Should I read "The Game" or "Models"

[Skills]

I don’t like the first part of models. He says neediness is the problem, which I agree with, but says the solution is vulnerability. That doesn’t make sense to me and is even contradicted when he recounts his ex gfs orbiter who he said was vulnerable about his feelings for her multiple times and he uses her rejection of him as a example of neediness.

i just love how you butcher the context... re read the book (i posted a youtube resume but it was shit)..

 

[Brassfaced_Jim]

The Game is a great book if you read between the lines, there is a lot of useful practical stuff in there, but you have to pull on the strings and go deeper down the rabbit holes he mentions.

Models is okay, mostly I appreciated that book because he admits that pickup is a numbers game even when you get really good you'll still have to play the numbers... you'll have better success ratios but take more action = get more results.

Read them both.

I’m going back to reread TG and brush up on MM again atm

So just curious ~
What strings /rabbit holes did you go further into from what Strauss mentioned in the book.

I did go deep (too much so) into everything he mentioned, first go round, but in hindsight not sure I needed to. That’s why I am curious what areas of exploration were specifically beneficial for you . Cheers Jim

 

[Karea Ricardus D.]

That's a good question... I think all the hypnosis and NLP stuff isn't necessary... although I would say it can be useful, I wouldn't make it a high priority until a lot of other stuff is in place already.

I think the word-for-word pickups that are in the book verbatim (Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, the Platinum Blondes, etc.) are worth taking a closer look at and really analyzing.

For every sentence, ask yourself: why does he say this? There is so much tech packed into these little examples. Transitions, observations, cold reads, frames, compliance building, and the obvious microcalibration stuff...

That's off the top of my head... I remember reading it again almost 20 years later and going like wow... this is so much deeper than it looks to the uninitiated at first glance... every sentence is very deliberate.

 

[CharmingPsychopath]

so, Is it possible of NLP based game is scam. Like it depends on the girl to keep thinking of you and she would have thought of you even if you have not used anchors. Eg girl A will think of you with anchors or without it and girl B won't think of you with anchors or without.

I think that's...complicated. Evoking emotions by speech is absolutely possible and can work incredibly well. On the other hand, I would say Speed Seduction simply didn't teach what it promised to teach. The material was simply too weird, without enough effort to make it socially adjusted.

As for "The Game" and "The Models"....

1. I HATE "The Models". I find it to be a stupid, irritating book and I get the impression that the author really wasn't getting laid much or not with high quality women. I think it's a trap for naive, weak minded "good guys" - who want to hear that "manipulation doesn't work, honesty works, good honest guys like you are the real winners". Bullshit - lying and manipulation, if done right, work better than honesty. And I've found that guys who have a high level of success with women are almost always "bad people" (liars, exploiters) according to the moral standards, world view of the "good guys". (Me included - I've lied to women a lot with good results and I've "exploited" girls according to moral standards of the "good guys".)

I think "The Models" is a stupid book for stupid people - it's popularity being not a sign of quality, but sign of it matching widespread stupidity. Same like with let's say Red Pill - which is popular not because it's good, but because many people are stupid and misguided enough to believe in it.

2. I think "The Game" is largely a scam designed for marketing and promoting Mystery as some kind of "genius of seduction". The books portrays Katya as a "9.5"... To me she's a 6, 7 at best. I understand preferences can vary, but really, I think describing her as some kind of super hot woman is outright dishonest.

I got laid with models and celebrities, women who were waaaay more attractive than Katya. And maybe it's a cultural difference (I'm from Poland, also with experience in other European countries), but I don't think that Negs work and I don't think the whole "you have to neg the hottest women" doctrine presented in "The Game" is valid. My experience is that the hottest women react to the same things other women do - they have higher standards, sure, but otherwise they're normal women.

Based on my experience with hottest women, I think that to some degree Mystery is a fake. Because what he's saying doesn't match what I've actually experienced with very hot women. And looking at the fact that The Game portrays Katya as "9.5"... I really think there's dishonesty involved.

Katya, aside being only a 6, max 7 in my eyes (when wearing full makeup, on other photos), is a immigrant from Russia or Ukraine and she was later arrested for burglary (https://nopdnews.com/post/september-2016/9-6-16-two-arrested-on-multiple-residential-burgla/).

In other words, she seems to be a girl from the bottom part of the society - a poor girl with criminal tendencies. Clearly not any kind of high value, "elite" woman. And probably she's a mess mentally, emotionally.

I suspect Mystery's real target and "menu" were not any real kind of high value, "elite" women, but instead low value "sluts" like Katya. Women with low class, primitive mentality - and I think that's how the whole "you have to neg the hottest women" was created. Not based on dealing with high quality women, but based on dealing with primitive low class girls like Katya.

I think the "you have to neg the hottest women" is dishonest and harmful to people who treat Mystery seriously. I think the truth is much closer to "if you want to get laid with low class, emotionally unhealthy sluts, you should play on their low self esteem and their need for validation". And it's about dealing with stupid, disturbed chicks with a low class mentality, not about how attractive they are.

I know a guy who met Mystery and he says Mystery does have skills, but he's far from the seduction master many people think him to be. He says Mystery impresses other guys from PUA community by opening and entertaining girls, but his ability to actually get laid is faaaaaaar worse. And according to him, Mystery not any kind of "master" when it comes to very attractive women - they may let him entertain them (or not), but going to bed is a different story. He also says Mystery is best with empty headed, preferably drunk chicks in "party mode". Not really a surprise...

According to my friend, Mystery is great at opening large, difficult sets, also mixed ones with men, but as far actual seduction is concerned (actual getting laid, not just opening), he knows dozens of guys who are better than Mystery in being sexually attractive to very hot women (me included).

Both of us, as well as some other people, think Mystery is overated and that he actually did a lot of damage to many people with his theories - especially those about negging and "hottest women need to be negged". We think that "The Game" is a dishonest book, written as a marketing tool, aiming at creating image of Mystery as the "genius seduction master" and by association, also promoting the author. We think "The Game" is actually one giant routine designed to seduce...men from the seduction community. We think that anyone treating it 100% seriously is really getting fucked by Neil & Mystery.

So my opinion is this:

1. I think "The Models" is a book for stupid people.

2. I think "The Game" is a dishonest marketing routine. Just look at how the supposed "9.5" Katya really looks like. Sure, Mystery and Style have some competence, but lower than they pretend to have and how is the reader supposed to distinguish what's real and what's not?

I recommend skipping "The Models" entirely and treating "The Game" as a curioristy, not anything trustworthy.

 

[Skills]

We finally found a dude that makes velasco look like chase/will v in comparison..... wow! here we go again!

 

[CharmingPsychopath]

We finally found a dude that makes velasco look like chase/will v in comparison..... wow! here we go again!

Go troll somebody else, I'm not interested in you.

 

[Skills]

Go troll somebody else, I'm not interested in you.

I am straight... 3 legs u are not my type... No homo! Iif i was homo you would not be my type... I like cool people not socially inept people

 

[PaulieFlyn10]

I think that's...complicated. Evoking emotions by speech is absolutely possible and can work incredibly well. On the other hand, I would say Speed Seduction simply didn't teach what it promised to teach. The material was simply too weird, without enough effort to make it socially adjusted.

As for "The Game" and "The Models"....

1. I HATE "The Models". I find it to be a stupid, irritating book and I get the impression that the author really wasn't getting laid much or not with high quality women. I think it's a trap for naive, weak minded "good guys" - who want to hear that "manipulation doesn't work, honesty works, good honest guys like you are the real winners". Bullshit - lying and manipulation, if done right, work better than honesty. And I've found that guys who have a high level of success with women are almost always "bad people" (liars, exploiters) according to the moral standards, world view of the "good guys". (Me included - I've lied to women a lot with good results and I've "exploited" girls according to moral standards of the "good guys".)

I think "The Models" is a stupid book for stupid people - it's popularity being not a sign of quality, but sign of it matching widespread stupidity. Same like with let's say Red Pill - which is popular not because it's good, but because many people are stupid and misguided enough to believe in it.

2. I think "The Game" is largely a scam designed for marketing and promoting Mystery as some kind of "genius of seduction". The books portrays Katya as a "9.5"... To me she's a 6, 7 at best. I understand preferences can vary, but really, I think describing her as some kind of super hot woman is outright dishonest.

I got laid with models and celebrities, women who were waaaay more attractive than Katya. And maybe it's a cultural difference (I'm from Poland, also with experience in other European countries), but I don't think that Negs work and I don't think the whole "you have to neg the hottest women" doctrine presented in "The Game" is valid. My experience is that the hottest women react to the same things other women do - they have higher standards, sure, but otherwise they're normal women.

Based on my experience with hottest women, I think that to some degree Mystery is a fake. Because what he's saying doesn't match what I've actually experienced with very hot women. And looking at the fact that The Game portrays Katya as "9.5"... I really think there's dishonesty involved.

Katya, aside being only a 6, max 7 in my eyes (when wearing full makeup, on other photos), is a immigrant from Russia or Ukraine and she was later arrested for burglary (https://nopdnews.com/post/september-2016/9-6-16-two-arrested-on-multiple-residential-burgla/).

In other words, she seems to be a girl from the bottom part of the society - a poor girl with criminal tendencies. Clearly not any kind of high value, "elite" woman. And probably she's a mess mentally, emotionally.

I suspect Mystery's real target and "menu" were not any real kind of high value, "elite" women, but instead low value "sluts" like Katya. Women with low class, primitive mentality - and I think that's how the whole "you have to neg the hottest women" was created. Not based on dealing with high quality women, but based on dealing with primitive low class girls like Katya.

I think the "you have to neg the hottest women" is dishonest and harmful to people who treat Mystery seriously. I think the truth is much closer to "if you want to get laid with low class, emotionally unhealthy sluts, you should play on their low self esteem and their need for validation". And it's about dealing with stupid, disturbed chicks with a low class mentality, not about how attractive they are.

I know a guy who met Mystery and he says Mystery does have skills, but he's far from the seduction master many people think him to be. He says Mystery impresses other guys from PUA community by opening and entertaining girls, but his ability to actually get laid is faaaaaaar worse. And according to him, Mystery not any kind of "master" when it comes to very attractive women - they may let him entertain them (or not), but going to bed is a different story. He also says Mystery is best with empty headed, preferably drunk chicks in "party mode". Not really a surprise...

According to my friend, Mystery is great at opening large, difficult sets, also mixed ones with men, but as far actual seduction is concerned (actual getting laid, not just opening), he knows dozens of guys who are better than Mystery in being sexually attractive to very hot women (me included).

