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.