BF Disqualification vs GF Material Girls

[Ambiance]

In light of Chase's most recent article on girls who say they're done with hooking up (https://www.girlschase.com/content/woman-ever-really-done-hookups), I wanted to clear up something that's given me pause for awhile.

Not taking the boyfriend approach to getting girls is one of the biggest messages on the site. And it has worked very well for me: with every girl I've slept with I started out as a lover.

Here's the thing: girls who have casual sex are not relationship material. I remember Chase saying in a comment that if he feels a girl has intentionally had a one night stand before (not counting where she sleeps with a guy she really liked and wanted for a relationship and he never calls her back), she's out of the running for anything serious.

How do we reconcile the superior method of boyfriend disqualification with finding a worthy long term partner? Because any girl who sleeps with you when you're acting like a lover is agreeing to casual sex.

 

[The Tightrope Walker]

I think part of it is, that the classical boyfriend route doesn't work. 3+ "impressive" dates, slow escalation, paying for her etc puts her onto a pedestal, sets the wrong expectations for any relationship and makes you look lower value than her (you trying to impress her to be your girlfriend).
So whatever you do with a girl, it should be the opposite of that.
Now given a girl is relationship material you can alter two things. First, you should not disqualify myself as a boyfriend explicitly, as implying you're interested sex will scare those girls of. i.e. don't say things like

"Dou you have a girlfriend?"
"I have 6"

Furthermore, focus on deep-diving and connection-building much more than usually. Given that she's relationship material that shouldn't be to difficult.

In this way you can become the mysterious guy that came out of nowhere, got her to know better in one evening than all the people that are in her circle for years and managed to sleep with her on the first date (unlike any other). She'll rationalize as something magical, that was just ment to happen.

What it comes down to is that fast sex itself isn't the issue. As you mention, Chase doesn't count the case of her sleeping with a guy, hoping for a relationship and never getting a call back. I remember an old LR written by Chase sleeping with highly ambitions, low count, high quality, Chinese girl the night on the first date. So whatever her standards may be, you should aspire to be an exception..

PS. I maybe should add, that I don't have a lot of field experience. However I've read everything I could find on this site and failed miserably with one of "those" girls by not being lover enough

 

[Ambiance]

I think part of it is, that the classical boyfriend route doesn't work. 3+ "impressive" dates, slow escalation, paying for her etc puts her onto a pedestal, sets the wrong expectations for any relationship and makes you look lower value than her (you trying to impress her to be your girlfriend).

Couldn't agree more. The classical bf route doesn't work. Which leaves adding lover qualities.

So whatever you do with a girl, it should be the opposite of that.
Now given a girl is relationship material you can alter two things. First, you should not disqualify myself as a boyfriend explicitly, as implying you're interested sex will scare those girls of. i.e. don't say things like

"Dou you have a girlfriend?"
"I have 6"

Furthermore, focus on deep-diving and connection-building much more than usually. Given that she's relationship material that shouldn't be to difficult.

Yes, you don't want to go 100% Lover if you want to see a girl again. It is good to highlight a few valuable traits/build enough of a genuine connection that you're more than just a dick with legs. HOWEVER, and this a big however, this doesn't mean you do anything that gives the girl the impression you want a relationship. Otherwise you are stuck in the BF zone, and she will put the brakes on hard, especially if she really likes you. Which means you still must be just a lover.

In this way you can become the mysterious guy that came out of nowhere, got her to know better in one evening than all the people that are in her circle for years and managed to sleep with her on the first date (unlike any other). She'll rationalize as something magical, that was just ment to happen.

Absolutely you want this to happen. Where I'm confused is that to do this you are acting as a lover, not a BF prospect, and are just a fling to her, much as she may wish you were on the market. If she has what for all she knows is a one night stand with you, what does that say about her potential for a long term relationship?

What it comes down to is that fast sex itself isn't the issue.

Totally. Moving fast is far and away better than taking things slow.

So whatever her standards may be, you should aspire to be an exception..