Both of us, as well as some other people, think Mystery is overated and that he actually did a lot of damage to many people with his theories - especially those about negging and "hottest women need to be negged". We think that "The Game" is a dishonest book, written as a marketing tool, aiming at creating image of Mystery as the "genius seduction master" and by association, also promoting the author. We think "The Game" is actually one giant routine designed to seduce...men from the seduction community. We think that anyone treating it 100% seriously is really getting fucked by Neil & Mystery.

So my opinion is this:

1. I think "The Models" is a book for stupid people.

2. I think "The Game" is a dishonest marketing routine. Just look at how the supposed "9.5" Katya really looks like. Sure, Mystery and Style have some competence, but lower than they pretend to have and how is the reader supposed to distinguish what's real and what's not?

I recommend skipping "The Models" entirely and treating "The Game" as a curioristy, not anything trustworthy.

So what has been your 4 biggest experience with gaming hot women? Like what ACTUALLY WORKS with hot women

What do they respond to the most?

And when you say negs dont work on them... what do you mean ? Like they get annoyed when you neg or they leave the conversation or the attraction drops?

 

[CharmingPsychopath]

So what has been your 4 biggest experience with gaming hot women? Like what ACTUALLY WORKS with hot women

What do they respond to the most?

It's a complicated topic. Many different things can work, many different styles can work. Like let's say evoking emotions with talking in the right way (something similar to Speed Seduction) can work and wordless dance seduction also can work.

1. It depends on the woman. One is more sexual, one more romantic, etc.

2. It depends on the environment. For the same woman, evoking emotions with words can work on her in a coffe shop, but will not work in loud club. For the same woman, wordless dance seduction can work easily in club, but will be much harder in a coffe shop (although somebody probably could pull it off).

3. It depends on the man's skills and talent (or lack of it), on what style fits his personality and also the way he looks.

For example - I know some guys who use humor to great effect for seduction, but myself and some others aren't so great with humor and we do better with "serious" style - sexual or romantic or rapport-based or even "philosophical/bohemian" (kind of like Kurt Cobain), etc, but generally "serious". (That doesn't mean the second group doesn't use humor at all, but it doesn't have a crucial role.)

So my point here is that different things can work for different people.

What works for me?

1. Good looks. Many people don't like hearing this, but looks matter. I know good looking and average looking guys who have good results, but somehow I don't know anybody ugly with good results. I'm rated by reliable sources as 7/10 - I'm not like a model, but I'm clearly above average. I'm like a 7/10 chick that is not super hot, but is pleasant to look at and a lot of guys will be interested in her.

From what I have experienced and been told directly by women, my 7/10 looks works even on 10/10 women. Not as a single definite factor, not in the way of "wow what a handsome guy! I need to fuck him because of his looks!". It works in combination with other factors.

2. Rapport building and nice, "sweet" vibe. I'm very good at building rapport, I'm a great listener - bit of a "therapist" type. (Note: many women fall in love with their therapists.)

3. Very intense sexuality and extremely high libido (it's probably linked with dopamine, perhaps also noradrenaline). BDSM desires to utterly dominate and humiliate the woman . Some sociopathic traits. Generally a "intense, perverse, dark sexuality" vibe. I don't have to act on it or speak about it - women can sense it.

I'm "bad" but not a classical "badboy with tatoos". I'm kind of "aristocratic", with disdain for the "plebes". I'm bit "evil" and "predatory" like a vampire. I don't dress goth or anything, but I have a bit of a "vampiric vibe".

Didn't I write under 2 that I'm nice and "sweet"? I did. I'm both nice/sweet and perverse/predatory/vampiric. Kind of "good" and "evil" at the same time.

BTW This contrast is the reason why I chose user name "Charming Psychopath". I'm not really a psychopath - it's a joke, but I'm not "normal" either. I have a reputation for being a bit of a psycho.

It's not a technique, it's what kind of person I am. And some women can sense there's something "different" about me - I've seen it numerous times.

I'm nice and warm when I talk to women. I don't act tough or edgy or anything like that. But they sense there's something else, sharper and darker, perverse, highly sexual, under the niceness - but it's not like the niceness is fake. No - it's genuine. And while I hide my "vampiric" side verbally, I don't hide it emotionally. I feel it, embrace my "predatory" desires and I hope the girl feels it as well. I want her to feel it. And I silently mock her, make her sense my "dark side" and observe her reaction - I "play with my prey", but far from crossing any social lines. And the girl generally doesn't know what's happening - she just senses there's "something else" there, but she doesn't know what exactly.

It's less about what I say, more about what the girl SENSES in me emotionally. What happens is "state transference" or "emotional contagion" - I draw the girl into the world of my "perverse" desires, without saying a word about them. While also making them feel nice, good and "sweet".

What I'm doing is largely similar to teachings of Gunwitch and what he wrote about sexual state. But in my case it's also perverse, kinky, predatory, "vampiric", etc etc - not only purely sexual.

BTW I advise against trying to copy my style if somebody doesn't have the right personality, if the perverse/predatory/"vampiric" states don't come naturally.


I will also write what doesn't work for me:

1. Any kind of supposed "Alpha Male" stuff.

2. Any kind of "lower her value" stuff like negs. (I sometimes tease the girl, but that's humor, not lowering her value)

And when you say negs dont work on them... what do you mean ? Like they get annoyed when you neg or they leave the conversation or the attraction drops?

It's something like:

1. If the girl didn't like me before, after the neg she still doesn't like me and additionally she gets mildly annoyed. Not that her annoyance matters - because she didn't like me before anyway, but I don't see any benefit either.

2. If the girl liked me before, she will react well because she likes me - but in such a case I don't need the neg, because she already liked me before.

There was a time when Mystery Method was very popular here (after "The Game" was released). Many local guys here tried it and I have NEVER, EVER seen any of them have success with very hot women. Including guys who went to workshops with Mystery, Lovedrop and other MM coaches.

I find the theory that "hottest women must to be negged" wrong according to my experience. Because my experience is that I can talk to them nicely with the right sexual/perverse/predatory/"vampiric" state and it often works very well.


BTW:

According to this, the typical female pornographic fantasy is that a innocent, well meaning and attractive young woman meets a male who is a bit of a monster.

And the most common type of a male in these female pornographic fantasies is a...vampire.

 

[Will_V]

According to this, the typical female pornographic fantasy is that a innocent, well meaning and attractive young woman meets a male who is a bit of a monster.

And the most common type of a male in these female pornographic fantasies is a...vampire.

This is why most literature on seduction is lacking.

Either it's a techy manual full of acronyms and canned routines, or it's a feelgood book full of vaguely contradicting truisms.

The seductive experience lives in a primal, subconscious, instinctive reality, full of politically incorrect aspects and yet subtle. I haven't found any literature that comes close to describing it in a scientific way - probably women's dark romance stuff is the most authentic representation.

Even Jordan Peterson, while he is able to speak academically on the subject, shies away completely from putting it into any practical form, and contradicts himself all the time by simultaneously alluding to the need for men to embrace their dark side, and denouncing its expression as pathological, which sounds like a recipe for some kind of neurosis.

I'd love to find a book that explores the depths of the seductive experience in great detail, the way that Carl Jung explored the subconscious. But I don't think such a book exists.

 

[PaulieFlyn10]

It's a complicated topic. Many different things can work, many different styles can work. Like let's say evoking emotions with talking in the right way (something similar to Speed Seduction) can work and wordless dance seduction also can work.

First off, good detailed reply. Yes it's a complicated topic but hopefully we can dive deeper and uncover some gems.

I think the SS works well anywhere with the exception of loud places like a club cuz it's obviously mostly verbal seduction and she has to hear you clearly.

1. It depends on the woman. One is more sexual, one more romantic, etc.

Aren't women a combination of both? Also even if we're to go with some are sexual and some are romantic... one would still have a wider appeal. I dont believe it's a 50:50 thing. The ratio would certainly favour one side more

2. It depends on the environment. For the same woman, evoking emotions with words can work on her in a coffe shop, but will not work in loud club. For the same woman, wordless dance seduction can work easily in club, but will be much harder in a coffe shop (although somebody probably could pull it off).

100%

3. It depends on the man's skills and talent (or lack of it), on what style fits his personality and also the way he looks.

Sure. Skills, talent, dedication and discipline

For example - I know some guys who use humor to great effect for seduction, but myself and some others aren't so great with humor and we do better with "serious" style - sexual or romantic or rapport-based or even "philosophical/bohemian" (kind of like Kurt Cobain), etc, but generally "serious". (That doesn't mean the second group doesn't use humor at all, but it doesn't have a crucial role.)

Ah yes the philosophical style. Something that a lot of artistes and actors have. Zan Perrion is also like this.

I love humor. And I do feel most guys use it more than they admit .. especially naturals

So my point here is that different things can work for different people.

What works for me?

1. Good looks. Many people don't like hearing this, but looks matter. I know good looking and average looking guys who have good results, but somehow I don't know anybody ugly with good results. I'm rated by reliable sources as 7/10 - I'm not like a model, but I'm clearly above average. I'm like a 7/10 chick that is not super hot, but is pleasant to look at and a lot of guys will be interested in her.

From what I have experienced and been told directly by women, my 7/10 looks works even on 10/10 women. Not as a single definite factor, not in the way of "wow what a handsome guy! I need to fuck him because of his looks!". It works in combination with other factors.

Yeah looks matter. But when I say looks in referring to all visuals besides body language and non verbals. So think fashion, grooming, style etc

2. Rapport building and nice, "sweet" vibe. I'm very good at building rapport, I'm a great listener - bit of a "therapist" type. (Note: many women fall in love with their therapists.)

I believe you do this on dates and not approach? I dont see this style working so well by itself for example in a day game cold approach

3. Very intense sexuality and extremely high libido (it's probably linked with dopamine, perhaps also noradrenaline). BDSM desires to utterly dominate and humiliate the woman . Some sociopathic traits. Generally a "intense, perverse, dark sexuality" vibe. I don't have to act on it or speak about it - women can sense it.

I'm "bad" but not a classical "badboy with tatoos". I'm kind of "aristocratic", with disdain for the "plebes". I'm bit "evil" and "predatory" like a vampire. I don't dress goth or anything, but I have a bit of a "vampiric vibe".

Didn't I write under 2 that I'm nice and "sweet"? I did. I'm both nice/sweet and perverse/predatory/vampiric. Kind of "good" and "evil" at the same time.

