What Is Genuine

What Is Mutual
Benefit
by Tyler Durden
OK Breakbeat, did it up nice for you. Even took a few more minutes than Id planned (1 hour and
15 instead of just an hour) since I was enjoying writing it. Go nuts, and dont comment until
youve read it entirely and thought it over. Its always easier to CRITICIZE a statement than it is to
make one of your own, so your task shouldn't be difficult. Reply intelligently.
-TD
--The latest discussions about genuine behaviour have just gotten me thinking about something
that hasn't really been cashed out on this board lately.
WHAT IS GENUINE? WHAT IS FAKE? WHAT ACTIONS ARE GENUINE ACTIONS? HOW
DOES THIS EFFECT US? WHAT PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES ARISE FROM THIS? WHAT
CONSTITUTES MUTUAL BENEFIT IN PICKUP?
A very important topic.
Try to bear with me, chunks practical and tactical materials ARE buried within..
------In my experience, if I ask a girl what sort of way she feels a guy should go about picking her up,
she'll often reply with something to the effect of:

"Well.. He should come and say 'Hi'. Then he should just be himself.. He should be confident..
Introduce himself.. Maybe have a sense of humour.. Talk to me a bit so that we can get to know
eachother.. And ask me if I'll go somewhere nice with him.. Oh yeah, also I like it if he'll just give
me his number, just in case, you know.."
This way, she can screen him on looks, and proceed to make a rational decision on her terms.
It would be uncommon to hear a girl say, "I want a guy who will dupe me into a conversation with
a chick-bait opener, tease me until I almost lose my mind, weave back and forth with stories that
make me go crazy, spin me around and trick me into kissing him with my eyes closed, tell me cute
things about himself so I'll go ga-ga for him, and make fake pre-suppositions to be alone with him
so he can caveman me."
Nor would she likely say "I want a guy to hypnotize me with neuro-linguistic-programming."
Nor would she likely say "I want a guy who will ignore me and blast me off my pedastal by only
talking to my friends, so that I'll re-validate myself by sleeping with him."
Of course, these last three work consistently on women of exceptional beauty, and the first one
doesn't (again, CONSISTENTLY).
I draw this conclusion based on experience. My first 8 months in the game, I only had a book
called "10 Secrets for Success with Beautiful Women" by a woman named Ursula Lidstrom.
She advocated the sort of approach that most women would want, and claimed her expertise as
exceptional because she is a woman offering "inside info".
Her system was to be yourself, confident, and genuine. Also, to demonstrate alpha status through
good bodylanguage and being well dressed. After hundreds of approaches, I got this down pat.
I did at least 5 approaches a day (though usually more), just being myself, confident, and getting
to know girls in a way that was very cool and genuine - all as Ursula Lidstrom suggested. Read the
book probably 10-15 times. (sidenote: EXCELLENT info on bodylanguage and GWM-style phase
shifting can be found in this book, if you screen the rest).
Unfortunately, for those eight months I did not have sex even ONCE. I am not good looking, and
could have had sex with HB7s, but that did/does not interest me. I was entirely celibate those
eight months. I made many non-sexual friendships with girls, who still to this day social-proof me
on campus.
But whenever I'd try to escalate, they'd react with "You're a really great guy. I'm just not looking
for someone right now. You're really confident, you'll find someone."
Bear in mind though also, that I am not goodlooking. This probably could have worked for guys
who could convey higher value via their looks. People DO hookup.
Also note that in general, YES you CAN pickup a girl within around 1 look-point difference of you,
if you use the method that girls want. So if you're a 7 yourself, you can occasionally pickup 6s, 7s,
and SOMETIMES 8s using this method. Even higher, but that's a more rare exception.
The reason being, that being confident and genuine IS NOT THAT UNCOMMON, and *unless*
the girl doesn't have many genuine people in her life, it doesn't CONVEY HIGHER VALUE.
I have MANY genuinely confident people in my life, and while pleasant it is not a big deal to me.
Girls are no different.
Genuine and confident people are EVERYWHERE. There is little correlation between these traits,

and an exceptionally drop dead gorgeous woman being attracted to a mediocre looking guy.
The ONLY way that you can convey HIGHER value, by using this method, is if you have a RARE
connection with the girl. This does happen, though it cannot be called a consistent pickup
method, since it relies on external factors (ie: that you actually have a similar world view, or
something similar, etc etc).
This is FAST-Seduction, which discusses how to be a PLAYER. If you want to read about
spirituality, I highly recommend that. I've studied buddhism and volumes of spiritual writings, as
well as all of Western philosophy - but not on THIS forum. Still, strong inner-peace leads to
strong inner-game, and its beneficial.
Health, wealth, relationships -> go to the gym, eat right, find work you love, read important
literature, surround yourself with people you love. ALL IMPORTANT to feeling good about
yourself, which is important to pickup in ways that cannot even be adaquetely described through
this limited cyber-medium.
But yet, even HAVING those things, will you be a *PLAYER*? I know MANY people who have
reached this level of enlightenment who are not.
At the time that I was focusing on being genuine and building rapport, I was very much
emotionally whole. I had everything going well for me in my life, and I was a genuinely happy
person. I had goodwill towards everyone around me, and projected a positive vibe. This was great,
but did not result in success with any exceptionally beautiful women.
Anyway, that was MY EXPERIENCE after eight long months of field-testing this way of doing
things. It's just the experience of ONE GUY, so take it for what its worth.
-----SO, WHAT DO WOMEN WANT?
I recall having a convo with Toecutter about his friend who would walk up to women, and tell
them that he was rich and wanted to marry them.
He would weave the story, work it, and sleep with them that night. Then he'd blow them off the
next day, leaving them heartbroken.
Now my first reaction to this was to be appalled.
I questioned my respect for Toecutter, and generally wondered what he could possibly be
thinking. How could he justify this sort of thing?
He said that I was living in an AFC mindset, and that women LOVED "to have their hopes and
dreams shattered by scoundrels like Han Solo" and such, and that it was something that they
actually WANTED.
He suggested that I read NANCY FRIDAY "My Secret Garden", to read about women's rape
fantasies, and how repressive society has generated a common female fantasy for badboys who
will break down their socially-taught resistance, and treat them like the "dirty" girls that deep
down they know themselves to be.
From reading the book, I interpreted it as saying that the guy tricking/forcing the girl into sex,
and leaving her was the girl's way of CONFIRMING that he was the kind of guy that she wants.
(sort of to say that the jerk/badboy/untamable behaviour was some sort of CERTIFICATION that
the girl has been fertalized by an alpha-seed, or something bizarre to that effect).

Very weird, and disturbing. I did NOT like reading this, nor do I necessarily like it now.
Basically, I interpreted that girls like DRAMA of ANY kind. They want INTENSE emotional
drama. As Alphahot mentioned in a post a few threads below this one, they gravitate towards
sources of extreme emotions. Scoundrels who use them and thus give them drama. And they
gravitate towards it.
Of course, I was skeptical, and even after reading Nancy Friday I still maintained the view that
these fantasies were anomolies, and that most women did not want this sort of thing.
Eddy also read this book, and shared my opinion. Be both generally hated it, and I recall Eddy
throwing the book across the room several times.
Other PUAs who visit us comment on how scuffed up the book is, as Eddy has thrown it literally
on almost every occassion he's read it, screaming "that could be my own mom!!! that could be my
own mooooommmmmm!!!! ARGHHHHHH!!!"
----FIELD TESTING NANCY FRIDAY:
In California, I talked to Craig from the archives. He talked about Rick H, and how Rick would
talk about women being adaptable.
"Women are adaptable.. whatever frame you set, they'll adapt to.. if you set a frame of provider
candidate, they'll adopt a screen frame.. if you set a frame of them being screened for dirty slutty
lesbian sex, they'll turn into sluts"
Coming from Rick H, I couldn't downplay this, and decided to explore it more. Particularly after
the Toecutter/NancyFriday stuff seemed to gel with this.
From this I spawned the idea for JERK ROUTINES, where I would INTENTIONALLY convey that
I like to use and abuse women, right from the start of the pickup. The frame would be set.
I set to the task of field testing it, which I did non-stop for six straight weeks before posting
something potentially misleading.
First,
I would do things like tell women to close their eyes, and then kiss them. Tell them that I love
them within seconds of meeting, even though this is clearly a way to get into their pants. I would
even tell subtle stories about how I am currently planning to use women to get to all their friends.
Then,
I adopted the SWINGCAT STYLE QUALIFYING. "Are you adventurous? Cause if you're not
adventurous, I can't hang with you."
Up until the Nancy Friday test, I would get them to tell adventurous stories, like extreme sports or
travelling or something.
But then I REALIZED the TRUE use in the Swingcat adventurous qualifying.
"Adventurous" was to be a EUPHIMISM for SLUTTY.
I stopped getting them to tell me stories about adventures, and instead would just pause, and wait
for them to give me the REAL DIRT.

Around 90% of women would start telling me about how they love to suck dick and take it on the
face. How they dream about getting gang-raped and fucked by strange men and hot guys from
clubs.
LITERALLY, I would sit there PRETENDING like I thought this was just great. Making myself out
to be NON-JUDGEMENTAL, and even ENCOURAGING. But really, inside, I was thinking "shit I
dunno if I can stomach this.." I was still in an AFC mindset. I thought that this was just a series of
strange coincidences, and that these girls couldn't represent the majority.
I was forced to RE-ASSESS my VALUE SYSTEM for making judgements on what constituted a
nice-girl, since clearly ALL girls had a "slut" side to them.
-----SIDENOTE:
This was similar to my experience when I first tested routines based on spells and the unknown.
I'd always thought that most girls didn't believe in psychics and ESP, until I began making it
sound like *I* did, and that I would not JUDGE them on it. I found out that most girls DID
believe in ESP, and that those few who didn't could be convinced otherwise with even the most
simplistic mentalist illusion.
-----So much like the non-judgemental frame that use with the ESP stuff, I'd appear NONJUDGEMENTAL for their "slutty" desires.
--THE NEW TD:
It was difficult for me, because I've always been extremely conservative/rightwing/republican.
I changed my image to include wild clothes that projected myself as a badboy sexual being. I
started wearing clothes of a female sex fantasy, such as racecar jackets, industrial plat boots,
bondage shit, spikey dyed hair, outrageous coolguy accessories, etc etc.
Initially, this was hard for me to stomach. I felt very incongruent for the first week or two.
I began PROJECTING that I was a SCOUNDREL JERK who would intentionally and openly USE
and ABUSE of women. I projected "TD is a jerk, who MAKES NO EXCUSES for it.. Like a
rockstar, he fucks his groupies, and sends them home happy that they could get even that".
It's funny, because this isn't the case - I didnt feel that way. But in the past, projecting the
CONSERVATIVE REAL ME wasn't eliciting any SEXUAL reaction from women.
I decided that IF I CONTINUED DOING WHAT I HAD ALWAYS DONE, I'D CONTINUE TO GET
THE RESULTS THAT I'D ALWAYS GOTTEN. (this isn't my catchphrase.. maybe Tony Robbins, I
dunno.. Mys uses it all the time).
I know that CLOUD9 also has had inner-conflicts with this. For me, one of top students in my
country, its been difficult to DEGENERATE my speaking manneurisms to a more colloquial level..
"like, you know, totally, like, cool..." But unfortunately, my "Queens-talk" (as everyone used to
describe my articulate speaking manneurisms) wasn't eliciting strong sexual responses from the
sexy girls that I was interested in. They wanted to validate themselves with me, sure. But what

they wanted to validate was that they could be as sophisticated as me. IOW, that they're smart,
and that they're ladies.
So go ahead and bust on me for being incongruent and not real to myself or something like that.
But at the end of the day my girlfriend is an HB10... aside also from the HB8 and HB8.5 that I am
also seeing, all of who are really cool girls and who I am genuine with now, AFTER having gotten
with them - NOT BEFORE.
WOMEN'S REACTIONS:
Now, when I walk into a room on campus, women start giggling and checking me out. They touch
me, shit test me immediately to see if I really AM what I project, and show massive physical IOIs
(face me, lean in, perk up their breasts, lick their lips, big eyes, etc etc etc).
I do NOTHING other than just walk into the room, and convey the attitude that's discussed in this
post.
"I will fuck you the second you let your guard down, because I am a badboy and that's just me" is
the image that I convey, and women respond instantly.
Of course, MOST women will be initially ATTRACTED, but still won't sleep with me from that
feeling alone. They cant quite justify their desire, because of social-conditioning.
So the SOLUTION: Show that they have a CHANCE to tame you, and that you have a sensitive
inside somewhere deep down.. -> GET RAPPORT.
This leads me to the all important .........
--WILLFUL COGNITIVE DISSONANCE:
Going back to the TOECUTTER "marry-me" routine, what have I learned?
Toecutter explained that women WILLFULLY IGNORE the truth, in order to preserve the feelings
that they are deriving from the massive drama that you provide.
This is also from MANIAC_HIGH, so if you disagree then maybe check out the new maniac plan
for more detailed explication.
Anyway, Toecutter states that the girls who were "duped" by the marriage trick were in fact
WELL-AWARE that it was clearly bullshit, but that they WANTED to go along with it, so that they
could experience the ADVENTURE.
The same goes for Mystery's girlfriend of 5 years, who STILL BELIEVES that he genuinely has
MAGIC POWER, including an ability to levitate himself from the ground, move objects with his
mind, and read thoughts telepathically.
Of course, having been with him for 5 years, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that she wouldn't
have figured out how he does his illusions. Despite his sharp skills, many illusions I figured out
after hanging with him for just a month. He may have done it over 300 times before I figured it
out, but EVENTUALLY I DID figure it out.
This girl is with him FIVE YEARS and CHOOSES TO BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD IS NOT
MUNDANE. There is NO WAY she wouldn't have caught the illusion at least ONE TIME in FIVE
YEARS.

She WILLFULLY DECEIVES HERSELF to believe what she wants, because she likes the DRAMA
and ADVENTURE.
Same goes with Mystery's other long term girlfriends, who KNOW, read *KNOW*, that he is
constantly with other women.
Why does Mystery have condoms all over his room? hmmmmmm... Could he really go months
without sex while he travels??? hmmmmm.... What does it mean when girls call him non-stop
while they're in bed together??? hmmmmm... He walks into the club and girls SWARM him...
hmmmmmm.. He picked her up and fucked her first night they met... hmmmm....
But still they CHOOSE to IGNORE it, because he provides the drama that they want.
And as a BONUS, they get to go home and spend time convincing their parents and friends how
great Mystery is, which gives them even MORE drama.
Likewise, in my small community, I go pickup girls. They go back to their roomates, who
inevitably on some occassions will have been picked up by me a month earlier. But does that
REPEL them from me, like our LOGICAL AFC-INDOCTRINATED brains would have so long
expected? NOPE. It just gives them MORE DRAMA and sucks them in even deeper.
This was even the case when theyve heard that I used the SAME OPENERS and ROUTINES.
Strange, huh? Youd think that it would break their interest. But not the case. Why not? Could it
be that finding out that I am a womanizing-jerk was congruent with what I projected during the
pickup?
-----SOME CONCLUSIONS - A RE-ASSESSMENT OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A WOMAN'S VALUE:
So that's it. I get it now. Women aren't like what I thought. Or rather, at least when it comes to
SEX.
The girls that I thought were 'nice' have revealed that they've been fucked by anonymous guys,
loved it, and want it again.
The girls that I thought were LOYAL to their boyfriends have called them from my bed, GUILTFREE, lying about where they were last night like it was NOTHING.
I've found that girls break guys into categories of SEDUCERS and EMOTIONAL SUPPORTERS,
and that if I don't want my girl to cheat on me, she's gonna have to get her drama from ME, and
not from some asshole player.
So if that is the case then, what kind of girl do I look for when I'm ready to have children or get
married?
--IN LIGHT OF THIS KNOWLEDGE, WHAT CONSTITUTES A GOOD WOMAN???
I am still deciding on this, and really I have only limited insights.
But for me, at this time, I use NON-AFC-CULTURE based value judgements.
I look at the kind of connection that I have with her, and the way that we get along AFTER we've
"hooked-up".

Because, like Mystery, I agree that only AFTER you hookup do you start communicating
GENUINELY.
The FIRST genuine conversation happens in bed together, AFTER THE GAME IS OVER, and you
find out whether or not this was just a validation-game, or if its an emotional connection.
And do *I* necessarily want the games? Nope.
I remember when I first did clubs, and I'd tease a high calibre HB. Say a 9 or 10. And she'd touch
me, and say that she liked me. But as soon as I'd RECIPROCATE that, she'd LOSE INTEREST. It
was a SHIT TEST, NOT genuine communication. Or was it? Was it genuinely communicating that
she wanted to see if I was really the jerk she wanted me to be, and that she had to test me to find
out?
Do shit tests constitute genuine communication? The girl is tricking you, to find your true nature.
But then, if you pass, you genuinely will hookup with her. So is the girl genuine, or not? Not
necessarily an easy question to answer.
YES, I have MANY genuine emotional connections with girls. My sister, her friends, my pivots,
my relatives, my teachers. The girls that I am ALREADY with my 3 MLTRS.
But NOT with girls that I am in the MIDST of picking up, because it is still *GAME-ON*.
Afterwards, once I have PROVEN myself to be the kind of man that she wants, I can get to know
her on a more personal and genuine level. Until then, it is about SEXUAL ATTRACTION, which is
NOT necessarily related to genuine communication. It CAN be, but it isnt necessarily the case.
And why? Because there are several types of attraction, and while we may make socially based
value judgements on which are more legitimate, the fact remains that they EXIST.
And of course, if genuine communication in the TRADITIONAL SENSE was the BASIS of
ATTRACTION, then I suppose Id probably be hooked up with the very fat and ugly girl from my
history class, with whom I had a great conversation with last fall.
But then, the attractive girls I bed will most often BACKWARDS RATIONALIZE whatever nice
things she finds out about me, and probably decide that THOSE things were CLEARLY what
allowed her to be seduced by me. Of course thats all after the fact. Contingencies.
This is how the game is played bros, at least in my personal opinion. Just the opinion of a new
PUA, trying to make sense of all of this. Some of it is probably dead-on, and some of its probably
inaccurate. Take it for what its worth.
--WHAT *IS* GENUINE?
So if people play these games, what constitutes genuine?
What *is* genuine? If I were to be TRULY genuine with what *I* wanted to talk to girls about, I'd
discuss logic and other esoteric philosophical issues. Id discuss cars, and mechanics, and sports,
and wars, and taking extreme risks and my criminal youth. I'd discuss how I'm right-wing and
how I believe in certain repressive traditional values. I'd discuss John Rawls vs. Robert Nozick..
I'd discuss Heideger and Nietzche and Sartre, and subjective morality in a world without
dogmatic value sources. Id discuss Kripke and causal theory. Id discuss flaws in symbolic

notation. This stuff FASCINATES me.

I don't LIKE talking about social dynamics and feelings. It BORES me. *Most* things that *most*
girls like to talk about are of NO INTEREST to me.
I DO NOT ENJOY running JUGGLER's rapport routines like "I really like pizza" and "this is what
my own palm says about me" and what would your life be rated if it was a movie?, and making
those kind of self-revealing statements. Nor would I like them any better had I invented them.
Or rather, I LIKE running them, for the purpose of PICKING UP. But I dont run them for the
SOLE SAKE of running them.
I will USE this stuff, but I don't LIKE it anymore than ANY OTHER stuff that I use. NONE of it is
the REAL ME in the TRADITIONAL SENSE, so both MM and Juggler method are EQUAL in
my mind.
I AM NOT stating that they don't work, or that Juggler's method isn't GREAT. Juggler-method
WORKS - its GREAT.
But I *AM* stating that it is NO MORE GENUINE for me to PRETEND that I am enjoying talking
about real genuine feelings in a Juggler-style that I really don't care to talk about, than it is for me
to run the routines that I do most of the time now.
Either way, I'm FAKING SOMETHING. As are MOST sensitive new aged guys who will talk about
this sappy crap, in the subconscious hope that it will gain attention from women.
Picking up by talking about real stuff that I feel, but DO NOT want to be talking about, is of no
greater value to me than telling stories that I read from the internet. Im still being ungenuine, in
a SENSE, because my motivations extend BEYOND the expression itself.
Again, this is NO CRITICISM OF JUGGLER. His stuff ROCKS. My sole statement though is that it
is NO MORE OR LESS GENUINE for me to run one pickup style, or another. They are all equal in
that respect.
So what if I just talked about things I *AM* interested in talking about. The esoteric technical
stuff. Well if I talk about these things girls will leave. They'll either argue, get bored, or flat walk
away. They won't be interested, and they'll anchour feelings of boredom to me. I've TESTED this.
Why? Basic supply and demand. There are many genuine and confident people out there, and
some give them better emotions than others. So I set the bait with the stuff that theyll react to
sexually. Of course you could cry supplication!, but then really we all supplicate ourselves in one
way or another. The trapper supplicates by laying bait, but then he reaps the rewards later.
Putting in work to get a result is not supplication.
And lets say that being myself DID find me that ONE special girl.. I STILL wouldn't care,
because I'm not INTERESTED in that kind of relationship in my early twenties anyway.
SO:
Is REFUSING to play games genuine?
If that's the case, then WHY have I SO RARELY had a girl angry or upset with me?
I mean, even after NUMEROUS relationships, have I had less problems than my average AFC
friend with just a handful.
Many people probably QUESTION why I would pawn off 2 HB7s to pickup a HB9 or 10. Rightly

so. But what they don't realize from behind their remote computer screens is that so long as you
ACTIONS ARE CONGRUENT TO YOUR BADBOY FRAME, girls will EXPECT this behaviour,
and NEVER be surprised when it happens. It's part of who you are, and they're SMART enough to
know its coming.
Even with the bit of rapport that they NEED to justify their embarkment on your adventure, they
still KNOW what is coming, and ACCEPT IT.
I'll have girls that I never called back, or pawned off for hotter girls, ALWAYS coming over to chat
me and catch up. They're never upset. Always very happy to see me again.
In my opinion, there is a clear cut reason -> While my sexual persona may not be as congruent
with my real personality as I'd like, my *ACTIONS* are CONGRUENT with what I *PROJECT*.
Since the girls I associate with KNOW and EXPECT that its going to be a short-lived
ADVENTURE (given that I've made it fully obvious from the start), they NEVER get genuinely
upset when it ends. Sure, they may pout briefly, but then they're off to the NEXT STIMULUS - be
it the next socially-proofed jerk, or dancing, or drinks.
On the other hand, back when I used to be the LOYAL-AFC, when I'd dump the few girls I got
they'd get VERY UPSET.
Which makes me think: Is it more genuine to build connections where you project that you are a
more quiet one-girl type, when that is not you (even if you state polyamory, you still come-off that
way). Or is it more genuine to be a jerk up front, and allow the chick to FREELY CHOOSE to go
along for the short-adventure or not.
I guess we have to come to our own answers, and find our own subjective value systems. That's
life. I don't judge. Call it aggrandized self-rationalization, but this is just the way that I make sense
of the world that I've been thrown into, given my life experiences and how I've assimilated them.
The interactions with the women in my life ARE genuine, but during the initial phases of our
relationship - the period where the FRAME is BARGAINED for and ESTABLISHED - I strive to
convey that there are only CERTAIN parameters that I am comfortable with.
And making it obvious that I am only a short-lived adventure for them, through the jerk-way that
I present myself, is the way that I go about doing it. Once the pact is made (sex), I'm comfortable
to be fully myself. Discuss what I want, etc etc.. And the girls are ALWAYS happy to discuss stuff
that is important to me AFTER we've had sex, because she's made that investment in me, and
NOW FINALLY wants to know more about who I am. I fully believe that as a sexual-partnercandidate, you are NOTHING to a girl before you've had sex.
Or rather, you may be a friend. But that entitles you to nothing sexually. Nor should it.
-BECOMING CONGRUENT:
When taking a job-interview, youll present yourself in a particular way. During a family
gathering, it may be another way. And with your friends, it may be another way.
Everyone has different SIDES to their personality, and each judges when it is APPROPRIATE to
exhibit a particular side.
Why not just be yourself at ALL times? Because EACH of these sides ARE the real you, just
different aspects.

Acting the SAME in ALL situations is INCONSIDERATE to the people around you. If you horse
around at a job interview, you show lack of respect for the interviewers experience. If you act
overly sophisticated with your friends, you show lack of respect for the bond that you have with
them, and the clowning-around that goes along with it.
And as with the boss at the job interview, you hope to eventually get to know your girl on a more
genuine level, when the time is APPROPRIATE.
When INITIALLY PICKING UP A GIRL, showing the side of yourself that ELICITS SEXUAL
REACTION is MOST APPROPRIATE, because you are not putting the girl in a position where she
has to snub you based on sexual indifference to your approach. You dont like it that most girls
like to party? TO BAD. Dont post about it on the PLAYER board.
Being unsexual during pickup can be UNAPPROPRIATE.
The girls that I pickup CLEARLY KNOW that I am someone who is TOYING with them, that it
gives them drama that they like, and that our relationship will likely be short-lived. It is
OBVIOUS, because at this point I am THAT GOOD.
Women are no more in the dark about my nature than men are about women with fake breasts.
They KNOW whats up, but they DONT CARE.
And REALLY, these had been my intentions ALL ALONG. I am young, want to PARTY, and am
not interested in actively seeking anything beyond a sexual connection at this point. Should it
happen GREAT. But Im not SEEKING it. So why did I try to gain sexually via rapport and
connections in the past? Solely for PRAGMATIC reasons. I thought that it would WORK.
So was I really congruent before? NO. I was just CONFORMING, and hadnt the NERVE to show
my intentions.
Also, I didnt REALIZE that my intentions WERE NOT EVIL. Women APPRECIATE these kinds
of guys, and you BENEFIT when you openly demonstrate that you are that guy making no
excuses for it.
While AT FIRST I felt INCONGRUENT, I later realized that in fact I HAD BECOME congruent.
I began PROJECTING the sort of image that was congruent with my INTENTIONS, and girls
were reacting better, and never showing unpleasant surprises as in they had in the past.
My act of pre-planning and studying lines and tactics to project my badboy image IS
CONGRUENT with who I am, because who I am is someone whose intentions are to interact with
women in this way.
They enjoy it. I enjoy it.
They benefit. I benefit. We MUTUALLY benefit.
I am now congruent. I feel good for it.
If you want to judge it, go ahead. Just dont claim that your philosophy has any superiority over
any other subjective value-judgement, because it is just that. A subjective value judgement.
-CONCLUSION:

So there you have it. Many chicks dig jerk-asshole types. Who ever said that the community never
makes new discoveries anyway? hmmmmm....
And what is genuine? What is truth? Those questions are to be pondered over a lifetime, and they
are part of what makes the human experience dynamic.
But if I can draw one solid conclusion, its that claiming absolute knowledge of such questions is
self-indulgent. And in the opinion of this lowly-PUA, its not genuine.

-TD
What can I say? Another superb post from Tyler. His posts are jam-packed with GOLD info and
reasoning.
Let's not have anyone say "Well this isn't something I do," or "It isn't me".
If you want the result you have to pay the price.
I remember reading Tony Robbins years ago and he talked about the success formula. He said you
have to decide where you want to go, then what you would have to do to get there, then you PAY
THAT PRICE.
As Tyler said, if you always do what you have always done, you'll always get what you always got.
If you aren't happy with your results you have to change what you're doing and try new
techniques, try a new image, and KEEP TRYING new things out until you find what works for
YOU.
Pay the price.

"You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals..."

Stevie PUA
"I'D APPRECIATE INPUT"
http://pua.zap.to
On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 06:33:00 +0000, stevie_pu wrote:
Wow, just read this post (bug chunk in all it's glory) after
I postd my ramblings. A succinct and highly
informative post, quoted for reference:
> Let's not have anyone say "Well this isn't something I do," or
>"It isn't me".
>
> If you want the result you have to pay the price.
Snip

>KEEP TRYING new things out until you find what works for YOU.
>
> Pay the price.
>
> Stevie PUA
>
> "I'D APPRECIATE INPUT"
>
> http://pua.zap.to

Cheers,
'Shug.
Hmmm. Interesting and considered post. Always the making of a
good thread.
I have a few comments, maybe somewhat personal, but in the lead of this
post, wholly appropriate, I think.
TD, we haven't spoke before, but here are a few thoughts that run
through my head AS I read your killer expose on the REAL TD
(hahaha!).
This is all about flexibility, Bandler (Richard Bandler) calls
this (from some engineering field, thermodynamics, I think)
requisite variety. You now have the resources at hand that allow
you to perform in all of these situ's. Think about it, there is
pleasure in many different places, with many different girls,
each of them gives a different value and meaning to your life.
Good greedy stuff, have the world and eat it!
In a way this is the ultimate polyamourous (www.polyamory.com)
mindset. Different girls give you different things in life, one
girl is NOT enough! Just as you give a very special type of value
to them in return, if your mind needs the exchange metaphor. Add
variety to your life, hahahahahaha, PU different bitches every day!!
Without wanting to become your therapist, I think that surely
this is all a learning process and one that all people need to
undergo to some degree. You have this courageous persona that
people admire and (no names man, no names) some dislike but surely
Like it or not, we all need a metaphor to live by. Stuff all
manner of stuff goes on inside our heads, so we might as well
fill that, esentially void space, with something meaningful and
of value to process that will lead to our consciously chosen
utcome. The big metaphors that run in chycks brains are the ones
that you are tapping into right now... Nancy Friday stuff, powerfull
shit. We all need a metaphor and you are clarifying yours here
and NOW, designing your own destiny.
Ross (Jeffries) has always said that if you only use this stuff
on chycks you are missing a whole field of applications that will

make your own life better. He couldn't have said it better. Props.
This is whty I love NLP and how it can give you structure to your
experience whilst also supporting you to expand your horizons
(your mental map) to learn new things and open up to the world as
a whole. We can never know everything, but to desire to find out
is a safe bet for a happy future.
It is all a matter of personal power, which we all create every
time we go out. In fact we create this by sitting and typing, not
even needing to go out the door, training ourselve for 'the next
sarge'. This is all hippy dippy shit, but hey it's my world and
my metaphor rules my world! Our upbringings are all less tha ideal,
good, bad or mediocre it matters not. Untill we have chanced our
luck, pushed our boundaries, then it is expedient, a prototype of
sorts. The field is where everything starts and ends. Test-OperateTest-Exit. Life is a participantion event, so is PU. Great line,
unfortunately not mine.
Life really starts to get interesting when you stop trying to fit
events (etc) into your own value system and START making judgements
based on experiential data after the event. The menu is NOT the
meal and all that. Field data is all important, hallucination are
best left for those happy with their limited, indulgent world.
To me this is all about forging your own self in a fashion that
is congruent with your goals, integrating it with your life so
that you can achieve all that you desire. Important stuff and by
virtue a personal matter. Highly educational. Almost New-Age...
It reminds me of one of my favourite autors, Robert Anton Wilson,
who said that (and is perchance a title of one of his boks),
'reality is what you can get away with'. Read it and weep. While
you do, I will be living the life that makes me most happy that I
can conceive of at this present moment. I will also have Aleister
Crowley's maxim (paraphrased, mind you) that our method is
science, and our aim is religion (in the broadest sense). We can
connect with what it is to be human and still have our hard,
masculine, cynical views. It is about being complete and not
settling for second best, surely. Science helps us do this as
does ASF and the player guide, etc.
I repeat, we all neeed metaphor to guide our life, our lives,
inner and outer. You know Mystery and I don't but sure as hell,
that guy has one big vision going on guiding his life, maybe you
can ask him and tell us what it looks like? I am fully cognisant
of the fact that I may never be happy unless I can have my villa
overlooking the mediteranean so I can write my masterpieces with
a big bed for me and my two girlfriends, a blond and a brunette
who want each other almost as much as they want me. I believe in
the power of creation. My reality comes first.
Cheers,
'Shug.

Dear TD,
as Vince likes to say, "into my file it goes".
Reading your post is becoming like finding direction indications in a land where you are lost:
"bearing 45 NE you'll find water 10 km from here, bearing 180 S you'll find water and food 24
km from here, bearing....."
Great work bro. Really appreciated. I hope in the near future you don't need that kind of
"Breakbeat stimulus" in order to elaborate your thoughts here, or i'd feel compelled to bust on you
more often than not!. :-)
Personally, this post fits perfectly with the "metamorphosis" i'm getting convinced i need. It's
taking some time, yeah, but it's coming. And what you explain helps me in noticing i'm in the
right way, as you are perfectly describing the landscape i'm just beginning to see from the top of
the hill where i'm arriving now. Thx.
One last thing. You wrote:
"But if I can draw one solid conclusion, its that claiming absolute knowledge of such questions is
self-indulgent. And in the opinion of this lowly-PUA, its not genuine."
Holly shit!, i love the "wink" in this words!. LOL!. Surely you broke your ass laughing after writing
it!.
Oh well.... ;-)
Best regards.
Jimbo
This post put a lot of things I've been doing in perspective. I have been doing things half-way, not
knowing if i should go all in. This just pushed me over the edge. Tight shit.
-ozwald1
"I be catchin' bitches while bitches be catchin' feelings"
-xzibit
I'm reading your posts and I it's sooo GOLD and well-organized that I feel like I am reading one
chapter in an amazing book. Outstanding stuff, TD. The whole topic about what is REAL and what
is a LIE reminds me of Tony Robbins, who wrote in his book Unlimited Power:
The word "lie" does not mean "to be deceitful or dishonest" but, rather, is a useful way to remind
us that no matter how much we believe in a concept, we should be open to other possibilities and
continuous learning...you look at these [beliefs] and decide whether they're useful.
TD, the way you integrate how every PUA has his own style...Mystery, Juggler, you...and each is
genuine and real is so right on. I'm looking forward to seeing how much your Game has evolved
over the last 3 weeks. See you early tomorrow morning.
Cheers,
Papa

heh, this is as near to the real tyler d as i've ever seen ya. isn't
that great? that's all i ever asked from you, lol!
very convincing that you're not doing a bad job for what you want to
accomplish and at what price.
the price for this particular school of PU that you, mystery and
others practice is genuinity with women in the sense that you are
constantly thinking about the woman's processes and woman's mind and
which image you want to convey to the woman's mind rather than
bringing yourself to a point where you just shoot the shit and the
behaviour that triggers women's fantasies becomes automatic. in other
words, acting in the way that turns women on (with all the peacocking
and everything) is essentially the same, only you would do it EVEN IF
YOU WOULDN'T BE GETTING GIRLS WITH IT. in other words, getting girls
is not extra effort, it's just part of the natural order of things
that you do.
for me this works consistently with 6s and 7s and with occasionally
with 8s depending on my energy level. i've only been approaching 9s
and 10s for a short while now because i have some kind of weird
subconscious complex that makes me think i'm unworthy of them i gotta
get over first (my UG SP, maybe that comes from talking myself into
not wanting the hot ones for too long, i wouldn't know)
now let's have a look at mystery's claim that it's not possible to get
10+ if you're not faking it. now so we're clear about the terms, let's
from now on use the term faking in the sense to discribe any behaviour
that you do to ELICIT A RESPONSE in a girl, that you wouldn't just do
for your own sake. so mystery says it's not possible to get 10+
without faking. i know that's not true. how do i, since i'm only
getting 7s and 8s? i've seen it.
i have a friend i feel very close with. he's a musician. i've seen him
pull the wildest stunts. we'd be walking down the street or we'd enter
a club, and he'd have girls flocking all over him. he looks good,
that's for sure, but his looks didn't get him the girls. it was his
vibe. now that didn't work for all girls, but there were tens among
them, and he'd just turn them down because he was about more than just
fucking. so in other words, when you meet someone and it FITS, it
doesn't matter all that much if she's a 7 or a 9 because it fits.
simple. you match.
so, tyler d, you showed us in a very real way what you do. you chose
to use a faking PU style, that's fine. you chose to pay the price for
that, that's fine, and very beneficial to everybody who also uses that
PU style also and is willing to pay the price. as long as you're
absolutely real about that being what you do and use no similar
tactics on us fellow posters (IOW, behaviour that's geared at
eliciting a specific response from us) i have no problem with that.
what i am not okay with is when you get on the fake level with us,
because then we're not at the powerful end of the deception.
here's another key viewpoint. in your reality deception is apperently
common practice. correct me if i'm wrong, but you mentioned getting
into politics in canada and you posted some small stuff about your dad

and i'm getting the impression that in your world deception is quite
normal and considered a sign of success. so when successful people
associate with you you'd all expect each other to deceive a bit just
to show you're on the same level. so to them, you are just as real
about your faking as you are to us. you'd even have to show that you
are able to fake, or you wouldn't get accepted with these people as
successful. i've only been on the edge of social groups where i got a
sense that faking was the norm, can you relate with any of what i
said?
the way i see it that's exactly what's happening in clubs. the dumb
girls in clubs believe it's all real of course. the smart girls in the
club are there because they like it, they want to see a guy who can
fake well because they think that is what success is about. and yes,
you can be successful with faking. of course you can. you've
demonstrated that, and you've credibly shown that to us because you
were real TO US (IOW, used no fake behaviour, behaviour designed to
elicit a response within us).
let me explain why i have no intent of faking and i take the trail of
becoming. right now, i feel like i'm mentally attracting ugs into my
life. that is when i do not think about my behaviour in the least, not
even my body language or anything, they like me. that to me is a
mental clue that with my present habits i will attract ugs.
now let's take my musician friend. he is EXTREMELY proficient in what
he does, and that is music. listening to him perform is a truly
extraordinary experience and i'm proud of being friends with him. and
girls notice it too. when he puts off the music vibes, they flock.
can you do this when you're not an artist? i say you can. the key is
to get firm goals, and to make your smallest action, all the way up to
the way you breathe or move your little finger when you get up,
absolutely efficient in terms of those goals. then, you will BE super
exceptional, and you will have the option of getting a girl of similar
looks who is equally exceptional, or of better looks who is less
exceptional. i never had a lot of respect for the hotties who hang
with old ugly bankers in terms of conversation and life's views. as
for the bankers... well, who's to blame 'em?
am i doing any of this? well, i'm practicing. not all that good at it
yet and i have a messed up life i gotta straighten out cuz my parents
had messed up lives and unconsciously tought me exactly how to mess my
own life up. i gotta un-learn all that now. i know that when i do have
it straighter i'm gonna get girls who are nearer to the type i am
attracted to.
let me sum this up.
* if you just act on whatever's on your mind, you will behave
according to a mixture of your habitual thought (and occasional
"hunches" and "inspiriations"). you think something, then you act on
what you think.
* if you don't like what your present habitual thought is getting you,
you have two options.

1. straighten out your habitual thought

2. straighten out your actions.
if you take 2. then you have to start looking for a different source
to base your actions on other than your own thought. that's when you
start basing your actions on other people's actions, and judge which
ones to mimick by looking at the results these other people's actions
got them. it's a lot of work.
if you take 1., then straightening your thoughts out is a lot of work.
but when you got 'em, your habitual action will get you girls, and the
more you straighten your thoughts out, the nearer your girls will be
to the type you expect.
as for myself i know which path i have chosen. anybody care to comment
which is more fruitful on the long run?
TD, i'm not pissy any more. i don't need to be, your baby's born :) or
maybe it's not like that, i just think the situation and it's results
is kind of funny.
so you wanna email me and straighten the personal thing out, let's do,
or better yet let's catch up on IM sometime.
oh yeah, maybe one last thought on your emotions while taking 75
minutes of your time to write this post...
it's fun to be real, isn't it ;)
f.m. breakbeat
-------appreciate to attract
What is "real" or "genuine?" If you read the Buddhists, the Fourth Way followers, or others of
related spiritual paths, you get the metaphysical notions of mindfulness, awakening, selfremembering, etc. The facades that we wear are just memes or karmic traces or social
conditioning we've inherited or layered on ourselves. True freedom comes when we unburden
ourselves from habituation and allow ourselves choice in any moment. You can strengthen
existing memes, being more "genuine" as breakbeat puts it, or liberate yourself by seeing the
arbitrariness of existing ones and adopting others. It is this free adoption that allows detachment
and deters identification with any particular set of memes, uncovering the true self. In this way,
perhaps we can consider the TD style of PUA like Bruce Lee's Tao of Jeet Kun Do. To him, martial
arts were a tool of peeling the layers and discovering ourselves.
I don't claim to be "there." I'm merely offering seriously considered alternatives to the deeply held
"real" and "genuine" memes including the "prices we pay" that we have picked up in the popular
culture without question.
TylerDurden wrote:
>
> The latest discussions about genuine behaviour have just gotten me thinking
> about something that hasn't really been cashed out on this board lately.
>

> WHAT IS GENUINE? WHAT IS FAKE? WHAT ACTIONS ARE GENUINE ACTIONS? HOW
DOES THIS
> EFFECT US? WHAT PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES ARISE FROM THIS? WHAT CONSTITUTES
MUTUAL
> BENEFIT IN PICKUP?
Seminal post. My answer to that is "The actions that are genuine actions
are those that GET results, regardless of how one arrives at them".
> ----->
> SO, WHAT DO WOMEN WANT?
>
> I recall having a convo with Toecutter about his friend who would walk up to
> women, and tell them that he was rich and wanted to marry them.
>
> He would weave the story, work it, and sleep with them that night. Then he'd
> blow them off the next day, leaving them heartbroken.
>
> Now my first reaction to this was to be appalled.
>
> I questioned my respect for Toecutter, and generally wondered what he could
> possibly be thinking. How could he justify this sort of thing?
>
> He said that I was living in an AFC mindset, and that women LOVED "to have
> their hopes and dreams shattered by scoundrels like Han Solo" and such, and
> that it was something that they actually WANTED.
Is this WHAT THEY WANT or merely WHAT THEY RESPOND TO? No chick will
accept this as valid reasoning since it is akin to accepting that they
are damaged, disfunctional goods. Wanting something implies awareness
and conscious thought. This is what the most intelligent chick I've ever
met had to say in her parting letter:
"Truly, I am in a good place in my life as well....moving into my own
new home with my son...working and staying away from any masculine
influence until I know that I will no longer make bad selections in
partners. You and I may have worked out well....but not now. I have
learned that my actions have caused many a hurt feeling for everyone
involved and even for myself....the things that have happened are not so
easily forgotten nor are they easily forgivable....regardless of the
people involved and the magnamity of their hearts and spirits."
Just to clarify, I was the mostly nice guy who got hurt not the "bad
selection". She had little rational insight on why she made the choices
she made, but this is what her limbic brain told her to do.
> From reading the book, I interpreted it as saying that the guy tricking/forcing
> the girl into sex, and leaving her was the girl's way of CONFIRMING that he was
> the kind of guy that she wants. (sort of to say that the jerk/badboy/untamable
> behaviour was some sort of CERTIFICATION that the girl has been fertalized by
> an alpha-seed, or something bizarre to that effect)
>
> Very weird, and disturbing. I did NOT like reading this, nor do I necessarily
> like it now.
It is disturbing if your mind is not ready to accept it; It resonates

with my own life experiences, and it was immensely confusing and painful
at the time.
>
> I decided that IF I CONTINUED DOING WHAT I HAD ALWAYS DONE, I'D CONTINUE TO
GET
> THE RESULTS THAT I'D ALWAYS GOTTEN. (this isn't my catchphrase.. maybe Tony
> Robbins, I dunno.. Mys uses it all the time).
>
> I know that CLOUD9 also has had inner-conflicts with this. For me, one of top
> students in my country, its been difficult to DEGENERATE my speaking
> manneurisms to a more colloquial level.. "like, you know, totally, like,
I still have inner conflicts with this. They come from my NURTURING
nature, which is part of who I am. At the same time I am naturally cocky
and expansive. My stop gap solution is to HIDE my nurturing side until
late in the game.
> So if that is the case then, what kind of girl do I look for when I'm ready to
> have children or get married?
>
> -->
> IN LIGHT OF THIS KNOWLEDGE, WHAT CONSTITUTES A GOOD WOMAN???
>
> I am still deciding on this, and really I have only limited insights.
IMO chicks raised in rich Western societies are no longer marriage
material. This is because the Western world has undone in the last forty
years millenia of constraints that made the marriage institution
function (marriage has served in the past an economic function); the
traditional marriage comes with a set of assumptions, behaviours and
expectancies from both parties. It is a meme that is all but lost by
present day Western society and increasingly eroded in the rest of the
world due to globalisation. If you're serious about a lasting marriage
go get an Arab chick raised in Irak or some other fiercely traditional
place. I'm serious.
>
> Do shit tests constitute genuine communication? The girl is tricking you, to
> find your true nature. But then, if you pass, you genuinely will hookup with
> her. So is the girl genuine, or not? Not necessarily an easy question to
> answer.
On the basest limbic level I would say yes, it's genuine. She is
searching for value as she perceives it. On a conscious level she is
being willfully ungenuine. The funniest thing is she doesn't really know
why she's doing it.
>
> This is how the game is played bros, at least in my personal opinion. Just the
> opinion of a new PUA, trying to make sense of all of this. Some of it is
> probably dead-on, and some of its probably inaccurate. Take it for what its
> worth.
None of it is innacurate IMO. You have an uncanny ability to articulate

- psych major, doh.

>
> In my opinion, there is a clear cut reason -> While my sexual persona may not
> be as congruent with my real personality as I'd like, my *ACTIONS* are
> CONGRUENT with what I *PROJECT*.
But isn't it funny how your actions and projected personality chips away
at your core true personality? You start out PC and end up NDP lol.
That was a Canadian joke you suckers.
> Which makes me think: Is it more genuine to build connections where you
> project that you are a more quiet one-girl type, when that is not you (even if
> you state polyamory, you still come-off that way). Or is it more genuine to be
> a jerk up front, and allow the chick to FREELY CHOOSE to go along for the
> short-adventure or not.
To be consistent with my principle of "genuine is what gives results"; I
tried both and jerk up front beats the one-girl type any day.
>
> BECOMING CONGRUENT:
>
>
> When taking a job-interview, youll present yourself in a particular way.
> During a family gathering, it may be another way. And with your friends, it
> may be another way.
>
> Everyone has different SIDES to their personality, and each judges when it is
> APPROPRIATE to exhibit a particular side.
>
> Why not just be yourself at ALL times? Because EACH of these sides ARE the
> real you, just different aspects.
>
> Acting the SAME in ALL situations is INCONSIDERATE to the people around you.
> If you horse around at a job interview, you show lack of respect for the
> interviewers experience. If you act overly sophisticated with your friends,
> you show lack of respect for the bond that you have with them, and the
> clowning-around that goes along with it.
Calibrate your environment at all times.
> CONCLUSION:
>
> So there you have it. Many chicks dig jerk-asshole types. Who ever said that
> the community never makes new discoveries anyway? hmmmmm....
I'd qualify that to "many chicks dig jerk-asshole types with complex
personalities".
>
> And what is genuine? What is truth? Those questions are to be pondered over a
> lifetime, and they are part of what makes the human experience dynamic.
whoa go easy on us...I would say that truth is always the least
comfortable answer to whatever the question was.
Cloud9

TD,
Some GOLD insights that might have taken MONTHS or longer to discover on my own.
So do I then....
(A) accept these insights that are clearly SOLID truths from your experiences in-field and your
personal experiences with PU.
or
(B) learn the hard way and experience these insights on my own.
I think this is an important question to ask. Reading something is one thing. Seeing it for yourself
in the field is another.
What do I mean by this???
It took you 8 LONG months to realize that being confident and genuwine wasn't enough to get
you laid. Until you went through those 8 LONG months you were probably convinced that you
were doing OK and at some point you WOULD get laid. It was the experience that solidified the
insights that you post here.
It might not take another guy 8 months but I also think its not wise for someone to SKIP that
learning process and jump straight to some of the material you were using after that LONG 8
month dry spell. The dry spell you went through clearly improved your communication with
women, your body language and probably many other areas.
Accelerated learning is tricky. I think a solid foundation in PU is pretty important...and it takes
time.
So again, much appreciated GOLD post, but even though its probably all solid truths, it'll
probably take me another few months to acknowledge and appreciate how truthful this post really
is. Just like it took me about three months to truly acknowledge how MONEY some other insights
posted on ASF really were.
I think I'll start by picking up a copy of Nancy Fridays book...
peace
LowRider
eeing it for yourself in the field is another.
>
> What do I mean by this???
>
> It took you 8 LONG months to realize that being confident and genuwine wasn't
> enough to get you laid. Until you went through those 8 LONG months you were
> probably convinced that you were doing OK and at some point you WOULD get laid.
> It was the experience that solidified the insights that you post here.
>
> It might not take another guy 8 months but I also think its not wise for
> someone to SKIP that learning process and jump straight to some of the material
> you were using after that LONG 8 month dry spell. The dry spell you went
> through clearly improved your communication with women, your body language and

> probably many other areas.

>
You don't need to go without for the best part of a year like TD did, in
order to "clearly improve your communication with women, your body
language and probably many other areas." Remember that these are the
experiences of ONE MAN in North America. This is the story of how A
person arrived at the place he is today. Every person's story will be
different. You are not TD, I am not TD. The point is that we are all
different and we have the ability to do things differently to TD and get
the results we want. Many roads lead to Rome, there are many PU styles.
If you unserstand WHY certain things work and HOW to use your mind and
body (and her's) to achieve your aim, you WILL get laid. That is the
learning process a "dry spell" is totally unecessary.
> Accelerated learning is tricky. I think a solid foundation in PU is pretty
> important...and it takes time.
Of course, there is no "magic pill"
Cassius
"learn something new every day"

>
>He said that I was living in
>an AFC mindset, and that women
>LOVED "to have their hopes and
>dreams shattered by scoundrels
>like Han Solo" and such, and
>that it was something that
>they actually WANTED.
>
>Basically, I interpreted that
>girls like DRAMA of ANY kind.
>They want INTENSE emotional
>drama. .
>
There is my WTF. Why do girls want,need, desire any form of drama? What is the attraction to it?
A brilliant post TD....written like a fucking philosopher...perhaps we'll talk Kripke someday....
This whole debate of genuineness v attraction strikes me as a little hollow, redounding back onto
the question of behavioural validity in a world of moral choice...
Now the points you've made about women's actual desires are spot on and there's not a think in
the world wrong with playing to those in order to be with the women you like.
If one adopts the standpoint that moral validity is the child of individual motivation these issues
become less pressing. It's not the feelings of the woman you're with but the reasons you're with
the woman that are important.

Peace,
HunterS
Hey Tyler,
Props brother.. props. You've just rearticulated what we've had in front of our faces for years... but
could never quite comprehend.
To those that're thinking.. "Well.. this is just the experience of one guy in North America"... what
Tyler has just described is a bit more universal than that. Here's what I've seen in MY own
experiences this week.
Regarding Section about SwingCat Style qualifying.. I found this out while chatting with various
women online over this past week.
I've been on vacation this week at a certain British University. Since I decided to stay on campus
instead of going home, I've used my time to workout, go out, and being online talking with as
many people as I could muster both from my home and from all over the world.
I'm going to comment on two specific points of Tyler's post for now.. while I ruminate on the rest.
You'll read in the Swingcat Style section of TD's post that:
"The girls that I thought were 'nice' have revealed that they've been fucked by anonymous guys,
loved it, and want it again."
Take these three examples of the girls I've been talking to.
Case A is from Australia, born and raised.
She's one of those 'body with a brain' types.. very creative. Anyway.. she asks me how many people
I've been with. So.. I describe a few of my 'natural encounters'.
When I gave her the same question.. this girl who I considered 'nice' was like 'Uhm... you won't
hate me right? 30+ guys.' The girl's 18.
Case B is from here in England. Despite a long distance boyfriend that she's loyal to... she's been
pulled while clubbing quite a bit. She's on her way to see her boy as we speak.
Case C is from America. She's a very academic person.. 3.7 out of 4.0 GPA... studies hard. Gets
baned harder though at LEAST every two weeks by guys she meets at the local club.. the thrill of
tasting something new, she claims. Few if anyone knows about it.. her 'studious' image being the
one that everyone at school knows.
All are 'nice' girls... but like anyone else... they have a facet of their 'self' that likes to get fucked...
and fucked well.
Tyler's note about everyone having facets.. acting differently depending on who's around... there's
no denying it. Do you look at porn and beat your meat at the dinner table with your in-laws? If
you do.. you're a freak. Fragmentation is expected... and a natural way of life. Use it to your
advantage. There's less inhibition at Spring Break for a reason.
At a club that allows it? Peacock your heart out.
In a situation where you think 'It's not me'? Bust out.
(Which reminds me.. I need to figure out what I can do to peacock with non-permanent
accessories.. depending on whether I'm in a hip-hop venue or a 'regular' club..)

Now that I'm done parroting Tyler... here's a thought.

Now that we've gone full circle... back to a modified version of the 'Being a jerk gets the pussy'
axiom... What else is there to 'discover'? They say that the journey is more pleasurable than the
destination. That works for everything from trying to attain a career... to the act of foreplay to sex.
Now that Tyler's post has provided an orgasm... bringing together the fundamentals of what we've
been building up.. what's left?
Think about that.
Until my next post... Ciao.
*********************************************************
"How a man plays a game shows something of his character; how he loses shows it all..."
-Unknown
Note: I haven't decided as a definite whether to have Undercover Maverick or something else as a
permanent handle. Any suggestions? :P
Twitch wrote in news:74037.11444@discussion.fastseduction.com:
>
> There is my WTF. Why do girls want,need, desire any form of drama?
> What is the attraction to it?
>
>
Because they have cunts.
If you want to fuck a cunt, you have to deal with the people who have them.
That quote above is simply information that's necessary, for learning to
deal productively with those people.
I really enjoyed this post, and what I got out of it was that we are taking this "faking" thing too
far...
PU is a SPORT, with PLAYS. We run the PLAYS we need to win. You and the HBs are on the same
team, and all the CB's are the other team.
Saying these methods are fake is like saying you shouldn't learn plays to run in basketball because
they are not what you would naturally do if you didn't know the play. You want to make baskets,
and you learn how to do it. That's not faking. I run methods because I want to lay HBs, and these
are the "plays" I use to do it, and that's not faking. If one never saw ASF, "real" would be AFC.
Women aren't as dumb as we often make them out to be. When you PU a chick with tight game,
you are not "tricking" her. She LOVES it and you are fulfilling a want she has been having for
ages. My sister told me the other day she knows what's going on when a guy runs game on her,
but its FUN so she goes along with it and allows herself to be PU'ed. That is mutual benefit.
I'm really rehashing what TD said, so i'm done.
Yeah, thanks. I think.
It's funny that everyone just jumps on the bandwagon now, and doesn't bother to disagree at all. I

don't remember every other PU tactic from the past just being rewritten.
TD's stuff works, sure.
But if I see one more fucker going "Wow this is the ONLY way to play the game" I'm going to
puke.
What happened to calibrating the girl? What happened to every other PU in the past that didn't
involve a guy that was fully peacocked out in PVC?
I'm not knocking it, hell I'm getting PVC next week and peacock boots and strutting the shit. But I
don't think being a jerk is the ultimate / only PU method at all.
-How this post will affect my game though, I realised that using swingcat our group never gets
sexual responses, but unless when we talk sex beforehand or give an example that includes sex.
Maybe I will try that some more, have the girl talk sex, and then ...
I have great kino, maybe my kino doesn't go far enough. I escalate rapidly, have them falling into
me, etc, but then I have "reached my limit".
Perhaps I can swingcat sexually at this time, and then go take my kino further down their ass or
into their pants. I wonder if this will be congruent with my cute guy frame and wether they'll take
it or not?
Field reports to come. It's about time I try new stuff.
Warm Regards,
DoctorOwl
I think being genuine is being proud of who you really are and being able to communicate that.
Honesty is important to me because I used to be liar. A HARDCORE liar, to almost everyone I
knew. No matter how "good" I was at lying based on how others responded to my lies and liked or
were attracted to me as result of them I still had to endure the discomfort of seeing myself as fake.
In the long run this did not help my interpersonal interactions or my game because it created this
sort of chain reaction where I could not respect people because deep down I knew I had "fooled"
them, I then started to resent them and resent myself for having been responsible for having
introduced the "fakeness" to the relationship.
I can bullshit with the best of them but I wasn't a good enough liar or delusional enough to
bullshit MYSELF. So as long as I was living that way I was stuck seeing myself as a 2-bit hustler
with no depth of character.
I decided it was not worth it. As time went on I learned more about myself and I grew to
understand that how I see myself had everything to do with my ability to convey the belief of my
likeability/attractiveness to others. My sense of self (for better or worse) is based on my ability to
see myself as an honest and authentic person. It's not good or bad or BETTER than anyone else, it
just is. By lying, I was damaging that sense of self. This is why I identify more with Juggler than
any of the acknowledged experts in the community because I believe he and I are similar in this
regard.
Whether or not honesty or being genuine is important to ME is not important. How important is
it to YOU? If your sense of self is not affected by how honest or genuine you see yourself as being

then your game is different than mine because your ability to convey your own attractiveness is
based on something completely different and I see no reason to tell you anything other than to
keep doing whatever you are doing however genuine or not genuine it may be IF it is making you
happy and you are creating something in your life you want to live with by doing it.
On 4/11/03 4:56:00 AM, TylerDurden wrote:
>I don't LIKE talking about
>social dynamics and feelings.
>It BORES me. *Most* things
>that *most* girls like to talk
>about are of NO INTEREST to
>me.
Are you sure? I find it very difficult to believe someone who enjoys dicussing the game as you has
no interest in social dynamics. Okay, so it's different that what you would talk about with girls but
such an INTENSE interest in PU as you have must carry with it SOME interest in human behavior
of the kind that would be appropriate to talk about with women, doesn't it?
>I DO NOT ENJOY running
>JUGGLER's rapport routines
>like "I really like pizza" and
>"this is what my own palm says
>about me" and what would your
>life be rated if it was a
>movie?, and making those kind
>of self-revealing statements.
>Nor would I like them any
>better had I invented them.
Try not doing routines. I mean REALLY give it a shot. And I don't mean routines that you
INVENT, I mean NO ROUTINES. Maybe even take Juggler's workshop. I have a feeling that you
TRY to do this but you either don't do it or you don't put enough energy into it to really get it and
you go "FUCK THIS" and go back to what you normally do.
If you really are not comfortable revealing yourself do some thinking about why. Maybe it's just
me and my attitude about things but I really don't understand it when I hear guys say they don't
LIKE revealing themselves or they don't LIKE expressing themselves. All it prompts me to think
is that they have never really DONE IT.
On a similar point, I have heard a lot of ASF guys say they think "rapport is boring". My first take
is to suggest that these guys have NO CLUE what REAL rapport is because they have never really
allowed themselves to experience it.
>Or rather, I LIKE running
>them, for the purpose of
>PICKING UP. But I dont run
>them for the SOLE SAKE of
>running them.
I don't like running "routines" for the sake of running them either. And I really gave it a good go.
Or at least I think I did, maybe if I sarged with some people who are/were more successful doing
things that way I'd think differently about it. To me it just feels like I am using a hand-puppet to
interact with people rather than interacting with them myself. I'd perfer that the real self gets
better at interacting with women and NOT the hand-puppet.
>I will USE this stuff, but I

>don't LIKE it anymore than ANY

>OTHER stuff that I use. NONE
>of it is the REAL ME in the
>TRADITIONAL SENSE, so both MM
>and Juggler method are EQUAL
>in my mind.
If you have never relied as much as possible on YOURSELF you have never done Juggler method.
>But I *AM* stating that it is
>NO MORE GENUINE for me to
>PRETEND that I am enjoying
>talking about real genuine
>feelings in a Juggler-style
>that I really don't care to
>talk about, than it is for me
>to run the routines that I do
>most of the time now.
>
>Either way, I'm FAKING
>SOMETHING.
Well, faking things may be fine *FOR YOU*. If it is working and you are happy with it, then keep
doing it.
-PDX
I agree with SexPDX.
Something I want to quickly point out: Juggler doesn't advocate using routines at all; in fact he
tells you that he started out using them but then progressed and began being more "genuine." For
example, he tries not to use gimmicks because he considers them to be a crutch.
Sure, they're great to get started. Things like reading your own palm are not intended to be
routines like swingcat is, they're meant to give you an IDEA of what kind of discussion typically
works. As you go on you start to develop your own "routines," just like everyone has stories of
their own fun experiences. By this token, routines which are personal to you are more genuine
and effective than those taken from mASF (assuming you can come up with routines, just like you
have to have had fun things happen to you that you can make your own stories from). It's the
same thing as with patterns; the ones presented here are only intended to be examples.
Don't get me wrong, just because Juggler advocates using your own stories, interests, etc. that
does not mean that it has to be boring. In your lifetime there are many experiences, ideas, and
aspirations that you can talk about which are exciting.
Hive
alrighty I'll respond to this.......
WARNING to TD: i am not known for sugarcoating my words, and this post
might offend you. just wanted to let you know its nothing personal (i think
you are indeed a cool guy in person)
> The latest discussions about genuine behaviour have just gotten me
thinking

> about something that hasn't really been cashed out on this board lately.
>
> WHAT IS GENUINE? WHAT IS FAKE? WHAT ACTIONS ARE GENUINE ACTIONS? HOW
DOES
THIS
> EFFECT US? WHAT PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES ARISE FROM THIS? WHAT CONSTITUTES
MUTUAL
> BENEFIT IN PICKUP?
i've been told by a lot of people that i come across as very genuine and
sincere, and that boosts my game 100x better than if i came across as fake.
my definition of genuine is doing what *I* want to do and say what *I* want
to say.. including the stuff that *I* am interested in talking about. sure,
i've tried being fake, lying about my past and making up stories and using
other people's routines off mASF and the lounge. it got me some results,
but i felt an emptiness because the material was doing the work for me. in
recent months i dropped that shit and winged it on my own using my own
material (most of it i come up on the fly, or true stories that happened in
my life in the past)... boy, what a HUGE difference it made! I cannot
stress that enough.
> In my experience, if I ask a girl what sort of way she feels a guy should
go
> about picking her up, she'll often reply with something to the effect of:
no dude.. I don't go around asking girls that. i know she'll come up with a
cliche answer that doesn't help me improve my game.
[...]
> Of course, these last three work consistently on women of exceptional
beauty,
> and the first one doesn't (again, CONSISTENTLY).
yeah, so? still doesn't prove your point that being genuine doesnt work.
> Her system was to be yourself, confident, and genuine. Also, to
demonstrate
well.. it works for ME.
> alpha status through good bodylanguage and being well dressed. After
hundreds
> of approaches, I got this down pat.
Agreed.
> I did at least 5 approaches a day (though usually more), just being
myself,
> confident, and getting to know girls in a way that was very cool and
genuine -

> all as Ursula Lidstrom suggested. Read the book probably 10-15 times.
> (sidenote: EXCELLENT info on bodylanguage and GWM-style phase shifting can
be
> found in this book, if you screen the rest).
>
> Unfortunately, for those eight months I did not have sex even ONCE. I am
not
why not?? from all these posts of yours i've read you keep claiming that
you "coulda fucked her" yet you didnt want to because "its dumb shit" or
"i'm scared to death of AIDS/SARS/STDs/etc/etc/etc" or "she's not good
looking enough" or "she kept screaming and screaming in public" or "i was
too caught off gaurd because she's a perfect 10 and i didn't need a neg,
which contradicts the MM theory, so I ejected" and all kinds of excuses not
to stick it in.
> good looking, and could have had sex with HB7s, but that did/does not
interest
> me. I was entirely celibate those eight months. I made many non-sexual
> friendships with girls, who still to this day social-proof me on campus.
how can you have ALL this social proof and NOT get laid? its a waste...
> But whenever I'd try to escalate, they'd react with "You're a really great
guy.
> I'm just not looking for someone right now. You're really confident,
you'll
> find someone."
sure, everybody gets this. can't fuck em all. but there has to AT LEAST be
SOME girls that really wants it bad enough not to blow you off like that
(considering how much social proof you've had at your school)
[...]
, that being confident and genuine IS NOT THAT UNCOMMON, and
> *unless* the girl doesn't have many genuine people in her life, it doesn't
> CONVEY HIGHER VALUE.
lol... are you getting this from Mystery? here's a reality check...
everyone is different. therefore, if everyone is genuine, they are ALL
different... and they ALL convey value in one way or another. every person
has value to convey, including yourself. and you dont have to convey the
HIGHEST value on this planet to get laid. and what does it mean to have
"higher" value? is this a supply/demand thing? i dont think so because
there's 7 billion people on this planet... 7 billion DIFFERENT individuals,
each having value to convey.
> I have MANY genuinely confident people in my life, and while pleasant it
is not
> a big deal to me. Girls are no different.
>
> Genuine and confident people are EVERYWHERE. There is little correlation

