only thing that is going to happen is that women will carve out more money and gain more power in politics.

As for the men who could be the last person in their bloodline...all they have is game.

WIA

Quote: (02-20-2016 12:10 AM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

I understand that the top 10% of men are getting a boatload of hot ass, but this idea that everyone else is going without really conflicts with my life experience. Tons of apathetic, barely normal looking, go-nowhere losers are banging cute young women in the anglosphere.

Heck, when I lived in London I was a broke virgin bitch (didn't work out at the time either, and wore large non-ironic glasses) and still had plenty of attention from women.

On one hand we bemoan female easiness and having low self worth on here, but then we're going to turn around and be upset because chicks are busy and have personal standards and are not willing to roll out the red carpet for every dude who passes their way???

Perhaps we are talking about different age groups here, because nearly every decent looking girl I have come across in the anglosphere between the ages of 18-25 has been reasonably friendly and relatable. If we are talking about chicks who don't take care of themselves or who self-mutilate or who fall outside that age group... well... why do you care about them at all? *

* excluding a decent woman who has been widowed or something like that

The English local girls as said again and again on these forums are not interesting generally they are low on attraction, out of shape, cold faced etc. They also tend to completely stick to their own kind. They are easily amongst the worst women in Europe. [American women by contrast are much more attractive and far easier to get along with.] You just have to accept it for what it is, they won't get any better.

Considering the amount of foreigners however - banging in the UK is not a problem if you have at least an intermediate level of game. In fact sleeping with random women has never been so easy if you are within the 10%. I can easily fuck 2-3 new girls a week the only things getting in the way are alcohol (which I wish could be avoided with new dates) and work.

On the other side of the bell curve I genuinely think 50-60% of guys have difficulty meeting any women for short and long term relationships. I know guys in their 20s where if they had sex with a girl they would talk about it like they won the lottery. The UK is full of guys with terrible/non-existent game, which differs a bit to other countries.

However I think you're over analysing here, the profiliation of online game has increased the efficiency for girls to get validity. [OKCupid online where they get 30 new messages an hour or the extreme example of SA as a result of all this validation where every girl has turned into a whore.] Add to that the effects of the "feminist" message to women in everything they see around them. All this results in them acting far more aloof and stuck up than they've ever been.

1. Eye contact can be a useful metric but is very imperfect. Many girls who make no eye contact whatsoever prior to my approach have been successes, and vice-versa.

2. I went through a face of "fishing" for eye contact as well, but it went away as I gave less of a shit about the opinions or reactions of women.

3. We all know the UK is probably a candidate for worst in the world, along with AU. It's not just because of the quality and quantity of women but because of the laws and societal attitudes that stack the deck so much against men that it's hard to justify remaining here unless there are genuinely pressing reasons to do so. Men in the UK can either sit, complain, or even analyze it as much as they want, but ultimately if you are living in a desert and you need water, you have to seek greener pastures. You can analyze the geography of your specific region, try to derive theories about why the weather is so arid, but in the end there is only one thing that will solve it, and that's moving.

4. London and exclusively focusing on foreign women, especially those new to London with little to no social circle, is a good suggestion. But there are disadvantages to London such as being dirty, unpleasant to the eye and the other senses, and of course ridiculously expensive. This just further highlights the need to be location independent. You could live well in a small, quaint EE city for 1/3 the cost, get better girls and just have a far better life. London is for men who have a bigger bankroll and who prefer fast-paced volume, and who don't mind the risk of a false rape/sexual harrassment accusation or two over an extended period of gaming.

Quote: (02-20-2016 01:56 AM)Vincent Chase Wrote:  

The English local girls as said again and again on these forums are not interesting generally they are low on attraction, out of shape, cold faced etc. They also tend to completely stick to their own kind. They are easily amongst the worst women in Europe. [American women by contrast are much more attractive and far easier to get along with.] You just have to accept it for what it is, they won't get any better.

Considering the amount of foreigners however - banging in the UK is not a problem if you have at least an intermediate level of game. In fact sleeping with random women has never been so easy if you are within the 10%. I can easily fuck 2-3 new girls a week the only things getting in the way are alcohol (which I wish could be avoided with new dates) and work.

On the other side of the bell curve I genuinely think 50-60% of guys have difficulty meeting any women for short and long term relationships. I know guys in their 20s where if they had sex with a girl they would talk about it like they won the lottery. The UK is full of guys with terrible/non-existent game, which differs a bit to other countries.

However I think you're over analysing here, the profiliation of online game has increased the efficiency for girls to get validity. [OKCupid online where they get 30 new messages an hour or the extreme example of SA as a result of all this validation where every girl has turned into a whore.] Add to that the effects of the "feminist" message to women in everything they see around them. All this results in them acting far more aloof and stuck up than they've ever been.

You absolutely nailed it.

I would ask the OP how many approaches is he doing? Since he never mentioned it and how do they normally go.

^^ he did mention.

Quote:Quote:

This principle became clear to me, incidentally, after I did my first 100 daygame approaches in my local area.

Though I want to add, or actually question TS, to give us a breakdown of some general approaches. Is his other topics there were some but those were more in a complaining kind of way (no offence, I know the feeling) because of the, mostly native, women not being receptive.

Now I'm not trying to say English women are easy, hard, or whatever because I don't have any experience with them so I can only judge by hear-say from reading RVF and the occasional encouter with English broads when on a holiday. I must say 9/10 times I'm far from being even the slightest of attracted to them, so I do understand you UK guys about the quality of most native women.

However, most of it comes down to ourself. Not being in the right state of mind significantly decreases our chance of any succes in closing. My guess is that TS is overthinking and therefore making it too hard for himself. "Should I do this, or that.. What if.. Maybe she.. Am I.." etc. before approaching, for me, never did any good, resulting in me wanting to kick myself to the head time after time.

TS, do you drink, go to bars/clubs? Maybe sticking to nightgame for a while is key in order to jumpstart your inner game. Personally I need to be somewhat intoxicated before I can get into that "hold my beer, I'm going in" state and just approach without all that overthinking bullshit. When intoxicated I'm approaching because I' having a good time, having fun and most importantly because I want to approach that girl, not because I'm forcing myself to do it.

I'll play devil's advocate for a moment and say I actually have some sympathy for women in this regard.

I've been back in night game for a bit, doing the online thing. Some of the girls I've banged thought it was fun to show me some of the messages they receive, and I observe the approaches other dudes run.

There are some sad thirstbuckets out there, who don't much to improve themselves but think the world owes them something. Sorry champs - that's not the way it works.

I don't blame them for not wanting to deal with it sometimes. It'd be sort of like you getting approached by 300 pound chicks all night - who would want to put up with it?

"Creep" is a complex term. A dude can be obviously objectively higher SMV than some girl with regards to appearance/status and still be called a creep if he has weak game - happens all the time. I don't think that all women immediately make snap judgments about whether a guy is a "creep" or "hawt" within the first five minutes of an approach. Unless she's a huge slut I think the most common thought process might be "this is a guy I might be open to something with if he plays it right", or not. And of course even if she puts you in the first category there are then a million things you can do to fuck it up, and if you end up in the second category, she's not necessarily going to think you're a "creep" if you get the signals and bow out with style.

You might be surprised how quickly the demeanor of a girl with bitchy resting face can change when she's approached by someone with a sparkle in his eye and something interesting to say.

On occasion, I do see guys out and about doing things "right" - making approaches that aren't stunningly uncomfortable, leaning back when chatting a girl up at the bar, and so on. I always take the opportunity to quietly observe and I think to myself "There's a guy who isn't making it harder for the rest of us."

If you have a problem, get rid of it. I've stopped dealing with women born in england, and things are going much better.

Needs more paragraphs, but overall I get what you're saying.

Quote: (02-21-2016 11:04 AM)XPQ22 Wrote:  

I'll play devil's advocate for a moment and say I actually have some sympathy for women in this regard.

I've been back in night game for a bit, doing the online thing. Some of the girls I've banged thought it was fun to show me some of the messages they receive, and I observe the approaches other dudes run.

There are some sad thirstbuckets out there, who don't much to improve themselves but think the world owes them something. Sorry champs - that's not the way it works.

I don't blame them for not wanting to deal with it sometimes. It'd be sort of like you getting approached by 300 pound chicks all night - who would want to put up with it?

"Creep" is a complex term. A dude can be obviously objectively higher SMV than some girl with regards to appearance/status and still be called a creep if he has weak game - happens all the time. I don't think that all women immediately make snap judgments about whether a guy is a "creep" or "hawt" within the first five minutes of an approach. Unless she's a huge slut I think the most common thought process might be "this is a guy I might be open to something with if he plays it right", or not. And of course even if she puts you in the first category there are then a million things you can do to fuck it up, and if you end up in the second category, she's not necessarily going to think you're a "creep" if you get the signals and bow out with style.

You might be surprised how quickly the demeanor of a girl with bitchy resting face can change when she's approached by someone with a sparkle in his eye and something interesting to say.

On occasion, I do see guys out and about doing things "right" - making approaches that aren't stunningly uncomfortable, leaning back when chatting a girl up at the bar, and so on. I always take the opportunity to quietly observe and I think to myself "There's a guy who isn't making it harder for the rest of us."

I'll play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate

In this case, I don't have sympathy for women. Them being approached by awkward guys is the price they pay for their passive role in the mating dance.

It's no different than men facing multiple rejections as the price they pay for their active role in the mating dance. No sympathy there either.

In both cases, "take this job and shove it."

What I do have sympathy for is what socialism does to the mating dance (feminism is just socialism for women). Socialism basically tells women (as one of the "oppressed" classes) that they're entitled to free stuff from men. So that's where you get this "I'm entitled to only be hit on by Chad Thundercock" mentality in Western women.

To the extent that socialism is actually about equality - laughingly - is where the "I'm entitled to never be rejected" mentality sits in Western men. Hence why Western society laughs at the "Nice Guys of OkCupid."