[Thorne]

Hey guys, I've been wondering how to balance aggressiveness vs elegant/classy/original moves on girls. I know I sometimes don't make moves if I feel the circumstances are not favorable. I'm really picky about openners too.

I find it extremely tacky how some guys are too forward/evident, go hopping from table to table picking up in bars, suck mouth in the middle of the dance floor/house party, etc. It certainly has made me pass on many opportunities, but the "elegance" factor sometimes holds me back (if there's such a thing for picking up...)

How important is the mysterious gentleman vs the evident-aggressive player? I tend to always pick the first (especially when surrounded by a social circle that knows each other well), but have to admit that road is not the most efficient one. Quality women notice such things, don't they? is it worth it?

I have no problem being social and generating interest in a crowded situation the problem is sometimes extraction and generating good circumstances to escalate when there's no time/space to do it more discreetly.

Any thoughts? experiences?

[SFTD]

Direct game isn't exactly going around looking like a player. That's over the top. I go forward, but I don't advertise myself. The chick I'm working now I was able to hook in less than 15 minutes simply by making a situational comment, then soon after I go and join her and her beta chump friend. I control the conversation and BAM! Next night party invite and makeout. Night after that she wants to hang. You don't have to try to play suave if you aren't. Up your strengths, whatever they may be. The most important thing is to be irrational self-confident of yourself no matter what. Its that mind over matter that'll win you more girls than following someone else's playbook.

[Saladin]

(05-22-2011 03:14 PM)Thorne Wrote:  

Hey guys, I've been wondering how to balance aggressiveness vs elegant/classy/original moves on girls. I know I sometimes don't make moves if I feel the circumstances are not favorable. I'm really picky about openners too.

I find it extremely tacky how some guys are too forward/evident, go hopping from table to table picking up in bars, suck mouth in the middle of the dance floor/house party, etc. It certainly has made me pass on many opportunities, but the "elegance" factor sometimes holds me back (if there's such a thing for picking up...)

How important is the mysterious gentleman vs the evident-aggressive player? I tend to always pick the first (especially when surrounded by a social circle that knows each other well), but have to admit that road is not the most efficient one. Quality women notice such things, don't they? is it worth it?

I have no problem being social and generating interest in a crowded situation the problem is sometimes extraction and generating good circumstances to escalate when there's no time/space to do it more discreetly.
Any thoughts? experiences?

My opinion is you should be pushing yourself and doing a lot of sets when you are starting out in the game. Do this in a place where there are no consequences.

For social circle don't be so aggresive unless you're congruent to it(aka thats how you naturally feel like acting). There's just one piece of advice that I would have told myself a few months ago, and thats be friendly and chill. I have started acting like that more recently and my social cirlce in school is expanding pretty quickly. I was trying to be "alpha" in school and that wasn't helping me since I wasn't being friendly because I was afraid of people seeing past my shell. Now that I just chat and be more social things are looking up. This is because I've gotten comfortable with myself through lots of cold approach.

[Gmac]

(05-22-2011 03:14 PM)Thorne Wrote:  

Hey guys, I've been wondering how to balance aggressiveness vs elegant/classy/original moves on girls. I know I sometimes don't make moves if I feel the circumstances are not favorable. I'm really picky about openners too.

I find it extremely tacky how some guys are too forward/evident, go hopping from table to table picking up in bars, suck mouth in the middle of the dance floor/house party, etc. It certainly has made me pass on many opportunities, but the "elegance" factor sometimes holds me back (if there's such a thing for picking up...)

How important is the mysterious gentleman vs the evident-aggressive player? I tend to always pick the first (especially when surrounded by a social circle that knows each other well), but have to admit that road is not the most efficient one. Quality women notice such things, don't they? is it worth it?

I have no problem being social and generating interest in a crowded situation the problem is sometimes extraction and generating good circumstances to escalate when there's no time/space to do it more discreetly.

Any thoughts? experiences?

I really don't give a crap. If I can escalate to the point where a girl will make out with me on the dance floor or wherever else that's one step closer to a bang. There are a LOT of women out there who will claim to be old fashioned, classy, etc.; but when it comes down to it they're a cheap whore like the rest of them.

If you're worried about having the time or space to escalate discreetly, you're wasting your time and hers. You won't always have the opportunity to get her alone. I think you need to teach yourself not to be so picky. There are ways to approach a lot of women aggressively without looking like a player.

