If you read Bodi's books you will see that a lot of Krauser's rants whether in writing or in speech are just that - rants. There are some sensible parts mixed in with dubious unproven theories. It's important to remember that Krauser is a guy who has made and analyzed a lot of approaches. His theories may vary in accuracy. If you start to blindly trust "PU Guru X" then you're not seeing the world through your own eyes when you try to approach girls.
I think so much of women's behavior in the modern context can be traced back to the times of human tribes in the wild prior to civilization. Mystery Method is big on this, but a lot of it is true. If you know that women's brains even today are not so different from those designed for an environment where acquiring the best DNA possible for a harsh environment, to ensure the survival of her children, and where death upon childbirth was a very common occurrence, and where basic resources such as food and water were scarce, seemingly bizarre behaviors of women in this modern "day game" start to make sense.
For example, when in the act, women enjoy sex a lot, in many cases more than men. So why is it that they compared to men put so many roadblocks or throw so many curveballs in the way of the man, if they want to have sex so much? For their protection, women have a "No" circuit. Even if they are attracted, a woman may say "No". At any point in the interaction, "No" may come out, or equivalents e.g. she starts acting weird. Some even panic as their brains are telling them they are bringing themselves closer to a dangerous act (sex) even if it is pleasurable. This might be more likely if the man is more attractive in some cases, paradoxically, because he is seen by the girl as a clear sexual threat. In some cases, she worries about losing control and giving in to her "Yes" circuit (love of sex), and not listening to her "No" circuit.
This explains a lot of the "failed" daygame interactions: date with high attraction, you feel this is "on", but if you can't get her that night, she is gone. Or even if you take her home that night, she does some stuff but then panics and runs out the door, often forgetting to leave some item of clothing or jewelry behind.
A random guy on the street, who seems very cool, who seems like a sexual threat... some girls will just never go for it. They have no trust or verification from third parties (their "tribe") that the guy is for real (actually has "good DNA") and certainly he does not project provider values which are very important to the woman's hindbrain.
This is why I say, the most conservative girls will not fuck via day game. They will be out of bounds, accessible only via safe social circle. Conservative girls you can get, but the most conservative, are ridiculously cautious.
I'm not sure if Krauser includes that, some one said some stuff about our ego etc. etc. but I believe in daygame we are slaves to the bizarre "cavewoman in the modern smartphone era" dynamic and everything that happens to them as a result.
I think so much of women's behavior in the modern context can be traced back to the times of human tribes in the wild prior to civilization. Mystery Method is big on this, but a lot of it is true. If you know that women's brains even today are not so different from those designed for an environment where acquiring the best DNA possible for a harsh environment, to ensure the survival of her children, and where death upon childbirth was a very common occurrence, and where basic resources such as food and water were scarce, seemingly bizarre behaviors of women in this modern "day game" start to make sense.
For example, when in the act, women enjoy sex a lot, in many cases more than men. So why is it that they compared to men put so many roadblocks or throw so many curveballs in the way of the man, if they want to have sex so much? For their protection, women have a "No" circuit. Even if they are attracted, a woman may say "No". At any point in the interaction, "No" may come out, or equivalents e.g. she starts acting weird. Some even panic as their brains are telling them they are bringing themselves closer to a dangerous act (sex) even if it is pleasurable. This might be more likely if the man is more attractive in some cases, paradoxically, because he is seen by the girl as a clear sexual threat. In some cases, she worries about losing control and giving in to her "Yes" circuit (love of sex), and not listening to her "No" circuit.
This explains a lot of the "failed" daygame interactions: date with high attraction, you feel this is "on", but if you can't get her that night, she is gone. Or even if you take her home that night, she does some stuff but then panics and runs out the door, often forgetting to leave some item of clothing or jewelry behind.
A random guy on the street, who seems very cool, who seems like a sexual threat... some girls will just never go for it. They have no trust or verification from third parties (their "tribe") that the guy is for real (actually has "good DNA") and certainly he does not project provider values which are very important to the woman's hindbrain.
This is why I say, the most conservative girls will not fuck via day game. They will be out of bounds, accessible only via safe social circle. Conservative girls you can get, but the most conservative, are ridiculously cautious.
I'm not sure if Krauser includes that, some one said some stuff about our ego etc. etc. but I believe in daygame we are slaves to the bizarre "cavewoman in the modern smartphone era" dynamic and everything that happens to them as a result.