[Nomad77]

Yep G, a true stone cold player is a rare animal indeed.

Guys, so far the poll is running about 50/50 for the guys on here.
Now, what would be interesting is IF I knew how many people already
were able to bang a lot of girls. Because once you've done it, it won't
have the same appeal anymore.

[thegmanifesto]

(02-25-2013 12:13 AM)Moma Wrote:  

G, to answer that question, I would ask you, can a stone cold player be in a relationship?

Of course.

I am in about ten.

[Kabal]

(02-24-2013 11:38 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 10:30 PM)Nomad77 Wrote:  

Mystery: Overwhelmingly, most men that come to my boot camps are looking to get a high-quality girlfriend. It’s not the quantity thing. They mainly want a good girlfriend.

How many would agree with Mystery?

I agree with the Fuzzy Hatted one on this.

Think about it.

Out of your 10 best high school friends, how many are stone cold players and how many are married or in relationships?

Out of your 10 best College friends, how many are stone cold players and how many are married or in relationships?

Out of the ten top players you knew in high school or College, how many are still stone cold players and how many are married or in relationships?

My guess would be 0-1 out of 10.

Perhaps, but how much of that is due to a desire to settle down per se, and how much of that is due to a dwindling of options as former players fail to adapt?

The things that might get you laid in high school (being a varsity athlete, being popular, etc.) might not get you laid in college. The things that might get you laid in college (being a frat star, being an athlete, etc.) might not get you laid after.

Adapting to changing environments is key to longevity.

[WestCoast]

No interest in monogamous LTR or girlfriends.

I don't know what a lot of bangs is, don't even bother counting usually when you clear X number it just becomes a muddled mess, this is also why it is hard to believe raw numbers that pass the twenties or so...

Anyway, if you stay in the game long enough you lose all faith in women and men as well. I don't believe monogamy is a normal human state. Something like 5% of animals are monogamous...

Married, boyfriend, whatever its all the same. Please don't misunderstand, this is not a "bitter" statement it is a "is what it is" statement.

Game to me = lowering cost of sex + increase quality. No downside.

[Stoic]

(02-25-2013 12:23 AM)Kabal Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 11:38 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 10:30 PM)Nomad77 Wrote:  

Mystery: Overwhelmingly, most men that come to my boot camps are looking to get a high-quality girlfriend. It’s not the quantity thing. They mainly want a good girlfriend.

How many would agree with Mystery?

I agree with the Fuzzy Hatted one on this.

Think about it.

Out of your 10 best high school friends, how many are stone cold players and how many are married or in relationships?

Out of your 10 best College friends, how many are stone cold players and how many are married or in relationships?

Out of the ten top players you knew in high school or College, how many are still stone cold players and how many are married or in relationships?

My guess would be 0-1 out of 10.

Perhaps, but how much of that is due to a desire to settle down per se, and how much of that is due to a dwindling of options as former players fail to adapt?

Kabal touches on exactly what I was going to say. We can't look at a portion of men and conclude that girlfriends are preferred because only one of those men has become a player. We must look at those men who have the option to be both. G said the nightclub owners he knows all have girlfriends. That is a more accurate assessment than evaluating a random portion of 10 guys. Don't mean to be on the man's dick, but Heartiste puts forth the argument that we must look at men with unlimited options to evaluate man's propensity to indulge in those options. The result is that famous dudes have crazy amounts of notches, contrary to G's account. Something to think about.

[TheMan]

¿Porque no los dos?

[Rah]

I'd check a third option for serial short term relationships. Constantly hunting is exhausting for me. Put me down for the 9/10 guys not cut out to be a stone cold player.

[Lemmo]

Whichever provides me with a receptacle of sufficient quality with the least expenditure of time and resources. Time spent either hunting women or amusing a gf is the cost of the receptacle.

[BadWolf]

Married with kids preferably.

Right now just married.

