PSA: Psychopathy is not a positive trait

[Will_V]

And I'm not idealising psychopathy due to some bias. Mainstream science says psychopaths have certain traits - and so it happens that these traits give an advantage in dealing with women.

In the triarchic model, psychopathy is composed of three traits:

1. Boldness.
2. Meanness.
3. Disinhibition.

I think it's really obvious that BOLD, disinhibited men, tend to have more succcess with women than men who are less bold and have more inhibitions.

Also, the psychopath traits generally match a "badboy" profile - mean (bad), bold guy without respect for autorithy and social rules. And as many people have noticed independently from each other, many women are attracted to badboys.

And psychopaths are also good liars, manipulators - they don't feel moral reservations, so they do it congruently, convincingly.

I agree that guys with less inhibition are much more successful with women. In fact I believe inhibition is the worst thing for seduction, period, based on my own experience.

You can be burning with rage or deeply sad and still captivate her, as long as you are not trying to escape from your own emotions or hide them out of social fear.

In my experience, well-adjusted girls with good social intuition tend to look for other, more subtle characteristics as well, such as leadership, kindness, tact, etc. This is certainly true in long term relationships. For short term flings, I think it depends on how far out of her comfort zone she's willing to go.

The Quality That Makes Some Psychopaths So Successful

New research reveals how psychopathy and charisma sometimes go hand-in-hand.

www.psychologytoday.com

"They found a positive association between psychopathy and charisma—people who scored higher on the trait of psychopathy also tended to be more charismatic. "

That's interesting.

I believe charisma has most to do with self-belief. And I don't mean some airy fairy self-talk, but how much all of your expression (through your face and your voice and your body) is aligned and pulling together in the same direction.

I think people have an instinctive repulsion to conflicted expression, where an individual is trying to express something consciously while their subconscious expressions say otherwise. And conversely, a strong attraction to individuals who are fully aligned.

Unfortunately for most guys, nearly 100% of their state during socializing is low key internal conflict - they are trying to come across one way while feeling deep down another way. Which not only makes socializing an unpleasant experience, but also makes them completely ineffectual on the social receptors of other people.

1. It's useless. We live in a society and in the overwhelming majority of cases the psychopath isn't going to harm anyone even if he'd like to, because he doesn't want to go to jail. (And if he is going to harm someone, an emotional "fight or flight" reaction isn't going to stop him.) And from my own experience - the "fight or flight" activates in some other men when I'm not even thinking about any kind of violence or agression. Even when I'm not thinking about interacting with them at all - like the situation with bouncers standing before a club I was just passing by when walking somewhere else, which I described earlier in the thread.

I don't think the fight/flight/freeze response to a threat is conscious or voluntary, practically speaking.

2. This creates ego problems and lame dishonest posing - when a guy is trying to make it look like he's is not afraid, even though he is afraid. His own instincts tell him that I'm a dangerous predator and he's vulnerable prey - and he's trying to pose as confident or even dominant/tough. And since I have decades of experience with this stuff and these guys only encounter strong psychopatic vibes from time to time in their lives, they have no idea that I recognize their reactions and understand them better than they understand themselves.

Again I don't think this is really voluntary. And I mean, who is to blame someone for that, it's better to do something rather than nothing when you feel totally unprepared.

3. Normal men don't understand that for women, the psychopath "dangerous guy" or "predator" vibe doesn't create the same kind of fear it creates in men. It creates a "badboy effect" and is attractive to a lot of women.

Yeah, I've always noticed that a lot of guys who women are very comfortable around produce nervous reactions (or competitive anxiety) in other men. Whereas a guy with typical masculine dominant characteristics often won't have the same effect.

I believe it has to do with the average guy's inability to put himself in a woman's position. He feels alerted to a competitive threat, but he cannot perceive why, because this other dude doesn't seem like the prototypical example of masculine success. And this dissonance makes him nervous.

Psychopathy is generally linked with "problematic" traits and impulses, which can disorganise or even literally ruin somebody's life, but the severity of that and the level of control over it varies from person to person.

Yeah, and that's one of the things I believe muddles up the concept. Because everyone has some degree of machiavellianism, even if it's only a small amount. And stuff like the Stanford prison experiment shows that the environment has a huge role in how much someone suppresses or expresses parts of their nature.

So if psychopathic traits exist to some extent in all people, and those traits are mediated to a large extent by the environment, how exactly do we define a psychopath in modern society? Do we have to go to a Lord of the Flies world to know who is really who? Which is moot anyway because society will always be in some sense a civilized place.

Adding to that the fact that the term psychopathy literally means 'psychologically sick' with no further inbuilt definition, it could mean almost anything.

Ah yes, the "magical moments". Sometimes I've felt like I was kind of "walking on air", pushed by some kind of "magical force". Incredible moments. I wish I knew what triggers them.

What's more, sometimes I feel like I'm not in a good state to have that effect, yet I do, and vice versa.

What do you mean by that?

Do you simply mean that the relaxation, satisfaction from sex "radiates" to other areas of life as well? Or is it something more specific?

I mean that for me, sex was a doorway to the expression of parts of myself I wasn't very much in touch with.

...

I remember the first time I got laid, even talking to the girl, there was something going on that was unusual for me. I felt as if I was in a highly charged, highly aggressive state, yet I wasn't doing anything aggressive nor did I feel any real compulsion to do so, we were just standing there facing each other and talking. And to my surprise, it did not produce anxiety in me. I felt more at ease with myself than I'd ever done. It was a sort of reckless, exhilarating feeling of being at one with myself and my desires. And I knew instinctively that this had hooked her.

I remember she danced with some other guys, but I felt no annoyance or nervousness, I felt that her attention was captivated by me, and I just waited for her to come back. And she did. She eventually drove me to her place. I don't remember any of the escalation (if there was any) but I do remember at one moment she was on all fours, butt naked in the moonlight coming through the window, looking over her shoulder, and I took her.

It was as if that night I was living a different existence than I had before. Not just during the sex but leading up to it. Because together with the impulses that had come out of me (the impulse to go and take, to dominate, to penetrate) had come such a sense of ease with myself as I'd never experienced before.