> between these traits, and an exceptionally drop dead gorgeous woman being
> attracted to a mediocre looking guy.
>
> The ONLY way that you can convey HIGHER value, by using this method, is if
you
> have a RARE connection with the girl. This does happen, though it cannot
be
> called a consistent pickup method, since it relies on external factors
(ie:
> that you actually have a similar world view, or something similar, etc
etc).
>
> This is FAST-Seduction, which discusses how to be a PLAYER. If you want
you're asking for tactics to become an ultimate player who can pull every
woman on this planet. thats a tall order, dude.. you're being too hard on
yourself. everyone here should just stick to the basics (from open to
close), and learn to be social with everyone. thats IT. thats all it takes
to get laid.
> Health, wealth, relationships -> go to the gym, eat right, find work you
love,
agreed, these are important...
> But yet, even HAVING those things, will you be a *PLAYER*? I know MANY
people
> who have reached this level of enlightenment who are not.
probably because they chose not to. who knows.
> At the time that I was focusing on being genuine and building rapport, I
was
> very much "emotionally whole". I had everything going well for me in my
life,
> and I was a genuinely happy person. I had goodwill towards everyone
around me,
> and projected a positive vibe. This was great, but did not result in
success
> with any exceptionally beautiful women.
you're making a Mount Everest out of a molehill. it may have been just a
little sticking point in your game that you might've overlooked, but that
doesnt mean you have to OVERHAUL your game and/or resort to being FAKE. why
make things harder than it should have to be?
> Anyway, that was MY EXPERIENCE after eight long months of field-testing
this
> way of doing things. It's just the experience of ONE GUY, so take it for
what
> its worth.
sure, its your experience... but i still believe you not getting laid for 8

months is a result of a sticking point in your game, NOT a result of being

genuine and building rapport.
> I recall having a convo with Toecutter about his friend who would walk up
to
> women, and tell them that he was rich and wanted to marry them.
>
> He would weave the story, work it, and sleep with them that night. Then
he'd
> blow them off the next day, leaving them heartbroken.
yeah he told me that story too. his friend must be an EXCELLENT liar and a
master bullshitter. he gets laid with those girls, no question. of course
he dumps those girls, because he LOST RESPECT for them! why?? because they
FELL for his ploy!
Sooooo... MY question is..... how does HE feel about this? how long is he
going to keep this up till he tires of it? does he feel an emptiness after
he dumps the girl? when is he gonna want to actually keep a girl? - and
why? - under what circumstances?
[...]
> Around 90% of women would start telling me about how they love to suck
dick and
> take it on the face. How they dream about getting gang-raped and fucked by
> strange men and hot guys from clubs.
umm.. so did you drag em home and fuck them? if not, then why are you
complaining that you haven't gotten laid in 8 months, and placing the blame
on being genuine/building rapport? i'm trying to understand the point of
your post... so I'll read on.
> I was forced to RE-ASSESS my VALUE SYSTEM for making judgements on what
> constituted a nice-girl, since clearly ALL girls had a "slut" side to
them.
of course, all girls are sluts. i know that. but that doesnt mean building
rapport isn't gonna work on them. one time i was at a sorority party and i
was cocky/funny to the MAX and spouting off routines and material all over
the place. did I get laid? no. who got laid? the guys who were all
rapport rapport with them... yes, they took em home.. and I didn't get shit.
[...]
> "I will fuck you the second you let your guard down, because I am a badboy
and
> that's just me" is the image that I convey, and women respond instantly.
if you really BELIEVE that, then yeah, you are being genuine.
like one time, you told me that Eddy believes that whenever a girl is in a
house with him, she wants to fuck. so, when a girl is in a house with him

alone, Eddy makes the moves on her... therefore, he is being genuine and
true to his BELIEFS.
[...]
> The girls that I thought were LOYAL to their boyfriends have called them
from
> my bed, GUILT-FREE, lying about where they were last night like it was
NOTHING.
yeah, so? as long as we are AWARE of that fact, we won't get fucked over
like those poor blokes, right? oh, and a lot of guys do the same thing to
their gfs.
> Because, like Mystery, I agree that only AFTER you hookup do you start
> communicating GENUINELY.
Why??
> The FIRST genuine conversation happens in bed together, AFTER THE GAME IS
OVER,
> and you find out whether or not this was just a validation-game, or if its
an
> emotional connection.
Why??
> And do *I* necessarily want the games? Nope.
I don't either. I hear ya on that one. the games aren't going to go away..
the important thing is to be aware of that. an AFC usually isn't aware, or
he lets the games throw him off.
> I remember when I first did clubs, and I'd tease a high calibre HB. Say a
9 or
> 10. And she'd touch me, and say that she liked me. But as soon as I'd
> RECIPROCATE that, she'd LOSE INTEREST. It was a SHIT TEST, NOT genuine
> communication. Or was it? Was it genuinely communicating that she wanted
to
> see if I was really the jerk she wanted me to be, and that she had to test
me
> to find out?
this never happened to me...
> Do shit tests constitute genuine communication? The girl is tricking you,
to
> find your true nature. But then, if you pass, you genuinely will hookup
with
> her. So is the girl genuine, or not? Not necessarily an easy question to

> answer.
yeah girls do those tests to see if you're an ACT. if you fail, they see
you as FAKE. game over. if you do pass, great. but i find that if i'm
trying to be someone I'm NOT, then I really have to THINK extremely fast on
my feet to pass it.
HOWEVER... if I am ALREADY being genuine, and she shit-tests me, I pass it
with flying colors, and I never even had to think about it. Maybe I never
realized it was a shit-test, either. See how much EASIER it is to be when
you're like this?
> Afterwards, once I have PROVEN myself to be the kind of man that she
wants, I
why do you FEEL that you HAVE to PROVE yourself to her? I don't...
[...]
> I don't LIKE talking about social dynamics and feelings. It BORES me.
*Most*
> things that *most* girls like to talk about are of NO INTEREST to me.
like SexPDX said... I am surprised that this is coming from YOU. You are
constantly talking about the game, which IS social dynamics. it definitely
does not bore you. and it does not bore me either. I won't hesitate to
bring it up with a group of girls, and that really gets them talking. and
they see that I am interested in this stuff as well.
[...]
> But I *AM* stating that it is NO MORE GENUINE for me to PRETEND that I am
> enjoying talking about real genuine feelings in a Juggler-style that I
really
> don't care to talk about, than it is for me to run the routines that I do
most
> of the time now.
you sure? i'd say think again. have ya tried taking his workshop?
have you REALLY tried being yourself? if that didn't work, then look for
things that interest YOU as well as the GIRLS. so then you'll have an
interesting conversation with girls without you having to fake it.
if you still want to continue faking and being someone you're not, then so
be it. you might get a lot of lays, maybe not. if you do, great. but the
question is, HOW you feel about it. Your sense of self? your self image?
you're right, these questions are to ponder over a lifetime...
BL

On 4/14/03 12:37:58 AM, BLscorpZ wrote:

>yeah, so? still doesn't prove
>your point that being genuine
>doesnt work.
yo BL dude.. you didn't understand the thesis of my post.
it was about DETERMINING what IS genuine for YOU..
in the past, I was NOT being genuine just talking about myself, because my intentions were
COCKY/BADBOY type shit..
so now, using my current cocky M.O., I've found congruence and girls appreciate it more..
you mistook the post.
>if you still want to continue
>faking and being someone
here's where you missed it.. that was the point.. it isn't faking.. faking was back when I tried to
come off like I was the genuine-rapport-guy, when that wasn't my nature.
being cocky is more congruent to my intentions.. not faking.
again, none of my post was any criticism of Juggler method (like I stated many times, cause I
knew the Juggler crew would jump all over it! :)... )
the criticism was that guys thought that it was more "genuine" to come off one way or another,
when your intentions are to ATTRACT, have sex, and move onto the next girl (aka, player
stereotype, which is what most of us are here for.. but still, dif people have different goals).. and
doing what elicits that response is what you're genuinely trying to do.
as I wrote: that's not to say that Juggler's rapport WON'T do this work.. its just to say that there is
MORE THAN ONE WAY.

-TD
Good post. Well thought out. But damn, they are certainly relaxing their
grammar standards up in Canada if you're a top student!
<TylerDurden> wrote in message
news:73880.11444@discussion.fastseduction.com...
> WHAT IS GENUINE? WHAT IS FAKE? WHAT ACTIONS ARE GENUINE ACTIONS? HOW
DOES
THIS
> EFFECT US? [affect us]
> aside also from the HB8 and HB8.5 that I am also seeing, all of who[m] are
really
> cool girls and [with] who[m] I am genuine with [] now, AFTER having gotten
with them - NOT
> BEFORE.

Just here to say I agree with BLscorpz and SexPDX.

mm
I got a little bit depressed when reading this post, TD. Especially the part about women only
wanting to talk about stuff that is boring to you, stuff that you find interesting only in respect to
weather talking about it will help you get laid or not.
But then I remembered its not always like this. I also remembered that discussing feelings with a
person I'm in love with is GREAT!
If you are a soldier storming the enemy lines, you would not like to discuss Pu-technique with the
soldier running next to you, not at that moment, even if you find the topic interesting.
Exactly the same is the reason why you and the girl don't want to discuss quantum physics at the
time when you are trying to figure if you love one another. (Don't tell me that you would be happy
if you were trying to PU a girl that you _really_ liked, and she suddenly started to talk about
Immanuel Kant's hypothetical perspective for metaphysics!)
Until the situation is mapped out - who loves who - alot of topics are IRRELEVANT and thus
totally un appropriate to discuss. Bringing them up is the same as rejecting the other person,
since it de-rails the PU process!
Thanks for another great post, TD! Your long posts always blow my mind!
On 4/11/03 4:56:00 AM, TylerDurden wrote:
>WHAT IS GENUINE? WHAT IS FAKE?
I think being genuine is very simple in theory: To act in accordance with your desires.

----------------Situational example: You see a girl you want to fuck. You notice a book under her arm about a
topic that you studied and found very interesting. You also remember the stupid line you opened
with the last time you got laid.
The genuine thing to do is to say the stupid line. If you start talking about the book she is carrying,
you are not following your desires, you are not being yourself, you are not being honest. Most girls
sense it when guys does this, and it comes off as spineless/non alpha.
hey bros..
I see the guys who took the Juggler workshop didn't really agree with some points (heh, I was
waiting for this!).. I think that you guys really took them out of context, so I'll clarify and you can
let me know..
1) My CONVEY HIGHER VALUE phase (first few minutes of initial PU) is the main place that
canned material is ever used. I've been saying rapport, rapport, rapport for ages now, but for
some reason people ignore this. It's in all my posts, but like I said, comes AFTER you've conveyed
higher value.

The Juggler method, which is keep opening up yourself to her until she reciprocates it is
UNNCESSARY for me, because if I get her attracted FAST then she'll be all into my shit, and it
doesn't matter.
2) I make up all my own routines from life experience, which btw IS Juggler method. I will post
what Juggler method IS above this thread, so you guys can discuss it. The only routines I've ever
posted that didn't come from life experience are cocky lines.
3) I pull mostly HB9s, and have so much opportunity to pull that I turn down many girls. None of
my results correlate to any short-comings in my game, since my results are excellent right now.
4) I have tried EVERY tactic in the game for at least 3 straight weeks. I have pulled using no
material whatsoever, and have pulled using GWM. I can pull using even SS.
Incidentally SexPDX, one thing that I really recommend is learning to pull using EVERY method,
because if you haven't pulled using it, then you can't understand it (since ALL methods will work
at least enough to pull once in a while).
So the C&F stuff, etc, can't really be understood until you've pulled with it at least once or twice,
because then you can accurately assess why it worked, and why it may not have been as good
without.
5) What I posted was that generating discussion that is designed to keep the girl's attention is the
SAME to me, no matter HOW I do it.
Why? Because no matter what I talk about, its designed to keep her attention and lead to fclose.
So I can talk about boring stuff that I don't like "I like pizza, I like kids" etc etc, or I can talk about
jerk stuff I did and tease. EITHER WAY I'm trying to force a frame that gets her attention, then
gets her in bed.
This issue of "be genuine" and all that is not something that affects my game, and I get better
results by going with the frames discussed in the original post.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback and generating discussion.
I'll post up the Juggler method above this thread, which we could discuss it up there if you want.

-TD
On 4/14/03 5:55:00 AM, TylerDurden wrote:
>1) My CONVEY HIGHER VALUE
>phase (first few minutes of
>initial PU) is the main place
>that canned material is ever
>used. I've been saying
>rapport, rapport, rapport for
>ages now, but for some reason
>people ignore this.
I haven't ignored it, I just haven't been replying.

>It's in
>all my posts, but like I said,
>comes AFTER you've conveyed
>higher value.
I don't believe conveying higher value is in conflict with building rapport. Making nothing but
statements early in the interaction, providing the majority of the value to the interaction in the
beginning and speaking from the heart while you are doing it DOES convey value and DOES build
rapport at the same time. I don't share your apparent belief in a distinct separation between what
is RAPPORT and what is VALUE.
>I make up all my own
>routines from life experience,
>which btw IS Juggler method.
I guess I wouldn't go so far as to say it is absolutely NOT Juggler method but it bear in mind the
ultimate goal of Juggler method is to rid yourself of all ATTATCHMENTS (ie. routines, canned
material) and to rely more and more on yourself until you rely COMPLETELY on yourself. Try
sharing your life experiences and observations of the world without having to make "routines" up
about it and you will be closer to what Juggler method is.
As I have discussed with you before, my view of canned material and these "routines" is different
than yours. Making up routines, openers or things to say and trying them out is fun and in my
experience it was good for starting out but I just don't see it as something to be WALLOWED IN, I
see it as something to move beyond.
>I pull mostly HB9s, and
>have so much opportunity to
>pull that I turn down many
>girls. None of my results
>correlate to any short-comings
>in my game, since my results
>are excellent right now.
Cool. Sounds like you have it figured out what works for you.
-PDX
On 4/14/03 6:52:00 AM, SexPDX wrote:
>Cool. Sounds like you have it figured
>out what works for you.
>
>-PDX
What's up PDX.. I just posted the Juggler method post, which I hope you'll discuss with me
because its something that I'm interested in.
I was just thinking more about this, and I think that it comes down to style.
There are many ways to attract.
Being a guy that girls can connect with is one way. (Juggler)
Being a cocky badboy type is another way. (TD)

Being a Don Juan romancer is another way. (SS)

Being larger than life centre of attention is another way. (MM)
Being a raw sexual being is another way. (GWM)
I've tried each of them, but since being a cocky-ass muthafucka is most congruent to MY
personality, it works for ME.
For guys reading, they should focus on what THEY identify with, and work on that.
I guess that my original post was about my own level of congruence. Also, focusing on projecting a
personality that would attract the attention that YOU WANT.
One thing that I DON'T like is that people will take ONE method, and not test ALL methods.
At the same time, I get annoyed when guys will feedback "this isn't how to pickup.. this isn't
genuine for me to use"
It's like 'ummm dude.. I just post how *I* do pickup because its ONE WAY.. I never said to COPY
ME'
Instead, when I read methods that conflict with how I pickup, I just go test them and try to
understand how/why they work.. Then I'll discard alot of it, and keep alot of it. Still, I'll
acknowledge that its good material, because it opened my mind up to different ideas.
So to me, I think that dudes shouldn't criticize something if its working, and people from the
board have seen it work (IOW, its not bullshitting). I'm NOT referring to you btw PDX..
I think that the SOLUTION is for people to reply by posting what works for THEM, and to let the
guys on the board decide for themselves what they want to IDENTIFY with..
Pick your own character.. Sort of like Street Fighter II.. or just try them all, and then design your
own.

-TD
This is a lot of text for a simple question TD ;)
What is genuine?
You don't do things to seek others approval.
You do things for your own right reasons.
Of course you want to take others wellbeing in consideration as well, or you're just being a
genuine asshole.
Do gimmicks to seek HB's approval - not genuine
Do gimmicks for fun - genuine
Talk about yourself to seek HB's approval - not genuine
Talk about yourself 'cause you enjoy expressing yourself that way - genuine

That is it.
Now lets go out and do it instead of always talking about it.
ZD
"I've cum to liberate all who have not been liberated."
Just checking in here ... ran a search to see what people are saying about my ideas. The things you
have quoted me on is not the sort of advice I would have put out onto this public forum with all
sorts of disfunctional whackos reading it. On the other hand, it is nice that you are breaking out of
a "square" view of sexuality.
The reason I jump in here and post is because I know that people do things just because I said it
was a good thing to do. Do not read the wrong things into what TD has said of my advice. Not
unless you are sexually hip. Like when you can watch 2 men kissing in a film without turning
away. When you are gentle and like women. When you can do all of the sexual role playing with a
smile and affection for the girl. Most of you reading this are not there, so dont even bother.
Nevertheless I will expand a little.
TD wrote:
> I recall having a convo with Toecutter about his friend who would walk up to women, and tell
them that he was rich and wanted to marry them.
>
> He would weave the story, work it, and sleep with them that night. Then he'd blow them off the
next day, leaving them heartbroken.
>
> Now my first reaction to this was to be appalled.
>
> I questioned my respect for Toecutter, and generally wondered what he could possibly be
thinking. How could he justify this sort of thing?
>
>He said that I was living in an AFC mindset, and that women LOVED "to have their hopes and
dreams shattered by scoundrels like Han Solo" and such, and that it was something that they
actually WANTED.
OK, this guy we are talking about that proposes to chicks is a good friend, and a truely excellent
PUA. Not in the walk-in-with-square-shoulders-on-a-mission kind, but rather he just surrounds
himself in women. He specialises in the waitresses from the hottest venues in town, as well as the
elite looking girls within those venues. TD, if you had met him you would understand. BL met
him, but unfortunately did not hear him recount stories of how he proposed to chicks. The stories
are halarious. He is a good story teller.
The guy IS a scoundrel. That is his style. He will blatently hit on a waitress in a playful way. Ask
them outright if they have a boyfriend while they are taking his order. Run cheeky and blatent
boyfriend destroyers on them (not as covert hypnosis, but as comedy). Ask them if they don't
think they need more of a James Bond type in their life [blatent and obvious self point and cheeky
grin]. They laugh, batter their eyelids and try to tell him they are taken, and it is all fun. All a
game. This is what one might call flirting. He is a good flirt. The girls love it.
The marry me thing crosses over into sexual fantasy, however. It is fantasy role play. I knew at the
time (when I explained it to you) you weren't hip to it (sexual fantasy role play). You seemed to
me to have a square madonna/whore view of sexuality. If you can get hip to sexual fantasy role
play, you will become a good PUA. You will have to change a fair bit of your persona to make it
congruent, but there perhaps is the key. It signals to the girls that you are good in bed. Simple as
that. And play games in the bedroom. And are fun. And are confident. In your-self. In your