[Amour Fou]

(05-23-2011 08:32 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

I really don't give a crap. If I can escalate to the point where a girl will make out with me on the dance floor or wherever else that's one step closer to a bang. There are a LOT of women out there who will claim to be old fashioned, classy, etc.; but when it comes down to it they're a cheap whore like the rest of them.

I can completely relate to this. I´ve realised a sad (?) thing... that being "classy" and "elegant" is something that the average girl (at least where I stand) is losing the capacity to appreciate or feel attracted to. There is fewer space for the "elegant" seducer, who takes joy and pride at the "ritual" aspect of the male to female interaction - call it whatever you like - and actually likes to spend time working on a girl. Nowadays, I guess, agression rewards with more... but is it as fulfilling? Or does it work well with girls who are worthwhile to have around? Debatable. It depends entirely on what you are looking for...

The approach I am working nowadays is being aggressive (!) yet lighthearted and fun, which I think is vital.

I think that the kind of game you play has a direct correlation with the girls you attract and hook up. The main point I guess is what kind of girl do you want to reach, and play your game accordingly.

[oldnemesis]

(05-22-2011 03:14 PM)Thorne Wrote:  

How important is the mysterious gentleman vs the evident-aggressive player?

It depends on what you want.

Being an evident-aggressive player gives you more control of the situation AND better overall selection. However you will have to put much more effort (this includes dealing with things like cockblocking, resistance and so on), and a significant chunk of your efforts will go nowhere. Your results in terms of notches will be higher, but so will your "effort per notch" (i.e. total amount of time/money spent on girls before you get laid).

Being an mysterious gentleman (i.e. passive player) is the opposite of above. You have much less control over the situation, and your selection will be more limited. However you would have to put much less overall effort to get those into bed. You're not going to get rejected if she approached you, and you'll rarely encounter cockblocking or resistance - if a girl saw you as a prize and put some effort by approaching you and engaging you into the conversation, it is very unlikely she'd allow her fat girlfriend to waste all this effort. Your results in terms of notches will be lower comparing to aggressive game, but your "effort per notch" will be also very low.

I did both, and both work. They tend to attract different girls though, so you might try both as well to see what is better for you.

[Thorne]

(05-24-2011 10:46 AM)Amour Fou Wrote:  

There is fewer space for the "elegant" seducer, who takes joy and pride at the "ritual" aspect of the male to female interaction - call it whatever you like - and actually likes to spend time working on a girl. Nowadays, I guess, agression rewards with more... but is it as fulfilling? Or does it work well with girls who are worthwhile to have around? Debatable.

Yeah... good point, I guess being elegant requires a more mentally stimulating game, which I noticed for me is very important. It suits my personality as I've always needed challenges for everything in my life and stuff that makes me think differently; I get bored easily. It certainly involves more quality women this way, but it means they will be much much rarer to come accross, and the ideal is to be versatile and be able to game 20 year old hot airheads as well, because that game will help you for the interesting ones (but there lies the conundrum, if they're less fulfilling ultimately the motivation for gaming them will be mediocre and so will the game). Idolising characters like James Bond and Thomas Crown may be a double edged sword.

I don't know which author talked about this, I think it was Bukowski, that men's curse is wanting to fuck any hot woman in the street even when knowing that the second they open their mouths they will be unatractive from their lack of substance, and damn if it's true, we will always still want to sleep with hot chicks we can't stand.

(05-24-2011 08:54 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

It depends on what you want.

Being an evident-aggressive player gives you more control of the situation AND better overall selection. However you will have to put much more effort (this includes dealing with things like cockblocking, resistance and so on), and a significant chunk of your efforts will go nowhere. Your results in terms of notches will be higher, but so will your "effort per notch" (i.e. total amount of time/money spent on girls before you get laid).

Being an mysterious gentleman (i.e. passive player) is the opposite of above. You have much less control over the situation, and your selection will be more limited. However you would have to put much less overall effort to get those into bed. You're not going to get rejected if she approached you, and you'll rarely encounter cockblocking or resistance - if a girl saw you as a prize and put some effort by approaching you and engaging you into the conversation, it is very unlikely she'd allow her fat girlfriend to waste all this effort. Your results in terms of notches will be lower comparing to aggressive game, but your "effort per notch" will be also very low.

