Comments from Rollo’s Play Nice

The One Reason: I’ve always felt that talking about outcome-independence is a bit misleading. Anyone who engages (so to say) on an approach to a personally desirable woman is not truly indifferent of the outcome. If not for any other reason than ego-supporting purposes, no matter how much abundance there is or how tight the inner game. The sense of not seemingly giving a shit about the outcome and rolling on then gives that person the value and frame that draws the interest (and at the same time also as an experience helping to nurture the inner game further).

Phinn: I think so too. Being “outcome indifferent” sounds like a man not caring about his own goals. But alphas are nothing if not goal-oriented.

Here’s what an alpha is indifferent about — other people’s negative opinions of him. That includes (but is not limited to) the occasions when a woman rejects him sexually. An alpha is infinitely more invested in his OWN opinions (of himself and of others) than he is in other people’s feelings about him.

Ya, that’s an interesting idea to think about.

I think there are many mistaken assumptions around the idea of outcome independence.

First off, it doesn’t make sense for a guy with romantic needs and a desire for intimacy and attachment to model himself after a dark triad type personality. Doing so will make it impossible to deal with the emotions that we feel, and we’ll have “energy blockages” and constrictions in our thought flows. As George Orwell said, “Even a single taboo can have an all-round crippling effect upon the mind, because there is always the danger that any thought which is freely followed up may lead to the forbidden thought.” So this idea that we shouldn’t care is like holding an emotional taboo, and then we are no longer free to feel. We constrict ourselves, and are no longer authentic and spontaneously present.

I’ve been arguing against being “aloof” as being a fundamental core component of game for this reason. You can be aloof as part of push pull, but if you are not some dark triad guy, then you are just limiting your real emotions, instead of learning how to work with them to your advantage.

Also, girls have different needs for intimacy and attachment. For some, romantic triggers are real and strong. You can’t ONLY use them, but you handicap yourself if you don’t even know how to use them.

So that brings us back to outcome independence. Here is the thing: girls get turned on when you are very intensely passionate about them, and confuse your own arousal for their own. Precisely when your passion is at its strongest, she’ll feel you the most. Some of us guys use this as our main fast seduction technique, and it’s all about escalation leading to a strong sexual and romantic connection. You can’t quite call that outcome independence, can you?

Concepts such as being aloof and being outcome independent are very misleading. They are pointing to something, but it’s not the dictionary definition, and so what we mean by them is open to misinterpretation.

We really do want to fuck these girls, and sometimes more. We do. And that can be seductive to the girl, in and of itself. It can be your main seduction technique, if you know how to pull it off without appearing needy.

So outcome independence is this ineffable thing, nearly impossible to describe. It’s having just the right amount of calibration to not make the girl feel like you are being clingy, to make her feel you have options, it’s having very strong masculine boundaries and not taking shit from her in exchange for the hope of being rewarded with sex. But it isn’t about not getting a boner from looking at her cute young face and big tits.

It absolutely is not about not caring, or not wanting, or even about not being bothered if you don’t get the girl. It’s about being able to handle your emotions like a man, and not trouble her with them. Boundaries, basically – not making your emotions her responsibility or her problem. You are inviting her into your world. You won’t beg her or use emotional blackmail or make relationship assumptions or try to trade attention for sexual compliance. But you can still want her. Strongly. That’s a good thing. A seductive thing.

Basically it’s not approaching her like a son approaches his mother – looking for a source of solace. It’s not burdening her with relationship expectations before she has given herself to a relationship. It’s enjoying the dance for the sake of it. And once you are emotionally connected to the girl, it’s approaching her like a father approaches his daughter. You can still become very bonded to her, and care about her, and will feel horrible pain if she dies. But she isn’t responsible for succor.

I think a part of outcome independence has to do with men being agentic, and women neotenous. Women are like our children, and are not expected to be fully individuated. And they expect men to be self sufficient and to take care of our own needs.

Women only feel a desire to nurture their children. They give solace to their babies when distressed, but they aren’t useful to men for that. So it’s an emotional trick – to want something from the girl – sex – but to not want it like a child wants a nipple. You want it like a man who wants to ravage her. Any hint of wanting to assume a relationship where she has expectations of nurturing your emotional needs or of “taking care” of your sexual wants will close the clam. You have to come at her from a more aggressive place, where she isn’t doing you a favor, but instead you are leading her to being no longer able to say no to her own desires for you. And ultimately taking what you want.

More about Neoteny and womens expectations for men: