Lately, due to the confinement, we end up on the forum debating old topics - beating down dead horses.
And I find it awesome that we see typical new school pua theory being presented, and perhaps contrasted with the old school way of thinking. Now what is this so-called "new school" ? well without constructing any new terms here, new school is basically the current paradigm that: game is all about escalating the process, the vibe, and dealing with resistance - basically sealing the deal with women who are already attracted to you.
A key premise to this paradigm is that attraction either is there or isn't. In other words, you cannot create or generate attraction. It has to be there from the get go, and "game" is all about capitalizing on girls who are already into you. "Game" in this case is about sealing the deal and not fuck up - i.e. reduce attraction.
According to this school, behavior and words can reduce her attraction for you, but not generate it. Game is therefore all about screening for girls who are into you, and you may increase your odds by maximizing your fundamentals such as looks, status and wealth. Basically this paradigm is very much in line with the more recent "money, looks, status" crap - just a more refined view of it.
And then we have the otherr view - a view held by a minority (but it was not always like that!) which is the old school view - namely that one can generate attraction, or even create it, and game is not just all about "making it happen", but also generating the (pre-)conditions that makes it happen - i.e. making a girl who is not attracted to you, actually be willing to have sex with you. This view puts a lot more faith in outer game and pick up techniques. We believe in the game.
I am of the latter school, and so is most old schoolers here. Many of those few old schoolers that remain active tend be really good in field - which is not always the case with those new schoolers - although some are really good.
WHY THIS NEW PARADIGM?
Before I answer the question of whether "attraction" can be generated or not - i.e. defending the old school view, I need to mention why this shift in ideology has taken place. I can see a few reasons why, and they are not always ill-intended.
- The pick up industry has an interest in making money. Teaching old school pick up, which is super technical does not sell well anymore. It is too complex for most men, and requires YEARS upon YEARS of practice - as Razorjack (an old schooler) pointed out in another thread. Teaching men complex things is not worth it economically for the pick up industry.
- Learning highly technical game, takes for ever, as pointed out earlier, and you do not get immediate results. Customers become frustrated and end up calling it bullshit, due to the lack of immediate results. For this reason, the industry had to simplfy things and offer a model that gives more or less immediate results.
- The customer base, want simple theories, simple techniques, and frame-works that fit with the everyday doxa (- i.e. women find looks and money attractive - which is by no means wrong, just oversimplified). The customer asked, and the industry responded. This is why current pick up products are mostly run by good-looking naturals, with limited theoretical understanding. RSDMax, has in my book nothing interesting to say. Neither do Julien. ToddV on the other hand do, but again, he was on mASF under the name Xaneus, and was also featured in the game. True old schooler. His game is quite technical compared to the rest.
So there you have it - the commercial actors wanted something that was more marketable, and the consumers wanted simplicity and things that made sense.
CAN WE ACTUALLY GENERATE ATTRACTION?
Or put differently: can we actually get to bang girls who are NOT attracted to us from the get-go? Or is "game" limited to work only on those who are already into us?
In even more nerdy terms: does game only work on "greens" ( - i.e. girls who are attracted to you from the get go)? And should we just move on if a girl is not green? Is game then all about either playing the numbers such as mass approach till you get lucky; or screening for the receptive ones - i.e. look out for those who are interested? Is then the only thing that is within our control, our ability to fix our fundamentals such as looks and status? Which btw is EASIER SAID THAN DONE.
I honestly do not believe so, and I am therefore more optimistic to the possibilities of game. I believe one can make a real impact. Game can actually make girls who are not attracted to you from the get-go... actually want to have sex with you. I believe we do not have to rely only on going for "greens" (i.e. girls who are already into you).
But there is a caveat here - namely that making girls who are not into you from the get go (I have labelled this "baseline attraction" in the past) is not easy. It requires a few things:
- Really tight and powerful game! it takes for ever to learn. You oftentime need VERY strong and powerful material - i.e. things that are so powerful that you hijack her system and you also need to deliver it almost crisp perfect; adjusting most parameters. Hence why it is mostly only experienced guys who can pull it off (takes years to learn as Razorjack pointed out).
