I left a comment on Nash’s blog today, and I’d like to expand on it.
Nash said:
I took tons of new, rare, interesting reference experiences from my times with Pixie Girl and Baby Dragon. I didn’t fuck either of them… but I took big leaps fwd in my education… at a stage in my game when “big leaps” are rare.
Wolves > Rabbits… every time. Of this, I am sold.
I like your mental map of growing reference experiences. Ya, I think reference experiences can be like a type of muscle memory, similar to how learning piano is a build up of things we actually do, more than things we think, feel, or believe.
And your idea of wolf being better than rabbit reminds me of a something that has been bothering me for many years in popular pua mental maps – that there is a tone knob that twists from beta on one end to alpha on the other, or a tone button that twists from provider to alpha. Many people make it the same tone knob.
Strange mental map for people to use, considering tone knobs have been out of fashion and people mostly use graphic equalizers now.
It’s a completely separate knob between provider and cad compared to beta and alpha. They are only related if you MAKE them related, by sliding them at the same time.
And I agree – wolf is way more fulfilling in most every way than rabbit, if you do it well; more passion, more return on investment, more connection, more of just about anything people value. If by wolf you mean longer term relationships vs pump and dump.
———————-
I’ve been promising to write about better ways to think about seduction, game, relationships. I think many of the memes that are common in some online communities are more wrong than right – and just right enough to be credible.
For instance there is this incredibly stupid idea that alpha fucks and beta bucks. It’s based on the truth that there are some betas who are also providers, and that there are some alphas who are also mostly into pump and dump.
I was given the opportunity for a free evaluation of one of Krausers books a few years ago, on the condition that write a review. Krauser said he didn’t care if it was a positive or negative review, as long as I wrote something. I reneged on my responsibility, as I was not able to bring myself to get through the book, as he had built, from the beginning, a premise of attraction that has nothing to do with my reference experiences. He talked about dressing and behaving like a bad boy cad as a means to increase attraction and get laid more.
That’s completely different than what I do or care to do or need to do. Now that may be true, for him, but it’s not TRUE.
Krauser is a good and thoughtful and insighful writer, but I could not finish that seduction guide because it’s premise was all about K versus R selection, provider and beta, and it seemed to want to mold the seducer into something, regardless of what he is. You can’t make yourself into something that you don’t identify with – you have to become your better real self.
We BUILD our worlds, and how people relate to us. We decide who we are, and what types of groupies we could attract. We create our characters and magnetize people around us who are interested in those characters.
You don’t have to do anything remotely close to what Krauser suggests in order to be a magnetic charismatic seductive character.
Which is why recently I questioned whether his entire philosophy of seduction was at its root flawed.
Now that’s not to say that he’s not great at what he does, or that he doesn’t understand women or have keen and hard won unusual insights into some of the workings of women.
I’m suggesting something far more mind blowing and broad.
I’m saying that he’s right, but that might have nothing whatsoever to do with how YOU can be right about women.
Or how I can be right about women.
He’s going to be right in his own, unique way. Women will deal with him uniquely; not in the same way as they deal with a category of men. That’s the whole point of learning and practicing charm. You become treated differently. It’s tautological to the entire process. You wan’t women to tell you “you’re not like anyone I’ve ever known”.
But you don’t get grouped like Krauser thinks you do. There is not a secret society army of cloned bad boys that you can emulate. We ALL get treated differently. All women, all men. ALL of us get treated very differently, within the first 5 seconds of meeting someone. People pick up on the most profoundly subtle of cues, and our vibe discloses our attitude and history as if it were a scent that a bloodhound could pick up.
When people get positive feedback from some women, when we try to know how and why that works, we can’t just look somewhere and see the answer. We have to make up theories. The mental maps for what we are doing that works can be way off. Because what works is built up over time subconsciously through real life feedback. Why does your golf swing work well? You might not be able to either communicate or even know most of why.
You can create a rich history of being a libertine lover, as Krauser does, and that will affect how you are perceived. But it has very little to do with wearing a leather jacket and rings, unless that’s what you want to incorporate into your image. You don’t need that image. You can create any image you want. As long as you get positive feedback for it.