sexuality. And don't take yourself too seriously. And are able to joke and "just pretend" in the way
children do so easily.
TD wrote:
>He suggested that I read NANCY FRIDAY "My Secret Garden", to read about women's rape
fantasies, and how repressive society has generated a common female fantasy for badboys who
will break down their socially-taught resistance, and treat them like the "dirty" girls that deep
down they know themselves to be.
Don't get me wrong. Those fantasies are not violent rape fantasies. They are fantasies about being
a 16th century dutch maid in a windmill in old Amsterdam and being taken from behind while she
scrubs the floor by her master for example (I think I just made that up). It is about taking away all
the heavy consequences from sex. Like all the risks; emotional, societial, physical risks that are so
overwhealming that if a girl considers it too long she will never fuck anyone. In many of the
fantasies she imagines herself a different person so that even in the fantasy she does not have to
take responsibility for why she would be doing this.
Womens fantasy novels are full of fortune hunters (tricking the lead female out of her knickers
and her fortune in a lavish ploy), pirates and others of that type. It is not that girls deep down are
"dirty girls" (the word itself holds large values judgements about how you view sex and women).
You know that some girls like to get drunk to absolve themselves of the responsibility for their
actions. And similarly that LMR is often a plea to have you take away her free will. Not using
physical strength (or at least not in anything more than a play-acting way). This is a subtle thing,
and you have to be extremely hip and cool to understand exactly what I mean here.
TD wrote:
> From reading the book, I interpreted it as saying that the guy tricking/forcing the girl into sex,
and leaving her was the girl's way of CONFIRMING that he was the kind of guy that she wants.
(sort of to say that the jerk/badboy/untamable behaviour was some sort of CERTIFICATION that
the girl has been fertalized by an alpha-seed, or something bizarre to that effect).
No you have misinterpreted what I meant. It is not some test they put you into because they are
"choosing" or "testing" or wanting to give you some sort of "certification", I am talking about
being the real deal where you choose her for an evening of pleasure. Being hip and playful and
understanding that right now in this given moment she NEEDS you to tell her that she has no
choice so that it makes it all okay for her to take the next step towards doing what she will soon be
doing because she has no choice. She is swept away in the moment and the situation. We need to
be very careful here though. The resistance needs to be nominal and tokinal. Not real resistance.
DO NOT READ ME IN THE WRONG WAY. THIS IS ROLE-PLAY, NOT RAPE. It is like when you
tie your girl-friends wrists and ankles to the bed in consentual sex and get together a "safe word"
to have you let her out if she ever becomes uncomfortable. Other than the safe word she can
scream "No", "Don't", "Stop", and it is just her getting into the scenario in her mind. It is
consentual. It is role play. Only in a PU the rules of engagement have not been made explicit like
with your girl-friend. This COULD actually be the real deal for her, and she COULD be acutally
living out her fantasy. On the other hand the guy might just be play-acting like her ex. The thrill of
not knowing but going ahead anyway makes it twice as good for her. You have to be extremely
sensitive to find rules of egagement without them being articulated (thus ruining the fantasy) that
both you and her are comfortable with. It is not for squares. You have to be hip to it before you
can understand it and live it. In other words, if you are not hip to it and have a square meat-andpotatoes view of sex, dont go near this because you will fuck it up, get yourself into serious trouble
and leave emotional scars both on you and an innocent girl.
TD wrote:
> Of course, I was skeptical, and even after reading Nancy Friday I still maintained the view that
these fantasies were anomolies, and that most women did not want this sort of thing.
These are not anomolies. This is the fantasy world of women. Buy one of those Harlequin

romance novels and read it. The novel is one long womens fantasy. There is nothing wrong with
sex. Women like it in that dream-like way of the novels. Not the hard focus gritty reality way of
mens porn films.
TD wrote:
> I would do things like tell women to close their eyes, and then kiss them. Tell them that I love
them within seconds of meeting, even though this is clearly a way to get into their pants.
This needs to be done in a cheeky way. Not for a guy who takes himself seriously. Comedy.
> I would even tell subtle stories about how I am currently planning to use women to get to all
their friends.
Don't like it. It comes off as machiavalian and conniving (is that how you spell it?).
TD wrote:
> It was difficult for me, because I've always been extremely conservative/rightwing/republican.
>
>I changed my image to include wild clothes that projected myself as a badboy sexual being. I
started wearing clothes of a female sex fantasy, such as racecar jackets, industrial plat boots,
bondage shit, spikey dyed hair, outrageous coolguy accessories, etc etc.
Yes, I can see that this would be difficult for you. It would require you relaxing. Walking, talking
and holding yourself with less excitability and tension (in your neck, shoulders, etc.). Just
unwinding and speaking slower. Listening better because you are comfortable in your skin (and
once you have listened you are still free to judge or say exactly what your think without fears
about "what she'll think of me", because you are cool and bad and she is a pretty but stupid little
girl). And then connecting on a relaxed, playful and non-judgemental level with the kinky little
freak that she has inside. And leading that little freak without giving her the yes/no choice at any
stage. This is more complex than buying some accesories like a racecar jacket. It would be great to
see you pulling this off, I am sure with some effort you will do well.
> I began PROJECTING that I was a SCOUNDREL JERK who would intentionally and openly
USE and ABUSE of women. I projected "TD is a jerk, who MAKES NO EXCUSES for it.. Like a
rockstar, he fucks his groupies, and sends them home happy that they could get even that".
OK this is good.
> Toecutter explained that women WILLFULLY IGNORE the truth, in order to preserve the
feelings that they are deriving from the massive drama that you provide.
Not just women, we all do it. We all have our rose coloured glasses. But you have summed this up
very elequently so I will leave it there, I have things to do.
> within those venues. TD, if you had met him you would understand. BL met
him,
> but unfortunately did not hear him recount stories of how he proposed to
> chicks. The stories are halarious. He is a good story teller.
hm? I don't recall meeting this guy. but anyway, liked the post... thanks
for dropping in :)
BL
Your friend's style sounds very much like Zan's style. Maybe you can invite your friend to make a
post on ASF. I'm sure everyone here would love to hear from a pickup master.

toecutter wrote:
>The guy IS a scoundrel. That
>is his style. He will
>blatently hit on a waitress in
>a playful way. Ask them
>outright if they have a
>boyfriend while they are
>taking his order. Run cheeky
>and blatent boyfriend
>destroyers on them (not as
>covert hypnosis, but as
>comedy). Ask them if they
>don't think they need more of
>a James Bond type in their
>life [blatent and obvious self
>point and cheeky grin]. They
>laugh, batter their eyelids
>and try to tell him they are
>taken, and it is all fun. All
>a game. This is what one might
>call flirting. He is a good
>flirt. The girls love it.
>
yeah thanks for all those insights TC.. upped my game bigtime..

-TD
> I stopped getting them to tell me stories
> about adventures, and instead would
> just pause, and wait for them to give me
> the REAL DIRT.
>
> Around 90% of women would start telling
> me about how they love to suck dick and
> take it on the face.
Could you clarify how you get women to admit this? Thanks.
On 4/11/03 4:56:00 AM, TylerDurden wrote:
>OK Breakbeat, did it up nice
>for you. Even took a few more
>minutes than Id planned (1
>hour and 15 instead of just an
>hour) since I was enjoying
>writing it. Go nuts, and
>dont comment until youve
>read it entirely and thought
>it over. Its always easier
>to CRITICIZE a statement than
>it is to make one of your own,
>so your task shouldn't be
>difficult. Reply
>intelligently.

Wait a minute now! I PUT a lot of thought into my criticism. :)

>
>-TD
>
>-->
>
>The latest discussions about
>genuine behaviour have just
>gotten me thinking about
>something that hasn't really
>been cashed out on this board
>lately.
>
>WHAT IS GENUINE? WHAT IS FAKE?
>WHAT ACTIONS ARE GENUINE
>ACTIONS? HOW DOES THIS EFFECT
>US? WHAT PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES
>ARISE FROM THIS? WHAT
>CONSTITUTES MUTUAL BENEFIT IN
>PICKUP?
>
>A very important topic.
>
>Try to bear with me, chunks
>practical and tactical
>materials ARE buried within..
>
>------>
>In my experience, if I ask a
>girl what sort of way she
>feels a guy should go about
>picking her up, she'll often
>reply with something to the
>effect of:
>
>"Well.. He should come and say
>'Hi'. Then he should just be
>himself.. He should be
>confident.. Introduce
>himself.. Maybe have a sense
>of humour.. Talk to me a bit
>so that we can get to know
>eachother.. And ask me if I'll
>go somewhere nice with him..
>Oh yeah, also I like it if
>he'll just give me his number,
>just in case, you know.."
>
>This way, she can screen him
>on looks, and proceed to make
>a rational decision on her
>terms.

You said a mouth full right there "Her Terms".

>It would be uncommon to hear a
>girl say, "I want a guy who
>will dupe me into a
>conversation with a chick-bait
>opener, tease me until I
>almost lose my mind, weave
>back and forth with stories
>that make me go crazy, spin me
>around and trick me into
>kissing him with my eyes
>closed, tell me cute things
>about himself so I'll go ga-ga
>for him, and make fake
>pre-suppositions to be alone
>with him so he can caveman
>me."
>
>Nor would she likely say "I
>want a guy to hypnotize me
>with
>neuro-linguistic-programming."
>
>Nor would she likely say "I
>want a guy who will ignore me
>and blast me off my pedastal
>by only talking to my friends,
>so that I'll re-validate
>myself by sleeping with him."
>
>Of course, these last three
>work consistently on women of
>exceptional beauty, and the
>first one doesn't (again,
>CONSISTENTLY).
Most guys over look little details like that.
>I draw this conclusion based
>on experience. My first 8
>months in the game, I only had
>a book called "10 Secrets for
>Success with Beautiful Women"
>by a woman named Ursula
>Lidstrom.
>
>She advocated the sort of
>approach that most women would
>want, and claimed her
>expertise as exceptional
>because she is a woman
>offering "inside info".

>
>Her system was to be yourself,
>confident, and genuine. Also,
>to demonstrate alpha status
>through good bodylanguage and
>being well dressed. After
>hundreds of approaches, I got
>this down pat.
>
>I did at least 5 approaches a
>day (though usually more),
>just being myself, confident,
>and getting to know girls in a
>way that was very cool and
>genuine - all as Ursula
>Lidstrom suggested. Read the
>book probably 10-15 times.
>(sidenote: EXCELLENT info on
>bodylanguage and GWM-style
>phase shifting can be found in
>this book, if you screen the
>rest).
>
>Unfortunately, for those eight
>months I did not have sex even
>ONCE. I am not good looking,
>and could have had sex with
>HB7s, but that did/does not
>interest me. I was entirely
>celibate those eight months. I
>made many non-sexual
>friendships with girls, who
>still to this day social-proof
>me on campus.
Those things are good traits to have, but they only get you in front of her.
O.K. I'm listening, please continue.
>But whenever I'd try to
>escalate, they'd react with
>"You're a really great guy.
>I'm just not looking for
>someone right now. You're
>really confident, you'll find
>someone."
>
>Bear in mind though also, that
>I am not goodlooking. This
>probably could have worked for
>guys who could convey higher
>value via their looks. People
>DO hookup.

Don't you just love shallow chicks?

>Also note that in general, YES
>you CAN pickup a girl within
>around 1 look-point difference
>of you, if you use the method
>that girls want. So if you're
>a 7 yourself, you can
>occasionally pickup 6s, 7s,
>and SOMETIMES 8s using this
>method. Even higher, but
>that's a more rare exception.
>
>The reason being, that being
>confident and genuine IS NOT
>THAT UNCOMMON, and *unless*
>the girl doesn't have many
>genuine people in her life, it
>doesn't CONVEY HIGHER VALUE.
Hey, theirs that word again "HIGHER VALUE", hmmmmmmm.
>I have MANY genuinely
>confident people in my life,
>and while pleasant it is not a
>big deal to me. Girls are no
>different.
>
>Genuine and confident people
>are EVERYWHERE. There is
>little correlation between
>these traits, and an
>exceptionally drop dead
>gorgeous woman being attracted
>to a mediocre looking guy.
>
>The ONLY way that you can
>convey HIGHER value, by using
>this method, is if you have a
>RARE connection with the girl.
>This does happen, though it
>cannot be called a consistent
>pickup method, since it relies
>on external factors (ie: that
>you actually have a similar
>world view, or something
>similar, etc etc).
Wait just a cotton pickin minute now! Have you ever heard of SS?!? You know, that magical PU
method that creates a feeling of RARE connection with a girl right out of thin air, by simply
Eliciting her Values, and feeding them back to her in the form of a pattern??????????

>This is FAST-Seduction, which

>discusses how to be a PLAYER.
>If you want to read about
>spirituality, I highly
>recommend that. I've studied
>buddhism and volumes of
>spiritual writings, as well as
>all of Western philosophy >but not on THIS forum. Still,
>strong inner-peace leads to
>strong inner-game, and its
>beneficial.
>
>Health, wealth, relationships
>-> go to the gym, eat right,
>find work you love, read
>important literature, surround
>yourself with people you love.
>ALL IMPORTANT to feeling good
>about yourself, which is
>important to pickup in ways
>that cannot even be adaquetely
>described through this limited
>cyber-medium.
>
>But yet, even HAVING those
>things, will you be a
>*PLAYER*? I know MANY people
>who have reached this level of
>enlightenment who are not.
>
>At the time that I was
>focusing on being genuine and
>building rapport, I was very
>much emotionally whole. I
>had everything going well for
>me in my life, and I was a
>genuinely happy person. I had
>goodwill towards everyone
>around me, and projected a
>positive vibe. This was
>great, but did not result in
>success with any exceptionally
>beautiful women.
>
>Anyway, that was MY EXPERIENCE
>after eight long months of
>field-testing this way of
>doing things. It's just the
>experience of ONE GUY, so take
>it for what its worth.
>
>----->
>SO, WHAT DO WOMEN WANT?
>

>I recall having a convo with

>Toecutter about his friend who
>would walk up to women, and
>tell them that he was rich and
>wanted to marry them.
>
>He would weave the story, work
>it, and sleep with them that
>night. Then he'd blow them off
>the next day, leaving them
>heartbroken.
>
>Now my first reaction to this
>was to be appalled.
>
>I questioned my respect for
>Toecutter, and generally
>wondered what he could
>possibly be thinking. How
>could he justify this sort of
>thing?
>
>He said that I was living in
>an AFC mindset, and that women
>LOVED "to have their hopes and
>dreams shattered by scoundrels
>like Han Solo" and such, and
>that it was something that
>they actually WANTED.
>
>He suggested that I read NANCY
>FRIDAY "My Secret Garden", to
>read about women's rape
>fantasies, and how repressive
>society has generated a common
>female fantasy for badboys who
>will break down their
>socially-taught resistance,
>and treat them like the
>"dirty" girls that deep down
>they know themselves to be.
>
>From reading the book, I
>interpreted it as saying that
>the guy tricking/forcing the
>girl into sex, and leaving her
>was the girl's way of
>CONFIRMING that he was the
>kind of guy that she wants.
>(sort of to say that the
>jerk/badboy/untamable
>behaviour was some sort of
>CERTIFICATION that the girl
>has been fertalized by an
>alpha-seed, or something
>bizarre to that effect).
>

>Very weird, and disturbing. I

>did NOT like reading this, nor
>do I necessarily like it now.
I've seen women who would only have sex with guys who would take it from them. The first time I
saw it HAPPEN it turned my stomach, then the chick walked away with a smile on her face, which
turned my stomach even more.
>Basically, I interpreted that
>girls like DRAMA of ANY kind.
>They want INTENSE emotional
>drama. As Alphahot mentioned
>in a post a few threads below
>this one, they gravitate
>towards sources of extreme
>emotions. Scoundrels who use
>them and thus give them drama.
>And they gravitate towards it.
>
>Of course, I was skeptical,
>and even after reading Nancy
>Friday I still maintained the
>view that these fantasies were
>anomolies, and that most women
>did not want this sort of
>thing.
>
>Eddy also read this book, and
>shared my opinion. Be both
>generally hated it, and I
>recall Eddy throwing the book
>across the room several times.
>
>Other PUAs who visit us
>comment on how scuffed up the
>book is, as Eddy has thrown it
>literally on almost every
>occassion he's read it,
>screaming "that could be my
>own mom!!! that could be my
>own mooooommmmmm!!!!
>ARGHHHHHH!!!"
>
>---->
>FIELD TESTING NANCY FRIDAY:
>
>In California, I talked to
>Craig from the archives. He
>talked about Rick H, and how
>Rick would talk about women
>being adaptable.
>
>"Women are adaptable..
>whatever frame you set,

>they'll adapt to.. if you set

>a frame of provider candidate,
>they'll adopt a screen frame..
>if you set a frame of them
>being screened for dirty
>slutty lesbian sex, they'll
>turn into sluts"
Yes. Women are like metamorphic leaches, they'll attach themselves to any man that cranks their
emotions and become like him.
>Coming from Rick H, I couldn't
>downplay this, and decided to
>explore it more. Particularly
>after the
>Toecutter/NancyFriday stuff
>seemed to gel with this.
>
>From this I spawned the idea
>for JERK ROUTINES, where I
>would INTENTIONALLY convey
>that I like to use and abuse
>women, right from the start of
>the pickup. The frame would
>be set.
I started doing Jerk Routines in a similar manner, with the exception that I would only create an
arguement, they would try to argue with me everytime they saw me, it was only worth my wild
when I made it sexual.
>I set to the task of field
>testing it, which I did
>non-stop for six straight
>weeks before posting something
>potentially misleading.
>
>First,
>
>I would do things like tell
>women to close their eyes, and
>then kiss them. Tell them that
>I love them within seconds of
>meeting, even though this is
>clearly a way to get into
>their pants. I would even tell
>subtle stories about how I am
>currently planning to use
>women to get to all their
>friends.
>
>Then,
>
>I adopted the SWINGCAT STYLE

>QUALIFYING. "Are you

>adventurous? Cause if you're
>not adventurous, I can't hang
>with you."
>
>Up until the Nancy Friday
>test, I would get them to tell
>adventurous stories, like
>extreme sports or travelling
>or something.
>
>But then I REALIZED the TRUE
>use in the Swingcat
>adventurous qualifying.
>
>"Adventurous" was to be a
>EUPHIMISM for SLUTTY.
>
>I stopped getting them to tell
>me stories about adventures,
>and instead would just pause,
>and wait for them to give me
>the REAL DIRT.
>
>Around 90% of women would
>start telling me about how
>they love to suck dick and
>take it on the face. How they
>dream about getting gang-raped
>and fucked by strange men and
>hot guys from clubs.
>
>LITERALLY, I would sit there
>PRETENDING like I thought this
>was just great. Making myself
>out to be NON-JUDGEMENTAL, and
>even ENCOURAGING. But really,
>inside, I was thinking "shit I
>dunno if I can stomach this.."
>I was still in an AFC mindset.
>I thought that this was just a
>series of strange
>coincidences, and that these
>girls couldn't represent the
>majority.
>
>I was forced to RE-ASSESS my
>VALUE SYSTEM for making
>judgements on what constituted
>a nice-girl, since clearly ALL
>girls had a "slut" side to
>them.
>
>----->
>SIDENOTE:
>

>This was similar to my

>experience when I first tested
>routines based on spells and
>the unknown. I'd always
>thought that most girls didn't
>believe in psychics and ESP,
>until I began making it sound
>like *I* did, and that I would
>not JUDGE them on it. I found
>out that most girls DID
>believe in ESP, and that those
>few who didn't could be
>convinced otherwise with even
>the most simplistic mentalist
>illusion.
>
>----->
>So much like the
>non-judgemental frame that use
>with the ESP stuff, I'd appear
>NON-JUDGEMENTAL for their
>"slutty" desires.
That's something I have to work on.
>-->
>THE NEW TD:
>
>It was difficult for me,
>because I've always been
>extremely
>conservative/rightwing/republi
>can.
>
>I changed my image to include
>wild clothes that projected
>myself as a badboy sexual
>being. I started wearing
>clothes of a female sex
>fantasy, such as racecar
>jackets, industrial plat
>boots, bondage shit, spikey
>dyed hair, outrageous coolguy
>accessories, etc etc.
>
>Initially, this was hard for
>me to stomach. I felt very
>incongruent for the first week
>or two.
>
>I began PROJECTING that I was
>a SCOUNDREL JERK who would
>intentionally and openly USE

>and ABUSE of women. I

>projected "TD is a jerk, who
>MAKES NO EXCUSES for it.. Like
>a rockstar, he fucks his
>groupies, and sends them home
>happy that they could get even
>that".
>
>It's funny, because this isn't
>the case - I didnt feel that
>way. But in the past,
>projecting the CONSERVATIVE
>REAL ME wasn't eliciting any
>SEXUAL reaction from women.
>
>I decided that IF I CONTINUED
>DOING WHAT I HAD ALWAYS DONE,
>I'D CONTINUE TO GET THE
>RESULTS THAT I'D ALWAYS
>GOTTEN. (this isn't my
>catchphrase.. maybe Tony
>Robbins, I dunno.. Mys uses it
>all the time).
>
>I know that CLOUD9 also has
>had inner-conflicts with this.
>For me, one of top students in
>my country, its been difficult
>to DEGENERATE my speaking
>manneurisms to a more
>colloquial level.. "like, you
>know, totally, like, cool..."
>But unfortunately, my
>"Queens-talk" (as everyone
>used to describe my articulate
>speaking manneurisms) wasn't
>eliciting strong sexual
>responses from the sexy girls
>that I was interested in.
>They wanted to validate
>themselves with me, sure. But
>what they wanted to validate
>was that they could be as
>sophisticated as me. IOW,
>that they're smart, and that
>they're ladies.
>
>So go ahead and bust on me for
>being incongruent and not real
>to myself or something like
>that. But at the end of the
>day my girlfriend is an
>HB10... aside also from the
>HB8 and HB8.5 that I am also
>seeing, all of who are really
>cool girls and who I am
>genuine with now, AFTER having

>gotten with them - NOT BEFORE.

>
>
>WOMEN'S REACTIONS:
>
>Now, when I walk into a room
>on campus, women start
>giggling and checking me out.
>They touch me, shit test me
>immediately to see if I really
>AM what I project, and show
>massive physical IOIs (face
>me, lean in, perk up their
>breasts, lick their lips, big
>eyes, etc etc etc).
>
>I do NOTHING other than just
>walk into the room, and convey
>the attitude that's discussed
>in this post.
>
>"I will fuck you the second
>you let your guard down,
>because I am a badboy and
>that's just me" is the image
>that I convey, and women
>respond instantly.
>
>Of course, MOST women will be
>initially ATTRACTED, but still
>won't sleep with me from that
>feeling alone. They cant
>quite justify their desire,
>because of
>social-conditioning.
>
>So the SOLUTION: Show that
>they have a CHANCE to tame
>you, and that you have a
>sensitive inside somewhere
>deep down.. -> GET RAPPORT.
>
>This leads me to the all
>important .........
>
>-->
>WILLFUL COGNITIVE DISSONANCE:
>
>Going back to the TOECUTTER
>"marry-me" routine, what have
>I learned?
>
>Toecutter explained that women
>WILLFULLY IGNORE the truth, in
>order to preserve the feelings
>that they are deriving from

>the massive drama that you

>provide.
>
>This is also from MANIAC_HIGH,
>so if you disagree then maybe
>check out the new maniac plan
>for more detailed explication.
>
>Anyway, Toecutter states that
>the girls who were "duped" by
>the marriage trick were in
>fact WELL-AWARE that it was
>clearly bullshit, but that
>they WANTED to go along with
>it, so that they could
>experience the ADVENTURE.
>
>The same goes for Mystery's
>girlfriend of 5 years, who
>STILL BELIEVES that he
>genuinely has MAGIC POWER,
>including an ability to
>levitate himself from the
>ground, move objects with his
>mind, and read thoughts
>telepathically.
>
>Of course, having been with
>him for 5 years, there is
>ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that she
>wouldn't have figured out how
>he does his illusions. Despite
>his sharp skills, many
>illusions I figured out after
>hanging with him for just a
>month. He may have done it
>over 300 times before I
>figured it out, but EVENTUALLY
>I DID figure it out.
>
>This girl is with him FIVE
>YEARS and CHOOSES TO BELIEVE
>THAT THE WORLD IS NOT MUNDANE.
>There is NO WAY she wouldn't
>have caught the illusion at
>least ONE TIME in FIVE YEARS.
>
>She WILLFULLY DECEIVES HERSELF
>to believe what she wants,
>because she likes the DRAMA
>and ADVENTURE.
>
>Same goes with Mystery's other
>long term girlfriends, who
>KNOW, read *KNOW*, that he is
>constantly with other women.
>

>Why does Mystery have condoms

>all over his room? hmmmmmm...
>Could he really go months
>without sex while he
>travels??? hmmmmm.... What
>does it mean when girls call
>him non-stop while they're in
>bed together??? hmmmmm... He
>walks into the club and girls
>SWARM him... hmmmmmm.. He
>picked her up and fucked her
>first night they met...
>hmmmm....
>
>But still they CHOOSE to
>IGNORE it, because he provides
>the drama that they want.
>
>And as a BONUS, they get to go
>home and spend time convincing
>their parents and friends how
>great Mystery is, which gives
>them even MORE drama.
>
>Likewise, in my small
>community, I go pickup girls.
>They go back to their
>roomates, who inevitably on
>some occassions will have been
>picked up by me a month
>earlier. But does that REPEL
>them from me, like our LOGICAL
>AFC-INDOCTRINATED brains would
>have so long expected? NOPE.
>It just gives them MORE DRAMA
>and sucks them in even deeper.
>
>This was even the case when
>theyve heard that I used the
>SAME OPENERS and ROUTINES.
>Strange, huh? Youd think
>that it would break their
>interest. But not the case.
>Why not? Could it be that
>finding out that I am a
>womanizing-jerk was
>congruent with what I
>projected during the pickup?
>
>----->
>SOME CONCLUSIONS - A
>RE-ASSESSMENT OF WHAT
>CONSTITUTES A WOMAN'S VALUE:
>
>So that's it. I get it now.
>Women aren't like what I

>thought. Or rather, at least

>when it comes to SEX.
>
>The girls that I thought were
>'nice' have revealed that
>they've been fucked by
>anonymous guys, loved it, and
>want it again.
>
>The girls that I thought were
>LOYAL to their boyfriends have
>called them from my bed,
>GUILT-FREE, lying about where
>they were last night like it
>was NOTHING.
>
>I've found that girls break
>guys into categories of
>SEDUCERS and EMOTIONAL
>SUPPORTERS, and that if I
>don't want my girl to cheat on
>me, she's gonna have to get
>her drama from ME, and not
>from some asshole player.
>
>So if that is the case then,
>what kind of girl do I look
>for when I'm ready to have
>children or get married?
>
>-->
>IN LIGHT OF THIS KNOWLEDGE,
>WHAT CONSTITUTES A GOOD
>WOMAN???
>
>I am still deciding on this,
>and really I have only limited
>insights.
>
>But for me, at this time, I
>use NON-AFC-CULTURE based
>value judgements.
>
>I look at the kind of
>connection that I have with
>her, and the way that we get
>along AFTER we've "hooked-up".
>
>Because, like Mystery, I agree
>that only AFTER you hookup do
>you start communicating
>GENUINELY.
>
>The FIRST genuine conversation
>happens in bed together, AFTER
>THE GAME IS OVER, and you find

>out whether or not this was

>just a validation-game, or if
>its an emotional connection.
>
>And do *I* necessarily want
>the games? Nope.
>
>I remember when I first did
>clubs, and I'd tease a high
>calibre HB. Say a 9 or 10. And
>she'd touch me, and say that
>she liked me. But as soon as
>I'd RECIPROCATE that, she'd
>LOSE INTEREST. It was a SHIT
>TEST, NOT genuine
>communication. Or was it?
>Was it genuinely communicating
>that she wanted to see if I
>was really the jerk she wanted
>me to be, and that she had to
>test me to find out?
>
>Do shit tests constitute
>genuine communication? The
>girl is tricking you, to find
>your true nature. But then,
>if you pass, you genuinely
>will hookup with her. So is
>the girl genuine, or not? Not
>necessarily an easy question
>to answer.
>
>YES, I have MANY genuine
>emotional connections with
>girls. My sister, her friends,
>my pivots, my relatives, my
>teachers. The girls that I am
>ALREADY with my 3 MLTRS.
>
>But NOT with girls that I am
>in the MIDST of picking up,
>because it is still *GAME-ON*.
>
>Afterwards, once I have PROVEN
>myself to be the kind of man
>that she wants, I can get to
>know her on a more personal
>and genuine level. Until
>then, it is about SEXUAL
>ATTRACTION, which is NOT
>necessarily related to genuine
>communication. It CAN be, but
>it isnt necessarily the case.
>
>And why? Because there are
>several types of attraction,
>and while we may make socially

>based value judgements on

>which are more legitimate, the
>fact remains that they EXIST.
>
>And of course, if genuine
>communication in the
>TRADITIONAL SENSE was the
>BASIS of ATTRACTION, then I
>suppose Id probably be hooked
>up with the very fat and ugly
>girl from my history class,
>with whom I had a great
>conversation with last fall.
>
>But then, the attractive girls
>I bed will most often
>BACKWARDS RATIONALIZE whatever
>nice things she finds out
>about me, and probably decide
>that THOSE things were CLEARLY
>what allowed her to be seduced
>by me. Of course thats all
>after the fact.
>Contingencies.
>
>This is how the game is played
>bros, at least in my personal
>opinion. Just the opinion of a
>new PUA, trying to make sense
>of all of this. Some of it is
>probably dead-on, and some of
>its probably inaccurate. Take
>it for what its worth.
>
>
>-->
>
>WHAT *IS* GENUINE?
>
>So if people play these games,
>what constitutes genuine?
>
>What *is* genuine? If I were
>to be TRULY genuine with what
>*I* wanted to talk to girls
>about, I'd discuss logic and
>other esoteric philosophical
>issues. Id discuss cars, and
>mechanics, and sports, and
>wars, and taking extreme risks
>and my criminal youth. I'd
>discuss how I'm right-wing and
>how I believe in certain
>repressive traditional values.
>I'd discuss John Rawls vs.
>Robert Nozick.. I'd discuss

>Heideger and Nietzche and

>Sartre, and subjective
>morality in a world without
>dogmatic value sources. Id
>discuss Kripke and causal
>theory. Id discuss flaws in
>symbolic notation. This stuff
>FASCINATES me.
>
>I don't LIKE talking about
>social dynamics and feelings.
>It BORES me. *Most* things
>that *most* girls like to talk
>about are of NO INTEREST to
>me.
>
>I DO NOT ENJOY running
>JUGGLER's rapport routines
>like "I really like pizza" and
>"this is what my own palm says
>about me" and what would your
>life be rated if it was a
>movie?, and making those kind
>of self-revealing statements.
>Nor would I like them any
>better had I invented them.
>
>Or rather, I LIKE running
>them, for the purpose of
>PICKING UP. But I dont run
>them for the SOLE SAKE of
>running them.
>
>I will USE this stuff, but I
>don't LIKE it anymore than ANY
>OTHER stuff that I use. NONE
>of it is the REAL ME in the
>TRADITIONAL SENSE, so both MM
>and Juggler method are EQUAL
>in my mind.
>
>I AM NOT stating that they
>don't work, or that Juggler's
>method isn't GREAT.
>Juggler-method WORKS - its
>GREAT.
>
>But I *AM* stating that it is
>NO MORE GENUINE for me to
>PRETEND that I am enjoying
>talking about real genuine
>feelings in a Juggler-style
>that I really don't care to
>talk about, than it is for me
>to run the routines that I do
>most of the time now.
>

>Either way, I'm FAKING

>SOMETHING. As are MOST
>sensitive new aged guys who
>will talk about this sappy
>crap, in the subconscious hope
>that it will gain attention
>from women.
>
>Picking up by talking about
>real stuff that I feel, but DO
>NOT want to be talking about,
>is of no greater value to me
>than telling stories that I
>read from the internet. Im
>still being ungenuine, in a
>SENSE, because my motivations
>extend BEYOND the expression
>itself.
>
>Again, this is NO CRITICISM OF
>JUGGLER. His stuff ROCKS. My
>sole statement though is that
>it is NO MORE OR LESS GENUINE
>for me to run one pickup
>style, or another. They are
>all equal in that respect.
>
>So what if I just talked about
>things I *AM* interested in
>talking about. The esoteric
>technical stuff. Well if I
>talk about these things girls
>will leave. They'll either
>argue, get bored, or flat walk
>away. They won't be
>interested, and they'll
>anchour feelings of boredom to
>me. I've TESTED this.
>
>Why? Basic supply and demand.
>There are many genuine and
>confident people out there,
>and some give them better
>emotions than others. So I
>set the bait with the stuff
>that theyll react to
>sexually. Of course you could
>cry supplication!, but then
>really we all supplicate
>ourselves in one way or
>another. The trapper
>supplicates by laying bait,
>but then he reaps the rewards
>later. Putting in work to get
>a result is not supplication.
>
>And lets say that being

>myself DID find me that ONE

>special girl.. I STILL
>wouldn't care, because I'm not
>INTERESTED in that kind of
>relationship in my early
>twenties anyway.
>
>SO:
>
>Is REFUSING to play games
>genuine?
>
>If that's the case, then WHY
>have I SO RARELY had a girl
>angry or upset with me?
>
>I mean, even after NUMEROUS
>relationships, have I had less
>problems than my average AFC
>friend with just a handful.
>
>Many people probably QUESTION
>why I would pawn off 2 HB7s to
>pickup a HB9 or 10. Rightly
>so. But what they don't
>realize from behind their
>remote computer screens is
>that so long as you ACTIONS
>ARE CONGRUENT TO YOUR BADBOY
>FRAME, girls will EXPECT this
>behaviour, and NEVER be
>surprised when it happens.
>It's part of who you are, and
>they're SMART enough to know
>its coming.
>
>Even with the bit of rapport
>that they NEED to justify
>their embarkment on your
>adventure, they still KNOW
>what is coming, and ACCEPT IT.
>
>I'll have girls that I never
>called back, or pawned off for
>hotter girls, ALWAYS coming
>over to chat me and catch up.
>They're never upset. Always
>very happy to see me again.
>
>In my opinion, there is a
>clear cut reason -> While my
>sexual persona may not be as
>congruent with my real
>personality as I'd like, my
>*ACTIONS* are CONGRUENT with
>what I *PROJECT*.
>

>Since the girls I associate

>with KNOW and EXPECT that its
>going to be a short-lived
>ADVENTURE (given that I've
>made it fully obvious from the
>start), they NEVER get
>genuinely upset when it ends.
>Sure, they may pout briefly,
>but then they're off to the
>NEXT STIMULUS - be it the next
>socially-proofed jerk, or
>dancing, or drinks.
>
>On the other hand, back when I
>used to be the LOYAL-AFC, when
>I'd dump the few girls I got
>they'd get VERY UPSET.
>
>Which makes me think: Is it
>more genuine to build
>connections where you project
>that you are a more quiet
>one-girl type, when that is
>not you (even if you state
>polyamory, you still come-off
>that way). Or is it more
>genuine to be a jerk up front,
>and allow the chick to FREELY
>CHOOSE to go along for the
>short-adventure or not.
>
>I guess we have to come to our
>own answers, and find our own
>subjective value systems.
>That's life. I don't judge.
>Call it aggrandized
>self-rationalization, but this
>is just the way that I make
>sense of the world that I've
>been thrown into, given my
>life experiences and how I've
>assimilated them.
>
>The interactions with the
>women in my life ARE genuine,
>but during the initial phases
>of our relationship - the
>period where the FRAME is
>BARGAINED for and ESTABLISHED
>- I strive to convey that
>there are only CERTAIN
>parameters that I am
>comfortable with.
>
>And making it obvious that I
>am only a short-lived
>adventure for them, through

>the jerk-way that I present

>myself, is the way that I go
>about doing it. Once the pact
>is made (sex), I'm comfortable
>to be fully myself. Discuss
>what I want, etc etc.. And the
>girls are ALWAYS happy to
>discuss stuff that is
>important to me AFTER we've
>had sex, because she's made
>that investment in me, and NOW
>FINALLY wants to know more
>about who I am. I fully
>believe that as a
>sexual-partner-candidate, you
>are NOTHING to a girl before
>you've had sex.
>
>Or rather, you may be a
>friend. But that entitles you
>to nothing sexually. Nor
>should it.
>
>->
>BECOMING CONGRUENT:
>
>
>When taking a job-interview,
>youll present yourself in a
>particular way. During a
>family gathering, it may be
>another way. And with your
>friends, it may be another
>way.
>
>Everyone has different SIDES
>to their personality, and each
>judges when it is APPROPRIATE
>to exhibit a particular side.
>
>Why not just be yourself at
>ALL times? Because EACH of
>these sides ARE the real
>you, just different aspects.
>
>Acting the SAME in ALL
>situations is INCONSIDERATE to
>the people around you. If you
>horse around at a job
>interview, you show lack of
>respect for the interviewers
>experience. If you act overly
>sophisticated with your
>friends, you show lack of
>respect for the bond that you
>have with them, and the

>clowning-around that goes

>along with it.
>
>And as with the boss at the
>job interview, you hope to
>eventually get to know your
>girl on a more genuine
>level, when the time is
>APPROPRIATE.
>
>When INITIALLY PICKING UP A
>GIRL, showing the side of
>yourself that ELICITS SEXUAL
>REACTION is MOST APPROPRIATE,
>because you are not putting
>the girl in a position where
>she has to snub you based on
>sexual indifference to your
>approach. You dont like it
>that most girls like to party?
>TO BAD. Dont post about it
>on the PLAYER board.
>
>Being unsexual during pickup
>can be UNAPPROPRIATE.
>
>The girls that I pickup
>CLEARLY KNOW that I am someone
>who is TOYING with them, that
>it gives them drama that they
>like, and that our
>relationship will likely be
>short-lived. It is OBVIOUS,
>because at this point I am
>THAT GOOD.
>
>Women are no more in the dark
>about my nature than men are
>about women with fake breasts.
>They KNOW whats up, but they
>DONT CARE.
>
>And REALLY, these had been my
>intentions ALL ALONG. I am
>young, want to PARTY, and am
>not interested in actively
>seeking anything beyond a
>sexual connection at this
>point. Should it happen
>GREAT. But Im not SEEKING
>it. So why did I try to gain
>sexually via rapport and
>connections in the past?
>Solely for PRAGMATIC reasons.
>I thought that it would WORK.
>
>So was I really congruent

>before? NO. I was just

>CONFORMING, and hadnt the
>NERVE to show my intentions.
>
>Also, I didnt REALIZE that my
>intentions WERE NOT EVIL.
>Women APPRECIATE these kinds
>of guys, and you BENEFIT when
>you openly demonstrate that
>you are that guy making no
>excuses for it.
>
>While AT FIRST I felt
>INCONGRUENT, I later realized
>that in fact I HAD BECOME
>congruent.
>
>I began PROJECTING the sort of
>image that was congruent with
>my INTENTIONS, and girls were
>reacting better, and never
>showing unpleasant surprises
>as in they had in the past.
>
Something that I've noticed in all people, including myself, is the fact that when expectations
don't match what's happening we get frustrated by it.
Some will simpley get confused, while others will get anoyed, some will get angry, and their are
those who will become amused at it, but the thing is; It's nearly always an emotional reaction of
some sort or another.
>My act of pre-planning and
>studying lines and tactics to
>project my badboy image IS
>CONGRUENT with who I am,
>because who I am is someone
>whose intentions are to
>interact with women in this
>way.
>
>They enjoy it. I enjoy it.
>
>They benefit. I benefit. We
>MUTUALLY benefit.
>
>I am now congruent. I feel
>good for it.
>
>If you want to judge it, go
>ahead. Just dont claim that
>your philosophy has any
>superiority over any other
>subjective value-judgement,
>because it is just that. A
>subjective value judgement.
>

>->
>CONCLUSION:
>
>So there you have it. Many
>chicks dig jerk-asshole types.
>Who ever said that the
>community never makes new
>discoveries anyway?
>hmmmmm....
>
>And what is genuine? What is
>truth? Those questions are to
>be pondered over a lifetime,
>and they are part of what
>makes the human experience
>dynamic.
>
>But if I can draw one solid
>conclusion, its that claiming
>absolute knowledge of such
>questions is self-indulgent.
>And in the opinion of this
>lowly-PUA, its not genuine.
>
>
>
>-TD
For Real.
TylerDurden wrote in news:73880.11444@discussion.fastseduction.com:
>
> So there you have it. Many chicks dig jerk-asshole types. Who ever
> said that the community never makes new discoveries anyway?
> hmmmmm....
>
>
LOL ...
Long post. I liked it, absorbed certain key elements. Also, I'd like to
suggest, that lurking beneath ALL your misgivings about "being non-genuine"
(rephrase as you see fit) could be, among other things ... the assumption
that the woman is incapable of looking after herself.
Just consider it a possibility. After your long journey, you came back
around to the idea that you CAN indeed be "congruently incongruent" when
you perform actions that are "fake" (and designed to be "deliberately fake"
and therefore "known to be fake" and therefore not "fake" at all) (rephrase
as you see fit) ... and in doing so, I'd suggest all you've done is show
HER the vote of confidence that says, "Hey, I'm hot stuff, I'm a lit match
baby, and YOU can decide to burn yourself or not. I won't tell you what to
do, and I won't hold you when it turns out you fucked up, but I also won't
slap you in the face when it turns out you fucked up, or congratulate you
when it turns out you didn't fuck up (because you "want to fuck up" because

you "need to be lead to being mislead" ((rephrase as you see fit)) or

whatever)." You're just letting her be her own boss, maybe.
Hi TylerDurden.
Here's a couple of comments regarding the My Secret Garden book by Nancy Friday.
>He suggested that I read NANCY
>FRIDAY "My Secret Garden", to
>read about women's rape
>fantasies, and how repressive
>society has generated a common
>female fantasy for badboys who
>will break down their
>socially-taught resistance,
>and treat them like the
>"dirty" girls that deep down
>they know themselves to be.
>
>From reading the book, I
>interpreted it as saying that
>the guy tricking/forcing the
>girl into sex, and leaving her
>was the girl's way of
>CONFIRMING that he was the
>kind of guy that she wants.
>(sort of to say that the
>jerk/badboy/untamable
>behaviour was some sort of
>CERTIFICATION that the girl
>has been fertalized by an
>alpha-seed, or something
>bizarre to that effect).
I also read My Secret Garden (the one from the sixties).
I noted that _very_ few of the women in that book fantasized about younger/less experienced
males, most wanted the male to be the dominant guy.
Also a lot of girls fantasized about animals (dogs, horses...). Some also fantasized about being
raped from behind by some anonymous person. Others were lesbians.
Let's not forget that this book (atleast the one I read) was written in the 60's. Do chicks fantasize
about the same things today? Society has changed, women got more freedom etc.
Also let's not forget that not all the chicks in the book wanted their fantasies to turn into reality.
For instance, the girl that was raped, said she would never want it to happen in real life.
Instead of having to become one of the characters in her fantasy (ie. the bad guy), wouldn't it be
better to just somehow tell some story or similar, that installs the same thoughts in her head?
(making her horny)
Then anchor that feeling to yourself/her. I dunno, I'm just making suggestions.
>
>Very weird, and disturbing. I
>did NOT like reading this, nor
>do I necessarily like it now.
>
>Basically, I interpreted that

>girls like DRAMA of ANY kind.

>They want INTENSE emotional
>drama. As Alphahot mentioned
>in a post a few threads below
>this one, they gravitate
>towards sources of extreme
>emotions. Scoundrels who use
>them and thus give them drama.
>And they gravitate towards it.
Ok.... so girls like intense drama. But does one have play out in the reality one of the characters in
her fantasy?
How about just reading a romance novel to her:-)
Does one have to *become* the character? Atleast, in that case wouldn't it be better if you were
both just playing, and you both knew it was just exactly that; just play?
(probably impossible to set that frame in real life if not at some theatre or something).
Well, well... that's my comments. I like the way you write by the way, TylerDurden. You write
about interesting topics.
Greets, MrBustamove
It took me a long time to read this thread, and I really had to think about how this fit into/affected
my view, which is rather feminist (and probably too liberal for TD ;)..
But I realized that the role-play fantasies, as Toecutter insists, are not RAPE fantasies but
'dreams' that allow women to experience sexuality free of historical and cultural pressures for
women to be pure and innocent.
It is the expectation that women must be pure and innocent that oppresses women, not the
content of their fantasies. Men who offer women the ability to express their sexuality without
suffering from the aforementioned pressures DO attract women. There are many ways to be that
kind of man, one of which is your bad-boy/jerk routine. The truth is, TD, you're NOT a jerk - you
wouldn't beat a woman, you wouldn't rape a woman, you wouldn't treat a woman like shit there's a SIGNIFICANT difference between abusive and assertive.
Much of what we discuss here is about listening and playing the game in a way that is beneficial
for both ourselves and the women we PU. We're not sharing ideas on how to obtain GHB or
otherwise obtain nonconsensual sex - we're sharing ideas on inspiring women to create a fantasy
with us, to SHARE a fantasy with us.
Obviously not all of what we talk about jives with my feminist leanings, but then much of the ASF
material exists as a response to the male-dominated AFC world that has evolved. I believe that
we've well defined being genuine - and it does recall RJ's motto about moving through the world
without apology and not being sorry for my desires.
For me, part of becoming a PUA is undoing some of the damage this AFC-sexist society has done
to my thought process. Being genuine, for me, is about unlearning all the little wussy passiveaggressive control mechanisms men use to maintain control while trying to be 'a nice guy.' It's
about realizing that women and men are equals and that there's a difference between saying 'I
don't put women on a pedestal' and actually not putting women on pedestals. It's about getting
my wants, needs and desires out in the open, expressing them and not hiding them, pretending to
accede to the woman's desires while passively attempting to control her. When men express their
desires openly, *this* allows women to respond honestly.

In my experience, I'm more likely to get laid by letting women know what I want than by hiding
my desires and manipulating them.
On the other hand, I subtly guide people to wonder about me. Most of my co-workers think I'm a
player (more so than I am) but at the same time trust my innocent face. When they talk about how
much of a nice guy I am, I smirk. When they talk about me being a player, I just lean back and
grin... I let them make up their own fantasies about me, and then give them just enough new
information to add another level of mystery - because I *am* a man of mystery.
On 4/24/03 5:08:00 AM, TeaDrinkingGuy wrote:
>It took me a long time to read
>this thread, and I really had
>to think about how this fit
>into/affected my view, which
>is rather feminist (and
>probably too liberal for TD
>;)..
>
How many girls did you approach this week? Sounds like you are sprouting philisophical bullshit
to me. You think "feminist leanings" will get you laid because you are ingratiating yourself to
women? Sorry buddy, it wont. Here is a feminist routine for you:
"I remember in the early 90's there was this article about how more women were asking men to
marry them ... I found it interesting ... I mean can you imagine that ... if it was the women who
were asking men to marry them as a rule. I mean it would trickle down all the way to here (the bar
that we are in). I mean if it were the women who were asking the men, then the whole thing would
be turned up-side-down. And the men would be sitting here on the bar stools. And it would be the
women doing the approaching.
"And all the confident girls would be the ones with the attention of all the boys (s.p.) and the shy
girls would be sitting in the corners with a beer on their chest.(point at the lamos)
"How would you go? Would you have the courage to approach some guy who would may say
"Sorry, darlin', not into to you. Best of luck next time. But how about you buy me a drink... [let her
answer]
"And maybe the guys would look at things differently. Like since I would no longer have my
choice of any woman(point away), but only those that approach me (point at her), I might look for
the girls that all the other guys seem to be into. Like if they all like her, then she must be good,
right?
"So what might I be in to?"
And then let her tell you exactly what she looks for since you have swaped situations with her.
Then you go: "Yeah, I used to know a guy who claimed he was a feminist. Like he wasn't really
because he denied women their sexuality. Claimed he was completely on their side, and into
feminism. I guess that he thought it was a good strategy to build rapport. He claimed that men
treated women as sexual objects but they are not, they are these asexual beings. Like he used to
say that all men are arse-holes and that women deserve a soft feminist guy like him. Idiot!
"I mean the way I see it is that women have all these natural thoughts ... and desires ... and
fantasies. And there are these "feminist" idiots that claim they know (point away) ... but the real
man (s.p.) know and see all those things that you are actually into ... and can do all those things.
Like perhaps he can be gentle, but on the other hand he understands how you like a real man.

Like perhaps he knows how to pull your hair [as you pull her hair]. Are you into that? Here, pull
my hair: Yeah, that feels good. And he knows what you like and how to give it to you ... etc.
Toecutter Might be philosophical bullshit, but that's because I studied philosophy. However, this has
nothing to do with wanting to ingratiate myself to women. I don't think you understood what I
was trying to get across; maybe that's my fault that I wasn't writing clearly enough.
For me, a lot of ASF teachings are about expressing what you want to women, which puts them in
the position of being able to respond to you directly, instead of manipulating them in wussy ways
like the AFC does: buying drinks in order to obligate women to sleep with them (which usually
doesn't work, and then the AFC calls them golddiggers), or trying to link sex to expressing love (if
you loved me, you'd do this) in order to get laid.
So I don't understand why the hell you attacked me for saying that I think the ASF teachings in
general make us better men. I don't think out-and-out DECEPTION makes us better men, so I
wouldn't use it in my PU.
And just so you know... 10 serious approaches, 6 #-closes, two k-closes. And a repeat of last
week's f-close. I didn't count all the women I approached, but probably around 40-50.
Your description of the "guy who called himself a feminist" is exactly what I think most guys who
call themselves feminists usually act like. That was spot on.
So, where do we disagree?