Some guys use weaselly manipulation game. For example, one repeated opener was asking directions. This is dishonest and potentially creepy. It displays a bad stalker mindset that you can trick women into talking to you and eventually sleeping with you.
I don't deny game. But almost all my online bangs came from women messaging me first. I had wickedly clever openers, funny lines, pictures, links, etc. Ultimately I wasted time messaging, cajoling numbers from reluctant flakers, or meeting bored women who weren't terribly interested. I should have focussed on screening women who were interested instead of trying to change womens' minds.
Sometimes when I rushed the bang, we lost touch. I feel like I conveyed too much needy, desperate, manipulation. If I had calibrated and held back for five minutes, an hour, or another date then they might have been intrigued and chased me.
It's tricky though. Tuthomosis wrote in the excellent thread "Is the Second Date Dead" that he goes for the bang because girls are so flaky. You don't get punished for sexual aggression. But you do get punished for neediness. That is the distinction.
Where do we draw the line? Game itself is manipulative in the sense that we are trying to affect an outcome. Roosh had an excellent post on Direct versus Indirect Game that explained why you need a balance. His "pet store" opener isn't completely genuine, but it is really probing mutual interests. Roosh has written that you should not be ashamed to meet a previous bang. He reports occasional exceptions where he mutually ignored a date on the street. Roosh has lines for overcoming objections or for getting into a woman's apartment. But for the most part, successful guys do not manipulate women into doing anything the women don't want to do. Instead they get women to want them.
Tuthmosis's date recipe was largely built on logistics conducive to seduction (clean apartment and alcohol). Still, many of Roosh and Tuthmosis's dates do not anticipate the engineered outcome. To what extent are deception and manipulation an effective part of game?
I don't deny game. But almost all my online bangs came from women messaging me first. I had wickedly clever openers, funny lines, pictures, links, etc. Ultimately I wasted time messaging, cajoling numbers from reluctant flakers, or meeting bored women who weren't terribly interested. I should have focussed on screening women who were interested instead of trying to change womens' minds.
Sometimes when I rushed the bang, we lost touch. I feel like I conveyed too much needy, desperate, manipulation. If I had calibrated and held back for five minutes, an hour, or another date then they might have been intrigued and chased me.
It's tricky though. Tuthomosis wrote in the excellent thread "Is the Second Date Dead" that he goes for the bang because girls are so flaky. You don't get punished for sexual aggression. But you do get punished for neediness. That is the distinction.
Where do we draw the line? Game itself is manipulative in the sense that we are trying to affect an outcome. Roosh had an excellent post on Direct versus Indirect Game that explained why you need a balance. His "pet store" opener isn't completely genuine, but it is really probing mutual interests. Roosh has written that you should not be ashamed to meet a previous bang. He reports occasional exceptions where he mutually ignored a date on the street. Roosh has lines for overcoming objections or for getting into a woman's apartment. But for the most part, successful guys do not manipulate women into doing anything the women don't want to do. Instead they get women to want them.
Tuthmosis's date recipe was largely built on logistics conducive to seduction (clean apartment and alcohol). Still, many of Roosh and Tuthmosis's dates do not anticipate the engineered outcome. To what extent are deception and manipulation an effective part of game?
![[Image: troll.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/troll.gif)
![[Image: huh.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/huh.gif)