Just look at the human species. We are very varied. Survival of the fittest doesn’t mean survival of the bad boy, or provider, or diplomat, or warrior, or baker, or thug, or genius. It means everyone who procreated found a niche that WORKED. There isn’t just two niches; provider and cad. There are more than you can imagine. You can be any niche you want.
I was re-reading a post I made that was a copy of an old rvforum thread that I participated in.
The posts that got me a 1 week ban from RooshVForum
I’m still amazed at how irrational and delusional and dissimulating were many of the rvforum member commentors, on insisting that Mark Minter getting married when previously he was had set himself up as the guru of swearing off marriage was akin to going back on the principles of not being a pedophile.
The reason for the lack of reason is clear. The RVF members suffered from a type of cluster A schizoid personality disorder, where they view intimacy with paranoid scepticism and see indulging in intimacy as pathological and a sign of terrifying weakness. When Mark realized that he actually wanted intimacy, and that he was wrong about his basic human nature, the RVF group-think mob turned on him in anger and declared him an excommnunicated outsider. Some were disgusted and angry. They felt actually betrayed, as if he didn’t just make a life decision about his own fucking business, but that he had betrayed a contract with them.
Which is why for a long time I’ve been calling out people with that mindset as being little boys trying to create a He-Man-Woman-Haters-Club-of-Relationship-Fail.
People who have either never had a long term relationship or been burned by them, deciding that therefore long term relationships are bad.
And in order to feel good about themselves, they gather together and
1) blame women for their relationship failures
2) blame society for their relationship failures.
3) blame the very idea of having a relationship itself as a failure, that only weak blue pillers would do.
These guys were so heavily invested in being anti-intimacy, that they put up with Roosh banning everyone who hinted at any other view of intimacy, on or off the forum. He would actually ban people for ideas that they expressed OUTSIDE of the forum. They rallied around him as if their group was actually a thing.
Foolish. They don’t form a group. There is no men’s movement. Men don’t have a collective bargaining position. Each one of us is completely on his own when it comes to each unique vagina that will either get moist for us or not. Each completely on his own as to what is his bargaining position and skill for negotiating how well he is treated. That’s a private affair, and no group movement of mens rights activists anti-feminists is going to have any influence in how individual or groups of women behave towards you.
So the framework for a better way to think about being attractive and maintaining passionate loving relationships with girls that you are really into is not about wearing leather jackets or about avoiding being a provider or about emulating behaviors of those you think are in a secret society. It’s not about avoiding feminists or acting either K or R selected. It’s about creating positive reference experiences that build up your muscle memory. And crucially, it’s not random wandering into positive feedback – you could get that from heroin. It’s feedback that is towards a goal. Feedback in line with your long term mission. For becoming more attractive and better at maintaining passion with women who are good for you.
This won’t look like what someone else is doing, most likely. It will be your true, authentic self, giving and receiving true, authentic love and passion. We all have our very different flavors, and are not fungible, and all are treated that way. There is no group called women, no group called men, who all are like that, and there isn’t an exceptional third group of chads that women treat differently as if they were a third sex.
There is something we call the human condition, and there are basic sex differences, but the human condition includes more variability than anyone can conceive; the more experience you have with women, not only the more similarities can you see, but also the more incredible variety. Just as different women bring out vastly different responses in you, so it works in reverse; and it’s not because of types. It’s because of individuals.
There is who you make yourself and how you treat people. You can’t make yourself into something that you don’t identify with – you have to become your better real self.
Hey man. I think you’re on to something really solid here. I mostly agree.
>> something that has been bothering me for many years in popular pua mental maps – that there is a tone knob that twists from beta on one end to alpha on the other, or a tone button that twists from provider to alpha. Many people make it the same tone knob.
Of this you are certainly correct.
I think it was YOU that taught me “ALL ATTRACTION TRIGGERS ARE VALID.”
So, to play with your theory, a player is an individual… and he might get some CAD points, and some “solid, respectable guy” points, and that might add up to attraction.
