Metrics to date & getting past auto-rejection for good.

[kevkev39]

So. I tallied up my metrics for the past year (since February). I have to say, I don't love them, and I'm actually kind of frustrated & disappointed in them. Here they are:

70~ approaches
60~ phone numbers (Sometimes these are gotten for the purpose of effective communication, since they don't always speak great English. Rarely it's a quick grab because I'm busy and I'll talk to them later. USUALLY I try to get these after suggesting an activity we can actually do or otherwise trying to make plans in some way.)
20 auto-rejections (ie. girls who liked me a *lot* in person, but left me on read etc.)
15 blocks (all of these are blocks WITHOUT my contribution - like we could have been chatting casually and then *bam* blocked. It's even happened with girls who've sent me especially dirty pictures soo...)
17 I chose to not follow up with at all
12 direct sexual offers (ie. Can't possibly be interpreted any other way.) (One was an offer to be paid for sex, so that was a definite ego boost.)
3 of those offers that I actually followed through with. (funny enough, 1 of those I didn't actually get her number, so she's not included in the count.)

As well, I have 4 dates for the year. As you can probably guess, none of them ended in sex despite all of them being with girls who were extremely into me. (and no, I'm not including those in the sexual offers because they didn't happen)

The rest are just misc. Maybe we talked a little bit, but ultimately I moved on from their city.

I'll note that I (almost) NEVER go out with the aim to meet girls. This is all happening strictly within the confines of me going about my day-to-day life and occasionally meeting girls. I don't really do night game these days - I'm not bad at it by any means, but I have minimal tolerance for attention whores and status jockeys. Plus I don't care about drinking (it just doesn't do anything for me).


If I'm being really honest, I realize that these numbers ARE solid and most guys would probably be thrilled with them. I however, am not most guys.

Most of the girls who auto-rejected are also all of the girls I would most like to have actually banged. Some of them I can even point to specific things they do as reasons that I have for liking them - maybe they're creative, maybe they're just fun, maybe they're adventurous - ironically, they're the ones who have the MOST shot of joining my harem. (Which is probably part of the reason they auto-reject lol)

Now, given that we've discussed this topic before, I HAVE already implemented changes including being a bit warmer, more complimentary, and giving women certain roles they can play in my life. I'd love to tell you that these changes worked wonders, but if I did I'd be lying. In reality, there's been little to no change on that front.

So I guess what I'm asking is, how can we -actually- fix this problem, besides just going after some kind of ultra-wealthy class of girls? The ones who are auto-rejecting btw, some are like, doctors and stuff. The whole thing is ridiculous, and it actually causes me to not only make less approaches than I -could- (with girls who are hot too, not just "kinda cute" - for the record, I don't bother with "kinda cute".), it also makes me think less of people in general. I guess the thought process is kind of like "well, I know I'M going to play this game to perfection, and I know that I at least want to lead us to victory. But if YOU'RE going to flip the table over right before we're both about to win, then why would I bother playing with you?"

 

[kevkev39]

Also, I forgot to talk about the calibration and the travel aspects.

So, bear in mind that I travel - lately I've been around Asia, but I've interacted with a good mix of both local girls and foreign girls.

What's really interesting is how utterly bizarre and almost unintuitive the calibration seems to be. I've tried a few different tactics, and you might be surprised at what works and what doesn't...

It doesn't seem to matter whether I get overtly (verbally) sexual within the first few minutes, or if I don't mention it -at all- and *just* try to get to know a chick better. (That's 50-50, and weirdly it's not what leads to me getting lay invites lol.)

Likewise, compliments show warmth, but don't necessarily impact results - still end up getting auto-rejected. (In some cases, I think it's also acted as validation. Like "fuck yeah, I won." even though they didn't actually win lol)

Humor has no large bearing on the results either, as far as auto-rejection goes. Though I will note that a lot of the sex invitations had little to no humor as a part of them. (They're also often received VERY quickly, and it's a coin toss on whether a girl will get almost stalker-esque or not. Sometimes I get a whole string of messages and offers... Sometimes it's just one or two.)

What -does- seem to work (at least on the approach side) is either dismissiveness (daygame) OR overt (physical) sexuality (nightgame). So in practice, not suggesting that we do anything at all, not even trying to make plans, will (relatively often) get girls to blurt out that they're single. Meanwhile, telling them to show me their tits immediately after meeting them has been a winner a few times throughout my life (though I don't do it very often. I guess I could do it more lol. I don't know that a girl's ever turned me down on that ask actually.). (Interesting to note: the ones who actually -do- immediately show me their tits, aren't even the ones who give me big wide love eyes right off the bat. Admittedly those ones I could probably ask to do anything in that moment, but aside from 1 I've never really tried asking them for much more than their number right then and there.)

