@Chase
Thank you for your posts, I'll reply consecutively. Glad we can finally talk.
I've already read those articles when they first came out, and trust me, I'm a longtime reader. For this, I'm going to ignore any and all of your anecdotal evidence. You ignore mine. We'll just look at the facts as we have them. I think that's perfectly fair.
On Drexel Scott
Chase said:
Drexel posits the most important aspect to succeeding with women is attitude. This is technically correct. If you're the most ripped guy in the world but you're scared to talk to women, or you have a crap attitude toward them and about them, you will not get women.
You're not wrong, an attitude can be limiting. That is not what the problem with Drexel's advice is. This is:
DrexelScott said:
That's the problem here--you aren't in touch enough with just how valuable a man is to a woman, WHEN HE MAKES HER FEEL THE RIGHT WAY. Everything is about the way she FEELS in your presence, and given the way you've written this post, I'm assuming that some of your "neediness" is leaking through and that is a complete repellant to women.
He is stating in the original post that you don't need looks, height, etc. All you need is to "MAKE HER FEEL THE RIGHT WAY." This is Drexel's claim when we get down to it, and you see it across his many posts: how you socially approach things and the mindset you have inside is what determines whether you get the girl. But need I remind you that your pal Aaron Sleazy has debunked this numerous times (also, wait, looks and height don't make her feel the right way? What?)
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2012/06 ... -game.html
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2014/12 ... -some.html
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2010/03 ... de-it.html
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2012/12 ... nt-by.html
I'll quote from the last article in case anyone doesn't want to read in full. The quote is from Sleazy's friend Alek Novy in the article "What Game Is and Isn't"
Alek Novy said:
You can become a more attractive person (scientifically validated to making a significant difference, go lose 50 pounds and tell me how many more dates you get, same with getting an expensive car).
You cannot, however however merely speak or stand or ask for the date in a "different way" and suddenly get drastically different results. You will still get roughly the same amount of yes responses per 100 chicks. No game believer has ever shown to get a yes per 100 chicks asked more often than a control subject (the control would be average beta-guy game by your terminology).
While we're speaking of Drexel, I'm assuming you've read the thread. How do you feel about Drexel Scott's connections to scammers and companies that are said to place fraudulent credit card charges? How do you feel about him hawking a near $200 product that is riddled with fake reviews across the web?
And if Franco is indeed correct that Drexel gets approval to do this because he is a contributor, please change your rules to reflect this little caveat. If anything I'd like a response on this since Drexel seems to want to avoid this issue.
Average PUA
Yes, Roosh does consider himself a super PUA, he has an entire site where he's pretending to be some decider of what is masculine and what isn't, aka Return of Kings. Why else would he be getting so much criticism from mainstream media, let alone Sleazy if he wasn't pretty out there or bought into his hype?
But are the guys that study game really so different than guys with looks like Roosh and Tyler? Let's see, RSD posts footage of guys that go to their seminars:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0MLIzyEm00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESX0A1eNQV0
Surprise, surprise, they're as awkward as I expected. I've also seen pictures of guys around here, and no, I'm not shocked that they aren't good looking but claim such things don't matter. This is not ego talking. I think a guy can do so much to improve his looks, just like your friend Joe. But so many guys here instead think like Drexel that they can replace looks for game, or somehow make it a 50-50 split across. It doesn't work that way, not if you're wanting to get girls of any quality.
Also Mystery lied, he paid girls to pose with him, he paid women to appear with him, he barely got laid (just like Neil Strauss) and he would use his pics in the club to convince guys he actually got with the when that's far from the case. He had a business to run, this isn't a mystery (get the pun?). Not sure if you are serious/10. Consult Sleazy's blogs or books if you want a trusted source.
Joe Ducard
You cannot be serious. Drexel looks nothing like Joe. At all. Even if Joe didn't have abs for shit or had loose skin in his ab area, his arms are clearly fucking impressive and much better than average, let alone Drexel's. If you're going to state that those girls have busted up faces, you can't suddenly choose to be blind to Drexel's clearly out of shape body. It really crushes your credibility.
Joe's got muscular arms, great facial hair, an aesthetic face, a good hairstyle, white teeth, and is taller than the girls in his pictures. And yes, I know he used to be fat. So... how was that supposed to prove me wrong? You just proved me right. That guy Joe, I'm curious, did he get laid at all when he was fat, like your short, fat, bald friend? What kind of girls with? Why bother to change his looks at all if game was the real core of the equation?
Fundamentals is the very reason those results are possible. The reason hot guys don't get laid is because of a limitation on themselves: they don't meet girls, they think girls don't want sex, etc. But overcoming these limitations doesn't make up for looks, not at all. A guy cannot and will not bed a girl who is is not physically attracted to uhim, not without compensating for it somehow, like with money or status or her having a shady motive. You cannot compensate with "game" or talk your way into a girl's pants. Changing how you asked out a girl or approached her is not going to change things. Period.