And there is nothing weird about that.
Some “R” traits are disgusting. Some “K” traits are attractive… they even enable sex, specifically (being CLEAN comes to mind… it’s hardly “bad boy” to have good hygiene… but good hygiene is an EX of a “K”/nice guy trait that IS sexually attractive.
Here, I would agree and say the criterion are not all oppositional. And it is what Rivelino would call “facile” to claim otherwise. It’s not “zero sum,” particularly not BETWEEN attraction criteria.
> This won’t look like what someone else is doing, most likely
> ALL of us get treated very differently
I’d push back a little here… you’re not wrong… but guys that aren’t “certain” of themselves will be distracted by this. They (in some cases) might be better trying on an archetype… rather than trying to invent one of their own.
In the beginning… men have a lot of false theories. And so much uncertainty. “Copying” a successful guy can be a reasonable first step…
>> You wan’t women to tell you “you’re not like anyone I’ve ever known”.
Yeah… this IS what you want. But most beginner-intermediate seducers will NOT be getting this kind of response. Not for years… particularly if they are young (and competing with seasoned seducers that really can blow girls away).
So “over emphasis” on their uniqueness will make them ineffective “snowflakes,” and what they really need to do is… work a plan, learn, get some first-hand experiences of their own… then… maybe… contemplate their uniqueness.
>> You don’t need that image. You can create any image you want. As long as you get positive feedback for it.
That LAST SENTENCE: As long as you get positive feedback for it
That’s the thing. A seducer’s theory is “mindwank” UNLESS he gets positive feedback (not all of which needs to be SHORT TERM “Rabbit” success). And not “a pat on the head” either. We want what Krauser would call “compliance.” Sexual/intimate compliance. He has a great post on that… one I have read over and over.
You CAN use any image you want. And it WILL be “somewhat” unique to you…
BUT… if your image isn’t seductive… and that is your goal… you’re kidding yourself.
The SCOREBOARD is a feedback mechanism. GAME IS ALIVE… because we can most certainly fail. So when we WIN… it’s meaningful.
> There is not a secret society army of cloned bad boys that you can emulate
> But it has very little to do with wearing a leather jacket and rings
> You don’t have to do anything remotely close to what Krauser suggests
I am reluctant to challenge Krauser, as I am in debt to him for all the things I’ve learned from this stories. He offers much more truth (and deep, interesting, personal truth) than falsehood.
But… he does have a “narrow range” for himself. And I have seen pics of him and his crew… and they seem to have a similar image: All of them in tshirts, lots of rings, pendants and leather jackets.
I am with you on this post.
There is the “STRONG SILENT TYPE” in game culture. So much emphasis on that kind of man. I am not that type.
“She should do most of the talking.” I have been on hundreds of dates… I don’t think I have ever been on a date when she did most of the talking. This says something about me… my “individual” strengths/weaknesses.
“Don’t take her to dinner… she’ll think you’re a provider.” Bullshit. I take girls to dinner all the time. And we sit side by side. And I touch them the entire meal. And the bubble can be incredibly tight… my dinner dates are sexy, they are intimate. I am not guessing here… this is beyond field tested.
To your point… “seductive” and “feeds a girl dinner” are different knobs. And they are not oppositional.
I haven’t fully articulated my “style,” but I am coming to recognise it. I have been calling it OCTOPUS GAME… meaning I wrap around the girl like an octopus… and pull her down into my world where we have each other. And it is a valid type.
I have friends that say “treat her mean to keep her keen,” and that is not anything I want to get good at. I have “made girls chase me” but usually when I was so busy being an Octopus to so many girls… some of them missed me, and came banging at my door.
So… I would INTEGRATE the theories with my own style.
EX. Push/pull. That is a super practical, important part of game psychology. It’s a nod to balance, but it is more than that.
CLASSIC PUSH PULL might include a compliment (pull) and a neg (push). There, you have balance. That is not wrong. There is a lot of wisdom there.
But in OCTOPUS GAME… there are no negs. I never, ever neg. It is not my style. I am too into romance for that. But… the BALANCE is still important. That is where I need to INTEGRATE my type with TRUISMs that supercede my “uniqueness.”