Some of it I'm sure is cultural (some parts of Asia are *extremely* sexually repressed - I made a joke about a local girl reading erotica once and she reacted like I just ran over her dog and laughed about it to her face.), some of it I'm sure is demographic (the more interesting stories I have are like that pool bar one, with the "I'm gonna try to connect with you by insulting you and shoving my politics down your throat for 30 minutes" lol).

There doesn't seem to be any true rhyme or reason to the successes though, outside of perhaps a lack of emotional attachment to the outcome?

One thing I'll note is that I -do- have a very strong presence, and I know that I have a tendency to make girls fantasize from afar. I've had a few tell me that they kept thinking about how I approached them, months after the fact. These aren't even over the "big, deep dives into the fabric of who they are and what drives them."... These are like the "man, this chick at the convenience store has great tits. I'll go say hi." approaches that last less than 2 minutes.

As far as I can tell, the common thread is emotion & actually caring about the outcome. Like, once the idea has a chance at becoming real, the ones that care seem to want to run and hide, while the ones that treat it as purely sexual are willing to move things forward. Part of me understands (I mean hey, my modus operandi is to take on new challenges practically every day. Even I can get a little nervous with big leaps), but another part of me is like "Uhhhh... You're the one who told ME how badly you wanted to fuck... Why are you backing out now?"

I've seen the auto-rejection for myself in person, and it's definitely an interesting thing to watch. Last time I saw it, it was with a barista who was -really- bubbly and friendly, and let slip that she was single the first time I drank at that cafe, but I turned her down because I wasn't in the mood to deal with more AR nonsense. The second time I saw her (hey, it's a great cafe.) she was totally cold to me before running to the back for about 20 minutes, then perked up again after I showed her a drawing and asked her for local restaurant recommendations.

 

[kevkev39]

At the suggestion of Topcat, in another thread, I'll even go ahead and break down some *rough examples* for you on what this all looks like when put into practice.

So, we've got something like..

The 7/11 thai girl (this is from quite a while back, so forgive me for not remember exactly what was said or when. In general, I'm sure I talked about myself a bit too much in this era, but it wasn't without a good amount of questions about her either):

I stop in at a 7/11 with a little seating area, and I sit and draw a picture.
This girl is there, obviously into me (very wide eyes when she sees me - this happens a lot), I don't do or say anything.
About 10-15 minutes later she comes back and I open her.
We chitchat for a little bit, I ask her about herself - questions like who she is, what she likes to do for fun, ask about what kind of things she's working on, and invite her to draw a picture with me.
Within maybe 5 minutes of that, I knew I could have pulled her back to my place - logistically I just had issues with the cab though, so instead we walked to a nearby cafe and did an insta-date. (yes, I realize this is a game mistake. Yes, I would have pulled her IF the cab had worked out fine.)
We chitchat at the cafe, more deep dives etc. and I've got her tits in my hand, even take a short nap on her lap. We get ice cream, and she ends up just going home. (For the record, I wasn't paying for all of it. She DID buy the ice cream.)

The next time I see her, she comes and meets me at a cafe.
Insert chitchat & more picture drawing
She comes home with me.
Insert LMR - asks how many girls I've been with (less than you'd think, ofc) and even though we slept next to each other naked, all I got from her was a very short-lived, not even done to completion BJ in the morning.
We go downstairs to hit up another cafe, and as we're waiting this other thai girl I'd met recently (but done nothing with but kiss once at a bar) said something about being with her in thai. (No idea what exactly, but that girl and I never got together - too much drama and too low level energy)

Next time I see her is a couple months later
She comes over to my place, stops inside for a quick second and we catch up before heading to get dessert.
One thing I'll note is that at the cafe, we made more pictures (It's easy to carry and fun. Beats using the phone 24/7) and she saw the one she'd drawn, and commented on how she thought I'd have thrown it away. (Hon, I could never. You drew it for me, after all.)
We go to the mall, walk around for a while, before going back to my place.
This time she doesn't even come upstairs. She books a bike and leaves.

To this day, we haven't had sex. I wish I could tell you what this girl actually wanted from me - and the charitable assumption I make is that she really liked me, but she didn't really like herself and was afraid that I would just toss her aside. Which I can understand, given that she hopped jobs and kept looking for one that was actually going to treat her well. (She also didn't take very good care of her cat and let it grow fat.)

The uncharitable assumption is that everything I know about her is either a lie or a half truth, and she secretly just wanted a guy to give her an allowance. I don't like to make uncharitable assumptions about people - hell I even prefer framing their negative behavior in its positive light when possible... But for the sake of completeness, we must make arguments for both sides.