Almost from the very beginning I was sexually dominant with her (and this was the first girl I'd had, ever). I'd spank her, pull her hair, flip her around and put her in whatever position I wanted. We never talked about it, there was no thinking about it, it just came naturally to me and I saw that she enjoyed it very much.

One time a couple of weeks after, her friends came over and we were all heading out. She came out of her room looking all good in a dress and makeup, so I marched her back in, threw her on the bed, and fucked her. She could not stop smiling for hours.

...

What sex (and in particular those events) showed me was that I wasn't the person I thought I was up until then (a fairly socially awkward guy with strong social anxiety and 'nice guy' tendencies). There was another part of me that not only was effective at getting what I wanted, but came with an almost total lack of inhibition, and a deep sense of enjoyment with myself. Like an animal that had been living in a cage surrounded by things he did not understand, who had resorted to being something he was not, and was suddenly back in nature.

There have been times when I was in danger, or under a lot of temporary stress, and this part of me has come to the surface and reminded me of who I really am. It makes me feel like I can face virtually anything - not because I am invincible, but because everything in me is aligned in one moment with my intent, rather than fighting with itself.

Nowadays I am well acquainted with this part of myself, but there was a long time in my life that I didn't really know it was there. There were signals of it, but I did not understand those signals or what they meant.

My impression is that the beautiful girls are less frustrated - being appreciated, having abudance of choices in their lives, etc etc.

And an average girl often "can't afford" the atrractive guy she really likes (because the attractive guy is with a hot girl), so she has to "settle" for a guy she doesn't really like. This easily leads to frustration and frustrated, mean energy.

Yeah, anyone who has to lean on the provisions of social norms ends up resenting it.

I've also noticed that women who's priority is something other than love or sex - like financial gain, social status, making career, often have unpleasant energy. (BTW It's different if the girl is a golddigger but for example she's doing it for fun and she's fucking one guy for money, another guy for good sex, etc - such a golddiger can have really nice energy. The girls who have horrible energy are those who are very strongly and exclusively focused on money/social status/career.)

I'll disagree a bit here. I enjoy uncovering a woman's desires and putting her back in touch with herself. So I often find myself drawn to these strong-willed, ambitious women who are trying to satisfy themselves in things like career or study, but whose libido yearns to spend itself in more satisfying ways.

It's truly a joy for me to see the change that comes over them with me.

There are A LOT of women with a deep desire to be somehow dominated and "opressed" by a "bad/evil male". Attraction towards badboys is a part of that spectrum, but for many women the potential doesn't stop there.

Yeah, I've never encountered a woman who doesn't very much enjoy being spanked, held down, tied up etc. Even if she wasn't particularly enthusiastic at first blush.

I believe this is related to her perception of the man's overwhelming desire for her, her complete capture of his masculine drive, it makes her feel utterly validated.

I don't think it's that common for a woman to enjoy being degraded or humiliated though, because that goes beyond a man simply satisfying himself in her. It's probably a lot more common than guys think, but still a rarity.

 

[Energy]

I remember the first time I got laid, even talking to the girl, there was something going on that was unusual for me

Petition to expand this part in a new articles please

 

[CharmingPsychopath]

So the "Hot Crazy" matrix is quite accurate then, lol.

Another man can have a girlfriend. I have a girl-FIEND.

I had some misgivings initially, but her 10/10 looks had their effect. And later her insane talent in bed as well. The 140+ IQ and bisexuality/group sex organiser thing and "let's fuck my girlfriends together" didn't hurt either.

She's extremely good and sweet to me. I know she abused some of her exes horribly - she's very proud of that and told me about it in detail But as long as she treats me good it's ok for me.

BTW Some of things she proposed and I declined was me cumming into other guys. She says it wouldn't be gay if I would just do it as a power/humiliation play - with only me cumming into another guy, not the other way around. She would like for example to do double penetration on a guy - she would strap-on/peg him the ass, while I would give him my penis to suck and swallow. She said it would be very "manly" if I would cum into other men and they were my "women".

Once my flat was messy. And she proposed that her ex will come and clean my flat. Why would he do that? "Because I would order him to <smile>" - like it explains everything. Her idea was that we would have sex, while her ex would be cleaning the flat around us and she would call him humiliating names. I declined - I don't want no weird guy in my apartment, the idea feels creepy. So she has ordered her female friends to clean my flat and we had sex together with them. Because "obviously" neither I, neither her can be burdened with the mundane task of cleaning the flat. And even messy flat is a good reason to have an orgy and to do a kinky show of power on her part.

And it seems that "ex" can mean " guy I'm not longer sleeping with, but who will do anything I order him to do". I think some of my girlfriend's (girl-fiend's) exes have severe PTSD or something similar.

Do you guys think a psychopath would be more likely to express wanting to knock up a woman and having her husband raise his child, or would that appeal more to a narcissist? Or would he just require some level of machiavellianism? Or perhaps the whole triad?

I think it would depend on the narrative, motivation, other behaviors of the person. Because a psychopath (not every one) could do it just for fun or for feeling of superiority/domination over the other guy, while a narcissist could also do it for feeling of superiority/domination or for some bizarre feeling/ambition that the world is a better place with more of his progeny or some other stuff like that.

I agree that guys with less inhibition are much more successful with women. In fact I believe inhibition is the worst thing for seduction, period, based on my own experience.

And since psychopaths have below average level of inhibition... Of course psychopaths are better with women than normal guys.

BTW I've noticed that many PUA guys seem to be free from inhibition on first glance - they approach, they laugh, they tell jokes.... But they're somehow inhibited below the surface - it's like they aproach, but somehow hmmmm I don't know, don't have the courage to actually stand before the girl without any games or pretending, with a non-verbal, but clear message: "Here I am, I want to get laid with you [or some other, similar goal] and I'm not even one bit ashamed of that". PUAs somehow feel contrived, inauthentic, not "real", "emotionally constipated".

Psychopaths - even when they lie hard, don't have this inauthenthic "emotionally constipated" energy.

You can be burning with rage or deeply sad and still captivate her, as long as you are not trying to escape from your own emotions or hide them out of social fear.

Yes.