I fail to see how being married means I'm a beta, you simply have to resist your natural urges to create and sustain a long lasting relationship. Advantage? Have a friend you can count on for anything, to be by your side when you are terminally ill, to trust with things that are extremely personal and to have someone making you the focus on their life and your well being, their highest priority.

Bangs are just sex. Big deal, anyone with a bit of game can get that.

"Oh but dude, you can get all that with a bro!!!"

You know, I'm moving today. All my 'bros' are suddenly too busy to help me out. I have to do this all myself because my other half is already up north renting our next apartment. Tommorow is moving day and the only people that are worried about me are my wife and parents, she's called me 4 times today to make sure that I've eaten, packed all my stuff, dressed warmly and also just cause I might be lonely... none of my 'bros' give a sh1t.

Also you can't sit back in a chair, look up at the stars with a bang and say "Hey remember when....."

Friends are a dime a dozen but family is priceless.

[Moma]

Badwolf, are u married in America?

[Kitsune]

It's a bit of a false dichotomy.

If you're discerning in your choice of female companion, you have to have sex with her before you have a long term relationship. You have a short term relationship before a long term one. If you're picking between 5 girls, you could have sex with all five but only have an LTR with one. Rinse and repeat when the relationship ends. Even if you have LTR's which are over a year in length, after five years you're still going to have had 5 ltr's and 25+ notches.

The contradiction happens because most guys aren't choosy and get into a relationship with the first girl that comes along that arouses them somewhat.

Of course, I'm not a guy who chases notches, which some guys enjoy. Game is a means to an end for me, not a passion.

[Spike]

(02-25-2013 01:41 AM)Rah Wrote:  

I'd check a third option for serial short term relationships. Constantly hunting is exhausting for me. Put me down for the 9/10 guys not cut out to be a stone cold player.

I like this choice. I tried the whole relationship thing in my beta days. Now that I have a high notch count I want to focus more on mini relationships for now. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't pass up on a nice ONS but I don't want to chase poon 4 nights a week when I'm back home.
Maybe when I'm traveling it's a different story.

Now that I'm 36, I think that I want to have kids within the next 5 years. I can't think about not passing on my genes, otherwise my life would be redundant for evolution.

A lot depends on how my Hollywood adventure will go down. If it goes well I might travel and party it up for the next 4/5 years. If not, i'm looking to settle down. Ideally with a close to perfect woman in all aspects.

[Aliblahba]

(02-25-2013 01:41 AM)Rah Wrote:  

I'd check a third option for serial short term relationships. Constantly hunting is exhausting for me. Put me down for the 9/10 guys not cut out to be a stone cold player.

I second this. Playing the field will wear you out. It's time consuming and costly for quality bangs. I go through phases, and right now am in the mini-relationship part. I have too much on my plate right now, and need to concentrate on finances and professional career. So one g/f fits the bill. To me, a lot of it comes down to getting laid regularly, whether it's one piece of ass or 10.

[bojangles]

im of the girlfriends and her friends option, so basically both

[Nomad77]

The real reason for this poll was that I believe you need to adjust your game to find a high quality girl for a LTR. The basic principles remain the same but for example if they girl gets the impression that you are primarily after sex instead of a relationship you will likely lose her. I happen to know a large selection of girls that would make excellent girlfriend material and they do share a few things in common:

1. They rarely get drunk. Some don't drink at all.
2. They are educated, usually college or higher.
3. They don't have any major personality disorders.
4. They are usually in the 7 - 8 looks range.
5. They don't go to clubs that often.
6. They have LTR not random sex.
7. They are above average intelligence.
8. They are not poor or broke.

In my experience running pure game on these girls hasn't worked out that well. The best example is from Neil Strauss book The Game. Look at what he had to do to get his girlfriend. He had to get real. Inner game, who you are as a man, becomes very important. And if these girls get the impression that you are just after a bang, it will usually be game over. Because of this, shooting for the SNL is very risky. You have to do more short-term dating game.