Yeah... there was a particular member who advocated for the same vampire style (velasco/spike)

I actually love the vampire archetype even more than the werewolf thing. When I was younger, I modelled my seduction to the vampires in vampire diaries (Damon precisely) He had this sexual charm/charisma/danger about him

Vampires are also known to be passionate lovers even while being ruthless so they're good people to model if you can pull it off

BTW This contrast is the reason why I chose user name "Charming Psychopath". I'm not really a psychopath - it's a joke, but I'm not "normal" either. I have a reputation for being a bit of a psycho.

It's not a technique, it's what kind of person I am. And some women can sense there's something "different" about me - I've seen it numerous times.

I'm nice and warm when I talk to women. I don't act tough or edgy or anything like that. But they sense there's something else, sharper and darker, perverse, highly sexual, under the niceness - but it's not like the niceness is fake. No - it's genuine. And while I hide my "vampiric" side verbally, I don't hide it emotionally. I feel it, embrace my "predatory" desires and I hope the girl feels it as well. I want her to feel it. And I silently mock her, make her sense my "dark side" and observe her reaction - I "play with my prey", but far from crossing any social lines. And the girl generally doesn't know what's happening - she just senses there's "something else" there, but she doesn't know what exactly.

It's less about what I say, more about what the girl SENSES in me emotionally. What happens is "state transference" or "emotional contagion" - I draw the girl into the world of my "perverse" desires, without saying a word about them. While also making them feel nice, good and "sweet".

What I'm doing is largely similar to teachings of Gunwitch and what he wrote about sexual state. But in my case it's also perverse, kinky, predatory, "vampiric", etc etc - not only purely sexual.

Yeah... push/pull or contrast game. I think contrast AND push pull is probably the most common biggest leverage in game. From both a macro and micro standpoint

It creates a certain level of mystery and intrigue that draws women in. The beauty of it is there are infinite number of ways yo create it

BTW I advise against trying to copy my style if somebody doesn't have the right personality, if the perverse/predatory/"vampiric" states don't come naturally.


I will also write what doesn't work for me:

1. Any kind of supposed "Alpha Male" stuff.

I think Alpha Male stuff is good but necessary for everyone

2. Any kind of "lower her value" stuff like negs. (I sometimes tease the girl, but that's humor, not lowering her value)

Ahh yes... and this where the issue lies. I dont think negs are low value. One thing I've realized in the pua community is to trust recommendations more than criticism

Recommendations are more likely to be true when context is added. With criticisms it's usually blank statements from a one sided perspective.

I re-read/re-watched MM earlier this year and I can tell you 90% of critiscms were flat out wrong or misunderstood at best.

Like your neg issue for example. Negging is basically a backhanded compliment or a tease. It doesn't necessarily have to "lower her value" The point of a neg is just to treat her like a normal human and NOT pedestalize her. Even Mystery said a neg is not to insult her

Take a look at some of the examples from his book (which I know almost everyone uses variations of): - we're not going to get along - Okay, Miss wikipedia over here. - I thought I loved you until you

He then describes a neg as a "statement or action to briefly disqualify yourself from being considered as a potential suitor. It allows a woman space to pursue you. They should be done light heartedly. They are not insults"

Now, I'll admit some of the examples he gave where a bit insulting lol... however one thing I've seen with guys who have a problem with negs is that they misunderstand it. Teasing/disqualifiers/IODs are all negs. Another thing is that guys are super calibrated with it: either downright insulting, doing too much of it in minutes, poor delivery or bad timing (for example in the after she does something really sweet )

So yeah, I do think negs work. Yours is probably teasing or breaking rapport

It's something like:

1. If the girl didn't like me before, after the neg she still doesn't like me and additionally she gets mildly annoyed. Not that her annoyance matters - because she didn't like me before anyway, but I don't see any benefit either.

This is mostly a calibration thing. A neg isn't supposed to make her magically like you. Also depends on what, when and how you use it.

2. If the girl liked me before, she will react well because she likes me - but in such a case I don't need the neg, because she already liked me before.

Yeah... but teasing (like you do) is basically an attraction tech... so it most definitely helps you

There was a time when Mystery Method was very popular here (after "The Game" was released). Many local guys here tried it and I have NEVER, EVER seen any of them have success with very hot women. Including guys who went to workshops with Mystery, Lovedrop and other MM coaches.

I find the theory that "hottest women must to be negged" wrong according to my experience. Because my experience is that I can talk to them nicely with the right sexual/perverse/predatory/"vampiric" state and it often works very well.

Yeah... what Mystery meant by this (read the definition of neg again) is that with hot women they are used to being hit on or guys putting them on pedestal or wanting to be their suitors...

So by using a neg (teasing/IOD/teasing etc) to separate yourself from those guys and make her chase you instead.

You saying "you treat them nicely" erroneously assumes a neg is meant to insult her which is further from the truth.

BTW:

According to this, the typical female pornographic fantasy is that a innocent, well meaning and attractive young woman meets a male who is a bit of a monster.

And the most common type of a male in these female pornographic fantasies is a...vampire.

Yeah... spot on analysis from Jordan... beauty and the beast vampire. I truly believe beauty and the beast is one of the best explanations of female romantic fantasy

A beast/monster with a dark side but who is able to control it and still be loving and sweet. Ironically, after the beast turned back into a human in the story... she left him lol

 

[gameboy]

I'd love to find a book that explores the depths of the seductive experience in great detail, the way that Carl Jung explored the subconscious. But I don't think such a book exists.

An idea for @Chase, maybe?

 

[CharmingPsychopath]

This is why most literature on seduction is lacking.

It certainly is lacking.

I haven't seen a description of something like my style anywhere.

In my opinion the closest one is Gunwitch because he wrote about the sexual state... But my state is sexual + BDSM/perverse/predatory/"vampiric", not just pure sexual.

I don't really identify with being a vampire (I don't do vampiric cosplay, etc), but I think it's a useful comparison for trying to explain my vibe/style of seduction. It's about a sharp, predatory, animalistic and "dark" sexuality, but while also being "artistocratic" and self-composed and outwardly polite. Kind of like count Dracula with cultured, aristocratic speech and manners.

BTW To make matters more confusing - I have consumed blood of dozens of females (few drops from finger, not chalices). But in BDSM/pagan setting, not vampire cosplay setting (which some other people do).

I think I have previously done a mistake and I haven't properly highlighted the BDSM, extreme dominance side of this. I feel that the woman is not a person, but an animal, a lowly animal destined to be my property, my prey. And I want to extremely humiliate her, take away her dignity and free will - so she becomes "animal-slave" at my feet, a container for my sperm. And I feel I will ravage her as wild animal would. Etc etc. And I think this will be the ultimate honor for the woman to serve as my "animal-slave" - in fact, it's the real purpose of her entire existence. But I don't say this - I'm actually very nice, polite and friendly. Generally my thoughts and state projection are wildly outside social norms, while my speech and behavior is very polite and perfectly within social norms. And I take delight in this "perverse falsehood".

I've noticed that it's very hard to explain what I do - even to people who know my in real life and have seen me in action numerous times have trouble understanding it. My close friends, who know I'm nice AND a "psycho" can't understand how it translates to a vibe that is a mix of "dark sexuality" and being charming. I've been complimented many times on my rapport building skills - that is noticeable to them, but they don't seem to notice that my "dark" vibe, my "psycho" side is appealing to women.

Looking at how my close friends have trouble understanding what I do, it's no wonder that information about such stuff is not popular - most people would never understand it. It's much incomparably easier to explain external stuff like "say X, then say Y", than to explain deep sexual/BDSM vibes.

Also I've noticed that people often interpret what I'm saying as some kind of "alpha male" thing. And as some kind of attempt to "out-alpha" them. I think it causes some people discomfort by presenting an image of "high end" sexuality and dominance they don't understand. Which also creates an incentive not to talk about it - because it can lead to a really dissapointing exchange with idiots who don't understand it.

Given what I've observed,, it's no wonder information about such things isn't widespread.

Either it's a techy manual full of acronyms and canned routines, or it's a feelgood book full of vaguely contradicting truisms.

Yes!

Because that's what SELLS.

These are actually two kinds of fantasies being sold:

1. "Autist's fantasy" - that seduction can be reduced and thus "conquered" by making a mechanical science out of it.

2. Classical "feelgood" self-help fantasy.

The seductive experience lives in a primal, subconscious, instinctive reality, full of politically incorrect aspects and yet subtle

EXACTLY!!!

Primal, instinctive, subconscious. Animalistic and predatory, and yet so subtle.

It feels so good, it kind of has this "healing" property. Despite the agressive, predatory aspect there's a lot of peace and harmony in it.

I haven't found any literature that comes close to describing it in a scientific way - probably women's dark romance stuff is the most authentic representation.

Me neither.

I've learned this stuff by exploring my own instincts.

And judging by how my friends can't understand it, I think it cannot really be explained if somebody doesn't have the right instinct and experiences.

Even Jordan Peterson, while he is able to speak academically on the subject, shies away completely from putting it into any practical form, and contradicts himself all the time by simultaneously alluding to the need for men to embrace their dark side, and denouncing its expression as pathological, which sounds like a recipe for some kind of neurosis.

There's a lot of this in the academic world.

For example, the psychologists speak about how sociopaths and narcissists do well with women, but in the context of "THIS IS BAD! DON"T DO THAT!". They will never suggest such behaviour and vibes when giving advice. Instead, they will advise the opposite.

Academic world's message to men:

1. X works well with women.
2. We advise you to avoid X at all costs and do the opposite.

Aren't women a combination of both? Also even if we're to go with some are sexual and some are romantic... one would still have a wider appeal. I dont believe it's a 50:50 thing. The ratio would certainly favour one side more

Sure, they are a combination of both - that's why I wrote "more sexual" and "more romantic". It's not a strict "either this or that".

And you can seduce the same woman in many ways - it's just a matter of which way is the easier one for a particular woman.

As to wider appeal... It's really hard for me to tell, as by nature I'm a "mixed" guy - with strong both sexual and rapport, emotional connection-building side.

I've seen openly sexual guys being rejected and rejected. And I've seen nice, but "sexually weak" guys friend-zoned. So I think it's really important to have both things.

But as to what has wider appeal - I don't know, it's hard for me to tell.

I believe you do this on dates and not approach? I dont see this style working so well by itself for example in a day game cold approach

It can work during game cold aproaches as well.

You can make a psychological observation about her, ask her how she FEELS about something.... Like how does she FEEL about living in this city or in her life in general... I'm not saying this is always a good idea, but it can also deepen the conversation and connection. Normal superficial talk like "do you party a lot? do you work out a lot?" is nothing compared to "spontanous" deep talk about how she feels in her life.