- You need to have nothing working against you - i.e. no bad state, no "wild cards" (bad luck such as bunch of cockblocks, annoying friends and so on). You need to have good conditions surrounding you (yep, there is an element of luck at play here).
- You probably need a good state - i.e. high momentum.
So it is easier said than done.
Most of the time, good seducers will, of course settle for girls who are already into them - i.e use game to basically escalate the process and seal the deal, doing more or less what the newer school of seduction is advocating. Nothing wrong with that. I do it to, quite often, more often than I dare admit (well hell, it is more fun and less work going for girl who show interest in you than going for non-compliant women!).
A good seducer is one who can turn women who are neutral ("orange") into greens. The ability of turning girls who are not all over you from the get-go, but who are just neutral ("I won't chase that guy, but I could consider him... if... and only if...") is usually what distinguishes an good seducer from an intermediate one
But I believe one can also turn girls who are actually "red" (i.e. not into you at all) into "greens" - or at least make them consider having sex with you,if not actually make them REALLY want to have sex with you.
I will not lie, it does NOT always work out and it is usually a lot of work, and not always worth it (she better be god damn hot). Obviously, this require REALLY GOOD pick up and seduction skills. Most men don't have that, hence why I do not usually recommend this strategy, and after all, most of the time, "just moving on" is a better call anyway.
That all said, I have so far only made a claim that it is possible to get girls who are not into the idea of having sex with you, into considering or even genuinely wanting to shag you. I have said nothing about whether it is possible to create or generate attraction.
In my book, I do not really know whether or not it is actually possible to create or generate attraction. I am unsure - I admit it!
But I can think of some ways women's baseline attraction (or lack thereof) can be affected.
After all, we must admit that we see the world through filters - which can easily be affected by either internal or external factors. These factors can generate certain biases and affect our judgement. So I question the whole premise of objectivity related to looks and status - and I question even more the objectivity related to human perception of attractiveness. For instance we know that:
- Women on the pill, will become attracted to different men than when they are not on it. The hormones affects her perception of beauty and changes her mechanism of sexual selection.
- Women can find a guy attractive as a result of certain internal filters - i.e. her mood. If she is aroused, she may find more men attractive than when she is not (when I am not horny, find all women ugly - but that's me).
- Her filters can be affected by the way the man make himself perceived (external factors). If a woman is perceiving a man being surrounded by women, she is more prone to find him hot. Other mechanisms are also at play here, such as social proof and "scarcity" and "competition" which are in my book compliance-increasing (and not only "attraction-increasing") factors.
- If a man is in the right "state" and his "vibe" is right, she more prone to find that guy attractive, than when his state is shit. Ever had a shitty night out where you felt "not on fire"? Did you notice how women tended to not find you attractive - or even unattractive, compared to nights where you were on fire, and you felt like being the hottest guy in the world?
Have you ever been to a club and met a girl who gave 0 fucks about you, only to bump into her again few weeks later, on a night where you happen to be on fire (i.e. good state and good vibe) and surrounded by women - this time, her being all over you? I must then ask, where is the objectivity related to female perceptions of male attractiveness?
So maybe attraction can in fact be "manipulated" by affecting her perception of you. But this is quite limited I must admit. What if you are not feeling in a top notch mood (state control, is part of "game" - although I must admit you will never have full control over it, not even close), or what if you are not surrounded by women (i.e. you did not get the ball rolling, or the venue was unfit for it, or simply did not feel like it that particular night), is there then nothing you can do? Is your only chance then, to screen for the girl who is receptive, hoping that your maximized looks will do the trick?
COMPLIANCE-BASED GAME
I believe there are things you can in fact do. But I do not honestly believe you can create or generate attraction per.se. Sure you can affect her filters and her perception in order to make her perceive you as more attractive, but I do not believe you can directly generate (or "create") attraction.
But what I do believe however, is that you can INCREASE her compliance (I wrote a post about this in the past). That, you can do.
In other words you can make a girl wanting to have sex with you, without there being any underlying attraction (i.e. "she is not attracted to you"). In other words, attraction itself is not a requirement.
SAY WHAT?
Yes, because as long as there is compliance, and that if the compliance is high enough, she will want to have sex with you (best case scenario) or at least consider it.
You may not create attraction, but you can create desire.
Additionally, if you are able to remove potential resistance, the odds increase even further.
So basically this model looks like this:
Getting laid = Generating desire + removing potential roadblocks (resistance: anti-slut defense, female self control, etc) + Logistics (i.e. handle the situation, the surroundings and so on).
This is why my model for pick up is: "Make her feel desire, and make her feel allowed to act upon those desires" (emotional leading) and if one really wants to add logistics into the equation: "create the context to make her act and feel allowed to act upon those desires" (logistical leading).
Basically what we do is up her compliance.
Well, let me state some examples on how sex can take place without attraction, and purely out of compliance:
- A man pays a hooker. The hooker is not attracted to the guy, but have sex with him for money. The money is what generates compliance. This is not game, obviously, but demonstrates the effects of compliance.
- A man is not attracted to a girl, yet she keeps telling him about her black belt in deep-throating, how she loves getting it in the ass, how she can ride dicks with her asshole, and squeeze and release as she goes up and down (basically sucking your dick with her ass). Chances are, the man will have sex with her. He becomes compliant. And yes, this is how sexual prizing works, and this is what you communicate with sex talk (basically I use this EXACT STRATEGY to create compliance in women - by doing exactly this!).
- A girl or a guy is stuck in a room with someone of the opposite sex. That person they are stuck with is not attractive to them yet keeps behaving in a very sexual way, causing major arousal. Sex is likely to happen - especially if nobody will ever find out what is taking place in that room (ref: "make her feel allowed to act upon those desires). Yes... this a similar scenario to my "house gambit" - where I recreate this context with words.
- A girl just broke up with her boyfriend, and wants to commit revenge on her ex. There is only one guy available to do that with... but he is not her personal 10. Well, because she has a desire to avenge her ego, and the guy available for providing exactly this, the girl will become compliant to him, and perhaps have sex with him.
- A guy is not super attractive, but have a lot of connections, have high social value. The girl may have sex with him.
All these are examples of sex taking place... not because of attraction, but because of compliance. The good thing with this frame-work is that it opens up for many possible strategies. It opens up for the possibility of meeting women who would not "naturally" have sex with you.
Now obviously, I am not saying you can get to fuck EVERY WOMAN on the planet - that is not possible But you get to have sex with more women (a higher percentage of women, a better meet-to-lay ratio) - you can become more selective. The "fucking every women on the planet" is only a goal we stretch toward, not something we can ever reach. But we can get closer to it. This is what game is ALL ABOUT.
At the same time, you do not have a 100% close-rate on girls who are into you (attracted from the get-go) either - I mean wildcards can take place and so on.
And yes good looks create compliance. Lack thereof can cause resistance. I am not denying that. Looks matter, but again, look is subjective. One girls "hot guy" is not the same as another girls "hot guy" - or put differently: One man's trash is another man's treasure".
How is compliance generated? There are many ways one can do that - everything, or almost everything related to "game" - i.e. "techniques"; are designed to increase compliance. Some examples:
- Displaying higher value
- Social proof
- Amping her buyers temperature (arousing her - mind you that this is prone to generating resistance, and the compliance is not sustainable: it fades quickly).
- Compliance ladders such as "yes-ladders"
- Eliciting strong emotional states (hypnosis)
- Showing mixed signals (push & pull, "chase frames" - usually not key in creating compliance, but nevertheless a very powerful tool for amplifying current compliance)
- Logistics ("accidentally" ending up in a room alone with her)
...and so on...
There are of course many other ways to generate compliance. Finding a way to generate compliance, use it in field and perfectionize it, is what "game" is all about to me.
And... I believe there is a hierarchy of compliance switches - namely that some ways of building compliance are superior to others (although this can depend on context, the girls you are dealing with, and even depend on who you are - to some extent). Compliance switches are not all equal and they all have their pros and cons. Some are however "stronger" than other - and the stronger ones may be what is needed to switch a girl who is truly not into you, into willing to consider having sex with you - and perhaps even making her want to have sex with you.
To me, the top three compliance triggers are:
- Social proof
- Hypnosis (generating insanely powerful state - and leave her wanting more of them and so on)
- Sex talk (yes! sexual prizing in particular - demonstrating that you can be a bang of a life time).