[thegmanifesto]

(02-25-2013 01:08 AM)Stoic Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 12:23 AM)Kabal Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 11:38 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 10:30 PM)Nomad77 Wrote:  

Mystery: Overwhelmingly, most men that come to my boot camps are looking to get a high-quality girlfriend. It’s not the quantity thing. They mainly want a good girlfriend.

How many would agree with Mystery?

I agree with the Fuzzy Hatted one on this.

Think about it.

Out of your 10 best high school friends, how many are stone cold players and how many are married or in relationships?

Out of your 10 best College friends, how many are stone cold players and how many are married or in relationships?

Out of the ten top players you knew in high school or College, how many are still stone cold players and how many are married or in relationships?

My guess would be 0-1 out of 10.

Perhaps, but how much of that is due to a desire to settle down per se, and how much of that is due to a dwindling of options as former players fail to adapt?

Kabal touches on exactly what I was going to say. We can't look at a portion of men and conclude that girlfriends are preferred because only one of those men has become a player. We must look at those men who have the option to be both. G said the nightclub owners he knows all have girlfriends. That is a more accurate assessment than evaluating a random portion of 10 guys. Don't mean to be on the man's dick, but Heartiste puts forth the argument that we must look at men with unlimited options to evaluate man's propensity to indulge in those options. The result is that famous dudes have crazy amounts of notches, contrary to G's account. Something to think about.

What do you mean "contrary to G's account".

So if we are talking now about "men with unlimited options", on this forum that generally means actors, pro Athletes and musicians, right?

I only watched the Oscars for a few minutes, but how many actors ("men with unlimited options") showed up with 2-6 girls in tow and how many showed up with a girlfriend or wife?

My guess would be zero. You tell me, I didn't watch.

How many famous musicians are married or in relationships, and how many are stone cold players? Very few are stone cold.

How many pro Athletes and how many are stone cold?

Outside of Boxing (guys like Holyfield, with 20 kids with 10 women), pro Athletes are mostly married or relationships.

So how is this "contrary to G's account"?

[presidentcarter]

At this point, as I'm still fresh to gaming and new to the path of becoming a true player, I have to say my natural tendency is to want a high quality GF. However I think this is just my mind wanting to return to the safety of familiarity and stability. I remember Mystery saying something like "you have to go out four nights a week and open 12 sets and be prepared to do this every week for the next three and a half years" in regard to the work it would take to become a player. This really hit me hard when I thought about it.

I think at some point in the journey, when pick up becomes less daunting and more consistent for me, I'll fall off the 'I want a high quality GF' bandwagon.

[soup]

(02-25-2013 09:53 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 01:08 AM)Stoic Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 12:23 AM)Kabal Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 11:38 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 10:30 PM)Nomad77 Wrote:  

Mystery: Overwhelmingly, most men that come to my boot camps are looking to get a high-quality girlfriend. It’s not the quantity thing. They mainly want a good girlfriend.

How many would agree with Mystery?

I agree with the Fuzzy Hatted one on this.

Think about it.

Out of your 10 best high school friends, how many are stone cold players and how many are married or in relationships?

Out of your 10 best College friends, how many are stone cold players and how many are married or in relationships?

Out of the ten top players you knew in high school or College, how many are still stone cold players and how many are married or in relationships?

My guess would be 0-1 out of 10.

Perhaps, but how much of that is due to a desire to settle down per se, and how much of that is due to a dwindling of options as former players fail to adapt?

Kabal touches on exactly what I was going to say. We can't look at a portion of men and conclude that girlfriends are preferred because only one of those men has become a player. We must look at those men who have the option to be both. G said the nightclub owners he knows all have girlfriends. That is a more accurate assessment than evaluating a random portion of 10 guys. Don't mean to be on the man's dick, but Heartiste puts forth the argument that we must look at men with unlimited options to evaluate man's propensity to indulge in those options. The result is that famous dudes have crazy amounts of notches, contrary to G's account. Something to think about.