Now that's if I actually GO on the date in the first place.


A LOT of the time (Literally more than half of the time lol) how things will go down is like this:

Convenience store girl

Go into store to get a water.
Say hi to a tattooed, pierced girl - interesting look.
She's immediately hooked, wide eyes, hands to hair, a bit nervous, the works.
We talk about the city, I move to talking about her and why she likes it, what she likes about what she does, etc.
She's getting excited
We bounce to the hostel nearby that she works at (I had to buy something they sold at the desk, and she was picking up her stuff to go home).

At this point, she gets me the item and I notice she's starting to go cold.
Now I throw her a bone and ask her for suggestions on places to go, to segue it into her giving me the grand tour and set up something for the week.
The microsecond I ask for her number, a switch flips and she gets excited
She leaves, and I go the fuck to bed because it's late. (Could I have pulled? Almost definitely. Do I want to after a whole day of activity and a flight? Not really lol)

I text her "Hey, it was nice meeting you earlier. You seem very adventurous, I love it. You should show me around one of these days. Love the piercings btw, very sexy."
Never heard back from her.

I ran into her a few more times in person while walking down the street (small world I guess), and every time she was a little colder and a little colder. About a week or two afterwards, my number was blocked - as I found out a couple weeks later when I ran into her AGAIN (seriously, it's just weird.) while on another walk. She completely ignored me this time, and I texted her saying that was rather rude of her.


OR

Yoga cafe girl

Go to coffee shop (that also has yoga)
Meet girl. Get wide eyes. Open body language. Many iois.
Talk to girl. Find out she has sister. She does yoga. She farts rainbows. (Don't all girls?) (Not really)
Make plans to see each other the next day.
Get number for co-ordination purposes.
I text her "hey." She texts back "hai."
I text "let me know when you're free tomorrow, yeah?"
She doesn't respond.

I hear nothing, so a few days later I let her know "hey, just a heads up. I'm leaving X day. If you want to get together, it's gotta be either tonight or tomorrow."
She doesn't respond

Weeks later, I'm in another country. Curious, so I text her. "Kind of surprised we didn't get together. You seemed like you were really into me. Any particular reason why?"
She doesn't respond. (At this point, I think that'd be a great hook for a song.)

ALTERNATIVELY...

I also get someone like this sometimes.

Shop girl

I purchase an item.
From a girl at a small shop.
She's immediately interested cause she knows that I'm on top.
She has the wide eyes, thin thighs, probably never eats fries, seems like a good girl who doesn't know how to lie.
It's fair to say she was A-ok and that she'd be down to clown, problem is we couldn't talk much cause we don't share the same dictionary of sounds
So I got her number and walked away, it was a real slick kind of pull,
but whenever I asked to get together the answer was always null

You might be forgiven for thinking, this girl's not into me
But then I got her messages being so lovey-dovey.
I barely even knew her, but she'd keep texting first
She'd send me pics (not of her tits), tell me about her day,
But she'd always avoid the lay.

This went on for several weeks, and the story never changed.
She'd text me first, I'd respond, but didn't get any strange.

Next time I saw her I was walking through the mall where she worked.
I stopped by, barely said hi and got a gigantic hug
A few weeks later, I got the message "Hello, hello my love."

This is a girl that I barely know. I never once deep dived.
This is a common kind of thing, that happens in my life. (Once a week at the very least)
I don't know if I'm a player in this game or if this game is playing me.
But now you know the story, that much is clear to see.

You might even be forgiven for thinking that I don't really know these girls
But in just a couple seconds, I pull them deep into my world
I remember each of them, like flowers in the spring
I have their stories locked away inside my memory

 

[Maddash]

I think you might be trying to find one single explanation for something that is actually several different problems happening at different stages.


Your approach game honestly doesn't look like the bottleneck here. If you're getting roughly 60 numbers from 70 approaches, you're clearly capable of walking up, creating a vibe and getting contact information. The huge drop seems to happen AFTER that.


The first thing I'd question is how you're measuring attraction.


Wide eyes, touching hair, nervousness, smiling, being bubbly etc can absolutely be IOIs, but they're still noisy signals. I wouldn't use those alone to conclude "this girl was extremely into me."


I think a much better hierarchy is behavior:


she replies -> she contributes to the conversation -> she agrees to a concrete plan -> she actually shows up -> she helps make logistics easier -> she initiates sometimes -> she reciprocates physical escalation.


The further down that chain she goes, the more meaningful the attraction is.


Someone can genuinely enjoy meeting you, find you attractive and even get excited in the moment without necessarily wanting to see you again afterwards. That doesn't always mean she "auto-rejected" because she liked you TOO much. Sometimes the moment was just stronger than the actual investment.