And this leads me to my epilogue:
EPILOGUE: BANGING LESBIANS
So as just mentioned, I considered sex talk to be my favorite, and in my book my most powerful tool for generating compliance. I want to exemplify this by giving you a pretty sick example of where "attraction" obviously is lacking, and compliance alone is saving the day.
I am here talking about the times where I pulled lesbians.
And I assume some of you may say: "well if she banged you, she must have been bi-sexual". Well she may have been bi-curious, and if she wasn't I surely turned her into one.
I have been hanging in the gay community for years and I can tell a lesbian girl from a bi-sexual (not always, but the cases I am talking about, are clear lesbians). In this case, the girls in question where:
- Girls who have never EVER been with guys before. One of them , was 32, never been with a guy, the other, has been with a guy, but told me it was when she was younger (over 10 years ago).
- Others are looking and acting more lesbian, yet without being butch. One of them used to work at my local gay bar, and was hooking up with my target's friend... but since it did not work out for either of us, we ended up fucking each other instead (me and my lesbian wing)
- They bang girls like we bang girls. Some have girlfriends, other even married... to women.
- And most importantly, the vibe before and during sex is very different to normal heterosexual intercourse. One girl kept bragging to me about how many girls she has banged and how she banged them (was like talking to a dude) - while she was drinking Jack Daniels from the bottle. The sex itself had a totally different vibe - pussy licking is here the climax and not a preliminary act. Blowjobs are god damn terrible (that is: if she is even willing to suck dick, which is not always the case). The vibe after sex is also different - no kissing, no cuddle, no sweetness - instead she is hungry and wants pizza, or play playstation...
I have an obsession with fucking lesbian women. I am not doing it often. It is hard and some luck is required. But I enjoy it. Nobody else in my circles understand why I am so into it, but it just happen to be my kink.
Nevertheless, let us get back on track.
How do I get to bang lesbian girls?
Well, we know these facts:
- She does not find men attractive, does not care about my looks.
- In fact, the simple fact of me being a man is a big minus here.
- In other words, she is simply NOT ATTRACTED TO ME.
... otherwise, she wouldn't be a lesbian.
So how did I get to have sex with her?
- Well first and foremost, in all cases where I have managed to pull lesbians, she has either been alone, or isolated from her gay/lesbian friends. In other words, there has been no pair-pressure taking place. This means "less potential resistance" (ref: "making her feel allowed")
- Some luck taking place - she has been willing to talk with me and hear me out. I also had the chance to deliver my verbal game. Maybe she stayed because she found me nice and cool, or maybe because I was able to build rapport with her (I know the LGBTQ+ world by heart)
- But what really triggered the compliance was my use of sex talk - sexual prizing in particular.
In other words, communicating to her indirectly about how sexually experienced I am with women, conveying my abilities to please women, to give them multiple orgasms, to stimulate their mind in bed, to give them new and unexplored sensations while understanding their minds and feelings during the whole intercourse... and so on and on...
.... made them perceive me as a good bang, as a man who could give them the night of their life.... multiple orgasms, serial orgasms, combined orgasms.... make her orgasm in 8 different ways (my 8 types of orgasm routine works well here)... and just not make a big deal out of it.
I made them curious, they became intrigued.
There is one interesting thing about lesbian women, which is that... they are incredibly sexual beings... and they have rarely any hang ups related to sex what-so-ever (no anti-slut defense). This is probably why I am so fascinated by them - to me, they are the display of "pure female sexuality", before society corrupted women. Since lesbians do not follow the hetero-normative doxa, they are not corrupted by it either. It is like "untouched" sexuality. Pure in all its essence. I am tripping now...
Let's get back on track....
In other words, sex talk is not only something that works on lesbian women, which can make them desire having sex with you, but it also works EVEN BETTER on lesbian than on straight women (and it works already fantastically well on straight and bi-sexual women - as many here can witness through their own experience).
But the most important take-away is this:
"When I had sex with lesbians, it was not because they felt attraction toward me"
Sex happened because of compliance - because she wanted to experience me in bed after I conveyed my sexual knowledge and experiences (sexual prizing).
And this concludes it to me.
Best,
Teevster
PS: I know many gay guys get to fuck straight men by offering them "mind-blowing blowjobs" - maybe there is a similar mechanism at play here?
And I find it awesome that we see typical new school pua theory being presented, and perhaps contrasted with the old school way of thinking. Now what is this so-called "new school" ? well without constructing any new terms here, new school is basically the current paradigm that: game is all about escalating the process, the vibe, and dealing with resistance - basically sealing the deal with women who are already attracted to you.
A key premise to this paradigm is that attraction either is there or isn't. In other words, you cannot create or generate attraction. It has to be there from the get go, and "game" is all about capitalizing on girls who are already into you. "Game" in this case is about sealing the deal and not fuck up - i.e. reduce attraction.
According to this school, behavior and words can reduce her attraction for you, but not generate it. Game is therefore all about screening for girls who are into you, and you may increase your odds by maximizing your fundamentals such as looks, status and wealth. Basically this paradigm is very much in line with the more recent "money, looks, status" crap - just a more refined view of it.
And then we have the otherr view - a view held by a minority (but it was not always like that!) which is the old school view - namely that one can generate attraction, or even create it, and game is not just all about "making it happen", but also generating the (pre-)conditions that makes it happen - i.e. making a girl who is not attracted to you, actually be willing to have sex with you. This view puts a lot more faith in outer game and pick up techniques. We believe in the game.
I am of the latter school, and so is most old schoolers here. Many of those few old schoolers that remain active tend be really good in field - which is not always the case with those new schoolers - although some are really good.
WHY THIS NEW PARADIGM?
Before I answer the question of whether "attraction" can be generated or not - i.e. defending the old school view, I need to mention why this shift in ideology has taken place. I can see a few reasons why, and they are not always ill-intended.
- The pick up industry has an interest in making money. Teaching old school pick up, which is super technical does not sell well anymore. It is too complex for most men, and requires YEARS upon YEARS of practice - as Razorjack (an old schooler) pointed out in another thread. Teaching men complex things is not worth it economically for the pick up industry.
- Learning highly technical game, takes for ever, as pointed out earlier, and you do not get immediate results. Customers become frustrated and end up calling it bullshit, due to the lack of immediate results. For this reason, the industry had to simplfy things and offer a model that gives more or less immediate results.
- The customer base, want simple theories, simple techniques, and frame-works that fit with the everyday doxa (- i.e. women find looks and money attractive - which is by no means wrong, just oversimplified). The customer asked, and the industry responded. This is why current pick up products are mostly run by good-looking naturals, with limited theoretical understanding. RSDMax, has in my book nothing interesting to say. Neither do Julien. ToddV on the other hand do, but again, he was on mASF under the name Xaneus, and was also featured in the game. True old schooler. His game is quite technical compared to the rest.
So there you have it - the commercial actors wanted something that was more marketable, and the consumers wanted simplicity and things that made sense.
CAN WE ACTUALLY GENERATE ATTRACTION?
Or put differently: can we actually get to bang girls who are NOT attracted to us from the get-go? Or is "game" limited to work only on those who are already into us?
In even more nerdy terms: does game only work on "greens" ( - i.e. girls who are attracted to you from the get go)? And should we just move on if a girl is not green? Is game then all about either playing the numbers such as mass approach till you get lucky; or screening for the receptive ones - i.e. look out for those who are interested? Is then the only thing that is within our control, our ability to fix our fundamentals such as looks and status? Which btw is EASIER SAID THAN DONE.
I honestly do not believe so, and I am therefore more optimistic to the possibilities of game. I believe one can make a real impact. Game can actually make girls who are not attracted to you from the get-go... actually want to have sex with you. I believe we do not have to rely only on going for "greens" (i.e. girls who are already into you).
But there is a caveat here - namely that making girls who are not into you from the get go (I have labelled this "baseline attraction" in the past) is not easy. It requires a few things:
- Really tight and powerful game! it takes for ever to learn. You oftentime need VERY strong and powerful material - i.e. things that are so powerful that you hijack her system and you also need to deliver it almost crisp perfect; adjusting most parameters. Hence why it is mostly only experienced guys who can pull it off (takes years to learn as Razorjack pointed out).
- You need to have nothing working against you - i.e. no bad state, no "wild cards" (bad luck such as bunch of cockblocks, annoying friends and so on). You need to have good conditions surrounding you (yep, there is an element of luck at play here).