What do you mean "contrary to G's account".

So if we are talking now about "men with unlimited options", on this forum that generally means actors, pro Athletes and musicians, right?

I only watched the Oscars for a few minutes, but how many actors ("men with unlimited options") showed up with 2-6 girls in tow and how many showed up with a girlfriend or wife?

My guess would be zero. You tell me, I didn't watch.

How many famous musicians are married or in relationships, and how many are stone cold players? Very few are stone cold.

How many pro Athletes and how many are stone cold?

Outside of Boxing (guys like Holyfield, with 20 kids with 10 women), pro Athletes are mostly married or relationships.

So how is this "contrary to G's account"?

I think I get what you guys are talking about.. but, a lot of famous people risk alienating their fans if they show up like that in public. I'd bet there's stuff going on but it's discreet.

[WestCoast]

(02-25-2013 09:17 AM)Nomad77 Wrote:  

The real reason for this poll was that I believe you need to adjust your game to find a high quality girl for a LTR. The basic principles remain the same but for example if they girl gets the impression that you are primarily after sex instead of a relationship you will likely lose her. I happen to know a large selection of girls that would make excellent girlfriend material and they do share a few things in common:

1. They rarely get drunk. Some don't drink at all.
2. They are educated, usually college or higher.
3. They don't have any major personality disorders.
4. They are usually in the 7 - 8 looks range.
5. They don't go to clubs that often.
6. They have LTR not random sex.
7. They are above average intelligence.
8. They are not poor or broke.

In my experience running pure game on these girls hasn't worked out that well. The best example is from Neil Strauss book The Game. Look at what he had to do to get his girlfriend. He had to get real. Inner game, who you are as a man, becomes very important. And if these girls get the impression that you are just after a bang, it will usually be game over. Because of this, shooting for the SNL is very risky. You have to do more short-term dating game.

The funny thing is of the qualities listed here very few of them appeal anymore except the 7+ portion.

Educated? = annoying conversations, prefer dumb girls, they are more fun.
Not poor = who cares
Don't drink = boring sex
Don't go to clubs = okay so what are we supposed to do for fun talk about philosophy.

Overall, what used to be good "girlfriend material" before (smart, cute, conservative) is now entirely crossed off the list. Now the list is (cute, good in bed, high sex drive, cheap as possible).

Back in my "blue pill days" I would have agreed with your list, now I couldn't give two shits. Be good looking, be sexual and don't spend tons of money. That's about it. Getting girls on the list of intelligence etc, is actually really easy. You just make them feel comfortable around you, those girls are usually on the shy side and have a very low tolerance for stimulating environments, so if you can make them feel "safe" you're good to go.

@carter = pretty much agree, used to hate going out now it's just part of the regular journey so... Yeah your interest in LTR's die. Maybe it comes back when I get old, but the biggest natural players I know are all in their late 30's banging 22 year olds (they are bartenders with logistics).

[presidentcarter]

(02-25-2013 10:06 AM)WestCoast Wrote:  

The funny thing is of the qualities listed here very few of them appeal anymore except the 7+ portion.

Educated? = annoying conversations, prefer dumb girls, they are more fun.
Not poor = who cares
Don't drink = boring sex
Don't go to clubs = okay so what are we supposed to do for fun talk about philosophy.

Overall, what used to be good "girlfriend material" before (smart, cute, conservative) is now entirely crossed off the list. Now the list is (cute, good in bed, high sex drive, cheap as possible).

Back in my "blue pill days" I would have agreed with your list, now I couldn't give two shits. Be good looking, be sexual and don't spend tons of money. That's about it. Getting girls on the list of intelligence etc, is actually really easy. You just make them feel comfortable around you, those girls are usually on the shy side and have a very low tolerance for stimulating environments, so if you can make them feel "safe" you're good to go.