This is murky territory. You definitely want to be the guy who took her down a path none else could. But by the same token, how many other men were "exceptions"? If she had a ONS with any of them, wouldn't that hurt her relationship value, at least by absolute abundance standards?

PS. I maybe should add, that I don't have a lot of field experience. However I've read everything I could find on this site and failed miserably with one of "those" girls by not being lover enough

I feel you. If I had absolute abundance I'm sure I'd know the answer to reconciling BF disqualification. This really is a question for men who have absolute abundance, or are close enough to it, and even on this site there aren't many.

I really appreciate your response though. You clearly know your stuff. Anyone who has devoured this site's articles like you have is on the right track. Before I started racking up lays I was in your exact shoes.

 

[The Tightrope Walker]

I think my category of lover is a bit broader than yours. In way there is the classical lover you are referring to and something one might call a lover+. So instead of replying to your questions, I'll just give you a better intuition of what I mean, hoping that this will clear up the questions.

Lets look at the fallowing examples:

• 1) James Bond in Casino Royale. The unusual thing about the movie is, that Bond falls in love with a girl. Despite initial rejections he succeeds on the lover route. However there are subtle differences this seduction and the usual one (I hope you've seen the movie).
  2) This GC-Article analysing typical romance novel heros (https://www.girlschase.com/content/what ... women-want)

The important commonalities between those lovers+ are:

• 1) The entire personality of these characters is one huge rejection of the classical boyfriend route (the article implicitly gives you tools to reframe attempts to put you into this category)
  2) They deeply care about the girl
  3)Long term value is strongly implied, but ambiguous. Putting them into the boyfriend box isn't possible, but it clearly isn't just some fling.

While the lover you have in mind might not stand a chance with conservative girls this lover+ certainly does. She might just be reading a book about him.

Lastly

This is murky territory. You definitely want to be the guy who took her down a path none else could. But by the same token, how many other men were "exceptions"? If she had a ONS with any of them, wouldn't that hurt her relationship value, at least by absolute abundance standards?

It should be possible to figure out if your an exception or an "exception" by other means. There is a lot of material here on what to screen for and how to get a handle on her count.

I'll leave the word to more experienced members here with this

 

[Ambiance]

@The Tightrope Walker

I replied to you your post a month and a half ago, but it isn't here for some reason lol. Maybe I had bad connection when I sent it and it never registered? Dunno. I'll try to rewrite it below.

I really like your concept of a Lover+. He's more than just a player. Though he has some rougeish traits, the connection he and the girl share is very special. I think this is how we reconcile not investing in women who engage in casual sex, because you can't call it casual. Especially when the girl is under 3 partners total. The trick is to be the man out of the romance novel that inspires that powerful "first choice" connection while staying far away from boyfriend territory.

Thank you for your well thought out response

 

[Rain]

In light of Chase's most recent article on girls who say they're done with hooking up (https://www.girlschase.com/content/woman-ever-really-done-hookups), I wanted to clear up something that's given me pause for awhile.

Not taking the boyfriend approach to getting girls is one of the biggest messages on the site. And it has worked very well for me: with every girl I've slept with I started out as a lover.

Here's the thing: girls who have casual sex are not relationship material. I remember Chase saying in a comment that if he feels a girl has intentionally had a one night stand before (not counting where she sleeps with a guy she really liked and wanted for a relationship and he never calls her back), she's out of the running for anything serious.

How do we reconcile the superior method of boyfriend disqualification with finding a worthy long term partner? Because any girl who sleeps with you when you're acting like a lover is agreeing to casual sex.

I guess that means that those women are then not relationshp material. Period? But how do you tell the difference between a woman who really wanted a long term thing with a guy vs one who keeps doing one night stands?
And at what point, does she keep having these one night stands with guys who she wanted more from, does she end up getting a possible too high partner count and then changes her beliefs about long term relationships and then how would you screen for that too? This can get complicated maybe.

Also, does casual but regular sex count as not passing the "relationship sniff test"? eg if a woman has that sort of thing?