If I suddenly open up my mind that "Wow girls like sex!" and "Wow I can meet girls at the gym!" this doesn't get me success all of the sudden. I have to be good looking enough for a girl in order for her to want to fuck me. There is no two ways about it. You wouldn't fuck a girl you're not physically attracted to.
Again, here's a post from your friend Sleazy's blog if you think I'm just spouting off:
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2012/12 ... nt-by.html
What's hilarious is that plenty of guys here go "Oh should have persisted" or "Damn, I didn't chase frame and she got away." They think they have more control over the outcome in the moment than they really do, and it's because of PUA bullshit. That's what it's there for: The illusion of control, the idea that you as a guy can be the reason you got laid, it has nothing to do with her at all. But that's crap. If a girl doesn't want to fuck you, your goal is dead in the water. Period. Yes, her wanting to fuck you can be fleeting but I find this rare. If a girl wanted to fuck me last week, she has always had sex with me the next.
Just look at the recent field report posted on some guy trying to fuck a virgin. She did everything but have sex or blow him. Why? Should he have persisted? Perhaps he didn't escalate things in a way that curtails resistance
Or, oh wait, she's a virgin who is apprehensive about sex. Apprehensive about sex = does not want to fuck. He didn't get laid. Not rocket science.
Where the Lies Begin
So here we are, the crux of it.
Chase said:
It's possible to do exclusively one and be shit in the rest. Like, you could be super muscular guy who's also very rich and dresses really well and has an incredible haircut, great body language, facial expressions, walk, etc. (through-the-roof on fundamentals) but has no idea how to talk to girls (game), and still get pretty good results so long as you had some basic game down (i.e., ability to ask women out, basic flirting, ability to lead a woman through a progression of steps that ends with your penis in her vagina).
Likewise, there are men out there with mostly terrible fundamentals - no muscles, short, ugly - but who nevertheless have remarkable game, and they get equivalent results. First guy I knew with game was a short, fat, balding Puerto Rican salesman with incredible frame control, presence, and humor who dated blonde bombshells of equal looks to the ones in King Bert's photos (well, minus the ripped abs / thighs. If you want to date gym bunnies with any consistency you need to be a gym rat yourself).
Absolutely not on that last part. Let's ignore all the anecdotal evidence. Every guy seems to know some fat balding guy who gets laid super often with women. I'd like to see this guy and what he gets with. Nobody ever has a picture.
You only have anecdotal evidence to back up that last part Chase. Curious though... If I can be an ugly guy with game, than why would I bother getting good looking? You even state, yeah good looks help and hell yeah, you can be looking and have no game and get girls. But then you negate it with "But you can also be ugly and have great game!"
So tell me then... Why recommend at all that you should take care of your looks if you can just make up for bad looks with game? And why are you going back and forth on the issue:
Chase said:
In case you don't want to read, here's the summary: muscles boost attractiveness and are a fundamental.
Chase said:
Likewise, there are men out there with mostly terrible fundamentals - no muscles, short, ugly - but who nevertheless have remarkable game, and they get equivalent results.
Chase said:
First guy I knew with game was a short, fat, balding Puerto Rican salesman with incredible frame control, presence, and humor who dated blonde bombshells of equal looks to the ones in King Bert's photos
Chase said:
If you want to date gym bunnies with any consistency you need to be a gym rat yourself).
Which is it bud?
Chase said:
Focusing on just one aspect of one side of the equation to the exclusion of all else never works. e.g., the guy who does nothing but go to the gym and lift (i.e., works on just one single fundamental), and improves himself in no other way, dates land whales. The guy who goes out and does 5000 approaches and works on nothing but openers (i.e., works on just one single aspect of game) also does terrible and sleeps with only a handful of girls, none of them cute. The key is improvement across multiple dimensions - both fundamentals (one of which is muscles) and game.
I agree on a slight point. No just going to the gym won't net you girls. Yes, you need to place yourself in situations to talk to them. But the idea that a guy who just spends his time in the gym dates land whales? Strong anecdotal evidence/10.
I can't even really reply to your post Chase, but I'm doing my best. Your post is all anecdotal. The only evidence you supplied just proved my point. Joe was fat before. He got fit and healthy and worked on his looks. Gets laid like crazy now. Yes, going out and meeting girls is a key. It's hardly fucking rocket science, and no, just meeting girls is not able to make up for looks. My ability to meet Megan Fox doesn't just suddenly open up the possibility of dating her if she isn't physically attracted to me.
Where I see the problem with your site Chase
I think there's some good quality stuff here that helps: Get sexy. Move fast with girls. Girls actually want to have sex. It's awesome advice.