In my experience, well-adjusted girls with good social intuition tend to look for other, more subtle characteristics as well, such as leadership, kindness, tact, etc. This is certainly true in long term relationships. For short term flings, I think it depends on how far out of her comfort zone she's willing to go.

It can vary a lot. Often good girls, when they met an attractive "bad" guy they like, they try to "repair" him - which most of the time ends in failure, but it can go on for quite a long time.

Also, often short flings, if pleasurable enough, turn into a sort of long term "lover on the side" thing. With a "we could form a relationship one day if you would change your mind" vibe.

Very often a "good" girl has a "good" boyfriend who's really kind of a placeholder, while there's a "bad" ex-lover or even current "lover on the side" who is the one she really wants, but can't have a monogamous relationship with.

I believe charisma has most to do with self-belief. And I don't mean some airy fairy self-talk, but how much all of your expression (through your face and your voice and your body) is aligned and pulling together in the same direction.

I think people have an instinctive repulsion to conflicted expression, where an individual is trying to express something consciously while their subconscious expressions say otherwise. And conversely, a strong attraction to individuals who are fully aligned.

Unfortunately for most guys, nearly 100% of their state during socializing is low key internal conflict - they are trying to come across one way while feeling deep down another way. Which not only makes socializing an unpleasant experience, but also makes them completely ineffectual on the social receptors of other people.

Yes - most guys seem to have some kind of low key internal conflict - I call it "emotional constipation".

And women don't like this. They like guys who are internally aligned, without internal conflict.

Which is why women like psychopaths - who don't feel much social pressure, emotional or moral doubts, who don't care about what the woman or other people might think of them, so they don't have internal conflict and they are aligned with what they're trying to achieve. (No matter if they do more "dark vibe" like me or more "superficial charm" - either way they're aligned, without internal conflict.)

BTW I've noticed that most PUAs I've met are actually NOT aligned with getting laid. They're kind of "testing the waters", not really commited to actually fucking the women - by which they ruin their chances, because women sense the half-assed energy and react in a not-so-great manner. What I mean here is that they approach, but with a "undecided", asexual energy. Even if they talk or joke about sex, it has a social, not sexual vibe.

Gunwitch noticed it decades ago and created the phrase "make the ho say no" - meaning that one should persist in trying to get laid until he gets either success or strong rejection (the "no") - instead of acting "undecide" and "emotionally constipated" like many PUAs do.

Again I don't think this is really voluntary. And I mean, who is to blame someone for that, it's better to do something rather than nothing when you feel totally unprepared.

I understand that, but it's still very lame from my perspective. It's literally somebody communicating to me both "I'm afraid of you" and "I'm not afraid of you" at the same time and expecting to be treated seriously.

Yeah, I've always noticed that a lot of guys who women are very comfortable around produce nervous reactions (or competitive anxiety) in other men. Whereas a guy with typical masculine dominant characteristics often won't have the same effect.

I believe it has to do with the average guy's inability to put himself in a woman's position. He feels alerted to a competitive threat, but he cannot perceive why, because this other dude doesn't seem like the prototypical example of masculine success. And this dissonance makes him nervous.

Yes, there is something like that.

It's like for many men it's easier to accept a stereotypically "masculine man" or something like that, somebody who fits their image of masculinity, while a more "non-standard" man, whom they do not understand, gives them distress. Especially if the "non-standard" man gets interest from women.

So if psychopathic traits exist to some extent in all people, and those traits are mediated to a large extent by the environment, how exactly do we define a psychopath in modern society? Do we have to go to a Lord of the Flies world to know who is really who? Which is moot anyway because society will always be in some sense a civilized place.

My view on this is based on people I know, people whose psychopatic tendencies I have observed in different situations. But I have interest in this, this is my "side hobby" - for other people it can be hard to tell. And also telling apart psychopaths from narcissists can be difficult for people.

This subject does have a certain "entry requirements" and is not easily accessible to most people. I'm not saying it's truly hard, but it's not super easy.

What's more, sometimes I feel like I'm not in a good state to have that effect, yet I do, and vice versa.

Same for me - sometimes I had a bad or an mediocre day and a "magical moment" happened.

It was as if that night I was living a different existence than I had before. Not just during the sex but leading up to it. Because together with the impulses that had come out of me (the impulse to go and take, to dominate, to penetrate) had come such a sense of ease with myself as I'd never experienced before.

Me and some other people who are naturally highly sexual had very similar experiences - we have "impulses" which feel extremely natural and "at ease", which are calming even when they're externally quite agressive. (like strong domination, etc).

Have you perhaps experienced something like a trance? Or maybe it felt like something other than your normal mind was directing your movements? Some kind of "sexual intuition"?

I have talked about it many times with some of my friends and women - the "sexually talented" ones. We find it curious that we have very similar experiences, but it's not described, talked about anywhere - books, experts don't talk about this.

I've also spoken about it with some other people and they had no idea what I was talking about.

BTW Among people I know, 100% of people who do have this "sexual intuition" are great in bed. (According to sexual experiences of me and/or other people who have slept with them.)

What sex (and in particular those events) showed me was that I wasn't the person I thought I was up until then (a fairly socially awkward guy with strong social anxiety and 'nice guy' tendencies). There was another part of me that not only was effective at getting what I wanted, but came with an almost total lack of inhibition, and a deep sense of enjoyment with myself. Like an animal that had been living in a cage surrounded by things he did not understand, who had resorted to being something he was not, and was suddenly back in nature.

There have been times when I was in danger, or under a lot of temporary stress, and this part of me has come to the surface and reminded me of who I really am. It makes me feel like I can face virtually anything - not because I am invincible, but because everything in me is aligned in one moment with my intent, rather than fighting with itself.

Nowadays I am well acquainted with this part of myself, but there was a long time in my life that I didn't really know it was there. There were signals of it, but I did not understand those signals or what they meant.

This sounds very much like...me.

Are you sure you're not secretly a psychopath?

Ok, you don't sound "mean" in any way, so probably you're not a psychopath. But there's huge similarity to me. Especially the "animal", the let's say "inhuman" element.