And I think that distinction matters because otherwise you can accidentally make your theory unfalsifiable. If she follows through, she was attracted. If she disappears, she was so attracted that she auto-rejected. At that point every possible outcome confirms the same theory.


Looking at your examples, I also think your texting could be part of the conversion leak.


Take the convenience store girl. You go from a spontaneous real-life interaction where you're presumably pretty charismatic to:


"Hey, it was nice meeting you earlier. You seem very adventurous, I love it. You should show me around one of these days. Love the piercings btw, very sexy."


That's not horrible, but it's a lot of validation plus a vague request all in one message. She has to decide when, where and whether she wants to become your tour guide.


I'd probably keep more of the original vibe and make the next step lower friction.


Something like a callback to whatever you joked about, then:


"I'm checking out X tomorrow around 4, come with me if you're free."


Now she has something concrete to respond to.


Same thing with yoga girl:


"let me know when you're free tomorrow"


sounds reasonable, but you're handing her the entire logistical burden. If she is only moderately invested, that's where things die.


I'd rather lead with something specific:


"I'm grabbing coffee at X around 3 tomorrow before I head out, join me."


If she wants to come but can't, an invested girl will often counteroffer.


And if she doesn't respond, I'd leave it there. I definitely wouldn't be texting her weeks later asking why she didn't meet up. At that point you're trying to extract an explanation from somebody who already gave you the important information through behavior.


The shop girl is almost the opposite problem. She texts first, sends affectionate messages and seems excited to see you, but repeatedly avoids meeting. At some point you have to stop treating texting enthusiasm as equivalent to romantic/sexual investment. If she repeatedly won't make a date happen, I would mentally move her into "friendly/flirty penpal unless proven otherwise" and stop investing much energy.


The Thai girl is different again. There was obviously a lot of physical comfort and attraction there, but her getting naked with you or doing some sexual things still doesn't necessarily mean she wanted intercourse. If she stops or hesitates, that isn't something I'd diagnose as a game failure automatically. She may just not want to go further at that point. You read it, respect it, take a step back, build more attraction and comfort, and see what happens later.


That's why I think you're getting confused by putting all of these girls into the same "auto-rejection" bucket when the situations aren't actually the same.


You also have another massive variable: travel.


You're meeting locals, foreigners, girls working in shops/cafes, women in different countries, sometimes with language barriers, sometimes when you're leaving the city shortly afterwards. That's going to destroy your ability to compare outcomes cleanly.


A girl can think you're hot and interesting and still think:


"he's leaving in three days, what's the point?"


or


"that interaction was fun but I don't know this guy well enough."


or simply wake up the next day and not feel as strongly about it anymore.


None of those require some deep psychological auto-rejection mechanism.


If I were you, I'd stop tracking "numbers" as the main metric entirely. Your number-close rate already seems fine.


I'd track the funnel instead:


Approach -> qualified contact -> replies -> concrete plan -> shows up -> progression.


And especially pay attention to where girls consistently fall out.


A "qualified contact" to me would mean more than just getting her number. Did she invest? Did she ask you things? Did she help keep the interaction going? Did she seem enthusiastic about actually seeing you again?


Because 60 numbers don't mean much if half of them were generated from strong momentary chemistry that never converted into actual intent.


I'd also stop trying to find a single personality setting like "be warmer", "be more sexual", "be dismissive", "use more humor", etc.


Calibration isn't finding the one setting that works on every woman. It's noticing what THIS woman is giving you and adjusting accordingly.


If she's investing heavily, you can lead harder.


If she's interested but cautious, give her room without becoming passive.


If she's not reciprocating, don't try to game your way through it.


And if she pulls back during physical escalation, I wouldn't frame it as resistance you need to defeat. It's simply information: slow down, change gears.


Honestly I think your biggest potential improvement isn't creating MORE attraction. You already seem capable of creating strong first impressions.


It's getting better at distinguishing:


"she's enjoying me right now"


from


"she is actually invested in seeing me again."


Those are related, but they're definitely not the same thing.


Once you start separating those two, I think a lot of what currently looks mysterious will probably stop being mysterious.

 

[kevkev39]

I think you might be trying to find one single explanation for something that is actually several different problems happening at different stages.


Your approach game honestly doesn't look like the bottleneck here. If you're getting roughly 60 numbers from 70 approaches, you're clearly capable of walking up, creating a vibe and getting contact information. The huge drop seems to happen AFTER that.


The first thing I'd question is how you're measuring attraction.


Wide eyes, touching hair, nervousness, smiling, being bubbly etc can absolutely be IOIs, but they're still noisy signals. I wouldn't use those alone to conclude "this girl was extremely into me."