I'm with you on this. I have a buddy picks up fairly well who recently dropped his hottest girl in rotation, insisting that his girls have to be "intellectually stimulating". I guess he enjoys talking about politics, philosophy, or business during dinner and after sex, but to be honest as long as she's not annoying I'm cool with her having an IQ slightly above room temperature. I can stimulate my mind talking to her even if it's not a stimulating subject. She can tell me about her favorite bullshit reality show and I can explore the way she thinks and the female mindset in the process.

[silverbullit]

Theres something to be said for having a good steady piece.

A good woman willl go pay a traffic ticket for you while youre installing a subwoofer and drinking a beer. Now thats convenience.

[WestCoast]

(02-25-2013 10:21 AM)presidentcarter Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 10:06 AM)WestCoast Wrote:  

The funny thing is of the qualities listed here very few of them appeal anymore except the 7+ portion.

Educated? = annoying conversations, prefer dumb girls, they are more fun.
Not poor = who cares
Don't drink = boring sex
Don't go to clubs = okay so what are we supposed to do for fun talk about philosophy.

Overall, what used to be good "girlfriend material" before (smart, cute, conservative) is now entirely crossed off the list. Now the list is (cute, good in bed, high sex drive, cheap as possible).

Back in my "blue pill days" I would have agreed with your list, now I couldn't give two shits. Be good looking, be sexual and don't spend tons of money. That's about it. Getting girls on the list of intelligence etc, is actually really easy. You just make them feel comfortable around you, those girls are usually on the shy side and have a very low tolerance for stimulating environments, so if you can make them feel "safe" you're good to go.

I'm with you on this. I have a buddy picks up fairly well who recently dropped his hottest girl in rotation, insisting that his girls have to be "intellectually stimulating". I guess he enjoys talking about politics, philosophy, or business during dinner and after sex, but to be honest as long as she's not annoying I'm cool with her having an IQ slightly above room temperature. I can stimulate my mind talking to her even if it's not a stimulating subject. She can tell me about her favorite bullshit reality show and I can explore the way she thinks and the female mindset in the process.

Bolded is so true. I really think dating "dumb cute girls" is actually harder than "smart cute girls". Smart hot girls have routines, they are successful because they set up disciplined approaches.

Really think about that, who here can pull a hooters girl out on dates and get her to not cheat on him, versus xyz cubicle girl at KPMG.

IMHO the need for a "smart cute girl" is more of a blue pill belief. That's just what I have seen, the only consistency between "blue and red" is not wanting a girl to be cheating/using her pussy as a reservoir of semen from multiple partners.

[Nomad77]

Age also plays a part in this. What you want at 20, is different at 30, and at 40. With experience, comes a different perspective on life. Also what are you using women for? Are you using them to validate yourself? A lot of bangs = big stud. Beautiful woman = success. For a man that no longer needs to prove anything to anything what he looks for in woman is very different than one who does.

[WestCoast]

(02-25-2013 10:35 AM)Nomad77 Wrote:  

Age also plays a part in this. What you want at 20, is different at 30, and at 40. With experience, comes a different perspective on life. Also what are you using women for? Are you using them to validate yourself? A lot of bangs = big stud. Beautiful woman = success. For a man that no longer needs to prove anything to anything what he looks for in woman is very different than one who does.

This is where we disagree.

I think having an "educated cute girl" is more bragging rights than "a hooters cute girl".

If you date a girl who works at hooters, you get reprimanded by society for being a pig. If you date a girl who works at Barclays and is cute, you're "getting a good girl". To me they are the same.

Who cares if she works at hooters, nordstroms, or Safeway.

What I want in my life is just hot sex, fun experience.

If I want a smart conversation, I'll get on the phone and call up a close male friend.

The whole "good catch" thing is nonsense to me. If she is cute and fun, then it's a win. Most educated girls are not fun.

[jariel]

Nomad, you're tackling some real shit lately.

Please keep it up.

High quality, next level discussion in the game community is like Halley's Comet.