I did both, and both work. They tend to attract different girls though, so you might try both as well to see what is better for you.

That's a very interesting analisis.

[Vitriol]

(05-24-2011 10:46 AM)Amour Fou Wrote:  

I can completely relate to this. I´ve realised a sad (?) thing... that being "classy" and "elegant" is something that the average girl (at least where I stand) is losing the capacity to appreciate or feel attracted to.

Yeah I agree, but I think it is debatable whether women were ever attracted to "classiness" without some kind of strict social conditioning. I can't think of an example from my own experiences where I've ever seen a guy close by being classy alone and not switching over to aggression or humor.

Our hindbrains probably do not appreciate elegance or class in generating sexual responses. This is true for males and females. We're attracted to ass and tits, not prestige.

[Thorne]

(05-27-2011 10:15 AM)Vitriol Wrote:  

(05-24-2011 10:46 AM)Amour Fou Wrote:  

I can completely relate to this. I´ve realised a sad (?) thing... that being "classy" and "elegant" is something that the average girl (at least where I stand) is losing the capacity to appreciate or feel attracted to.

Yeah I agree, but I think it is debatable whether women were ever attracted to "classiness" without some kind of strict social conditioning. I can't think of an example from my own experiences where I've ever seen a guy close by being classy alone and not switching over to aggression or humor.

Our hindbrains probably do not appreciate elegance or class in generating sexual responses. This is true for males and females. We're attracted to ass and tits, not prestige.

Right, the hindbrain will always look for the attractive "animal" features, such as aggressiveness and directness; but the HUMAN brain will also take into account things like aesthetic sense, wit and class. Artistry and aesthetic sense (ie. elegance) are very important elements in our development and according to new research it also had a lot to do with sexual selection. Human females have always appreciated stuff like musical skills, humor and certain other skills like being good at a sport that seem irrelevant for direct survival and are a big mystery. Evolutionarily speaking it's a huge waste of energy that would make no sense unless it paid back big time.

Very interesting video on the subject:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/denis_...eauty.html

It could ultimately be a filter... the ones that share those aesthetic parameters would have a lot more in common. Any people that relate agree on what's tacky, what's mean, rude, classy, etc.

We are attracted to ass and tits, as they're indicators of health and reproductive competence and always will be. But the other part, according to the history of human development has to count also.

[Vitriol]

(05-27-2011 11:28 AM)Thorne Wrote:  

Right, the hindbrain will always look for the attractive "animal" features, such as aggressiveness and directness; but the HUMAN brain will also take into account things like aesthetic sense, wit and class. Artistry and aesthetic sense (ie. elegance) are very important elements in our development and according to new research it also had a lot to do with sexual selection. Human females have always appreciated stuff like musical skills, humor and certain other skills like being good at a sport that seem irrelevant for direct survival and are a big mystery. Evolutionarily speaking it's a huge waste of energy that would make no sense unless it paid back big time.

Very interesting video on the subject:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/denis_...eauty.html

It could ultimately be a filter... the ones that share those aesthetic parameters would have a lot more in common. Any people that relate agree on what's tacky, what's mean, rude, classy, etc.

We are attracted to ass and tits, as they're indicators of health and reproductive competence and always will be. But the other part, according to the history of human development has to count also.

I think the one big change that is recent in the course of human history and not accounted for in the video, is that in places where game is necessary, women seem to be either not choosing men who display those skills and provider traits (the analogue to primitive humans capable of making hand axes - they would be classified as displaying beta traits in a 21st century context), or even outright repulsed by them. In places like the USA, women do not need to depend on choosing a man who can provide them with their next meal and protect them from predators, so the hindbrain governs completely. These days, the guys who are the most intelligent and display virtuosity in an art or craft are beta males who have little to no access to women. The pure animal traits of attractiveness and power seem to corrolate most strongly with Alpha traits in our contemporary game analysis. Due to a number of factors the displays of being skilled with tools or intelligent seem to no longer be useful for attracting females. My experience also seems to confirm this.

The very reason we are learning game is because your intellect, college degree, ability to fix a car, write a book, or shred on the guitar do not attract women.