And the "Like an animal that had been living in a cage surrounded by things he did not understand, who had resorted to being something he was not" - this really sounds like my experience with the mainstream society and normal people. I never liked their ways - I could mimic them, but they never felt good to me, their ways were never satisfying, fulfilling for me. I always felt I was a bit "different", somehow more "sharp" or "primal" or something. I was different, but nobody gave me a "user's manual" for my nature - and the mainstream narratives about how one should live felt somehow false and empty. And I also had strong social anxiety.

In my case, I've found refuge in hobbies, watching television, computer games and isolated myself from the society, but later had a sexual and social "awakening". I haven't even kissed a girl until I was 20-21.

But my case is weird - in highschool, the hottest girl in the school had a crush on me, even though I was shy and overweight. (But unfortunately I was too shy to do anything about it.)

My girlfriend says I'm naturally a top-class, luxurious lover, who was burdened, traumatised by toxic external environment. She points to the highschool hottest girl having crush on me as proof. My girlfriend is aware of my PUA past and she says PUA is misguided, stupid because it doesn't take the natural potential of a man (or lack of it) in account.

She says my self-esteem is ridiculously low compared to my quality.

I say I don't see it in myself. She says I'm not a woman.

She says that the fact that SHE is with me and is treating me so well, is the best proof of my "divinity". And that argument makes a lot of sense given he she looks and not only that, but it somehow doesn't emotionally "sink in" in me.

BTW She also says she feels like she's a "wild animal hidden in a skin of a female". She's got super high instincts, intuition, sexual vibes, etc etc. And finds mainstream society and people lame and boring. But in her case, her 10/10 looks solved any problems with social isolation or social anxiety.

I'll disagree a bit here. I enjoy uncovering a woman's desires and putting her back in touch with herself. So I often find myself drawn to these strong-willed, ambitious women who are trying to satisfy themselves in things like career or study, but whose libido yearns to spend itself in more satisfying ways.

It's truly a joy for me to see the change that comes over them with me.

Oh there are many career oriented women who are nice, sweet, sexy, etc - even if they're strongwilled (which I don't see as a problem). But there are also some career, money obsessed women who are kind of like "greedy robots with no soul" - and these are the ones I had in mind.

 

[Will_V]

BTW I've noticed that many PUA guys seem to be free from inhibition on first glance - they approach, they laugh, they tell jokes.... But they're somehow inhibited below the surface - it's like they aproach, but somehow hmmmm I don't know, don't have the courage to actually stand before the girl without any games or pretending, with a non-verbal, but clear message: "Here I am, I want to get laid with you [or some other, similar goal] and I'm not even one bit ashamed of that". PUAs somehow feel contrived, inauthentic, not "real", "emotionally constipated".

Psychopaths - even when they lie hard, don't have this inauthenthic "emotionally constipated" energy.

Yeah, I've noticed a similar thing. Some guys can wear the persona of a seducer, as long as things never go outside the boundaries of what they expect. I think this is the reason why a good chunk of PUA stuff is highly systematized, down to small details such as particular lines, because that's the only way to make the persona feel real. But as soon as the unexpected arrives, the mask slips, and the real person comes out.

I'm the opposite, if I try to use anything canned I feel super weird inside and it falls flat. I have to walk up to a girl not knowing what I'm going to say, it has to come from an impulse, because that's what aligns me with my desires and my expression.

That said, there are principles of seduction that are extremely useful. Like the principle of the relationship between attraction and attainability, for example. I use principles all the time to guide me, to give me a rough map of where I'm at and where I'm going, but never as a substitute for my self-expression, which is what really generates attraction in the first place.

It can vary a lot. Often good girls, when they met an attractive "bad" guy they like, they try to "repair" him - which most of the time ends in failure, but it can go on for quite a long time.

Also, often short flings, if pleasurable enough, turn into a sort of long term "lover on the side" thing. With a "we could form a relationship one day if you would change your mind" vibe.

Very often a "good" girl has a "good" boyfriend who's really kind of a placeholder, while there's a "bad" ex-lover or even current "lover on the side" who is the one she really wants, but can't have a monogamous relationship with.

That can be true a lot of the time. But there are also plenty of girls, in my experience, who are proud of the qualities they possess, and look for their counterpart in a man. For example, she may be a very kind and nurturing girl, but instead of looking for a stray dog to take care of, she looks for a guy who has a similar nature, and judges negatively guys who do not have it.

I think this happens more in the 'boyfriend material' zone, but there are girls who will more or less wait, and substitute their need for sex with other things in their life, until they find the 'right' one.

At least, unless a very unusual man arrives in her life.

Which is why women like psychopaths - who don't feel much social pressure, emotional or moral doubts, who don't care about what the woman or other people might think of them, so they don't have internal conflict and they are aligned with what they're trying to achieve. (No matter if they do more "dark vibe" like me or more "superficial charm" - either way they're aligned, without internal conflict.)

Yeah, this seems correct.

People in general cannot tell the difference very well between self-belief that is a function of honesty or that which is a function of intent.

BTW I've noticed that most PUAs I've met are actually NOT aligned with getting laid. They're kind of "testing the waters", not really commited to actually fucking the women - by which they ruin their chances, because women sense the half-assed energy and react in a not-so-great manner. What I mean here is that they approach, but with a "undecided", asexual energy. Even if they talk or joke about sex, it has a social, not sexual vibe.

Yeah.

A lot of PUA stuff seems to assume that her knowing what you want is letting the cat out of the bag, so to speak, and ruining the tension.

There certainly has to be a certain ambiguity about it, but it does not have to be ambiguity of attraction/desire. It can be ambiguity of intent, or ambiguity of what is about to happen - whether you will act on your desires, or how you will act on them.

For me, what serves as the hook in my seductions is a moment where she knows that I am looking at her then and there as a sexual creature, that she activates my own sexual anima, and that the potentiality for immediate consummation is there. When she feels this and accepts it, by submitting to the tension and not drawing away, it is the beginning of the real seduction. And when this does not happen, things usually fizzle out very quickly.

Gunwitch noticed it decades ago and created the phrase "make the ho say no" - meaning that one should persist in trying to get laid until he gets either success or strong rejection (the "no") - instead of acting "undecide" and "emotionally constipated" like many PUAs do.