I would even argue that part of this (the vibe) even works in loud clubs. Because I think women can kind of sense that I'm genuinely open and emphatic towards them. And even if at the moment the environment is not perfect for long deep talks right now, I'm the kind of man who will give it to them later.

Like your neg issue for example. Negging is basically a backhanded compliment or a tease. It doesn't necessarily have to "lower her value" The point of a neg is just to treat her like a normal human and NOT pedestalize her. Even Mystery said a neg is not to insult her

I disagree - I think the negs generally lower the girl's value, her self-esteem.

Mystery himself called them initially "negative hits".

From Mystery's archive, on 3rd September 1998, Mystery wrote on alt.seduction.fast:

"9+s are so used to to this attention you must give them 3 negative hits first".

On September 6th, 1998, Mystery wrote:

"NEG HITS are retaliation tactics that MUST be used, especially if the woman is high rating. 9s and 10s must be treated differently than 8s and under".

I think it's quite obvious these are (sneaky) attacks, "hits" on girl's value/selfesteem.

Mystery proposed a neg of:

"Those are very nice nails you have, are they real?"

And if she says yes, then saying "oh. well they're still nice".

Sure, that's not an insult. But it's an attack (hit) on her value/self-esteem.

The reactions I've got and I've seen other people get from negs wasn't outrage, but slightly displeased look, something like "this guy is a bit weird".

Teasing/disqualifiers/IODs are all negs.

I see big difference between teasing and for example the above nails neg.

Teasing in my case are often absurd things, which are obviously untrue, so they don't really hit the girl's value/self-esteem.

The nails neg isn't obviously untrue, it sounds like some amount of real dissapointment with the fact the girl's nails aren't real.

You saying "you treat them nicely" erroneously assumes a neg is meant to insult her which is further from the truth.

I didn't say it's an insult.

But I do think the nails neg is not treating a girl nicely. It's not outrigh rude or insulting, but it's not nice either.

Yeah... what Mystery meant by this (read the definition of neg again) is that with hot women they are used to being hit on or guys putting them on pedestal or wanting to be their suitors...

I understand the problem that negs are supposed to fix - very hot women not being open, not wanting to talk, etc.

But from what I have experienced and seen:

1. Negs don't seem to work as a solution to that problem. Neither for me, neither for other people - including some who attended workshops under Mystery, Lovedrop, etc.

Maybe negs work for Mystery - just like my "dark sexuality" thing which works for me, but my friends can't learn it.

But anyway - from what I have seen, negs seem to achieve nothing with the hottest women they're supposed to be designed for.

2. Mystery's words about how the hottest women MUST be negged are definitively false.

I got laid with very hot women while being nice to them. I sometimes did tease them, but that was made after they were already receptive towards me and it was actually more of a rapport-building, fun-building laugh.

3. A lot of Mystery's fans are delusional people (also true for PUA community in general). They speak at length about how "Mystery Method is designed to get the hottest women", etc etc, but they never actually get anywhere with the hottest women - and they don't see a contradiction between these two things.

These are people with mentality of "I have a GREAT method for sleeping with hottest women! And I haven't slept with any."

Meanwhile the hottest women are having sex - with people who aren't Mystery's followers.

 

[PaulieFlyn10]

It certainly is lacking.

I haven't seen a description of something like my style anywhere.

In my opinion the closest one is Gunwitch because he wrote about the sexual state... But my state is sexual + BDSM/perverse/predatory/"vampiric", not just pure sexual.

I don't really identify with being a vampire (I don't do vampiric cosplay, etc), but I think it's a useful comparison for trying to explain my vibe/style of seduction. It's about a sharp, predatory, animalistic and "dark" sexuality, but while also being "artistocratic" and self-composed and outwardly polite. Kind of like count Dracula with cultured, aristocratic speech and manners.

BTW To make matters more confusing - I have consumed blood of dozens of females (few drops from finger, not chalices). But in BDSM/pagan setting, not vampire cosplay setting (which some other people do).

I think I have previously done a mistake and I haven't properly highlighted the BDSM, extreme dominance side of this. I feel that the woman is not a person, but an animal, a lowly animal destined to be my property, my prey. And I want to extremely humiliate her, take away her dignity and free will - so she becomes "animal-slave" at my feet, a container for my sperm. And I feel I will ravage her as wild animal would. Etc etc. And I think this will be the ultimate honor for the woman to serve as my "animal-slave" - in fact, it's the real purpose of her entire existence. But I don't say this - I'm actually very nice, polite and friendly. Generally my thoughts and state projection are wildly outside social norms, while my speech and behavior is very polite and perfectly within social norms. And I take delight in this "perverse falsehood".

I've noticed that it's very hard to explain what I do - even to people who know my in real life and have seen me in action numerous times have trouble understanding it. My close friends, who know I'm nice AND a "psycho" can't understand how it translates to a vibe that is a mix of "dark sexuality" and being charming. I've been complimented many times on my rapport building skills - that is noticeable to them, but they don't seem to notice that my "dark" vibe, my "psycho" side is appealing to women.

Looking at how my close friends have trouble understanding what I do, it's no wonder that information about such stuff is not popular - most people would never understand it. It's much incomparably easier to explain external stuff like "say X, then say Y", than to explain deep sexual/BDSM vibes.

Also I've noticed that people often interpret what I'm saying as some kind of "alpha male" thing. And as some kind of attempt to "out-alpha" them. I think it causes some people discomfort by presenting an image of "high end" sexuality and dominance they don't understand. Which also creates an incentive not to talk about it - because it can lead to a really dissapointing exchange with idiots who don't understand it.

Given what I've observed,, it's no wonder information about such things isn't widespread.




Yes!

Because that's what SELLS.

These are actually two kinds of fantasies being sold:

1. "Autist's fantasy" - that seduction can be reduced and thus "conquered" by making a mechanical science out of it.

2. Classical "feelgood" self-help fantasy.




EXACTLY!!!

Primal, instinctive, subconscious. Animalistic and predatory, and yet so subtle.

It feels so good, it kind of has this "healing" property. Despite the agressive, predatory aspect there's a lot of peace and harmony in it.




Me neither.

I've learned this stuff by exploring my own instincts.

And judging by how my friends can't understand it, I think it cannot really be explained if somebody doesn't have the right instinct and experiences.



There's a lot of this in the academic world.

For example, the psychologists speak about how sociopaths and narcissists do well with women, but in the context of "THIS IS BAD! DON"T DO THAT!". They will never suggest such behaviour and vibes when giving advice. Instead, they will advise the opposite.

Academic world's message to men:

1. X works well with women.
2. We advise you to avoid X at all costs and do the opposite.




Sure, they are a combination of both - that's why I wrote "more sexual" and "more romantic". It's not a strict "either this or that".

And you can seduce the same woman in many ways - it's just a matter of which way is the easier one for a particular woman.

As to wider appeal... It's really hard for me to tell, as by nature I'm a "mixed" guy - with strong both sexual and rapport, emotional connection-building side.

I've seen openly sexual guys being rejected and rejected. And I've seen nice, but "sexually weak" guys friend-zoned. So I think it's really important to have both things.

But as to what has wider appeal - I don't know, it's hard for me to tell.




It can work during game cold aproaches as well.

You can make a psychological observation about her, ask her how she FEELS about something.... Like how does she FEEL about living in this city or in her life in general... I'm not saying this is always a good idea, but it can also deepen the conversation and connection. Normal superficial talk like "do you party a lot? do you work out a lot?" is nothing compared to "spontanous" deep talk about how she feels in her life.

I would even argue that part of this (the vibe) even works in loud clubs. Because I think women can kind of sense that I'm genuinely open and emphatic towards them. And even if at the moment the environment is not perfect for long deep talks right now, I'm the kind of man who will give it to them later.



I disagree - I think the negs generally lower the girl's value, her self-esteem.

Mystery himself called them initially "negative hits".

From Mystery's archive, on 3rd September 1998, Mystery wrote on alt.seduction.fast:

"9+s are so used to to this attention you must give them 3 negative hits first".

On September 6th, 1998, Mystery wrote:

"NEG HITS are retaliation tactics that MUST be used, especially if the woman is high rating. 9s and 10s must be treated differently than 8s and under".

I think it's quite obvious these are (sneaky) attacks, "hits" on girl's value/selfesteem.

Mystery proposed a neg of:

"Those are very nice nails you have, are they real?"

And if she says yes, then saying "oh. well they're still nice".

Sure, that's not an insult. But it's an attack (hit) on her value/self-esteem.

The reactions I've got and I've seen other people get from negs wasn't outrage, but slightly displeased look, something like "this guy is a bit weird".

Well, everything I wrote about negs are from his latest book. And he specifically says "it's not an insult" he even says "it's a backhanded compliment.

All the definitions I gave are his words not mine. Which brings me back to my original point (and the point he made in his book) that many many guys misunderstood what he meant

I think the problem a lot of critics have is they impose their meanings and interpretations on certain things.

I feel people want his method to be bad rather than actually giving facts based critics.

And again, delivery and calibration. It's almost as if nobody sees the calibration part. Most guys saw negs like a silver bullet. Like "Oh just say this neg and you'll have 10s drooling over you" From what I've seen it's more of a misunderstanding or misapplicaton of his explanations

I see big difference between teasing and for example the above nails neg.

Teasing in my case are often absurd things, which are obviously untrue, so they don't really hit the girl's value/self-esteem.

The nails neg isn't obviously untrue, it sounds like some amount of real dissapointment with the fact the girl's nails aren't real.

Lol.. it's not a real disappointment per se. It's just teasing like for example you're in banter with a shorter girl and you say "oh i cant hear you from down there"


Again the thing is calibration. Some of the lines Mystery lines I agree are harder to calibrate for most guys. And it's no surprise most guys sucked at it.

Best thing is just to stick with teasing. All the examples he gave are just different forms of IODs/teasing/disqualifiers (he grouped all of these under the word negs)

I didn't say it's an insult.

But I do think the nails neg is not treating a girl nicely. It's not outrigh rude or insulting, but it's not nice either.



I understand the problem that negs are supposed to fix - very hot women not being open, not wanting to talk, etc.

But from what I have experienced and seen:

1. Negs don't seem to work as a solution to that problem. Neither for me, neither for other people - including some who attended workshops under Mystery, Lovedrop, etc.