- You probably need a good state - i.e. high momentum.
So it is easier said than done.
Most of the time, good seducers will, of course settle for girls who are already into them - i.e use game to basically escalate the process and seal the deal, doing more or less what the newer school of seduction is advocating. Nothing wrong with that. I do it to, quite often, more often than I dare admit (well hell, it is more fun and less work going for girl who show interest in you than going for non-compliant women!).
A good seducer is one who can turn women who are neutral ("orange") into greens. The ability of turning girls who are not all over you from the get-go, but who are just neutral ("I won't chase that guy, but I could consider him... if... and only if...") is usually what distinguishes an good seducer from an intermediate one
But I believe one can also turn girls who are actually "red" (i.e. not into you at all) into "greens" - or at least make them consider having sex with you,if not actually make them REALLY want to have sex with you.
I will not lie, it does NOT always work out and it is usually a lot of work, and not always worth it (she better be god damn hot). Obviously, this require REALLY GOOD pick up and seduction skills. Most men don't have that, hence why I do not usually recommend this strategy, and after all, most of the time, "just moving on" is a better call anyway.
That all said, I have so far only made a claim that it is possible to get girls who are not into the idea of having sex with you, into considering or even genuinely wanting to shag you. I have said nothing about whether it is possible to create or generate attraction.
In my book, I do not really know whether or not it is actually possible to create or generate attraction. I am unsure - I admit it!
But I can think of some ways women's baseline attraction (or lack thereof) can be affected.
After all, we must admit that we see the world through filters - which can easily be affected by either internal or external factors. These factors can generate certain biases and affect our judgement. So I question the whole premise of objectivity related to looks and status - and I question even more the objectivity related to human perception of attractiveness. For instance we know that:
- Women on the pill, will become attracted to different men than when they are not on it. The hormones affects her perception of beauty and changes her mechanism of sexual selection.
- Women can find a guy attractive as a result of certain internal filters - i.e. her mood. If she is aroused, she may find more men attractive than when she is not (when I am not horny, find all women ugly - but that's me).
- Her filters can be affected by the way the man make himself perceived (external factors). If a woman is perceiving a man being surrounded by women, she is more prone to find him hot. Other mechanisms are also at play here, such as social proof and "scarcity" and "competition" which are in my book compliance-increasing (and not only "attraction-increasing") factors.
- If a man is in the right "state" and his "vibe" is right, she more prone to find that guy attractive, than when his state is shit. Ever had a shitty night out where you felt "not on fire"? Did you notice how women tended to not find you attractive - or even unattractive, compared to nights where you were on fire, and you felt like being the hottest guy in the world?
Have you ever been to a club and met a girl who gave 0 fucks about you, only to bump into her again few weeks later, on a night where you happen to be on fire (i.e. good state and good vibe) and surrounded by women - this time, her being all over you? I must then ask, where is the objectivity related to female perceptions of male attractiveness?
So maybe attraction can in fact be "manipulated" by affecting her perception of you. But this is quite limited I must admit. What if you are not feeling in a top notch mood (state control, is part of "game" - although I must admit you will never have full control over it, not even close), or what if you are not surrounded by women (i.e. you did not get the ball rolling, or the venue was unfit for it, or simply did not feel like it that particular night), is there then nothing you can do? Is your only chance then, to screen for the girl who is receptive, hoping that your maximized looks will do the trick?
COMPLIANCE-BASED GAME
I believe there are things you can in fact do. But I do not honestly believe you can create or generate attraction per.se. Sure you can affect her filters and her perception in order to make her perceive you as more attractive, but I do not believe you can directly generate (or "create") attraction.
But what I do believe however, is that you can INCREASE her compliance (I wrote a post about this in the past). That, you can do.
In other words you can make a girl wanting to have sex with you, without there being any underlying attraction (i.e. "she is not attracted to you"). In other words, attraction itself is not a requirement.
SAY WHAT?
Yes, because as long as there is compliance, and that if the compliance is high enough, she will want to have sex with you (best case scenario) or at least consider it.
You may not create attraction, but you can create desire.
Additionally, if you are able to remove potential resistance, the odds increase even further.
