- Joined
- Nov 11, 2019
- Messages
- 1,059
This is something that's been on my mind ever since Alek Rolstad shared his sex therapist gambit on GC:
www.girlschase.com
Specifically the part where he talks about the assumption about her NOT being able to orgasm with new guys. His entire gambit is predicated on her agreeing with his assumption (and it's not just a random assumption about girls. It's a statement with high % of her agreeing with you), Otherwise the gambit falls apart. And this is the case against gambits/routine game. In that, what if she performs Y action (her not agreeing with you, in this case about actually being able to orgasm with new guys) when you were expecting her to performing X action? Which many guys do not take into consideration. Including myself. You were very much expecting her to perform/take X action, because you did something/asked her something, which resulted in the overwhelming majority of girls in the past have done before.
It's this reason, you take this into consideration, her not doing the thing you fully expect her to do, and have a gambit for it.
Quote from Alek's article:
"In other words, the chances she will agree with you are deadly high. If she does not, and you are wrong, it’s not a big deal.
But if she responds that she does usually orgasm with random guys, you are dealing with a girl who most likely has had tons of sexual experience and is comfortable with herself and her sexuality. She is also probably sexually liberated. This is excellent info.
Now, with those girls, you can go hard on the sex talk. You are very unlikely to face resistance. Use any of my other gambits (the eight types of orgasm and the orgasm-control gambit are good suggestions).
If you do “fail,” you grant key info nevertheless, and you will not lose much. So, I would still consider this a win".
For me, I found this out with my "ask her the question, you want in return". Which in most cases it work (especially when the girl is solidly 'hooked') but there are cases where it doesn't happen. Being unprepared for her performing Y action, rather than the expected X action, lead me to awkwardly scrabble around. Trying to find a new topic to talk about (so...do you come here often?"). Which, only increases the odds % of the 'bubble' you've just created bursting. And her excusing herself from the conversation.
It's now why my (and yours as well) gambits (which I've shared here https://www.skilledseducer.com/threads/transitions-into-demonstrating-snl-traits.21901/) take this into consideration (her not performing the action you expected)
Example:
Velasco: so where’s your boyfriend?
her: I don’t have one
Velasco: oh I thought that guy you were talking to was your boyfriend.
her: blah blah blah
Velasco: so when's the last time you were in a relationship?
her: blah blah blah
Velasco: oh what happened? did you break up with him? was it because he was shit in bed?
her: blah blah blah
Velasco: damn thats too bad [smiling as I turn away. This creates that 'how do I get his attention back - since its hard to think on her feet she will take the easy route and just ask him the same question in return. Which is the effect I'm trying to create here)
so if she DOES ask me the question in return, then I'll go straight into the gambit I wrote in my original post. and if she doesn't ask me the question back in return, then I'll go straight into transitioning into demonstrating my next SNL trait gambit, I shared in the comments section of that same post. So it's:
Velasco: damn thats too bad [smiling as I turn away] - Doesn't ask me the question back
Velasco: but like what’s usually the type of guy you usually go for? or actually is there a type of guy who you’d never go for? Like would you ever date a indian guy. what about short guys? (I give examples of physical traits of guys for her to latch on to because otherwise she’ll just talk about the personality traits of the guy she'd never go for. You learn this from field testing your gambits). oh why not?
Continue into routine...
Pickup and Seduction Gambit: The Sex Therapist
The “Sex Therapist” gambit focuses on cold reading and pacing. You guess something deep about her sexuality, then blow her mind with touch and sexual prizing. Hey guys, and welcome back. Today I will share another pickup and seduction gambit. This one is called The Sex Therapist. The reason I've...
www.girlschase.com
Specifically the part where he talks about the assumption about her NOT being able to orgasm with new guys. His entire gambit is predicated on her agreeing with his assumption (and it's not just a random assumption about girls. It's a statement with high % of her agreeing with you), Otherwise the gambit falls apart. And this is the case against gambits/routine game. In that, what if she performs Y action (her not agreeing with you, in this case about actually being able to orgasm with new guys) when you were expecting her to performing X action? Which many guys do not take into consideration. Including myself. You were very much expecting her to perform/take X action, because you did something/asked her something, which resulted in the overwhelming majority of girls in the past have done before.
It's this reason, you take this into consideration, her not doing the thing you fully expect her to do, and have a gambit for it.
Quote from Alek's article:
"In other words, the chances she will agree with you are deadly high. If she does not, and you are wrong, it’s not a big deal.
But if she responds that she does usually orgasm with random guys, you are dealing with a girl who most likely has had tons of sexual experience and is comfortable with herself and her sexuality. She is also probably sexually liberated. This is excellent info.
Now, with those girls, you can go hard on the sex talk. You are very unlikely to face resistance. Use any of my other gambits (the eight types of orgasm and the orgasm-control gambit are good suggestions).
If you do “fail,” you grant key info nevertheless, and you will not lose much. So, I would still consider this a win".
For me, I found this out with my "ask her the question, you want in return". Which in most cases it work (especially when the girl is solidly 'hooked') but there are cases where it doesn't happen. Being unprepared for her performing Y action, rather than the expected X action, lead me to awkwardly scrabble around. Trying to find a new topic to talk about (so...do you come here often?"). Which, only increases the odds % of the 'bubble' you've just created bursting. And her excusing herself from the conversation.
It's now why my (and yours as well) gambits (which I've shared here https://www.skilledseducer.com/threads/transitions-into-demonstrating-snl-traits.21901/) take this into consideration (her not performing the action you expected)
Example:
Velasco: so where’s your boyfriend?
her: I don’t have one
Velasco: oh I thought that guy you were talking to was your boyfriend.
her: blah blah blah
Velasco: so when's the last time you were in a relationship?
her: blah blah blah
Velasco: oh what happened? did you break up with him? was it because he was shit in bed?
her: blah blah blah
Velasco: damn thats too bad [smiling as I turn away. This creates that 'how do I get his attention back - since its hard to think on her feet she will take the easy route and just ask him the same question in return. Which is the effect I'm trying to create here)
so if she DOES ask me the question in return, then I'll go straight into the gambit I wrote in my original post. and if she doesn't ask me the question back in return, then I'll go straight into transitioning into demonstrating my next SNL trait gambit, I shared in the comments section of that same post. So it's:
Velasco: damn thats too bad [smiling as I turn away] - Doesn't ask me the question back
Velasco: but like what’s usually the type of guy you usually go for? or actually is there a type of guy who you’d never go for? Like would you ever date a indian guy. what about short guys? (I give examples of physical traits of guys for her to latch on to because otherwise she’ll just talk about the personality traits of the guy she'd never go for. You learn this from field testing your gambits). oh why not?
Continue into routine...