No. The primary problem negs try to fix is so you dont come across as just another suitor or put her on a pedestal. (Basically disqualify yourself and making her chase)

The problem of her not being open and not wanting to talk is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If that's where you use it then it's not a surprise why it didn't work

Maybe negs work for Mystery - just like my "dark sexuality" thing which works for me, but my friends can't learn it.

But anyway - from what I have seen, negs seem to achieve nothing with the hottest women they're supposed to be designed for.

2. Mystery's words about how the hottest women MUST be negged are definitively false.

I got laid with very hot women while being nice to them. I sometimes did tease them, but that was made after they were already receptive towards me and it was actually more of a rapport-building, fun-building laugh.

Yeah... you seem to be fixated on what your interpretation of what a neg is despite him explaining reasons about what a neg is

Teasing/disqualifiers/IODs all fall under that umbrella of negs (To him) which from your admission you do.

3. A lot of Mystery's fans are delusional people (also true for PUA community in general). They speak at length about how "Mystery Method is designed to get the hottest women", etc etc, but they never actually get anywhere with the hottest women - and they don't see a contradiction between these two things.

These are people with mentality of "I have a GREAT method for sleeping with hottest women! And I haven't slept with any."

Meanwhile the hottest women are having sex - with people who aren't Mystery's followers.

Mystery fans are dogmatic with his method and try to follow it to a tee - which is their biggest downfall.

They seem to stick with the worst part of the method: 7 hour rule, multiple dates, boyfriend game, excessive peacocking. All while being hugely miscalibrated.

The reasons above along with refusal to adapt to new styles is why most guys fail with it.

To me seduction is a mix and match of different methods. Where you big the good stuff with one method (and drop the bad) then mix with the good stuff of another method

 

[Will_V]

I've noticed that it's very hard to explain what I do - even to people who know my in real life and have seen me in action numerous times have trouble understanding it. My close friends, who know I'm nice AND a "psycho" can't understand how it translates to a vibe that is a mix of "dark sexuality" and being charming. I've been complimented many times on my rapport building skills - that is noticeable to them, but they don't seem to notice that my "dark" vibe, my "psycho" side is appealing to women.

It's continually surprising to me how far from their nature people live out their conscious lives. Because I believe that many - if not most - people have such a dark side, that it is not just a useful element but also one that, when expressed in the right ways, centers and stabilizes someone's identity in a way that virtually nothing else can.

For me, the realization of it, the acceptance of it, and learning to express it functionally in both my everyday life and in my sexual life, was the key to achieving a strong and stable sense of self. Yet so many people seem to live in complete ignorance and/or denial of it, as if anything could really make sense without it.

Looking at how my close friends have trouble understanding what I do, it's no wonder that information about such stuff is not popular - most people would never understand it. It's much incomparably easier to explain external stuff like "say X, then say Y", than to explain deep sexual/BDSM vibes.

Yes, and it is also simply difficult to express such things in words that people do not apply some stereotypical meaning to. For example, I consider myself to be an aggressive person by nature. But if I say that, it conjures the image of someone out of control, with destructive ill-intent, when, on the contrary, I have found it to be something very useful, constructive, and self-affirming to my life.

Society, and the mainstream media therein, co-opts words and squeezes out whatever meaning they have that does not present itself as a vehicle for the messages of the times.

These are actually two kinds of fantasies being sold:

1. "Autist's fantasy" - that seduction can be reduced and thus "conquered" by making a mechanical science out of it.

2. Classical "feelgood" self-help fantasy.

This is the perennial problem of seduction information, in my opinion. On the one hand, I fully understand that it needs to be practical. On the other hand, if it's too practical, it fails to transfer onto the user the full disseminated experience and opportunity for expression.

I don't think there is a good answer to this, except that 'to each his own', those who search for something will eventually find it.

EXACTLY!!!

Primal, instinctive, subconscious. Animalistic and predatory, and yet so subtle.

It feels so good, it kind of has this "healing" property. Despite the agressive, predatory aspect there's a lot of peace and harmony in it.

That's exactly how a good sexual experience works, as I see it. It is a sort of 'regression' to a primal state of affairs in which everything is uncomplicated, free of conflict (because the roles of the man and woman are so polarized), and synchronized with instinct to such an extent that the lack of inhibition alone produces an exhilarating feeling of ease and satisfaction.

This kind of experience is in such contrast to everyday life, which is full of complications, confusions, unintuitive rules, and unsatisfying climaxes, that it can become almost the only true experience someone has of their own nature.

And judging by how my friends can't understand it, I think it cannot really be explained if somebody doesn't have the right instinct and experiences.

Or self knowledge, perhaps?

Academic world's message to men:

1. X works well with women.
2. We advise you to avoid X at all costs and do the opposite.

Yes! Or,
1. X works well with women.
2. But there's no point even discussing it in this day and age, so just do Y regardless of how disfunctional it is.

 

[CharmingPsychopath]

Well, everything I wrote about negs are from his latest book. And he specifically says "it's not an insult" he even says "it's a backhanded compliment.

All the definitions I gave are his words not mine. Which brings me back to my original point (and the point he made in his book) that many many guys misunderstood what he meant

I've also quoted his words, just earlier ones. Inititally he called negs "negative hits". And I think it's quite clear that he meant them as something negative and as hits to the girl's value/self-esteem.

He also called negs "retaliation tactics".

You can check Mystery's archive here if you wish: https://web.archive.org/web/20130306125704/http://www.fastseduction.com/archives/

(It's in the first pdf from Mystery's archive, password is "fastseduction.com")

Not sure if he later changed his mind, or if he just made it sound more gentle to avoid potential backlash (look what happened to Julien from RSD).

I feel people want his method to be bad rather than actually giving facts based critics.

In my case:

1. I did initially believe in Mystery Method.

2. I've tried it and got very poor results.

3. I've seen others get very poor results from it.

4. I've seen people who went to workshops led by Mystery, Lovedrop and others get very poor results from it.

Also, I've seen pictures and videos of Katya, Mystery's girlfriend mentioned in "The Game", where she was rated "9.5".

Does she look 9.5 to you?

Two Arrested on Multiple Residential Burglaries and Fraud Incidents in the Second District - NOPD News

nopdnews.com

I think she's a common 6/10. Absolute maximum of 7/10. Certainly not any kind of top level beauty.

People shake heads, roll eyes and laugh at the idea she's supposed to be "9.5".

I think this does make Mystery look like a liar.

(It's Style who wrote The Game, but he's quoting Mystery's post there, in which Mystery calling Katya a "9.5". Page 379)

This also makes me wonder:

1. Mystery claims his method is geared towards seducing the hottest of women.
2. The same Mystery rates Katya a "9.5". While I would call her a common 6, max 7.

Does this mean his method is really geared towards 6-7?

Anyway - do you understand why I have a negative, suspicious point of view?

And again, delivery and calibration. It's almost as if nobody sees the calibration part.

I understand the crucial role of calibration... But if some people who went to workshops done by Mystery, Lovedrop and other MM instructors also fail, then who has this elusive power of MM callibraiton and how hard it is to obtain it?

No. The primary problem negs try to fix is so you dont come across as just another suitor or put her on a pedestal. (Basically disqualify yourself and making her chase)

The problem of her not being open and not wanting to talk is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. If that's where you use it then it's not a surprise why it didn't work

This seems contrary to what Mystery himself wrote in the past about negs being "retaliaton tactics".

"Retaliation" - so there must've been some bad behavior from woman's side that Mystery was retaliating for.

1. Perhaps Mystery realised what he was teaching doesn't really work that well. But to save his reputation, he could not simply say "oh I was wrong about negs, I was teaching bullshit". So he started telling people that by "negs" he actually meant normal teasing all along.

2. Perhaps Mystery still believes his initial view on negs, but presents it in a politically correct manner, so he doesn't get crucified in the media like Julien from RSD was.

Either way, this is a retcon and initially it was "retaliation tactics" and "negative hits".

Mystery fans are dogmatic with his method and try to follow it to a tee - which is their biggest downfall.

They seem to stick with the worst part of the method: 7 hour rule, multiple dates, boyfriend game, excessive peacocking. All while being hugely miscalibrated.

I don't think 7 hour game, multiple dates and boyfriend game are the worst part of it.

7 hours rule, multiple dates as a rigid doctrine is stupid, but if somebody will fuck the girl later it's fine. Sometimes complications can happen in the meantime and opportunity can be lost, but very often simply the sex will happen - just later.

Boyfriend game is fine and I think easier for most people to do than sexual game.

The biggest problems I have seen:

1. Routines falling flat.

2. Negs falling flat or annoying girls, making the guy look weird.

Guys I've seen have either done moderate peacocking or no peacocking, so it wasn't a problem.

It's continually surprising to me how far from their nature people live out their conscious lives. Because I believe that many - if not most - people have such a dark side, that it is not just a useful element but also one that, when expressed in the right ways, centers and stabilizes someone's identity in a way that virtually nothing else can.

For me, the realization of it, the acceptance of it, and learning to express it functionally in both my everyday life and in my sexual life, was the key to achieving a strong and stable sense of self. Yet so many people seem to live in complete ignorance and/or denial of it, as if anything could really make sense without it.

Certainly there is something wonderful, "magical" about it - how it makes things "meaningful", how it somehow corrects things to fall into their place, etc etc. It is something truly special.

But in my case not everything was so rosy - I was often torn between my instincts and "my normal self" and the outside influences. My instincts often "spoke" to me with feelings, impulses that were hard to understand or hard to implement and I didn't know what to do. I'm not complaining, but it wasn't always great.

Also, because I was "different", I had trouble in relations, interactions with others. I didn't like their superficiality and nonsense, and because I was a bit "different", I couldn't connect well with others. So I was the outcast.

It was much later, when I started to get intensive, animalistic sexual impulses, BDSM thoughts of totally dominating and humiliating the women, etc etc. And then I've started to reap rewards, but utilising that also required work.

I don't know how many other people have similar instincts. Perhaps some do, but they surpressed as they've failed to integrate them with their lives. But I also think many, most people are born "instinctively castrated". I was "different" already as a 5-6 year old kid - the difference certainly didn't come from my upbringing, I didn't learn it from anybody, etc etc. (But then again somehow a lof of women have strong submissive instinct/kink. Is it different for women and men?)

How does it look like in your case? Do you have animalistic sexuality, BDSM tendencies like me or something else? And how, when did it show itself, how was your "adaptation process"?

Yes, and it is also simply difficult to express such things in words that people do not apply some stereotypical meaning to. For example, I consider myself to be an aggressive person by nature. But if I say that, it conjures the image of someone out of control, with destructive ill-intent, when, on the contrary, I have found it to be something very useful, constructive, and self-affirming to my life.