I think a much better hierarchy is behavior:


she replies -> she contributes to the conversation -> she agrees to a concrete plan -> she actually shows up -> she helps make logistics easier -> she initiates sometimes -> she reciprocates physical escalation.


The further down that chain she goes, the more meaningful the attraction is.


Someone can genuinely enjoy meeting you, find you attractive and even get excited in the moment without necessarily wanting to see you again afterwards. That doesn't always mean she "auto-rejected" because she liked you TOO much. Sometimes the moment was just stronger than the actual investment.


And I think that distinction matters because otherwise you can accidentally make your theory unfalsifiable. If she follows through, she was attracted. If she disappears, she was so attracted that she auto-rejected. At that point every possible outcome confirms the same theory.


Looking at your examples, I also think your texting could be part of the conversion leak.


Take the convenience store girl. You go from a spontaneous real-life interaction where you're presumably pretty charismatic to:


"Hey, it was nice meeting you earlier. You seem very adventurous, I love it. You should show me around one of these days. Love the piercings btw, very sexy."


That's not horrible, but it's a lot of validation plus a vague request all in one message. She has to decide when, where and whether she wants to become your tour guide.


I'd probably keep more of the original vibe and make the next step lower friction.


Something like a callback to whatever you joked about, then:


"I'm checking out X tomorrow around 4, come with me if you're free."


Now she has something concrete to respond to.


Same thing with yoga girl:


"let me know when you're free tomorrow"


sounds reasonable, but you're handing her the entire logistical burden. If she is only moderately invested, that's where things die.


I'd rather lead with something specific:


"I'm grabbing coffee at X around 3 tomorrow before I head out, join me."


If she wants to come but can't, an invested girl will often counteroffer.


And if she doesn't respond, I'd leave it there. I definitely wouldn't be texting her weeks later asking why she didn't meet up. At that point you're trying to extract an explanation from somebody who already gave you the important information through behavior.


The shop girl is almost the opposite problem. She texts first, sends affectionate messages and seems excited to see you, but repeatedly avoids meeting. At some point you have to stop treating texting enthusiasm as equivalent to romantic/sexual investment. If she repeatedly won't make a date happen, I would mentally move her into "friendly/flirty penpal unless proven otherwise" and stop investing much energy.


The Thai girl is different again. There was obviously a lot of physical comfort and attraction there, but her getting naked with you or doing some sexual things still doesn't necessarily mean she wanted intercourse. If she stops or hesitates, that isn't something I'd diagnose as a game failure automatically. She may just not want to go further at that point. You read it, respect it, take a step back, build more attraction and comfort, and see what happens later.


That's why I think you're getting confused by putting all of these girls into the same "auto-rejection" bucket when the situations aren't actually the same.


You also have another massive variable: travel.


You're meeting locals, foreigners, girls working in shops/cafes, women in different countries, sometimes with language barriers, sometimes when you're leaving the city shortly afterwards. That's going to destroy your ability to compare outcomes cleanly.


A girl can think you're hot and interesting and still think:


"he's leaving in three days, what's the point?"


or


"that interaction was fun but I don't know this guy well enough."


or simply wake up the next day and not feel as strongly about it anymore.


None of those require some deep psychological auto-rejection mechanism.


If I were you, I'd stop tracking "numbers" as the main metric entirely. Your number-close rate already seems fine.


I'd track the funnel instead:


Approach -> qualified contact -> replies -> concrete plan -> shows up -> progression.


And especially pay attention to where girls consistently fall out.


A "qualified contact" to me would mean more than just getting her number. Did she invest? Did she ask you things? Did she help keep the interaction going? Did she seem enthusiastic about actually seeing you again?


Because 60 numbers don't mean much if half of them were generated from strong momentary chemistry that never converted into actual intent.


I'd also stop trying to find a single personality setting like "be warmer", "be more sexual", "be dismissive", "use more humor", etc.


Calibration isn't finding the one setting that works on every woman. It's noticing what THIS woman is giving you and adjusting accordingly.


If she's investing heavily, you can lead harder.


If she's interested but cautious, give her room without becoming passive.


If she's not reciprocating, don't try to game your way through it.


And if she pulls back during physical escalation, I wouldn't frame it as resistance you need to defeat. It's simply information: slow down, change gears.


Honestly I think your biggest potential improvement isn't creating MORE attraction. You already seem capable of creating strong first impressions.


It's getting better at distinguishing:


"she's enjoying me right now"


from


"she is actually invested in seeing me again."


Those are related, but they're definitely not the same thing.


Once you start separating those two, I think a lot of what currently looks mysterious will probably stop being mysterious.