So basically this model looks like this:
Getting laid = Generating desire + removing potential roadblocks (resistance: anti-slut defense, female self control, etc) + Logistics (i.e. handle the situation, the surroundings and so on).
This is why my model for pick up is: "Make her feel desire, and make her feel allowed to act upon those desires" (emotional leading) and if one really wants to add logistics into the equation: "create the context to make her act and feel allowed to act upon those desires" (logistical leading).
Basically what we do is up her compliance.
Well, let me state some examples on how sex can take place without attraction, and purely out of compliance:
- A man pays a hooker. The hooker is not attracted to the guy, but have sex with him for money. The money is what generates compliance. This is not game, obviously, but demonstrates the effects of compliance.
- A man is not attracted to a girl, yet she keeps telling him about her black belt in deep-throating, how she loves getting it in the ass, how she can ride dicks with her asshole, and squeeze and release as she goes up and down (basically sucking your dick with her ass). Chances are, the man will have sex with her. He becomes compliant. And yes, this is how sexual prizing works, and this is what you communicate with sex talk (basically I use this EXACT STRATEGY to create compliance in women - by doing exactly this!).
- A girl or a guy is stuck in a room with someone of the opposite sex. That person they are stuck with is not attractive to them yet keeps behaving in a very sexual way, causing major arousal. Sex is likely to happen - especially if nobody will ever find out what is taking place in that room (ref: "make her feel allowed to act upon those desires). Yes... this a similar scenario to my "house gambit" - where I recreate this context with words.
- A girl just broke up with her boyfriend, and wants to commit revenge on her ex. There is only one guy available to do that with... but he is not her personal 10. Well, because she has a desire to avenge her ego, and the guy available for providing exactly this, the girl will become compliant to him, and perhaps have sex with him.
- A guy is not super attractive, but have a lot of connections, have high social value. The girl may have sex with him.
All these are examples of sex taking place... not because of attraction, but because of compliance. The good thing with this frame-work is that it opens up for many possible strategies. It opens up for the possibility of meeting women who would not "naturally" have sex with you.
Now obviously, I am not saying you can get to fuck EVERY WOMAN on the planet - that is not possible But you get to have sex with more women (a higher percentage of women, a better meet-to-lay ratio) - you can become more selective. The "fucking every women on the planet" is only a goal we stretch toward, not something we can ever reach. But we can get closer to it. This is what game is ALL ABOUT.
At the same time, you do not have a 100% close-rate on girls who are into you (attracted from the get-go) either - I mean wildcards can take place and so on.
And yes good looks create compliance. Lack thereof can cause resistance. I am not denying that. Looks matter, but again, look is subjective. One girls "hot guy" is not the same as another girls "hot guy" - or put differently: One man's trash is another man's treasure".
How is compliance generated? There are many ways one can do that - everything, or almost everything related to "game" - i.e. "techniques"; are designed to increase compliance. Some examples:
- Displaying higher value
- Social proof
- Amping her buyers temperature (arousing her - mind you that this is prone to generating resistance, and the compliance is not sustainable: it fades quickly).
- Compliance ladders such as "yes-ladders"
- Eliciting strong emotional states (hypnosis)
- Showing mixed signals (push & pull, "chase frames" - usually not key in creating compliance, but nevertheless a very powerful tool for amplifying current compliance)
- Logistics ("accidentally" ending up in a room alone with her)
...and so on...
There are of course many other ways to generate compliance. Finding a way to generate compliance, use it in field and perfectionize it, is what "game" is all about to me.
And... I believe there is a hierarchy of compliance switches - namely that some ways of building compliance are superior to others (although this can depend on context, the girls you are dealing with, and even depend on who you are - to some extent). Compliance switches are not all equal and they all have their pros and cons. Some are however "stronger" than other - and the stronger ones may be what is needed to switch a girl who is truly not into you, into willing to consider having sex with you - and perhaps even making her want to have sex with you.
To me, the top three compliance triggers are:
- Social proof
- Hypnosis (generating insanely powerful state - and leave her wanting more of them and so on)
- Sex talk (yes! sexual prizing in particular - demonstrating that you can be a bang of a life time).