[Thorne]

(05-27-2011 03:50 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 11:28 AM)Thorne Wrote:  

Right, the hindbrain will always look for the attractive "animal" features, such as aggressiveness and directness; but the HUMAN brain will also take into account things like aesthetic sense, wit and class. Artistry and aesthetic sense (ie. elegance) are very important elements in our development and according to new research it also had a lot to do with sexual selection. Human females have always appreciated stuff like musical skills, humor and certain other skills like being good at a sport that seem irrelevant for direct survival and are a big mystery. Evolutionarily speaking it's a huge waste of energy that would make no sense unless it paid back big time.

Very interesting video on the subject:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/denis_...eauty.html

It could ultimately be a filter... the ones that share those aesthetic parameters would have a lot more in common. Any people that relate agree on what's tacky, what's mean, rude, classy, etc.

We are attracted to ass and tits, as they're indicators of health and reproductive competence and always will be. But the other part, according to the history of human development has to count also.

I think the one big change that is recent in the course of human history and not accounted for in the video, is that in places where game is necessary, women seem to be either not choosing men who display those skills and provider traits (the analogue to primitive humans capable of making hand axes - they would be classified as displaying beta traits in a 21st century context), or even outright repulsed by them. In places like the USA, women do not need to depend on choosing a man who can provide them with their next meal and protect them from predators, so the hindbrain governs completely. These days, the guys who are the most intelligent and display virtuosity in an art or craft are beta males who have little to no access to women. The pure animal traits of attractiveness and power seem to corrolate most strongly with Alpha traits in our contemporary game analysis. Due to a number of factors the displays of being skilled with tools or intelligent seem to no longer be useful for attracting females. My experience also seems to confirm this.

The very reason we are learning game is because your intellect, college degree, ability to fix a car, write a book, or shred on the guitar do not attract women.

well certain skills seem to be more valued than others. Playing an instrument will definitely get you laid easier than if you didn't. It goes the same for sports and humor. I understand what you mean though, about how being extra good at a male skill will not get you laid in itself, but certain geeks will get laid after they become recognised for it.

I don't think women make the distinction of how to feel, and what to feel attracted to, but usually the more immature (both in age and personality) will tend to be more governed by the basic brain, and that definitely applies to american women.

Sometimes in my experience the very smart chicks won't buy the macho guy crap (although that's 5% of them or less) and it will actually backfire. Callibrating between the both sides is the whole science of it, I guess

[Martin_Heidegger]

(05-27-2011 11:28 AM)Thorne Wrote:  

(05-27-2011 10:15 AM)Vitriol Wrote:  

(05-24-2011 10:46 AM)Amour Fou Wrote:  

I can completely relate to this. I´ve realised a sad (?) thing... that being "classy" and "elegant" is something that the average girl (at least where I stand) is losing the capacity to appreciate or feel attracted to.

Yeah I agree, but I think it is debatable whether women were ever attracted to "classiness" without some kind of strict social conditioning. I can't think of an example from my own experiences where I've ever seen a guy close by being classy alone and not switching over to aggression or humor.

Our hindbrains probably do not appreciate elegance or class in generating sexual responses. This is true for males and females. We're attracted to ass and tits, not prestige.

Right, the hindbrain will always look for the attractive "animal" features, such as aggressiveness and directness; but the HUMAN brain will also take into account things like aesthetic sense, wit and class. Artistry and aesthetic sense (ie. elegance) are very important elements in our development and according to new research it also had a lot to do with sexual selection. Human females have always appreciated stuff like musical skills, humor and certain other skills like being good at a sport that seem irrelevant for direct survival and are a big mystery. Evolutionarily speaking it's a huge waste of energy that would make no sense unless it paid back big time.

Very interesting video on the subject:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/denis_...eauty.html

It could ultimately be a filter... the ones that share those aesthetic parameters would have a lot more in common. Any people that relate agree on what's tacky, what's mean, rude, classy, etc.

We are attracted to ass and tits, as they're indicators of health and reproductive competence and always will be. But the other part, according to the history of human development has to count also.

I never thought I would see the day where Denis Dutton was mentioned on a game website, although he was a major figure in the New Right movement until his untimely death a few months ago.

He was a true gentleman and a dear friend of mine. He had a great life and his death was a major reminder to me that life is short. Enjoy your vigor while you have it!

Also, the Art Instinct is a great book. I suggest all of you read it. Books like that give you something interesting to talk about, and makes it very easy to charm women. I think I've hit about seven chicks where that book was a major topic of conversation before escalation.