Thank you ChatGPT.

 

[Maddash]

Thank you ChatGPT.

lol if you disagree, tell me which part. Point still stands.

 

[kevkev39]

lol if you disagree, tell me which part. Point still stands.

I disagree with analysis generated strictly by a machine that doesn't actually have the ability to analyze things. You might as well have been using a calculator that's wrong half the time and told me that 2+2=7.

It's not even done anything more than spit back essentially what I've already told you, dressed up in a different package. It's also made a lot of assumptions that just aren't true. For instance, the idea that I'm tracking "phone numbers" as the "main" metric - it hasn't defined "main" at all, and our focus is much more on lays with quality women than it is phone numbers.

It also blatantly ignores the fact that these girls have outright told me they miss me and how much they remember the approach, months down the line.

 

[Jamster]

She comes home with me.
Insert LMR - asks how many girls I've been with (less than you'd think, ofc) and even though we slept next to each other naked, all I got from her was a very short-lived, not even done to completion BJ in the morning.
[ . . . ]

Next time I see her is a couple months later

Curious - what contact did you have with her in those "couple months?" It seems to me if she was naked with you for a night, she would have wanted followup. She might have just felt "hit-and-run."

.

 

[kevkev39]

Curious - what contact did you have with her in those "couple months?" It seems to me if she was naked with you for a night, she would have wanted followup. She might have just felt "hit-and-run."

.

Plenty of followups actually. Not anything I'd call excessive, not anything I'd call too little. Just enough, especially considering we were in totally different countries

 

[AspiringStoic]

We chitchat at the cafe, more deep dives etc. and I've got her tits in my hand, even take a short nap on her lap

WTF???

I have been on dozens of instant dates and know plenty of guys who have told me about instant dates they have had, plus read tons of field reports of people going on instant dates.

Never heard of a I had her tits in my hand and I also took a nap on her lap instant date.

Damn this forum and the posters on here are getting weirder and weirder by the day!

 

[kevkev39]

WTF???

I have been on dozens of instant dates and know plenty of guys who have told me about instant dates they have had, plus read tons of field reports of people going on instant dates.

Never heard of a I had her tits in my hand and I also took a nap on her lap instant date.

Damn this forum and the posters on here are getting weirder and weirder by the day!

How are you -not- getting tits in hand within a few minutes? Some of the easiest pulls I have I just literally tell a girl to show me her tits within 30 ~ 60 seconds after meeting her. I don't think I've ever been turned down for that.

 

[Jamster]

I always take a nap when I'm trying to pull. How could you not?

 

[Skills]

op read the post i will link, you don't know what autorejection is...

Socializing - Couple of concepts in seduction that you guys need to ignore for a while

A lot of you mental masturbate and take totally out of context these different concepts... I beg you to forget about them for now cause THEY DON'T APPLY TO YOU... Attainability: This concept is for when a girl thinks you are out of her league, she disqualifies herself... Most of you don't have...

www.skilledseducer.com

You are losing the girls during the texting.... the way you text will make the girls ghost, not meet, block... Go to my archives and read my texting guides...Start here:

Simple/basic texting guide

There are 2 types of texting most guys use: 1.- long texting setting sexual frames.- This is hard to do, but is possible to do with experience. I had to rely in this style for 2 reasons: a.-) I relied a lot on physical game, no talking dance floor game and i had a heavy latin accent. b.-) By...

www.skilledseducer.com

 

[kevkev39]

I always take a nap when I'm trying to pull. How could you not?

I also got her into bed later. Sooo...

op read the post i will link, you don't know what autorejection is...

Socializing - Couple of concepts in seduction that you guys need to ignore for a while

A lot of you mental masturbate and take totally out of context these different concepts... I beg you to forget about them for now cause THEY DON'T APPLY TO YOU... Attainability: This concept is for when a girl thinks you are out of her league, she disqualifies herself... Most of you don't have...

www.skilledseducer.com

You are losing the girls during the texting.... the way you text will make the girls ghost, not meet, block... Go to my archives and read my texting guides...Start here:

Simple/basic texting guide

There are 2 types of texting most guys use: 1.- long texting setting sexual frames.- This is hard to do, but is possible to do with experience. I had to rely in this style for 2 reasons: a.-) I relied a lot on physical game, no talking dance floor game and i had a heavy latin accent. b.-) By...

www.skilledseducer.com

Pass. TBH Skills, and I mean this in the nicest way... I always get the sense that your advice is totally inconsistent. You seem to bounce from one extreme to another in the same breath, and every time I read your advice I feel even MORE confused. Even the fact that you're proudly proclaiming that I don't know what auto rejection is, as I use the term -perfectly- according to *your* post. (Hell not too long ago we discussed the whole "getting past blocking" thing and you had 2 wildly different takes there too)

"Auto rejection: Similar to attainability this is for women that think they have no chance with you so again they disqualify themselves cause women are risk adverse"

While I agree that application of one's technique -can- have an effect on one's results, I call bullshit on the idea that early texting of all things is where I'm losing these girls.

