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…

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.

So I learned their style of sitting meditation, but eventually I refused to do the suggested technique of imagining my self going out into the room on the out-breath. That gave me a headache. This did not make me popular with a few of the meditation teachers, who considered me stubborn and arrogant. Only later, in that community, was I introduced to various Tibetan teachers who explained many other forms of shamata vippasana, and my personal technique that I seemed to have invented was described back to me as a real thing called dzogchen.

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.

You’ve got to put some faith in your own interests, and follow the ones that give the best returns. There are infinite ways to be attractive; you don’t have to choose to be something that you are not interested in being. It’s when you are interested in something that you get especially good at it. And getting especially good at something is attractive.

When it comes to becoming attractive, you really do have to be into what you are doing and who you are becoming. You can’t just be angry at the sluts you are fucking and throw away all personal responsibly for treating yourself and others well with hand waiving towards giving in to “the decline”. No, when it comes to being attractive, it’s attractive to actually love the women you fuck. It’s very unattractive not to. Communities that avoid this obvious fact are clearly broken and twisted and promoting poor mental and social health.

I’d like to think that people would easily come to this intuition inside themselves, if they take some time to open to their own hearts and minds. There are some intuitions that are clearly better to follow than teachings. Teachers don’t know you. They don’t know your life.

In fact that is an explicit and often stated Buddhist teaching. If you have to choose between a teachers instructions and your own well thought out beliefs, go with your own. I was taught that many times. That helps to make Buddhism self correcting and evolving. You discover your truth, you don’t adopt someone else’s.

What is true for you, in seduction, will eventually with certainty become vastly different than what is true for anyone else. You should know that from the beginning, because you need to give yourself permission to become what you want to become, and have relationships with girls who you actually like. And the types of relationships that you actually like.

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 any other westerner (or local) 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 group mind consensus that seem so “reasonable”.

And we can’t point all our fingers at the guys generously trying to teach what they know. The problems really start from the bureaucratically minded noobs, who think that there are rules and secret systems that they can learn. “Oh, that’s beta behavior!” they’ll expertly admonish, from the comfort of their lounge chair. They will learn the rules and roles of a group and become an excellent parrot, all the while having very little real life experience, and yet will chime in with their expert opinion daily. Their opinion about what they have read, and their very few experiences based on very underdeveloped social skills with girls.

These are the guys that make monsters out of teachers, because it gives the teachers feedback that is insanely out of touch with reality. Newbies will of course often have twisted mentalities that are immature and outright unhealthy. No one knows what it is that he doesn’t know, but it can be worse with newbs – they can “know” bad attitudes such that they ask how to get to the wrong place. “How can I be expert at seducing women who are twisted mind fucking human rent-a-bikes?” “How can I be expert at avoiding heartbreak or commitment or attachment?” And the teachers have to answer over and over questions from broken or underdeveloped mind-sets, and hear parroted back as gospel their worst ideas. Until an entire cannon of bad ideas is built up, that they then identify with, defend, and build upon.

We have a word for keyboard jockeys in Buddhism too. They are called scholars. Buddhism is about hearing, contemplating, and meditating. It’s the meditation that makes personal transformation. Dating is analogous to meditating. Contemplating about YOUR OWN FUCKING PERSONAL real life relationships is helpful. Disclosing your thoughts about your own real lived life is brave and helpful. Contemplating about second and third and infinitely off hand reports and theories of others is mind wank keyboard jockeying that adds noise and prevents personal and group insight and growth.

And another comment I made over at Nash’s blog:

Before there is muscle memory, there is learning. Sometimes it’s conscious aha moments, especially for things like no doesn’t mean no. That’s a fun one to learn. I’ve tried to explain, using examples, how no doesn’t mean no many times on forums, and it’s usually not well received.

It’s one of those things you have to learn for yourself. You have to live the nuance, and get the real feedback, to make it real and useful. It’s not an idea, it’s an experiential reality. The idea is only a map after you experience the territory. Otherwise it’s like explaining the color red to a blind person.

Treat em mean to keep em keen is like that too. You might have an idea about it that won’t work for you, but if you live an experience that very broadly fits into that map, it will not be negative to you. Just like no doesn’t mean no seems VERY negative to most people, but is completely positive to anyone who actually lives through the experiences.

But I do agree, I prefer low drama women who don’t demand negative treatment. Absolutely. Mental health is a very serious issue, and impacts hugely on our quality of life. The principal doesn’t have to be extreme, it can be subtle. For instance yesterday J said “Kiss me”, and I said “No.” She was shocked, then beamed a big smile at me and congratulated me for the balls. She was really impressed, and it was like I passed a test.

That could fall into the category of treat em mean to keep em keen; have boundaries and expectations, and don’t always comply with demands, just because she makes them. And if you are not treated up to your reasonable expectations, sometimes you need to be forceful. As forceful as required. If you are not as forceful as required, then it’s bad parenting, more likely, than merely a bad woman.