So… I can compliment… and I do, heavily. Much more than would be “recommended.” And since I don’t neg… what is the “push” to that compliment? I used my EGO. I say something about her… and then something BETTER about me. And it’s brash… and that is the push. And she gets her compliment AND she goes “OMG!” to my ego.
This is how I’ve been able to sort through the TRUISMs of the community. I have tried them. I know which ones don’t work for me… or my style. And I have found work-arounds.
Damn I needed to read this today. I’ve been struggling with A gets and B is nothing mantra. It’s really messed with my head. I was a lot more open before the dichotomy sideswiped my growth and charm offensive. I would have trouble finding women to play, but I once had a playmate they didn’t want to leave. I was charming and attentive as long as they were riding my pony )) Once things dropped off, I moved on. A lot of that was my boredom on my part. Hard to find one you really enjoy. You can give judiciously but if it isn’t coming back, no point in continuing…
Sounds like you have brown sugar in your neighborhood. We tend to have burnt sugar in the states. Not even good for coffee…
I’ve used the example of comedians before. And writers. And musicians. It’s very common to start out emulating a style, but there is never big success without growing into a highly unique individuality. No one successful is completely derivative; it’s about discovering and creating novelty. Novelty is highly attractive, and you can’t copy novelty.
When teaching meditation it’s always done to teach both the absolute and relative views at the same time. That’s Buddhist speak for teach the advanced technique at the same time as the beginner technique. Because sometimes we’ll be able to be advanced, right from the beginning, and always we need direction and an over-arching view of where we can aim and head for.
So for meditation, it’s taught that you can rest your mind and not try to fight against thoughts, and just be present, without really doing anything. But for beginners that doesn’t work at all. They’ll just daydream or fall asleep. So you teach focus and slapping your mind upside the cheek every time you have a thought, to bring yourself back to the focus.
But then sometimes even beginners relax. So they need to know it’s fine to relax. That it’s best to relax. So you teach both mindfulness, and awareness.
For game you can’t just teach K and R selection and what to emulate. That misses the big picture and the whole point.
There are highly charismatic married men who provide for their many girlfriends, and get laid like crazy and have devoted love slaves and are charming as fuck.
Absolutely nothing to do with K or R. That’s a side show, that has nothing to do with nothing.
It’s just a distraction.
Like focusing on a candle flame is just a distraction. Not the point at all.
I mean, a candle flame can be a point. But it’s not what meditation is, anymore than visualization or chi-kung or hatha yoga or kundalini is meditation. There are infinite good types of meditation, even if dzogchen or formless meditation is perhaps an example of the penultimate insight.
You can meditate on being an archetypal bad boy, with the costume to match, and that can “work”. Or you can meditate on being a married professor, and that can work at least as well.
The form is nearly irrelevant and that’s incredibly important to know.
Because people have predilections.
I used to do mantra meditation before I met my community which focused on shamata vipassana. They explained to me that they preferred if I just did what everyone else did, down to the smallest details of the form.
Only later, in that community, was I introduced to various Tibetan teachers who explained many other forms of shamata vippasana.
In that community people also “graduated” from sitting meditation to doing complex visualizations and chanting. I was told that my simple practice had more profound effects on me personally than the gains that many of the senior students were getting from visualization. And I could not visualize at all, and I still can’t.
So predilection is a really big deal. You don’t want to try to be a bad boy pump and dumper if really you are into having girlfriends and even living with them. It would be stupid to do that, really. It’s also completely irrelevant.
The idea that either K or R selected, provider or cad, is sexier and gets you laid faster with more or better quality women is really facile. Really extra-ordinarily over simplified to the point of being wrong. A total sideshow.
Many facts of life were discovered by simple mind experiments, including Einsteins theory of relativity. Simple mind experiment: imagine you are a girl, and are way into this charming charismatic man who has firm boundaries and is great in the sack. One day he offers to pay for a trip to a foreign country. And your university schooling. And your apartment. Are you suddenly going to be into him LESS?!!
It’s completely absurd, and the entire concept is mostly used as rationalization for people to do what they are already inclined to do, while putting themselves in the best possible light.
It’s a rationalization that intimacy makes you weak, and that your lack of going after it is a sign of strength and charisma.
But it’s the complete opposite.
Retaining women’s passion and insane levels of devotion that makes them literal human slaves is a HUGE skill, MORE valuable than picking them up. Way way way more valuable.
——–
I’ve been living with J for over 11 months. She moved in basically on the first date. And she still tells me that she loves me more than 20 times a day and is obsessively crazy head over heels for me, dotes on me constantly, oral and sex not only on demand, but offered up constantly, to the point of distraction. This is normal. This has been my normal for many many years with many many women.
It’s not random chance and accident. I’ve been documenting about this here for ages. And she’s only 22 to my 52, slim, and noticeably above average in attractiveness. Also completely normal. I haven’t dated anyone over 23 in ages, unless they grew into being older, and they nearly always do. Women stay with me as long as they can bear it if I’m not monogamous, and usually come back to me over and over if they break up.
That’s all normal, and it’s a thing. A thing that has nothing to do with K or R or provider or not provider. The sliders are various – getting focused on one slider to distraction is a HUGE mistake.
Now many people online have an agenda and try to work backwards from their preconceptions when they pretend to use reason. So they’ll say that my results are due to my location. Not influenced by, but due to. Even though I’ve never met or even heard of anyone other westerner getting anything close to similar results, living in any country. My results are at minimum extraordinarily rare, and extremely consistent. The people who try to put it down to location could never replicate my results merely by changing their own location, and they know it, so when asked if it’s true then why don’t they also move, they ALWAYS come up with some bullshit “reason” why they are not able or interested to do so.
Rationalizations and backward rationalizations account for a good deal of what is pawned off as reason in too many discussions, even by leaders and so called experts. People do what they are comfortable doing, and then explain why they are doing it, using their internal press secretary, and sounding all logical when it’s really all limbic.
People use “reasons” to pump and dump and avoid intimacy, build up huge systems of what attraction is, discount and dismiss any information that contradicts their mental maps (such as that it’s been scientifically proven that women orgasm more for wealthy men, and that women DON’T have a dual mating strategy and DON’T show different mate preferences when ovulating when they are married to high testosterone men). It’s very often a collusion of like minded men who gather into self selected groups, and you get in-group out group group mind thinking.
It’s very dangerous, when people are looking for advice for how to be happier. Very dangerous to stumble upon these giant conscensuses that seem so “reasonable”.
> My results are at minimum extraordinarily rare, and extremely consistent.
I (think I) can usually tell by the QUALITY of a man’s comments if he is real or not.
And to build on this comment:
> No one successful is completely derivative
You are not at all “derivative.” But that is not why I believe you. I am not actually looking for novelty in my “mentors.”
I think you’re massively atypical. But a successful type of atypical. Most “atypical” is defect and inefficiency. You’re doing atypical in some kind of romantic-constructive way…
And my guess is… it’s your level of “connection.” Something like that. The level of your “attention” that blows the girl away. This might work as 10,000 ft summary of whatever it is you do.
It won’t happen (and I’m not at all suggesting I need “proof”), but I’d love to see you and a girl on an early date. I bet seeing that would explain your brand of success. I don’t think I’d need to hear you…. I bet it would be obvious from a distance.
And I believe you that both you and the girl “fall in love” on the first date. I assume there are some special things you do (and are capable of doing) that make that so.
I was out the other day, and there were crowds of students tasked with giving interviews to westerners. It was so fun to see these 19 year old girls get all squrimy with attraction. So fun and funny. But that’s not the point of this story.
I was at a rare moment of being at my best, and sometimes did “the eye trick” on some of the girls. I could make even the coldest seeming girl (girls with high defences yet high interest) melt. Give them tunnel vision where the world falls away.
And then I realized that I was taught this.
The guy who taught it to me learned it directly from Trungpa Rinpoche. You could look him up. He’d do the eye trick with people and they’d stop thinking for a day or two. It’s called “transmission” in Buddhist circles.
My very close best friend and my guru of many years used to be Trungpa Rinpoches number one attendant, and lived with him for years.
I can do 1/10th of 1/10th. My teacher had a 1/10th, and I have a 1/10th of what my teacher taught me. It’s amazing that all these years I forgot where I learned it.
Spiritual power is a real thing. It’s nearly impossible to explain because I have to use a frame of reference that is foreign to people. Usually I try to frame it in a common frame of reference, but really you need the full context to get the most information about it.
Oh, and later I spontaneously learned how to activate people’s kundalini. I did meet a guy who had studied with a kundalini teacher, who sparked that whole thing off, but only with the barest of a suggestion of to put my attention above my head when I fuck. The rest happened all by itself. Then I could blow people’s entire being with a little party trick. I don’t do that anymore. It’s a very famous party trick that Kundalini teachers used to be famous for doing. It’s also very stupid and dangerous, and teachers usually don’t hand out that party trick willy nilly for very long.
I feel a bit bad disclosing this, as it must seem so unattainable. It doesn’t feel unatainable to me, obviously, because it’s my lived life, and I had a student here before who very quickly had his kundalini activated and now lives that life for himself. Against my advice and wishes he activated his kundalini. I didn’t teach or show him, but he was able to learn that the possibility was a real thing and figured out how to do it from context, and likely also from association. It’s merely the human condition; it’s just who we are. Who we discover.
I’ve studied with many different spiritual healers, for years. I’ve had close association with some of the worlds top teachers, in different specialties, mostly Buddhism and Chi-Kung related. Things rub off. I met one guy by happenstance who seemed to be a self taught savant spiritual mojo man, who could pull people off the street and give them the eye trick like fucking crazy. People would tell me about how the world totally melted away. He’d do it just like that, to seemingly anyone. For me it happens very rarely and contextually. The beach day was rare for me, and I seemed to be able to do it to whoever I wanted to aim my eyes at, just as a fun lark. I very rarely do it. Oh, and that guy also had incredibly powerful power of laying on of hands. I’ve been told that I also have very rare and unusual power of laying on of hands; people can feel me touching them even when my hands are inches away, and I’ve been told by some students that my abilities exceeded sometimes that of my main teacher, but this guy was in a different league. He didn’t need set or setting; he was a stage magician who could affect random people and affect them very strongly. People didn’t have to relax and focus to feel him, they felt him as a force – a strong force. Not just a few people – seeminly anyone. He’d just keep doing it all day long to seemingly anyone he came in contact with. We were both vendors at the time, and sometimes he totally forgot his job to sell things and instead would blow peoples minds all day. We had a fun understanding between us, as our worlds were both very familiar. Sometimes we’d set up shop beside each other, and I think he fucked my main energetic healer teacher. She was certainly VERY impressed by him. Her face would glow admiration when talking about him. And I really respected her; sometimes tears would come to my eyes when talking about her.
Speaking of respect for teachers, the man who taught me the eye trick was more than just a friend. He really was my guru, and I loved and respected him in ways many people might not have familiarity with.
Sometimes I’ve done the eye it on purpose, and I remember telling a girl I was about to do it, and then I did, and her knees litterally buckled as we were walking. Haha. Fun. Another girl would keep telling me to stop doing that – she’d get crazy tunnel vision and couldn’t see anything. And another fucked me within a few minutes of me doing it to her. But after her I stopped doing it, and my subconscious actually stole that magic power from me – a very common occurance with some spiritual powers – because when I do that I fall in love – and it was not appropriate to fall in love with that girl so off handedly, as she was schizophrenic. It took years for that power to come back, and since then I’ve mostly stopped doing it as a party trick. I don’t show off with it, at least. I also haven’t activated anyone kundalini like a party trick in decades.
I don’t have a spiritual community anymore. I don’t have teachers anymore. I rarely talk or think about any of the teachings and practices.
But I use girls to amplify the basics. I give and receive real love. That’s a real thing. A strong thing. It’s a thing, you know.
It’s a real thing.