It's a nice *theory*, it's an *easy* theory, and it's something you can confidently point to that makes you seem like you have "the magic answer", but let's break it down logically. According to you, I text like a sperglord. By virtue of not sending "the perfectly calibrated first message", I (and -everyone- else) will automatically be ghosted, blocked, etc.

I don't buy it. Maybe it applies for the kinds of girls that YOU go for (from what I gather, it's a lot of bar & club scene druggie types with minimal attention spans - whom I'm naturally aligned AGAINST by default), but for me - and I'll bet the vast majority of other guys - I highly doubt that making ONE wrong move with an interested & fully qualified party would spell the death of all interactions and total cessation of seduction.

(Plus, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that I -do- have plenty of girls who -do- respond to me positively FROM my texting, so which is it?)

What seems far MORE likely is that there's a mismatch somewhere between the people in question - whether in her being insecure, too attached, in disbelief, or any number of other things.

Put it this way: If you want to buy a car, and you've found exactly the car you want at the price you're willing to pay, you're not gonna give a shit if the dealer tries a few desperate tactics to up the price on you - you're still going to buy the damn car. But on the other hand, if you thought you were going to go look at a Honda, but it turned out to be a Ferrari, even if it were the same price you might back out of the sale for any number of reasons ("I'm not a Ferrari kind of person", "I don't even know how to drive stick", "It's just not what I was looking for", "I don't even have time to THINK about Ferraris right now. I just need a reliable Honda" etc. etc.) (AKA Auto Reject)

Which IS generally consistent with the behavior that I see.

 

[Skills]

I also got her into bed later. Sooo...





Pass. TBH Skills, and I mean this in the nicest way... I always get the sense that your advice is totally inconsistent. You seem to bounce from one extreme to another in the same breath, and every time I read your advice I feel even MORE confused. Even the fact that you're proudly proclaiming that I don't know what auto rejection is, as I use the term -perfectly- according to *your* post. (Hell not too long ago we discussed the whole "getting past blocking" thing and you had 2 wildly different takes there too)

"Auto rejection: Similar to attainability this is for women that think they have no chance with you so again they disqualify themselves cause women are risk adverse"

While I agree that application of one's technique -can- have an effect on one's results, I call bullshit on the idea that early texting of all things is where I'm losing these girls.

It's a nice *theory*, it's an *easy* theory, and it's something you can confidently point to that makes you seem like you have "the magic answer", but let's break it down logically. According to you, I text like a sperglord. By virtue of not sending "the perfectly calibrated first message", I (and -everyone- else) will automatically be ghosted, blocked, etc.

I don't buy it. Maybe it applies for the kinds of girls that YOU go for (from what I gather, it's a lot of bar & club scene druggie types with minimal attention spans - whom I'm naturally aligned AGAINST by default), but for me - and I'll bet the vast majority of other guys - I highly doubt that making ONE wrong move with an interested & fully qualified party would spell the death of all interactions and total cessation of seduction.

(Plus, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that I -do- have plenty of girls who -do- respond to me positively FROM my texting, so which is it?)

What seems far MORE likely is that there's a mismatch somewhere between the people in question - whether in her being insecure, too attached, in disbelief, or any number of other things.

Put it this way: If you want to buy a car, and you've found exactly the car you want at the price you're willing to pay, you're not gonna give a shit if the dealer tries a few desperate tactics to up the price on you - you're still going to buy the damn car. But on the other hand, if you thought you were going to go look at a Honda, but it turned out to be a Ferrari, even if it were the same price you might back out of the sale for any number of reasons ("I'm not a Ferrari kind of person", "I don't even know how to drive stick", "It's just not what I was looking for", "I don't even have time to THINK about Ferraris right now. I just need a reliable Honda" etc. etc.) (AKA Auto Reject)

Which IS generally consistent with the behavior that I see.

Dude if you feel better thinking you sre getting auto rejection then....i will say in the nicest way..."cool story brah".....

I get girls from all games no drugs, bars and clubs... Don't worry another to my ignore list

 

[AspiringStoic]

Dude if you feel better thinking you sre getting auto rejection then....i will say in the nicest way..."cool story brah".....

I get girls from all games no drugs, bars and clubs... Don't worry another to my ignore list

More than 80 percent of the posters here nowadays on this forum are worthy of being put on the ignore list.