Interesting.

I'm unfortunately not very familiar with Gunwitch's stuff, but you've sparked my interest to look into it a bit more.

Me and some other people who are naturally highly sexual had very similar experiences - we have "impulses" which feel extremely natural and "at ease", which are calming even when they're externally quite agressive. (like strong domination, etc).

Have you perhaps experienced something like a trance? Or maybe it felt like something other than your normal mind was directing your movements? Some kind of "sexual intuition"?

I've never felt as if anything outside of myself was directing me, but yes, I have felt as if I'm moved by very instinctual, primal impulses coming from inside me, that had little to do with my conscious mind.

It's very common for me to completely lose sense of time during sex, a couple of hours can feel like five minutes. I am extremely present while I am in it, immersed in my impulses and sensations, to the point where at the end it feels like waking up from a deep meditation. And it's a contagious state.

Probably because of this, I've never had any problem getting it up or withholding ejaculation - except for a period where I was in a relationship where I'd lost a lot of frame control and felt very unhappy with myself.

This sounds very much like...me.

Are you sure you're not secretly a psychopath?

According to the mainstream definition, yes I'm sure.

I've always been a kind and generous person, and I've never enjoyed (or felt ambivalent about) the suffering of any living thing. In fact, one of the things I enjoy the most is seeing a creature thriving in its habitat without fighting against its own nature, whether it's an animal or a human being. I despise attempts to oppress the nature of something, whether it's for bad reasons or 'good' ones, as long as that nature is a functional and not a disfunctional one. In fact, if there is anything that gives me the most meaning, it is constructing and improving the functionality of everything I come across.

I've always treated the women in my life exceptionally well, and I've never felt any impulse to treat them badly. I've always wanted them to feel more satisfied, more alive, and more in touch with themselves as a result of having met me.

That said, I'm a very dominant person, I enjoy being in control, I enjoy physically and psychologically dominating women, and feeling them yield and adapt to me like putty. I have no problem accepting our respective natures and relishing in them.

There's no conflict between these parts of me. Nor should there be, considering that they come from the same source (at least as far as male hormones are concerned).

I was different, but nobody gave me a "user's manual" for my nature

That describes exactly how I felt, and it had to be learned through trial and error.

I believe most men have some extent of this problem, and the manual they get from society is pathetically insufficient.

In my case, I've found refuge in hobbies, watching television, computer games and isolated myself from the society, but later had a sexual and social "awakening". I haven't even kissed a girl until I was 20-21.

Sounds like me, lol. I got laid at 19.

It's probably an embarrassing thing to say, but I'd never even wanked until then, either.

I was probably about as out of touch with myself as anyone can be.

Oh there are many career oriented women who are nice, sweet, sexy, etc - even if they're strongwilled (which I don't see as a problem). But there are also some career, money obsessed women who are kind of like "greedy robots with no soul" - and these are the ones I had in mind.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

The best way I've been able to describe the sort of women I like is that they are ambitious and strong-willed, but not leaders, and in some sense looking for external leadership. Because that's where I like to come in, and it's where I fit best.

 

[AsianBabe]

She says it wouldn't be gay if I would just do it as a power/humiliation play -

Yeah yeah totally not gay whatsoever! Only my ex would be into that stuff, since he was actually bisexual...

I think it would depend on the narrative, motivation, other behaviors of the person. Because a psychopath (not every one) could do it just for fun or for feeling of superiority/domination over the other guy, while a narcissist could also do it for feeling of superiority/domination or for some bizarre feeling/ambition that the world is a better place with more of his progeny or some other stuff like that.

I see. Appreciate your insights! Maybe Spiderman's motivations were also partially due to his biological clock + our chemistry, since he was in his 40s and wanting to "breed" me. But he knows paternity tests exist lol...
Well, to each their own...or not of their own.

It can vary a lot. Often good girls, when they met an attractive "bad" guy they like, they try to "repair" him - which most of the time ends in failure, but it can go on for quite a long time.

Also, often short flings, if pleasurable enough, turn into a sort of long term "lover on the side" thing. With a "we could form a relationship one day if you would change your mind" vibe.

Very often a "good" girl has a "good" boyfriend who's really kind of a placeholder, while there's a "bad" ex-lover or even current "lover on the side" who is the one she really wants, but can't have a monogamous relationship with.

Right, I learned that lesson the hard way early on in dating. I went from "Ah I can fix him!" to "Nono, I can't fix him. I either have to accept him for who he is or I have to leave."

*sigh* We all want what we can't have, don't we?

That can be true a lot of the time. But there are also plenty of girls, in my experience, who are proud of the qualities they possess, and look for their counterpart in a man. For example, she may be a very kind and nurturing girl, but instead of looking for a stray dog to take care of, she looks for a guy who has a similar nature, and judges negatively guys who do not have it.

I think this happens more in the 'boyfriend material' zone, but there are girls who will more or less wait, and substitute their need for sex with other things in their life, until they find the 'right' one.

At least, unless a very unusual man arrives in her life.

Yes later on, I learned to just screen for guys with a similar nature, a partner not a project, and someone still complementary to me.

Hmm, a very unusual man like say...Spiderman?

Overall, I guess I am attracted to and really fascinated by psychopaths to a certain degree (kinkiness being a bonus), and also xxTJs for some reason, which you two seem to be, judging by your writing style and how you process it all (structured/methodical/analytical) - which is awesome btw.

Makes sense why xxTJ types are often casted as villains too and why I secretly root and/or sympathize for them. I know there's no scientific correlation between MBTI and psychopathy, but I just find the overlap in traits interesting.

Psychopaths really do exude a larger-than-life presence too:

Why women are attracted to psychopaths

When James Fallon walks into a bar, ladies take notice. “I’ll be surrounded by young women,” the neuroscientist tells The Post. Once he’s got their attention, he’ll regale them wi…

nypost.com

Kreth: "Any guy who is the most charming guy or the mayor of the town, he’s who I need to stay away from."

But at times, it's VERY hard to stay away from them.

 

[Francis]

I think this is the reason why a good chunk of PUA stuff is highly systematized, down to small details such as particular lines, because that's the only way to make the persona feel real. But as soon as the unexpected arrives, the mask slips, and the real person comes out.

I'm the opposite, if I try to use anything canned I feel super weird inside and it falls flat.

Do you have examples of these fake personas..? Canned lines are from like 20 years ago... and even then it was just to give newbies something to practice with temporarily to get their feet wet before developing their own material. If you tell a particular sailing story more than once over the course of your life about a certain event that happened, are you using a completely new arrangement of words each time, or do you repeat any of the phrases? I thought you view seduction as a "performance".

@Chase's articles are extremely systematized. He has countless articles with step by step processes. The only examples of people using "canned" material for IRL pickup I have seen here are like Chase's method of genuine compliment openers, and @Teevster's sex talk gambits. Several senior guys give rave reviews of the 8 orgasms and @James D has used others. I have also never used canned lines and think in terms of principles like VAC and SAC, but you seem extremely critical of a lot of the core stuff on this website.

A lot of PUA stuff seems to assume that her knowing what you want is letting the cat out of the bag, so to speak, and ruining the tension.

Do you think indirect game is bullshit? This is very confusing. If a girl is not into you, do you just plow forward with direct sexual interest, even if done so while managing attainability?

I'm unfortunately not very familiar with Gunwitch's stuff, but you've sparked my interest to look into it a bit more.

You will like it. Here is an older overview written by @Gunwitch. I am curious how it has developed since. I think @Atlas IV is familiar.

Gunwitch method. THE way to get LAID.

Well, dont wanna brag, but it seems a lot of guys here havent read or even heard about gunwitch method. I wrote this thing up a few years back and tons of guys get laid with it who are now using it in all stages of their game. Figured id throw it up here, maybe tighten up some weak games...

www.sosuave.net

1. be sexual, 2. watch for her sexual state, 3. isolate. Those 3 things are all I take out into the field at a conscious level.

Simply sliding into the sexual state will usually encompass the above behaviours inside of itself. Overall these are the medium sized chunks of sexual state, the large being "be horny", and the small likely being to many to ever be fully understood. The small chunks may encompass micro facial expressions, body positioning, or even ESP (extra sensory perception) . Its like how knowing there are vitamins A, C, D in a fruit, and taking those things out and using them in a pill, doesn't give you all of the undiscovered things that are inside a fruit that may be beneficial. We just KNOW A,C,D are essential for good health. It's the same here, we know that sections 10.1,2,3 of this guide are the medium chunks of what’s essential, and we know that eating the fruit is essential (natural sexual state). Lets just live naturally rather than trying to condense it all into a pill or formula and ENJOY eating the fruit (being horny) that gives us all we need.

Very wu wei. "Way of Gun".

Mirror Neurons in Seduction – The Foundation of Everything I Teach

Hi, I’m Gunwitch. I’ve been doing pickup and seduction for decades, and the first thing I hammer into my students’ minds is the importance of mirror neurons. Contents I. The S.E.C.T. Method S – Speak Like a Lover E – Eye Contact C – Get Closer to Her T – Touch Her II. How Do Mirror Neurons Come...

www.girlschase.com

Gunwitch | Basics of Seduction MMA (Podcast)

Welcome back to another episode of Dating Mechanics! Today I speak with someone who has been highly recommended to me by several author-seducers I know (including Alek Rolstad here on Girls Chase), as he was one of the pioneers of the entire pickup artist universe two decades ago. Gunwitch has...

www.girlschase.com

 

[Will_V]

Do you have examples of these fake personas..?

Mainly stuff I've seen on youtube, rsd guys or similar.

I generally just stay out of talking about that stuff, because a) a lot of guys are heavily invested for one reason or another, and I'm not interested in debating them, and b) I probably don't represent the type of dude the material is aimed for, so it's pointless for me to judge it.

But if someone engages me on the topic in a way that I enjoy, I will sometimes give my point of view.

I thought you view seduction as a "performance".

Yes I do.

Yet it's a performance which is more real, and certainly more satisfying, than day to day life.

Day to day life is a performance. Working life is a performance. The vast majority of socializing is a performance. Relationships are, to a great extent, a performance.

Yet for lots of people, these are not performances that they enjoy, they are performances done to maintain a social position or stave off some negative outcome, and very little of it brings them closer to their own nature. It is not playful, spontaneous, or self-expressive. On the contrary, most of the performance of everyday life is forced, robotic, mundane, soul destroying, and routine.

What I enjoy, and what I offer to girls, is the opportunity to play with who we are in a deeply satisfying way, to uncover out instincts, our drives, our desires, our identities, and revel in them, trying out ways to experience ourselves that were never offered to us before. It is a theatrical experience in some ways, but not a false one by any means.

@Chase's articles are extremely systematized. He has countless articles with step by step processes. The only examples of people using "canned" material for IRL pickup I have seen here are like Chase's method of genuine compliment openers, and @Teevster's sex talk gambits. Several senior guys give rave reviews of the 8 orgasms and @James D has used others. I have also never used canned lines and think in terms of principles like VAC and SAC,

I already spoke about my point of view on girls chase earlier in the thread.

Most of the articles I've read are not step by step 'do this' and 'say that'. They describe a phenomena from different angles, in different contexts, hinting at or directly stating a principle. Often these articles go into the sociology and history behind something, which I enjoy very much. This stirs my mind to think about it deeply, and helps to build my understanding to the extent that I know how to use the principle as a guide in a lot of different ways.

I don't see a lot of jargon and acronyms and weird smoke and mirrors techniques and all that sort of stuff that marks a certain type of pua content.

Chase even wrote an article on why so many PUAs are uncool, where he says the following:

Few of the men you'll meet, even in seduction circles, are going to be the men at the top of the pyramid, in the 'anytime' seducer or 'cool guys who get laid' camps.

but you seem extremely critical of a lot of the core stuff on this website.

Where did I say that?

Do you think indirect game is bullshit? This is very confusing.

The problem is not whether or not she knows that you want to fuck her or not. The problem is whether her experience of you is nonetheless satisfying.

As I understand it, directness is synonymous with neediness, for most guys. It means going in and stating flatly a want, a need, like going up to the counter of a shop and asking for some good or service. It is not the expression of authentic desire, but the expression of an expectation to 'get'.

My kind of directness (which I don't think of as 'going direct' or 'direct game' or whatever) is showing her her effect on me nonverbally. I am never verbally direct, in fact my verbals are usually a softening counterbalance to my nonverbal interest.

My expression contains arousal, curiosity, spontaneity, openness, a lack of inhibition, the precipitation of an intent, an invitation, and tranquility, all in one. It is an unashamed "this is who I am and I see you this way, come with me". And it works not just because it's very pleasant to be looked at by someone that way (as opposed to someone who is only interested in 'getting the goods') but it's contagious, it activates her own sexual nature and her desire to be seen and enjoyed, and it makes her feel enlivened to come forward and play with that in the space that I've created for us.

But it requires a very good state of mind, it cannot be mixed with anxiety, desperation, neediness, shame, and the various things we guys often feel around women when we are trying to be something we are not for some gain.

If a girl is not into you, do you just plow forward with direct sexual interest, even if done so while managing attainability?

Who said anything about plowing forward with a girl who isn't interested, is that what you consider to be direct game?

I don't really feel that you've thought any of this through, you seem to be just reacting to a perceived criticism of your beliefs.

 

[Francis]

Who said anything about plowing forward with a girl who isn't interested, is that what you consider to be direct game?

Excluding responding to approach invitations, direct game is indicating interest in her before she does in you.

Can you link me one of your direct game field reports where she is not interested, and you manage to get her to qualify herself?

I am having difficulty picturing how this is done without chasing. It would be a good skill to learn.

 

[Will_V]

Excluding responding to approach invitations, direct game is indicating interest in her before she does in you.

.. ?

Approaching a girl is already strongly showing interest, so by your definition, every approach is direct game.

Unless you are walking up to her and pretending to have done it for some random other reason.

Can you link me one of your direct game field reports where she is not interested, and you manage to get her to qualify herself?

Who said that I do 'direct game'?

I already clarified what I do, which, as I said, I don't consider to be direct game. It's more of a nonverbal ping, where I am showing her her effect on me, with my body language. Verbally, I am very indirect.

Also, what do you mean by a girl being 'not interested'? If a girl shows me nothing on the approach, no curiosity and no reciprocation, I'm not gonna stay there and try to create it from nothing. But that is rare. Even if she's pretty neutral, she's usually curious and stimulated enough by the approach to start the interaction. And that's where things begin.

I am having difficulty picturing how this is done without chasing. It would be a good skill to learn.

I'm having difficulty understanding your point. Are you trying to figure out how to make a girl who's completely ignoring you open up, or is it something else?

 

[Levo]

Unless you are walking up to her and pretending to have done it for some random other reason.

Let me ask you about my friend who has a box under his bed.

 

[Francis]

I already clarified what I do, which, as I said, I don't consider to be direct game. It's more of a nonverbal ping, where I am showing her her effect on me, with my body language. Verbally, I am very indirect.

If a girl does not even understand English and you are using proximity, touch, or telegraphing interest by how you look at her, then yes... this is direct game.

If a girl shows me nothing on the approach, no curiosity and no reciprocation, I'm not gonna stay there and try to create it from nothing.

This is screening for greens.

Let me ask you about my friend who has a box under his bed.

Do you believe in spells?

 

[Francis]

Since the psychopath topic derailed the Mystery thread (post #76)

See #77-83 (Karea)

Mystery Method - Revisited

I was never a great chess player, but my game there improved -exponentially - when I understood: "Even a bad strategy kills no strategy." Any approach is a good approach. Of course! No approach -> 0% chance of success, statistical expected value = 0. Any kind of approach -> chance of...

www.skilledseducer.com

From another thread:

I've never completely understood the concept of direct vs indirect - is it only about the words? What about body language? You can easily overwhelm a girl with a sense of your intent without saying anything direct, for example with super strong eye contact.

WIA:

Post 10:

Is Direct Necessary for Day Game?

Hey guys, I'm currently overcoming approach anxiety. I'm taking gradual and consistent action and the improvement is noticeable. I'm now able to do indirect approaches. I've actually gotten girlfriends like this in the past - indirect opener followed by normal conversation and then exchanging...

www.skilledseducer.com

Post 14:

How to open indirect in street game

This is based off a conversation from earlier that left me with some additional questions. Note: this is more of a beginner-intermediate to intermediate question, since pure beginners will benefit from doing direct day game just to get rid of approach anxiety and to start getting numbers and...

www.skilledseducer.com

Post 6:

Indirect/Delayed Direct/Technical Game!

Hi guys I am doing Chase's 30 day approach challenge. I consider myself intermediate or at least lower intermediate and have mainly done daygame. Almost all of it has been direct daygame. And I have gotten results from it. But now I have moved to a smaller city and lesser volume of women and I...

www.skilledseducer.com

 

[Will_V]

If a girl does not even understand English and you are using proximity, touch, or telegraphing interest by how you look at her, then yes... this is direct game.

So her ability to speak english would make it indirect?

I don't see the point of this particular example.

This is screening for greens.

No. Are you implying that looking for any reciprocation or interest from her at all makes it 'screening for greens'?

Let me put it as simply as I can.

There's an old PUA line that goes something to the effect of "you're beautiful but beauty is skin deep, what else have you got going for you?"

What I do is basically communicate the first part nonverbally (that I find her attractive/arousing) but verbally, I am putting her on the spot and asking her to qualify herself to me.

Personally, I've never found acting like I don't find a girl attractive to be of any use to me. It makes the whole thing feel flat and weird and lacking sexual energy. I will manage my attention according to her behavior, but not whether or not I find her attractive to begin with. That feels very much like 'hiding the banana' to me.

What I do instead is balance my demonstrated primal attraction toward her with verbals that communicate my standards (that she hasn't yet met). I believe this is better because it shows her a few things:

- I'm not afraid of showing a girl that I'm attracted (unlike orbiters and 'betas' who do not do this for fear of being policed/rejected).

- I'm a virile male with a strong sex drive (which she responds on a primal level to).