I'm also quite agressive.

But it's not the same kind of agression like many other people have - who are emotionally unstable, have problem with heir ego or something like that. My agression is different and somehow "pure" and "healthy", not a sign of disorder.

My friends also have a similar opinion - they say I'm bit of a "psycho", "like a psychopath", but at the same time they like and trust me.

This is the perennial problem of seduction information, in my opinion. On the one hand, I fully understand that it needs to be practical. On the other hand, if it's too practical, it fails to transfer onto the user the full disseminated experience and opportunity for expression.

I don't think there is a good answer to this, except that 'to each his own', those who search for something will eventually find it.

Unfortunately I know many guys who searched hard and didn't find it. Many becoming weird or even delusional in the process.

My experience is that the best way is to have somebody good to go out with regularly (going to a workshop is not enough).

In my case it were two naturals who went to PUA to see what it's all about (one of them knew of NLP through field of marketing and through NLP community learned of a local Speed Seduction rip-off). They came, saw PUA community is shit and left. But during the period of their interest, I've managed to befriend them and we stayed friends, kept going out.

That's exactly how a good sexual experience works, as I see it. It is a sort of 'regression' to a primal state of affairs in which everything is uncomplicated, free of conflict (because the roles of the man and woman are so polarized),

EXACTLY!!!

There is no conflict, between the roles are so polarised - I'm "everything" and the woman is "nothing". And women get ecstatic from this "being nothing". They feel....healed, mentally fixed by this. And deeply thankful.

My experience is that women deeply desire to be "victims" and "slaves", "property", "animals". They want to be "completely enslaved", "opressed", etc etc.

BTW I think the whole "alpha male" stuff, while going roughly in the good direction, is horribly misguided. There's too much of ego in it, it's superficial, etc etc. I'm deeply convinced such things are writtten by people who never experienced the "real thing".

I think generally people mistake superficial, ego-driven, social dominance with instinctive, animalistic dominance. They pump their ego, feel somewhat better and think "that's it, I'm dominating".

Some people do "BDSM theatre" with whips, handcuffs and latex suits... But that is often superficial also. People often do BDSM because they think it's cool and edgy, not because they truly "feel it".

This kind of experience is in such contrast to everyday life, which is full of complications, confusions, unintuitive rules, and unsatisfying climaxes, that it can become almost the only true experience someone has of their own nature.

I find the everyday life and "normal" culture....bearable. As long as I'm not limited to it, as long as I have something else in my life. And as long as I don't have to spend too much time with the "normal people".

I've noticed for example that my "friendship compatibility" with old friends who have normal sexual life worsened. They have this "castrated" vibe on them. I still like them, I have sentiment for them but I can't help the fact that I perceive them instinctively as "pathetic losers". I really don't want to feel this, but something in me feels contempt for them and kind of wants to....bully them, cuckold them....

Or self knowledge, perhaps?

I don't know. In my case, I didn't have any special upbringing, any kind of for example "close with nature" life, etc etc. I was born bit "different" and certain emotions, instincts started to just appearin adulthood...

I think natural predispositions play huge role in this. But on the other hand, so incredibly many women have strong submissive instincts....

Maybe it's different for women and men?

Maybe it's simply that women can passively discover their submissiveness by being dominated by the right man, while a man will almost certainly NOT be taught by women how to dominate them.

But then again, in my case it looks like it's inborn, genetic. Impulses just started to appear, like I knew things I didn't know. My real job was not to discover this, but to integrate it with the rest of my life.

Yes! Or,
1. X works well with women.
2. But there's no point even discussing it in this day and age, so just do Y regardless of how disfunctional it is.

I feel the "normal" relations are dysfunctional. I actually feel revulsion at the sight, at the thought of them.

As a experiment, I've just tried to listening to what two female psychologists are saying about relationships. I literally got a hedache. That is not a exagerration, I really got a slight headache. After like 3 minutes. I don't know how it's possible to get a headache after listening to something for 3 minutes, but somehow it is possible. It even wasn't the content, it was the fucking cretinic tone, the atmosphere - two stupid bitches thinking they're smart. I'm honestly surprised by my own reaction, but I felt the urge to physically beat them up.

From the "normal" point of view, my reaction is horrible and means I'm a evil, or somehow "sick" person. But from instinctive point of view, my reaction is I guess healthy considering the abnormality my brain has just witnessed in the two female psychologists.

BTW My girlfriend likes to mock modern psychology and relationships, feminism, etc. Some of her sayings:

"They say a relationship should be based on respect... I think that's very wise. Look at us! I feel most respected by you when you fuck me. That's why our relationship is so good - because it's based on RESPECT!". (plus: "would you like to show me respect [fuck her] right now? It's really important for out relationship.")

"They say a relationship should be based on mutual respect... I think that's very wise. Look - I respect you. And you respect yourself. So we both respect YOU. I think that's great MUTUAL respect!".

"They say communication is the foundation of a relationship. I feel that's very wise. Look at us - you say, I listen. We have PERFECT communication!".

Also:

"I'm too hot to be a feminist!" (Often to actual feminists, who are invariably vastly less attractive. )

When there is complaining that men sexualise women. "I LOVE being sexualised!". Feminist: "You like being looked at like a piece of meat?" My girlfriend, with open-eyed enthusiasm "YES!!! OMG, I'm such a sexy piece of meat!!!". Optionally: "I think I will start touching myself!".

Her more serious views:

1. Looks are important, money is useful, but it's also crucial that a man is GOOD IN BED and also not a loser/cuckold type.

2. Most troubles in relationships are the man's fault - because he sucks in bed. Woman becomes frustrated and has no respect for him, so she's mean to him.

3. Being confident, dominant isn't worth anything if it isn't backed up by good sex.

4. If a man is good in bed, many faults will be forgiven.

5. If a man is poor in bed, many faults will be discovered and brought up.

6. Most girls are simply too ugly to keep a really good man, because such men are in high demand and a average girl "can't afford" one - so they compromise and they're frustrated afterwards. And it's a pathetic existence. (She knows about it from her average looking friends from school/college.)

7. Women have it harder than men, because we'll be satisfied with pretty much any hot woman, while women care a lot about our sex skills and personality, not just looks. And especially if a girl also want a guy who's comfortable financially, then finding and getting, KEEPING such a guy with all those traits can be very difficult. She says competition for high quality men is intense - for attractive women, while the average ones can't even hope to win.

8. She knows about the PUA community and she thinks it's bunch of losers and that I know it only due to some bad luck earlier in life. She says a lot of guys say a lot of different things to women and women don't pay so much attention to it. She says what counts are looks, money and in rare cases the guy has a exceptional vibe, but that's very rare. She says advice on "how to talk to women" is absurd and instead men should dress well, pay attention to grooming and get in shape physically. Her special tip is: men should dress to look RICH.

I went off-topic, but I think this is entertaining.

 

[MrVariety]

I think she's a common 6/10. Absolute maximum of 7/10. Certainly not any kind of top level beauty.

People shake heads, roll eyes and laugh at the idea she's supposed to be "9.5".

I think this does make Mystery look like a liar.

(It's Style who wrote The Game, but he's quoting Mystery's post there, in which Mystery calling Katya a "9.5". Page 379)

This also makes me wonder:

1. Mystery claims his method is geared towards seducing the hottest of women.
2. The same Mystery rates Katya a "9.5". While I would call her a common 6, max 7.

Does this mean his method is really geared towards 6-7?

Anyway - do you understand why I have a negative, suspicious point of view?

Wow yeah. My mental image of the content of The Game has now got to be recalibrated. That’s definitely not a 9.5. She looks like she’s addicted to crack. Maybe Mystery is a liar, or maybe he seeing her through the lens of love <3

Mystery didn’t seem to impress me in later years. He was on drugs when his baby was born. He’s out there «chasing the one» and he’s barely coherent in his speech nowadays. There was a interview relatively recently with him as RSD Tyler and the vibe was really weird they cut things out Mystery doesn’t seem ok.

Mr Variety

 

[Will_V]

But I also think many, most people are born "instinctively castrated". I was "different" already as a 5-6 year old kid - the difference certainly didn't come from my upbringing, I didn't learn it from anybody, etc etc. (But then again somehow a lof of women have strong submissive instinct/kink. Is it different for women and men?)

That's an interesting question, and I don't fully know the answer. I believe it depends on:

- Environmental conditioning
- Early constructions of self-image (reinforced by the environment and social group)
- Innate temperament

Considering the amount of psychiatric medication being dished out in this day and age, I have no doubt that a lot of what makes people become out of touch with themselves and their instincts is an adaptation that is not (and probably cannot be) fully integrated.

I believe in the concept from psychoanalysis that the instincts and drives of a human being can never be extinguished, only repressed by force, with the continual possibility that something will cause that repression to suddenly reverse in a chaotic way.

How does it look like in your case? Do you have animalistic sexuality, BDSM tendencies like me or something else? And how, when did it show itself, how was your "adaptation process"?

I'm not really into BDSM as a system, I like to experience sex with the same sense of control and dominance, but without the elaborate roleplaying. I'll do some basic stuff like tying her up, blindfolding her, etc but I feel like anything too fancy sort of 'replaces' my mere presence as a source of sexual power, in a way that it should not.

That said I like to really ravish a woman in bed and make her feel like I'm doing whatever I want with her - pin her down, drag her around the bed, flip her over, smack her butt (and pussy, gently), put various parts of myself into her various orifices, tell her what to do, dirty talk her.

My experience of sex is a very primal one, where I'm not thinking or planning at all, I'm just immersing myself in all the sensations and in my sense of control and power, letting myself go where my impulses take me, like a sort of sexual beast. And that seems to be what she responds to and orgasms to the most - where she is the subject of my sexual expression, and all she can do is experience it and absorb it. I can lose a couple of hours easily in this state, and time seems to slow down.

If I had an archetype, it would probably be the werewolf (with maybe a bit of the pirate mixed in!)

Growing up, I was always the 'werewolf' in the sense that I felt like I could be myself and express myself very naturally and aggressively when I was alone - which I did mainly by pushing my physical limits with exercise and sport - but I struggled to express myself socially. I couldn't seem to find the balance where I was respected but also welcomed, and so I became somewhat of a loner where I felt most in control. I was never bullied, but also never really accepted. This was all partly because I came to believe that some of my tendencies were pathological, I became religious briefly as a way to try and fix it, before realizing that the only way out was to accept everything about myself and learn how to make it work together. And it took many years - to make yourself open to the truth about who you are, without getting caught in egotistical illusions, is an incredibly difficult thing.

Once I started having sex, I felt immediately and instinctively comfortable expressing myself in a very primal, instinctive way with her, and sex became one of the ways I learned to really accept and enjoy all the various parts of my nature.

But it's not the same kind of agression like many other people have - who are emotionally unstable, have problem with heir ego or something like that. My agression is different and somehow "pure" and "healthy", not a sign of disorder.

My friends also have a similar opinion - they say I'm bit of a "psycho", "like a psychopath", but at the same time they like and trust me.

Yes, I think of this type of aggression as a drive pushing forward relentlessly, rather than any kind of lashing out. It's a sort of glowing ember rather than a raging fire.

One of my girlfriends would often breathlessly comment to me (just before we had sex and she came all over my balls) that I look at her like a predator, and to be honest, I kind of feel that way when I am moving to take a woman, and I enjoy it. But I am self-aware enough, of course, to maintain awareness of her experience of me, and adjust accordingly. I can live in those two states at once. And once she realizes that, she feels safe to open herself to what I am.

Unfortunately I know many guys who searched hard and didn't find it. Many becoming weird or even delusional in the process.

My experience is that the best way is to have somebody good to go out with regularly (going to a workshop is not enough).

In my case it were two naturals who went to PUA to see what it's all about (one of them knew of NLP through field of marketing and through NLP community learned of a local Speed Seduction rip-off). They came, saw PUA community is shit and left. But during the period of their interest, I've managed to befriend them and we stayed friends, kept going out.

That's fair enough. I've done pretty much all my 'self-growth' alone, and I kind of like it that way. You can really immerse yourself in the truth of things without having to think about the frame of reference of anyone else. But it's probably not the way everyone will do best with.

EXACTLY!!!

There is no conflict, between the roles are so polarised - I'm "everything" and the woman is "nothing". And women get ecstatic from this "being nothing". They feel....healed, mentally fixed by this. And deeply thankful.

My experience is that women deeply desire to be "victims" and "slaves", "property", "animals". They want to be "completely enslaved", "opressed", etc etc.

I believe that the female sexual psyche (in general) desires to feel completely overwhelmed, to be the passive subject of an experience, and as a result to be absolved of all responsibility, and in experiencing this she feels fully released from inhibition, and free to explore her own nature.

Whether she wants to feel explicitly demeaned I think depends on the woman.

BTW I think the whole "alpha male" stuff, while going roughly in the good direction, is horribly misguided. There's too much of ego in it, it's superficial, etc etc. I'm deeply convinced such things are writtten by people who never experienced the "real thing".

I think generally people mistake superficial, ego-driven, social dominance with instinctive, animalistic dominance. They pump their ego, feel somewhat better and think "that's it, I'm dominating".

Yes, a natural leader has a commanding presence, whereas a false leader displays commanding behaviors. One is living in his nature, and the other is living a performance.

I find the everyday life and "normal" culture....bearable. As long as I'm not limited to it, as long as I have something else in my life. And as long as I don't have to spend too much time with the "normal people".

I've noticed for example that my "friendship compatibility" with old friends who have normal sexual life worsened. They have this "castrated" vibe on them. I still like them, I have sentiment for them but I can't help the fact that I perceive them instinctively as "pathetic losers". I really don't want to feel this, but something in me feels contempt for them and kind of wants to....bully them, cuckold them....

I struggled with this a bit, but I have learned to appreciate people for who they are, even if they are limited in ways in which I would never want to be.

I used to have a hard time with the idea that the world is full of people who will never live out their full potential, but once I realized that nature has always been willing to play the numbers game to produce a desired result, I became less affected by it.

As long as I can do something, even something small, to develop the overall potential of the human race, I feel that it is egotistical of me to try and fault something that is way beyond my comprehension for the means by which it operates. Surely people are the way they are at least partly because nature wanted it so.

I think natural predispositions play huge role in this. But on the other hand, so incredibly many women have strong submissive instincts....

Maybe it's different for women and men?

Maybe it's simply that women can passively discover their submissiveness by being dominated by the right man, while a man will almost certainly NOT be taught by women how to dominate them.

I think women have as hard a time as men figuring out who they are and how to live in their true nature, but as you say the crucial difference is that women are passive and men are active agents.

I have noticed that all the 'red pill' women on the internet, who are very actively attempting (ostensibly) to restore the natural order of things between men and woman, are themselves hardly feminine, hardly submissive, and hardly satisfied with themselves. While the women I have been with become truly happy, soft, and carefree. So perhaps it is true that even a woman's opportunity to experience her natural role comes at the hands of a man.

As a experiment, I've just tried to listening to what two female psychologists are saying about relationships. I literally got a hedache. That is not a exagerration, I really got a slight headache. After like 3 minutes. I don't know how it's possible to get a headache after listening to something for 3 minutes, but somehow it is possible. It even wasn't the content, it was the fucking cretinic tone, the atmosphere - two stupid bitches thinking they're smart. I'm honestly surprised by my own reaction, but I felt the urge to physically beat them up.

I find myself with very little interest in listening to women talk about academic stuff, I don't really read books written by women (except when it is about the female life experience), and I don't really listen to podcasts with female guests. I don't feel any violent reaction when I hear them, but my brain does tend to tune out!

I don't know why exactly, maybe it's simply that I'd rather get the truth about something from a man's perspective.

I do enjoy talking with women at length, but it is always a subtly sexual experience and usually not about learning anything.

This is definitely 'mysogynistic' by modern standards. But I would say in my defense that I love and treasure women for the things that they provide that men can't, and a learning experience just isn't one of them.

BTW My girlfriend likes to mock modern psychology and relationships, feminism, etc. Some of her sayings:

"They say a relationship should be based on respect... I think that's very wise. Look at us! I feel most respected by you when you fuck me. That's why our relationship is so good - because it's based on RESPECT!". (plus: "would you like to show me respect [fuck her] right now? It's really important for out relationship.")

"They say a relationship should be based on mutual respect... I think that's very wise. Look - I respect you. And you respect yourself. So we both respect YOU. I think that's great MUTUAL respect!".

"They say communication is the foundation of a relationship. I feel that's very wise. Look at us - you say, I listen. We have PERFECT communication!".

Also:

"I'm too hot to be a feminist!" (Often to actual feminists, who are invariably vastly less attractive. )

When there is complaining that men sexualise women. "I LOVE being sexualised!". Feminist: "You like being looked at like a piece of meat?" My girlfriend, with open-eyed enthusiasm "YES!!! OMG, I'm such a sexy piece of meat!!!". Optionally: "I think I will start touching myself!".

Her more serious views:

1. Looks are important, money is useful, but it's also crucial that a man is GOOD IN BED and also not a loser/cuckold type.

2. Most troubles in relationships are the man's fault - because he sucks in bed. Woman becomes frustrated and has no respect for him, so she's mean to him.

3. Being confident, dominant isn't worth anything if it isn't backed up by good sex.

4. If a man is good in bed, many faults will be forgiven.

5. If a man is poor in bed, many faults will be discovered and brought up.

6. Most girls are simply too ugly to keep a really good man, because such men are in high demand and a average girl "can't afford" one - so they compromise and they're frustrated afterwards. And it's a pathetic existence. (She knows about it from her average looking friends from school/college.)

7. Women have it harder than men, because we'll be satisfied with pretty much any hot woman, while women care a lot about our sex skills and personality, not just looks. And especially if a girl also want a guy who's comfortable financially, then finding and getting, KEEPING such a guy with all those traits can be very difficult. She says competition for high quality men is intense - for attractive women, while the average ones can't even hope to win.

8. She knows about the PUA community and she thinks it's bunch of losers and that I know it only due to some bad luck earlier in life. She says a lot of guys say a lot of different things to women and women don't pay so much attention to it. She says what counts are looks, money and in rare cases the guy has a exceptional vibe, but that's very rare. She says advice on "how to talk to women" is absurd and instead men should dress well, pay attention to grooming and get in shape physically. Her special tip is: men should dress to look RICH.

Sounds like a girl who knows what she wants!

The way I see it as long as my girl's views align with mine, things are in a good place

 

[PaulieFlyn10]

I've also quoted his words, just earlier ones. Inititally he called negs "negative hits". And I think it's quite clear that he meant them as something negative and as hits to the girl's value/self-esteem.

He also called negs "retaliation tactics".

You can check Mystery's archive here if you wish: https://web.archive.org/web/20130306125704/http://www.fastseduction.com/archives/

(It's in the first pdf from Mystery's archive, password is "fastseduction.com")

Not sure if he later changed his mind, or if he just made it sound more gentle to avoid potential backlash (look what happened to Julien from RSD).

Lol. No. It's NOT "quite clear" what he meant. It's YOUR assumption of what he meant.

He didn't change his mind. If you even watched his old infields... you would see easily it was NEVER about hitting a girls self esteem. You assumed that's the intention despite him saying otherwise in numerous interviews, books and articles

In my case:

1. I did initially believe in Mystery Method.

2. I've tried it and got very poor results.

3. I've seen others get very poor results from it.

4. I've seen people who went to workshops led by Mystery, Lovedrop and others get very poor results from it.

You got poor results cause you miscalibrated and ASSUMED WRONGLY. Obviously when you misinterpret something as "hitting a girl's self esteem" dont be surprised when it doesn't work out for you

There are also guys who got good results as well from not just his books but boot camps as well

Also, I've seen pictures and videos of Katya, Mystery's girlfriend mentioned in "The Game", where she was rated "9.5".

Does she look 9.5 to you?

Two Arrested on Multiple Residential Burglaries and Fraud Incidents in the Second District - NOPD News

nopdnews.com

I think she's a common 6/10. Absolute maximum of 7/10. Certainly not any kind of top level beauty.

People shake heads, roll eyes and laugh at the idea she's supposed to be "9.5".

I think this does make Mystery look like a liar.

(It's Style who wrote The Game, but he's quoting Mystery's post there, in which Mystery calling Katya a "9.5". Page 379)

This also makes me wonder:

1. Mystery claims his method is geared towards seducing the hottest of women.
2. The same Mystery rates Katya a "9.5". While I would call her a common 6, max 7.

Does this mean his method is really geared towards 6-7?

Anyway - do you understand why I have a negative, suspicious point of view?

To me, she's definitely not a 7, 8, 9 or 10. But I can say the same about your girls too.

Beauty is a bit objective. Also... I've seen Mystery with hotter women. And I'm willing to bet you have 6s as well on your roster in the past

I understand the crucial role of calibration... But if some people who went to workshops done by Mystery, Lovedrop and other MM instructors also fail, then who has this elusive power of MM callibraiton and how hard it is to obtain it?

There are guys who have done well with it. You're erroneously ASSUMING (once again) that everyone seems to have failed with it

This seems contrary to what Mystery himself wrote in the past about negs being "retaliaton tactics".

"Retaliation" - so there must've been some bad behavior from woman's side that Mystery was retaliating for.

1. Perhaps Mystery realised what he was teaching doesn't really work that well. But to save his reputation, he could not simply say "oh I was wrong about negs, I was teaching bullshit". So he started telling people that by "negs" he actually meant normal teasing all along.

2. Perhaps Mystery still believes his initial view on negs, but presents it in a politically correct manner, so he doesn't get crucified in the media like Julien from RSD was.

Either way, this is a retcon and initially it was "retaliation tactics" and "negative hits".

Lol. You're amusingly fixated on your assumptions of what he means. This just a huge paragraph of "perhaps" and "maybe he meant"

Why don't you read the explanation he gave. Some people name tech just so it sounds catchy

You understand the tech better when you read to understand what he meant (,from what he said)

I don't think 7 hour game, multiple dates and boyfriend game are the worst part of it.

7 hours rule, multiple dates as a rigid doctrine is stupid, but if somebody will fuck the girl later it's fine. Sometimes complications can happen in the meantime and opportunity can be lost, but very often simply the sex will happen - just later.

Boyfriend game is fine and I think easier for most people to do than sexual game.

The biggest problems I have seen:

1. Routines falling flat.

2. Negs falling flat or annoying girls, making the guy look weird.

Guys I've seen have either done moderate peacocking or no peacocking, so it wasn't a problem.

Again, neg fail because of calibration. Like a guy who sees a girl basically eye fucking him at a bar then walks up to her and delivers a cringe indirect opinion opener

Same thing goes with routines. Calibration calibration calibration

Certainly there is something wonderful, "magical" about it - how it makes things "meaningful", how it somehow corrects things to fall into their place, etc etc. It is something truly special.

But in my case not everything was so rosy - I was often torn between my instincts and "my normal self" and the outside influences. My instincts often "spoke" to me with feelings, impulses that were hard to understand or hard to implement and I didn't know what to do. I'm not complaining, but it wasn't always great.

Also, because I was "different", I had trouble in relations, interactions with others. I didn't like their superficiality and nonsense, and because I was a bit "different", I couldn't connect well with others. So I was the outcast.

It was much later, when I started to get intensive, animalistic sexual impulses, BDSM thoughts of totally dominating and humiliating the women, etc etc. And then I've started to reap rewards, but utilising that also required work.

I don't know how many other people have similar instincts. Perhaps some do, but they surpressed as they've failed to integrate them with their lives. But I also think many, most people are born "instinctively castrated". I was "different" already as a 5-6 year old kid - the difference certainly didn't come from my upbringing, I didn't learn it from anybody, etc etc. (But then again somehow a lof of women have strong submissive instinct/kink. Is it different for women and men?)

How does it look like in your case? Do you have animalistic sexuality, BDSM tendencies like me or something else? And how, when did it show itself, how was your "adaptation process"?




I'm also quite agressive.

But it's not the same kind of agression like many other people have - who are emotionally unstable, have problem with heir ego or something like that. My agression is different and somehow "pure" and "healthy", not a sign of disorder.

My friends also have a similar opinion - they say I'm bit of a "psycho", "like a psychopath", but at the same time they like and trust me.




Unfortunately I know many guys who searched hard and didn't find it. Many becoming weird or even delusional in the process.

My experience is that the best way is to have somebody good to go out with regularly (going to a workshop is not enough).

In my case it were two naturals who went to PUA to see what it's all about (one of them knew of NLP through field of marketing and through NLP community learned of a local Speed Seduction rip-off). They came, saw PUA community is shit and left. But during the period of their interest, I've managed to befriend them and we stayed friends, kept going out.



EXACTLY!!!

There is no conflict, between the roles are so polarised - I'm "everything" and the woman is "nothing". And women get ecstatic from this "being nothing". They feel....healed, mentally fixed by this. And deeply thankful.

My experience is that women deeply desire to be "victims" and "slaves", "property", "animals". They want to be "completely enslaved", "opressed", etc etc.

BTW I think the whole "alpha male" stuff, while going roughly in the good direction, is horribly misguided. There's too much of ego in it, it's superficial, etc etc. I'm deeply convinced such things are writtten by people who never experienced the "real thing".

I think generally people mistake superficial, ego-driven, social dominance with instinctive, animalistic dominance. They pump their ego, feel somewhat better and think "that's it, I'm dominating".

Some people do "BDSM theatre" with whips, handcuffs and latex suits... But that is often superficial also. People often do BDSM because they think it's cool and edgy, not because they truly "feel it".



I find the everyday life and "normal" culture....bearable. As long as I'm not limited to it, as long as I have something else in my life. And as long as I don't have to spend too much time with the "normal people".

I've noticed for example that my "friendship compatibility" with old friends who have normal sexual life worsened. They have this "castrated" vibe on them. I still like them, I have sentiment for them but I can't help the fact that I perceive them instinctively as "pathetic losers". I really don't want to feel this, but something in me feels contempt for them and kind of wants to....bully them, cuckold them....





I don't know. In my case, I didn't have any special upbringing, any kind of for example "close with nature" life, etc etc. I was born bit "different" and certain emotions, instincts started to just appearin adulthood...

I think natural predispositions play huge role in this. But on the other hand, so incredibly many women have strong submissive instincts....

Maybe it's different for women and men?

Maybe it's simply that women can passively discover their submissiveness by being dominated by the right man, while a man will almost certainly NOT be taught by women how to dominate them.

But then again, in my case it looks like it's inborn, genetic. Impulses just started to appear, like I knew things I didn't know. My real job was not to discover this, but to integrate it with the rest of my life.




I feel the "normal" relations are dysfunctional. I actually feel revulsion at the sight, at the thought of them.

As a experiment, I've just tried to listening to what two female psychologists are saying about relationships. I literally got a hedache. That is not a exagerration, I really got a slight headache. After like 3 minutes. I don't know how it's possible to get a headache after listening to something for 3 minutes, but somehow it is possible. It even wasn't the content, it was the fucking cretinic tone, the atmosphere - two stupid bitches thinking they're smart. I'm honestly surprised by my own reaction, but I felt the urge to physically beat them up.

From the "normal" point of view, my reaction is horrible and means I'm a evil, or somehow "sick" person. But from instinctive point of view, my reaction is I guess healthy considering the abnormality my brain has just witnessed in the two female psychologists.

BTW My girlfriend likes to mock modern psychology and relationships, feminism, etc. Some of her sayings:

"They say a relationship should be based on respect... I think that's very wise. Look at us! I feel most respected by you when you fuck me. That's why our relationship is so good - because it's based on RESPECT!". (plus: "would you like to show me respect [fuck her] right now? It's really important for out relationship.")

"They say a relationship should be based on mutual respect... I think that's very wise. Look - I respect you. And you respect yourself. So we both respect YOU. I think that's great MUTUAL respect!".

"They say communication is the foundation of a relationship. I feel that's very wise. Look at us - you say, I listen. We have PERFECT communication!".

Also:

"I'm too hot to be a feminist!" (Often to actual feminists, who are invariably vastly less attractive. )

When there is complaining that men sexualise women. "I LOVE being sexualised!". Feminist: "You like being looked at like a piece of meat?" My girlfriend, with open-eyed enthusiasm "YES!!! OMG, I'm such a sexy piece of meat!!!". Optionally: "I think I will start touching myself!".

Her more serious views:

1. Looks are important, money is useful, but it's also crucial that a man is GOOD IN BED and also not a loser/cuckold type.

2. Most troubles in relationships are the man's fault - because he sucks in bed. Woman becomes frustrated and has no respect for him, so she's mean to him.

3. Being confident, dominant isn't worth anything if it isn't backed up by good sex.

4. If a man is good in bed, many faults will be forgiven.

5. If a man is poor in bed, many faults will be discovered and brought up.

6. Most girls are simply too ugly to keep a really good man, because such men are in high demand and a average girl "can't afford" one - so they compromise and they're frustrated afterwards. And it's a pathetic existence. (She knows about it from her average looking friends from school/college.)

7. Women have it harder than men, because we'll be satisfied with pretty much any hot woman, while women care a lot about our sex skills and personality, not just looks. And especially if a girl also want a guy who's comfortable financially, then finding and getting, KEEPING such a guy with all those traits can be very difficult. She says competition for high quality men is intense - for attractive women, while the average ones can't even hope to win.

8. She knows about the PUA community and she thinks it's bunch of losers and that I know it only due to some bad luck earlier in life. She says a lot of guys say a lot of different things to women and women don't pay so much attention to it. She says what counts are looks, money and in rare cases the guy has a exceptional vibe, but that's very rare. She says advice on "how to talk to women" is absurd and instead men should dress well, pay attention to grooming and get in shape physically. Her special tip is: men should dress to look RICH.

I went off-topic, but I think this is entertaining.

 

[Brassfaced_Jim]

.

I haven't seen a description of something like my style anywhere.
.

Well I don’t want to burst your bubble but..
From what you’ve posted so far you describe yourself as

1. good looking
2. Aristocratic (ie high status)
3. Project a dominant /wicked sexual vibe underneath

so boiled down and in essence you are an old school ‘Cad’ or ‘Rake ‘ archetype of a seducer.

ie a good looking, high status guy that indicates to women hes a sexual Guy and a lil devil in the sack.

Ie - a seducer type.

For sure I can see all of that working .
But it’s definitely 1000% been described before. Like…everywhere. since time.

It’s described in almost every book on pickup and seduction. Including The Game / Mystery Method?

interesting you say none of the Alpha Male type stuff worked for you.. I guess you have the high status behaviours down already as all the alpha books revolve around projecting High Status behaviours as a core thing.

are you from a wealthy family background or something?

The key takeaway and bit for me from your posts is the good looking and High Status bits. They seem to be the key bits.

Without agreement from the chick re the looks / High Status a guy will find it get “in” to fuck her in the first place if she’s a hot chick (ie she is high status by her looks)

which is why I prefer MM over Models .
As he puts the emphasis on High Status / Higher Value firstly.

to me if I get the first bit down , chicks unlock much quicker for the second bit (the sex).