The other stuff? It's bullshit, plain and simple:
http://anti-pua-johnny.blogspot.com/201 ... -much.html
To get a girl, according to your site and your writers, I need to: pre-open, move her, pass shit tests, behave alpha, be sporadic with my texts, keep texts shorter than hers, send an icebreaker text than wait, only tell stories where girls were chasing me, chase frame, have an abundance mentality, pay attention to the 3 body position phases as things progress, fear the closing of an escalation window, get compliance, compliance stack, have to get social proof, etc., etc.
This is where the poor advice descends and just ends up making a guy spin his wheels. Just like I did when I followed it. But when I found out the answer is 1000x simpler I then realized a guy doesn't need any of that. All he needs to do is look good, be personable, and meet hot girls. Him "changing how he asks a girl out" isn't going to change anything: if she's attracted to him and wants to go out with him or fuck him or whatever, she'll say yes. If she's not, she'll say no. That's it. Personality will not increase his chances or be the basis for his chances: it's only a disqualifier. Better looking you are though, the more you get away with. Hard to market that though.
It took me years of cold approaching, getting rejected, practicing my chase frames, and all the other such nonsense to realize this fact. Now I get laid regularly, quicker, with consistently good looking women, and spend absolutely no time on "mastering my game." But if I could go back and tell myself "No brah, this 'you can just practice game and get laid' stuff is bullshit'" I would.
It's funny though. You have readers and forum members reporting depression over your methods, failure to achieve the results they wanted, failures to get laid consistently, etc. Just look at Ken.
Think I'm cherry picking again? Count off to me how many of your members are of "Tribal elder" status compared to all other members' statuses.
Oh but isn't it obvious that those other guys aren't getting success just because they're not trying hard enough? It's a real interesting caveat I've seen around here: if you're depressed at your lack of results, you're not wanting it bad enough. If you're just not getting results, you're just not working hard enough. If you're getting results, my advice worked. See everyone, it works!
All the burden of failure has nothing to do with any part of your advice... that's a curious thing. Maybe just maybe Chase, and fellow board members... certain aspects of this website are incorrect? And thus following an incorrect conclusion leads to poor results. Just like believing NLP will do anything for your chances of fucking your dream girl #fakesciencebruh
Back to the looks vs "presence" stuff though. Fun version of proof of what I'm saying:
https://archive.is/Wga5I/ebc886c6dcc753 ... d3bb03.jpg
https://archive.is/Wga5I/6698eafc5c8e9a ... bff41e.png
https://archive.is/Wga5I/0510a52a8aee0b ... f71814.png
https://archive.is/Wga5I/1f6908d92cd189 ... 1eaad7.png
Of course that's just Tinder. Anecdotally, disregard it as you want, my experience anecdotally syncs up with it. The better looking I got, the more forgiving girls became for how much I could get away with. I could like a complete asshole to a girl and still get her number because she liked my arms. In the end, I choose to just act like, oh no, a nice guy! All I do is ask if a girl wants to hangout, not tell. I say please and thank you and you're welcome. I hold the door, pay for dinner (I couldn't give a fuck who pays). I do all that beta male shit and find it hilarious when guys out there say you can just act dominant and get laid. No, you better be good looking enough for quality of girl you want, period.
Again, if you think I'm bullshitting, consult your friend:
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2012/09 ... story.html
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2012/03 ... weird.html
http://anti-pua-johnny.blogspot.com/201 ... -much.html
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2012/03 ... -cool.html
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2011/12 ... eight.html
Conclusion of post Height matters, muscles matter, looks matter, more than mostly everything in getting laid regularly with hot quality girls, except status or money. The better these are, the more forgiving girls are. Personality/"game" is a disqualifier for getting laid, not the basis: you cannot game your way into a girl's pants, only fuck it up by doing something stupid. You will not get laid consistently or with quality women without good looks and you cannot use game to make up for looks. You can certainly compensate aspects of your looks for each other: short but buff, ugly face but good body, good face and hairstyle but not as fit, etc. But game will not compensate. You cannot "social skill" or "chase frame" your way into pussy. Just like a fat chick can't "chase frame" her way onto your cock.
Relationships are a different animal we won't go into here (hint: personality and long term compatibility comes more into play), we are talking about getting laid regularly and with hot girls at that. In that pursuit, "game" as Drexel describes doesn't matter at all. Looks, status, and money are king. Unless you think that a guy like Dan Bilzerian needs to study game.
Which is another curious thing on this site... why do normal guys have to study getting girls to be like these other guys, yet those other girls didn't read dating advice at all, let alone anything PUA. Why is it a requirement for the masses, and not for them? Maybe being a sports star, billionaire, etc. gets you laid more. No, not because "Girls are valuing the hard work it took to get all the moneyz." It's because the guy is rich and they want money. Look at
http://tagthesponsor.com/