And this leads me to my epilogue:
EPILOGUE: BANGING LESBIANS
So as just mentioned, I considered sex talk to be my favorite, and in my book my most powerful tool for generating compliance. I want to exemplify this by giving you a pretty sick example of where "attraction" obviously is lacking, and compliance alone is saving the day.
I am here talking about the times where I pulled lesbians.
And I assume some of you may say: "well if she banged you, she must have been bi-sexual". Well she may have been bi-curious, and if she wasn't I surely turned her into one.
I have been hanging in the gay community for years and I can tell a lesbian girl from a bi-sexual (not always, but the cases I am talking about, are clear lesbians). In this case, the girls in question where:
- Girls who have never EVER been with guys before. One of them , was 32, never been with a guy, the other, has been with a guy, but told me it was when she was younger (over 10 years ago).
- Others are looking and acting more lesbian, yet without being butch. One of them used to work at my local gay bar, and was hooking up with my target's friend... but since it did not work out for either of us, we ended up fucking each other instead (me and my lesbian wing)
- They bang girls like we bang girls. Some have girlfriends, other even married... to women.
- And most importantly, the vibe before and during sex is very different to normal heterosexual intercourse. One girl kept bragging to me about how many girls she has banged and how she banged them (was like talking to a dude) - while she was drinking Jack Daniels from the bottle. The sex itself had a totally different vibe - pussy licking is here the climax and not a preliminary act. Blowjobs are god damn terrible (that is: if she is even willing to suck dick, which is not always the case). The vibe after sex is also different - no kissing, no cuddle, no sweetness - instead she is hungry and wants pizza, or play playstation...
I have an obsession with fucking lesbian women. I am not doing it often. It is hard and some luck is required. But I enjoy it. Nobody else in my circles understand why I am so into it, but it just happen to be my kink.
Nevertheless, let us get back on track.
How do I get to bang lesbian girls?
Well, we know these facts:
- She does not find men attractive, does not care about my looks.
- In fact, the simple fact of me being a man is a big minus here.
- In other words, she is simply NOT ATTRACTED TO ME.
... otherwise, she wouldn't be a lesbian.
So how did I get to have sex with her?
- Well first and foremost, in all cases where I have managed to pull lesbians, she has either been alone, or isolated from her gay/lesbian friends. In other words, there has been no pair-pressure taking place. This means "less potential resistance" (ref: "making her feel allowed")
- Some luck taking place - she has been willing to talk with me and hear me out. I also had the chance to deliver my verbal game. Maybe she stayed because she found me nice and cool, or maybe because I was able to build rapport with her (I know the LGBTQ+ world by heart)
- But what really triggered the compliance was my use of sex talk - sexual prizing in particular.
In other words, communicating to her indirectly about how sexually experienced I am with women, conveying my abilities to please women, to give them multiple orgasms, to stimulate their mind in bed, to give them new and unexplored sensations while understanding their minds and feelings during the whole intercourse... and so on and on...
.... made them perceive me as a good bang, as a man who could give them the night of their life.... multiple orgasms, serial orgasms, combined orgasms.... make her orgasm in 8 different ways (my 8 types of orgasm routine works well here)... and just not make a big deal out of it.
I made them curious, they became intrigued.
There is one interesting thing about lesbian women, which is that... they are incredibly sexual beings... and they have rarely any hang ups related to sex what-so-ever (no anti-slut defense). This is probably why I am so fascinated by them - to me, they are the display of "pure female sexuality", before society corrupted women. Since lesbians do not follow the hetero-normative doxa, they are not corrupted by it either. It is like "untouched" sexuality. Pure in all its essence. I am tripping now...
Let's get back on track....
In other words, sex talk is not only something that works on lesbian women, which can make them desire having sex with you, but it also works EVEN BETTER on lesbian than on straight women (and it works already fantastically well on straight and bi-sexual women - as many here can witness through their own experience).
But the most important take-away is this:
"When I had sex with lesbians, it was not because they felt attraction toward me"
Sex happened because of compliance - because she wanted to experience me in bed after I conveyed my sexual knowledge and experiences (sexual prizing).
And this concludes it to me.
Best,
Teevster
PS: I know many gay guys get to fuck straight men by offering them "mind-blowing blowjobs" - maybe there is a similar mechanism at play here?
Last edited:
