Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Confession from a Convert

One of my readers left a fantastic comment on my recent post The Final Word on Indirect Game. Without further ado, here's "J" telling you about the important realizations he has made while recovering from mainstream game:
The more and more I move away from game and still hit on women, I am beginning to believe that it really is just looks and types. It is actually quite astonishing. Almost nothing I do makes any difference at all - the girls have already sized me up and made all sorts of conclusions about me based entirely on my appearance and dress. Its quite incredible. While it is true you can *fuck it up*, I really now believe that this is way over-emphasized. What you have to do to fuck it up with a girl who digs you is stuff normal guys rarely do and is extremely unlikely to ever really happen. Basically just dont be a fucking jerk and be fucking normal. Anything beyond that is just over-complication.

In a way this gives me a free, light-hearted spirit when I go clubbing and hitting on girls, as I know there is almost nothing I can do to make it happen OR fuck it up. On the other hand, this truth can be experienced as terribly oppressive because it is incredibly deterministic. It is a truth that really needs to be experienced to be fully absorbed (as I said, it is quite shocking), but it also takes quite a but of courage for most guys to really leave things *up to fate* in this manner.

I fully understand why so many guys kick and scream in their struggle to accept that their chances with women are severely limited by their genetic potential. BUT - if you learn to accept this, you become happy, calm, serene, and free spirited, and social life can become a happy round of pleasure ;)


  1. Aaron you keep propoating BS by co-signing other's BS.

    BTW,what's your schtik?You come off as so anti-game and anti pick up.With that said,do you know how to pick up chick?

    1. You know what the biggest Irony is? Anti-gamers actually get much more results than gamers.

      And I'm not just talking about the 95% of gamers who stay at home and do nothing. Even if you compare the 5% of gamers who do get some placebo results vs. ex-gamers/non-gamers, the difference is downright stunning.

      Every critique I read on non-gamers, goes a little something like this:

      -> Aaaron Sleazy has no balls to try game... And this is why he is so jealous of us gamers...
      -> If Aaron Sleazy had the balls to truly put game into practice, he would be a gamer, but alas, game just can't work for everyone, if you're as pathetic as Aaaron, of course game won't work for you
      -> And if game doesn't work for you, you will just bash game out of jealousy

      In other words... I have YET to see a single critique of either you, me, sedmyth or any other non-gamer that wasn't a bunch of:


      They literally... It's like they don't even read the words on the page. The cult brain is amazing. It literally reads words that were never written, and then to defend its cult membership, it rips apart the words which were never said.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Alek,
      you mentioned that your blog post had disappeared. It was simply in the spam folder. I guess this was due to the other guy on Blogger marking it as spam.

  2. This is simply not true in my experience. I go out unshaved with a boring T-shirt and make no effort to appear trendy, stylish or attractive. Yet, I'm often the only guy that actually approaches girls as all those guys that spent hours of getting ready somehow assume they will be magically approached by girls because they look so awesome.
    Also, my relatively unattractive friend pulls many more girls than I do, simply because he's more social than me and has a huge social circle where he's constantly introduced to new girls.

    1. This wasn't an all-encompassing statement but a fitting comment. Of course, a large social circle is a big advantage. Further, he does not say that he spends hour preparing his outfit but speaks of his look. There is no contradiction between you and him.

    2. Anonymous, the funny thing is that nothing you wrote is incompatible with what J wrote, in fact, it's a completely separate subject.

      Your mind literally managed to read something that wasn't written on the page. You read something else, and you disagree with the "something else".

    3. Ok, anonymous since I haven't started my work yet and am still waking up, i'll waste 5 minutes of my life to clarify it for you...

      *Man I gotta block aaron sleazy's blog, I spend like 30 minutes a day on here lol*

      -> Social circles---> The social circles are only the CONTEXT that determines a woman's feelings of safety and "not feeling like a slut". In other words, if you have a huge social circle, that doesn't make you more physically attractive, it just means more women feel it's ok to act on their attraction to you. Make sense?

      For a woman to fuck a complete stranger she met in a club, she needs a far higher level of attraction than she does to fuck a friend of a friend in the bathroom of private birthday party. Make sense? But the ACTUAL attraction is the same if she met you within a social circle or if she met you on the street. The social circle ONLY influences whether she ACTS on the attraction. Make sense?

      Yet, I'm often the only guy that actually approaches girls as all those guys that spent hours of getting ready somehow assume they will be magically approached by girls because they look so awesome.

      You have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY missunderstood J's point, like completely. Looks are not a substitute for an escalation, they are merely a PRE-REQUISITE for attraction. That's what J is saying.

      How attracted she is depends on who you ARE (not what you do or say) - (p.s. of course you can kill attraction by being a complete idiot, but that's very hard to do if you're her type).

      So, how attracted you are depends on who you ARE...
      and what happens depends on how much you escalate
      how much she's ok with being escalated in that context

      That's it.

    4. @anonymous-Great point in pointing out that you don't have tk ne super trendy to pick up.Nor do you have to look like Will Smith of B.Pitt.A lot of anti-Gamers assume that women are solely attracted to good looking men.If that was the case,I wonder why most men who get laid aren't attractive.

    5. Kenny,

      you are twisting and turning. We "anti-gamers" don't say that only good looking guys get laid. Ever heard of the idea that different women prefer different kinds of men. Again, this is an issue I go into Minimal Game. So maybe you should get it. It's just $8 for the Kindle version, and it will clear up all your misconceptions.

      Further, your statement that "most men who get laid aren't attractive" is absolutely ludicrous. Or do you honestly think girls fuck guys they aren't attracted to!?

    6. Aaron, did you notice this is the third time Kenny has lied and completely mis-represented what you (we) say?

      They LITERALLY read words that don't exist on the page. It's amazing. It's like such amazing cult brainwashing, that for their brain to defend their cult, it literally has to see things that don't exist. It makes up memories and see things that aren't there.

      On BP's blog just yesterday I said that every single critique I've seen about non-gamers was a series of mis-quotations and strawmen.

      It's not even that these guys disagree per se. They're disagreeing with a strawman, with an entity they make up in their brain.

      In the frost debate. Paul Elam was telling the gamers "Listen dudes, it's simple, you take a shower, you hit on chicks, and if they don't say no, you fuck them... don't overcomplicate it"


      But the gamers (roissyites) then responded to his piece with HUGE rebuttals saying "Paul Elam is a whining woman-pleaser who believes you should beg women and buy them gifts and cars... And he attacks us because he believes it's morally wrong to manipulate women. Well just because he deson't have the balls to trick into having sex, doesn't mean it's wrong!!!"

      They literally invent shit that's not even said nor even talked about.

    7. I am still not sure what to make of this tendency, but I tend to say it's just an example of utmost dishonesty. They know they are wrong, but don't want to admit it, so they just lie, distort your position, attack a straw man, or use other shady rhetoric means. It's just like in politics or in business. Even when someone got caught, they just keep lying. It's probably a psychological disorder..

  3. Aaron, I think you are pretty much spot on here. I would also remind the reader, especially those who have devoured "game" material for years, that most people (guys and girls) don't have clue nor give shit about direct game or indirect game. A good looking chick wants to be fucked by a good looking guy. If it's for one night stands that she is looking for, she will most likely choose who she wants. All the good looking guy has to do is be there, be available and say hello.

    Also, I think many people still mistake "indirect game is nonsense" for: it doesn't matter what I do since genes are all that matters. Wrong. Sure some guys have advantages in some aspects but ultimately it's the big picture that is important. If you can have a nasty scar on your lip, you can still dress great, have an amazing physique, high self esteem, enjoy your experience, have fun, have strong character, be witty, not give a fuck about what others think, etc. If the whole package is there, women will want to fuck you. It's rare to find someone so genetically limited that they can't control most of those factors. If you are in a wheelchair sucking your meals from a straw, you better be smart or rich or get smart and rich. Otherwise you are not getting laid. Unless you're Sean Stephenson of course.

    btw, isn't it funny how in The Game book Mystery only dated these eastern european low self-esteem strippers. How many runway models from Greenwich village who hung out with rockstars and other models did he bang or date? Hmmm... How odd indeed.