 

[CharmingPsychopath]

20 auto-rejections (ie. girls who liked me a *lot* in person, but left me on read etc.)

To me it doesn't look like auto-rejection, but rather the classical "diminishing rapport" problem. When a guy is talking to a girl face to face, she sees him in real life as a living person, there is natural human warmth..... But later, when she goes home, his image in her head can fade.... She stops seeing him as the living human she saw in real life, and starts seeing him as some kind of blurry "some guy I don't know, I can't trust" image. And she becomes anxious, wary of meeting with him. Such a thing is a rapport/comfort/trust issue, not auto-rejection.

Pushing sexuality fast like getting hands on their tits within few minutes can also make it worse. It can be a good idea to EITHER not overburden the girl emotionally with too much sexuality OR to actually go so far that the deal is "sealed" during the instant date - preferably with sex. Grabbing a tit fast is kind of in between - likely to overburden the girl, but not "sealing the deal", so it's not a great option.

WTF???

I have been on dozens of instant dates and know plenty of guys who have told me about instant dates they have had, plus read tons of field reports of people going on instant dates.

Never heard of a I had her tits in my hand and I also took a nap on her lap instant date.

Damn this forum and the posters on here are getting weirder and weirder by the day!

Nice self-own.

Tits in hand is nothing weird, especially if the instant date is continued into a park, forest or a beach, especially when it's dark. Also in dark venues with secluded corners.

Sometimes women are fingered, sometimes they do handjobs on instant dates... Something blowjobs or even full intercouse. (In venue toilets, in a forest, secluded park areas or on beach dunes with obscuring vegetation.) Especially among younger people who share their rooms and don't have money for a hotel room. But sometimes simply kissing and making out escalates more and more, people are excited and it feels spontanous and daring to do something right there, righ then, in public outdoor space. (or in a toilet)

Laying head on her lap also sometimes happens in similar situations - like on a park bench, etc.

It's a nice *theory*, it's an *easy* theory, and it's something you can confidently point to that makes you seem like you have "the magic answer", but let's break it down logically. According to you, I text like a sperglord. By virtue of not sending "the perfectly calibrated first message", I (and -everyone- else) will automatically be ghosted, blocked, etc.

I don't buy it. Maybe it applies for the kinds of girls that YOU go for (from what I gather, it's a lot of bar & club scene druggie types with minimal attention spans - whom I'm naturally aligned AGAINST by default), but for me - and I'll bet the vast majority of other guys - I highly doubt that making ONE wrong move with an interested & fully qualified party would spell the death of all interactions and total cessation of seduction.

(Plus, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that I -do- have plenty of girls who -do- respond to me positively FROM my texting, so which is it?)

Good takedown of nonsense.

 

[John92]

To me it doesn't look like auto-rejection, but rather the classical "diminishing rapport" problem. When a guy is talking to a girl face to face, she sees him in real life as a living person, there is natural human warmth..... But later, when she goes home, his image in her head can fade.... She stops seeing him as the living human she saw in real life, and starts seeing him as some kind of blurry "some guy I don't know, I can't trust" image. And she becomes anxious, wary of meeting with him. Such a thing is a rapport/comfort/trust issue, not auto-rejection.

I don't agree. The girl is not really interested or a validation seeker at best. She would at least show up to a date if interested. I've seen many lay reports on here where there was barely any rapport built before the date and they don't flake/ghost. What is the difference between cold approach and online? I would say a confident cold approach should bring you more value since you're putting your balls on the line, especially when approching in the day time or on the street.

My only lay from cold approach was with very little comfort built lol.

@Francis Even used a empty profile with blurry pictures and still managed to get lays. I don't buy what you're saying.

In the end, taking numbers should be a last resort, got to go for the SDL at all times.

 

[Jamster]

She has the wide eyes, thin thighs, probably never eats fries, seems like a good girl who doesn't know how to lie.

@kevkev39

This would be a great, great! song lyric.

The paragraph I took it from was exceptionally poetic, but this phrase hits a peak.

Is it already someone else's song?

 

[Skills]

I don't agree. The girl is not really interested or a validation seeker at best. She would at least show up to a date if interested. I've seen many lay reports on here where there was barely any rapport built before the date and they don't flake/ghost. What is the difference between cold approach and online? I would say a confident cold approach should bring you more value since you're putting your balls on the line, especially when approching in the day time or on the street.

My only lay from cold approach was with very little comfort built lol.

@Francis Even used a empty profile with blurry pictures and still managed to get lays. I don't buy what you're saying.

In the end, taking numbers should be a last resort, got to go for the SDL at all times.

Excellent