- But, I'm in control of my impulses, and she has to prove herself to me first that she's my kind of girl. She has to come into my frame, not the other way around.

This only works if there is no neediness, if demonstrating primal attraction for her is a self-satisfying thing already without any need to 'get' her. And that's how I feel.

 

[Jamster]

@Francis
Dude, you know I like you and appreciate your posts and all. I posted about being puzzled that anyone considered banning you when you have over 1800 likes.

But look. This isn't, say, chemical engineering or something similar, where seemingly nitpicking theoretical details can lead to productive changes in process.

Cross-examining great posters like @Will_V over the exact limits of what's "direct," what's "neo-direct," and what's "indirect" ?? WTF?

The guys that I've seen banned had a lot of good posts - then got sucked into these kinds of useless, ill-tempered crap.

Please stop.

----------

I usually don't wade into shit shows. I have an agreeable persona. (Maybe I need to overcome that to become the asshole that gets blown back behind the dumpster, I dunno.)

But I have an ego. I enjoy - really enjoy! - praise and acknowledgement for my vAsT wisdom and PeNeTrAtIng insight.

@Francis, It was me that posted what you quoted:

I was never a great chess player, but my game there improved -exponentially - when I understood:

"Even a bad strategy kills no strategy."

Any approach is a good approach.

Maybe don't have pointless, non-productive debates and don't fuck over your friends.

.

 

[Francis]

Guys this is basic old school pickup. The beauty is skin deep thing is qualifying in A3.

Communicating non verbally that you find her attractive is skipping A2. You don't have to prefer indirect game and like Karea wrote should avoid it with moving sets, but it is what it is.

That is the lens to read most of Alek's articles through.

Opinion Openers as a Way to Hook Girls In

Old school pickup artists used opinion openers to meet women. Yet asking women for their opinions works even better as a HOOK technique to draw women in! Hey guys. Welcome back. As we discussed last week, I am a big fan of situational openers – and they constitute the way I open 90% of the time...

www.girlschase.com

If you read the Karea and WIA material above, it will explain the nuance with day game.

 

[Will_V]

Guys this is basic old school pickup. The beauty is skin deep thing is qualifying in A3.

So? Who said it was anything new? I called it an old PUA line, which it is.

Doesn't sound like you want to do anything but argue.

 

[Francis]

So? Who said it was anything new? I called it an old PUA line, which it is.

Doesn't sound like you want to do anything but argue.

Yes, my argument is that opening in A3 is called direct game, which includes non-verbal direct. It is also polarizing, as in separation between poles, fork in the road, filtering, or screening.

I understand you view classic indirect pickup as disingenuous. The general population does as well, and it has become a lost art. This does not have to include canned routines.

I simply ask that as a deputized chieftain of this forum who claims authority over posting content, you at least have an understanding that an indirect opener and covert verbals does not make game indirect.

This debate has raged for years. The above includes some extremes (WIA if you are lurking, it is Sartain... Don't shoot). I am not interested in converting your opinion, and I personally see the value in both methods... especially in calibrating between, or synthesizing them. Example: Captain Jack.

Regardless of the members of this forum, what acronyms people use to make it more efficient to communicate, nuances like Razorjack method, or even the full M3 model... indirect game has a sequence. It is really just some extra steps at the start, which means it has a wider scope - namely, the girls who are not immediately interested on the approach. If they are, you proceed as normal.

I am happy to hear your fundamentals are in check, and enough girls respond positively to telegraphing interest on the opener. There is simply another method designed with more girls in mind - those who may get hit on every day by guys with similar fundamentals, meaning you are not as immediately impressive.

 

[Will_V]

I understand you view classic indirect pickup as disingenuous.

Where did you get that notion? I certainly never said it.

I simply ask that as a deputized chieftain of this forum who claims authority over posting content, you at least have an understanding that an indirect opener and covert verbals does not make game indirect.

What authority do I have, except to manage the forum so that things run smoothly? I (and the other mods as well) do not police content except to make sure it follows the forum rules.

And since when did I say that an indirect opener is the only thing that makes game indirect? You still haven't told me how you reconcile approaching a girl with not being the first to show interest. Your concept of direct/indirect seems to be still muddled.

Instead of spamming links to other content, maybe you could try and explain in your own words your own point, so that we can actually have a discussion. At the moment you're just throwing up a smokescreen.

 

[Skills]

And since when did I say that an indirect opener is the only thing that makes game indirect? You still haven't told me how you reconcile approaching a girl with not being the first to show interest. Your concept of direct/indirect seems to be still muddled.

lol! you guys (this is what happens when you go in circles with francis) will you probably know this, just to clarify:

Direct game: Direct game is when you let the girl know that you are interested in her and want to persue her romantically and/or sexually. You show interest from the opener. I think direct game is higer odds in day game and street game, vs night game. I also recommend these scenarios:

- High foot traffic areas
- Girl is in the type of a rush situation (on the way to something)
- Some more masculine countries and aggressive such as Eastern Europe and Brazil
- When your perseive value is higher than the girl and is obvious
- if you can not do any type of situational or you go blank.
- After you finish the aa drills and you got a go through the TEMPORARY spam approach stage.

^ i would avoid any type of direct style game at "gym" , "social cirle" "work"

Indirect game: Indirect game is when you open but you are not showing sexual and romantic interest. The goal is for the girl or group to lower their guard, relax and let you convey your attractive PERSONALITY.... These works better in:

- Clubs/lounges/bars
- social circle
- work
- groups of people
- Boyfriend,husband, family members present
- group setting crossfit, martial arts, partner dancing (salsa clases and the like)

Socializing - The Complete Guide to opening Mastery (opening 101)

Guys you know me, if you follow this guide your odds will increase not matter the game style. (it is long but i get to the point vs rambling). Please make sure you follow the links and posts, this is stuff i could write a book or coach and charge, i am giving it to you for free from actual...

www.skilledseducer.com

p.s. how we went from psychopath to direct/indiret, derrailing maxing....

@Francis stop using the ai, mm alphabet it makes convos retarded and not anyone knows mm or care for it... just talk normal is uncalibrated as fuck...

 

[POB]

Closed, no value is being generated here anymore.