    1. Just a quick remark on Sean Stephenson (I hope you were ironic by mentioning him): I consider him one of the worst scammers out there as he's using his physical condition to entice empathy, which he then uses to make a quick buck. It's too much to go into detail right now, but that's indeed what he does, and his whole shtick goes down to this. For further reading, check this out:

    2. Yes, I don't get any more ironic than that!
      I mean geez.... look at my name. Heh.

      I mean seriously, WHY is he teaching guys how to get laid??
      That's just fucking funny. And pretty much says it all about the industry.

    3. Frankly, can Sean Stephenson even have sex?

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. The Sean Stephenson comment made me laugh so much. The very fact that people can actually take advice from him about how to get laid, says so much about how you can sell pretty much any shit in this industry.

    I remember the first time I went out with a community guy. He was a 6ft tall guy, reasonably well dressed and who I thought was very good looking. We did some day game at a mall. This was my first time approaching so I thought if this what all community dudes look like, then this is really cool shit.

    After the first few approaches, it all went downhill. He pointed out his "dream girl" who used to work in a store, one who he thought he will be able to get after his "game" improved sufficiently. Mind you, this guy had been constantly going out for 2-3 years. My reaction to her was that I wouldn't do her even if I paid to do so.

    Then he recommended RSD as cool shit (you didn't see that coming, did you!) and that I should definitely check out books by Eckhart Tolle. Then said looks etc. don't matter and I have limiting beliefs - said if Sean Stephenson can do well, anyone can.

    Since then, I have done reasonably for myself after switching to trusting my own experiences. Interestingly, the same guy recently asked me for "game" advice, when he saw pictures of my current girlfriend. Even said that I should join his company as a coach!

  6. Something else which I just thought while on this PUA guy who I just wrote about. All mainstream game guys get supremely uncomfortable the moment you ask for hard numbers and question the quality of women in question. I mean like really really uncomfortable.

    I rarely see any super pro-PUA guy mention hard numbers, not even online. They all resort to answers like dude you don't understand, I am improving.. You are just a hater.. You just got her because you spent a bunch of money on her.. and lots of other similar shit.

    In the end, it comes down to hard numbers. If whatever the fuck you are doing, is getting you girls that you want, quality that you want and with an amount of effort that you are fine with, great! Kudos to you.

    However, if you are not happy with your numbers, please wake the fuck up and question what you are doing. I believe 3 months of going out 2-3 times a week, is a good enough time frame to see if you are making genuine progress. If not, then stop what you are doing because it is not working.

    1. I've noticed this too. There is a thread on Zan's forum in which a guy who has bought Minimal Game wants some feedback on my statement (from Minimal Game, but also to be found elsewhere), that 5 girls a year is good, and ten great (for a regular guy). However, the reaction was guys telling him that it wasn't important whether he got laid or not, and they were waxing lyrical about making a girl's day by approaching her, or wrote some other incomprehensible nonsense. One guy then said that he has been approaching about 1,000 girls during the day, got 2 dates out of it (wtf?), but no sex. Still, he didn't feel that he was doing anything wrong.

  7. Hey Aaron, I recently read an article on Tucker Max by Forbes magazine. In it he goes to explain how he has given up on his frat boy lifestyle and his womanizing ways.

    I found the article highly insightful and entertaining as to the real Tucker Max.

    By the way, the thing that struck me the most about this article is how he suggests people with emotional unresolved issues to seek psychological counsel. I am so sick to read suggestions by many people in forums that suggest self-help inner game psychobabble bullshit to deal with legitimate emotional issues masqueraded as neediness, approval seeking, validation, etc.

    Here is the link to the article.

    1. On Tucker Max -,

      Have you seen this before Sleaze?

    2. Sorry for the late responses. I've been very busy recently.

      I haven't come across any of those links before, so thanks a lot for telling me about them.

      Diego mentioned psychological help. I fully agree. There are many legitimate issues for which you can easily get qualified treatment. Instead, people post on online forums and listen to the random advice of random strangers. Earlier today someone sent me a link to a post where someone asked for help to overcome stuttering. Instead of talking to a speech therapist, though, he listens to people who suggest all kinds of inane advice that may or may not work when someone is actually suffering from stuttering.

      Tucker Max is an interesting character. I think he shares many similarities with your typical PUA guru or self help schmuck, flagrant exaggerations if not blatant lies being the most obvious.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.