Monday, December 17, 2012
There is No Point in Pretending
In his guest post, Alek Novy made the important point that it is impossible to improve your chances with one particular girl. Of course, there are more or less universally attractive features, and on the other end of the spectrum, there is an element of randomness. Imagine a woman goes out and desperately wants to get laid. In that case it's sufficient to be the first guy who is just good enough, and you'll get laid. However, once you move past one-night stands, your personality and lifestyle play a much bigger role. For a relationship, or even just for a fling, girls surprisingly care about what kind of person you are.
If you're familiar with "old school" game like Mystery Method, then you may remember that one of the biggest fears of those losers was to "run out of routines." Having a girlfriend was seen as an elusive goal, only achievable by true masters, and even then only after years and years of practice. The issue is that it is certainly possible to claim to be someone you are not and keep the facade up for some time. A "gamer" may read that he has to like animals to be more attractive to girls, because many girls like animals. Thus, he creates his own little "routine" and tells fake stories of how he liked to play ball with the neighbor's dog when he was a kid.
Let's just assume he has a normal night out for a "gamer" and approaches women indiscriminately. Ten or fifteen in a row shoot him down, until he finally comes across one that thinks he'd kind of cute --- and then she finds out that he likes dogs too! He gets lucky and gets laid. Big deal. He thinks he's really onto something with his little animal routine. However, if the two start to date, there will be a big problem. After all, he just doesn't like animals at all, and animals may play a big part in your life. So, for how long do you think the deception can last? You won't fake to be a dog lover if you don't like dogs.
If this wasn't clear enough, then let's discuss a travesty you can witness in more exclusive nightclubs weekend after weekend: A couple of guys put their money together for bottle service. None of them has money, because otherwise one of them would invite his buddies and pay the bill. Now they all chip in a few hundred dollars and hope this gets them closer to pussy. They all try to act as if they're rolling in dough.
Just like telling lies to a girl, pretending to be rich when you aren't won't work for long. What if you meet a girl at such a club, and make her believe you're a big spender? Let's say you pulled all the punches and rented a fancy sport car for the night, and you even got a room in a nice hotel. How long will you be able to keep this up? After all, it's not the case that you'll be able to take that girl to McDonald's or Domino's Pizza afterwards. Hard indicators of status such as money are quite difficult to fake, which is precisely the reason why some women pay close attention to it.
No matter how you intend to do it, it's pointless to attempt to trick yourself into the pants of some girl. Telling fake stories won't work, and neither will you be able to pretend that you are more popular than you are, or that you have more money than you do. Even if you are able to dupe a girl in the short run, they'll quickly figure out that you were just making it up. At this point, your little house of cards will collapse. This is why it's absurd to pretend to have certain interests in order to appear more attractive to women, and it's just as absurd to ruin your credit score by spending money you don't have.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Aaron,
ReplyDeleteI get the suspicious nature for "PUAs" who charge guys money and promise unrealistic results. They are the snake oil salesmen present in every industry including self help, fitness, religion etc...
But what about the people offering their wares for free like heartiste what do you have against them. Even if only some of their principles work they are not profiting from them and doing men a service if they help them discover "not so common sense"
Oh geez, are you fucking serious?
DeleteThere are many issues with the faking method these idiots don't get.
ReplyDeleteA) It's (ironically enough) EASIER to get the real deal than to fake it
B) Women are far smarter than that, they've specifically evolved over millenia of dealing with men trying to fake qualities
Easier the real deal?
My general finding has been that it's EASIER to develop a quality than to trick women into believing you have it.
Let me give you an example. You can subscribe to the pua theory that you need to build social proof... go into a random club, and "open a whole bunch of sets doing temperature raising techniques" - the idea is that you want you TARGET to see other hot women smiling at you, laughing with you and being receptive to you.
HERE'S THE PROBLEM ->
-> That's a skill that takes say 6 months of daily practice to develop
-> IT RESETS the next morning, or the moment you go into another club
IF
How(fucking)ever you spend 6 months working hard on building a cool lifestyle full of many social circles with hot women in them, YOU WILL walk into clubs AND actually HAVE super hot women running up to greet you, hug you and introduce you to their friends.
In other words, GETTING the real deal takes the same effort that the "faking skill" takes, it lasts longer, doesn't reset every morning, and there's no risk of being caught (works 10 times more).
The faking skill might barely work in increasing the number who give you a chance to talk to them (women who wouldn't have let you open them had they not witnessed you getting positive reactions from other women). But again, it's a stupid waste of effort.
It doesn't matter how well you fake social status, women will figure it out most of the time... and yes, having this "faking social status" skill MIGHT increase your number of lays by a few percent over a 1000 approaches or something... But the same effort invested in building REAL status, would have resulted in far better returns...
P.S ---> The MOST IMPORTANT POINT? (THE MORE a trait can be faked, the more females of our species disregard it in shorter-term choice).
We've covered the scientific studies at seductionmyth, but specifically studies found that the sooner a woman mates with a man, the more she looks at traits that are either hard or impossible to fake.
In other words, if a woman sleeps with you in 2 hours of meeting you, it's entirely based on your height, body-shape, body smell (etc).
THE MORE a human female gets to know you, the more the female takes into account things that can be faked in the short-term.
PUAs will point to studies that for example show having ambition or say a common interest makes women more likely to date you. What the PUAs fail to discern however (in their infinite stupidity) is that this is FOR LONG-term mating.
In other words, if a woman gets to know you over months, her interest might grow based on learning of your attributes.
The scientistis SPECIFICALLY theorize women have evolved this way SPECIFICALLY to avoid fakers.
In other words, a woman's attraction to you is entirely based on your physique, height, facial shape PRECISELY because other things can be faked.
However, the longer she knows you, the harder an act is to keep up. This is why if she has gotten to know you over a longer period of time, and you consistently shown ambition, it might become a factor in her attraction. PRECISELY because it's impossible to fake it for so long.
You can't fucking walk up to a random chick on the street and fucking do an "ambition demonstrating routine" and make her wet for fucking crying fucking out loud.
This line
Delete=========
"In other words, a woman's attraction to you is entirely based on your physique, height, facial shape PRECISELY because other things can be faked."
Should have said
================
In other words, a woman's INITIAL LEVEL of attraction to you is entirely based on your physique, height, facial shape (etc) PRECISELY because other things can be faked when she first meets you. You displaying ambition, status (and whatever) when you first walk up to her has ALMOST NO effect on her attraction because there is no way to verify if it is fake or an act.
=================
However, the longer she knows you, the harder an act is to keep up. This is why if she has gotten to know you over a longer period of time, and you consistently shown ambition, it might become a factor in her attraction. PRECISELY because it's impossible to fake it for so long.
You can't fucking walk up to a random chick on the street and fucking do an "ambition demonstrating routine" and make her wet for fucking crying fucking out loud.
If the goal is a relationship, you are entirely on point. If the goal is a lay, slightly less. Then again, it depends on your dedication to being a faker. Addiction to a particular outcome is common, and all-possessing. Faking a trait becomes the person (as odd as that may sound) so much so that they actually believe their false identity. Ratisse is a great example of this.
ReplyDelete====
DeletePUALIVE Said: If the goal is a relationship, you are entirely on point. If the goal is a lay, slightly less.
====
Actually, it's the OPPOSITE. If you want to ONLY get laid, then faking works EVEN LESS in that context.
The evidence is that faking works in NEITHER the short-term, nor the long-term, but for opposite reasons.
The research shows that for getting laid (short-term mating) faking can accomplish nothing since in the SHORT-TERM women ONLY look to traits that UN-FAKEABLE (you can't fake height, genetic profile, facial shape etc etc).
In the LONG-TERM faking accomplishes nothing, since female attraction only factors in a factor after she's had enough time to assess if it's genuine.
Women have SPECIFICALLY evolved agaist fakers by:
A) Their short-term mating being based ONLY on impossible-to-fake traits (height, genetic profile, facial shape, body ratios, smell etc)
B) Their long-term meting being based on traits which can be assessed over a longer period.
Get it? Yes, a woman will be more attracted to you in the long-term if you show ambition, BUT ONLY if she's had time to assess you and check if it's real. GET IT? Faking ambition through ambition routines to a random chick at a bar accomplishes NOTHING because a chick looking for a dick TONIGHT doesn't care if its owner is ambitious or not.
Alek Novy quote:
ReplyDelete"In other words, if a woman sleeps with you in 2 hours of meeting you, it's entirely based on your height, body-shape, body smell (etc)."
I think you forgot to add that you may just be her type or at least someone she's curious about.
If you're her type, then your body shape and height play a significant role.
Deletealek correct me if i wrong. what you are saying is
Deletea-for sexual attraction the only thing that matters is looks
a1-you need to be her type(genetic match), then your body fat levels, muscle, height, simetry plays a major role
b-she nkows how attractive you are very quick
c-in short-term attraction cant be created or killed
c1-you can kill the interest by fucking it up. she still is attracted to you but she decided to not act on the attraction
c2-attraction can be increased in long-term by things that cannot be faked (money,status,fame)
a-for sexual attraction the only thing that matters is looks
DeleteNope.
Everything is a factor. It's just that non-physical factors play a much smaller role in short-term attraction. Over time other factors grow in importance. ("Let's say in the short-term your status play 0.1% role, but if she's looking for a boyfriend, it plays 30% role*) -> Just throwing numbers out for the sake of illustration, nobody has succesfully quantified them this way, thought there seem to be some attempts.
In other words unless you have extremely* high status your status makes no real-world difference whether a chick wants to fuck you 30 minutes after you've first introduced yourself. (*- think national celebrity or she knew you were a millionaire before you even walked up to her).
Because anyone can rent out a limo for an night or spend their savings on flashing cash they don't actually have. Clubs are full of posers for example and women are well aware of this.
a1-you need to be her type(genetic match), then your body fat levels, muscle, height, simetry plays a major role
Nope.
You don't "have to be her type" in order to get fucked. Chicks fuck guys who aren't their type when they're desperate and/or super horny.
We're just saying it's the largest factor in short-term attraction. It's not a pre-requisite.
b-she nkows how attractive you are very quick
c-in short-term attraction cant be created or killed
c1-you can kill the interest by fucking it up. she still is attracted to you but she decided to not act on the attraction
Yes
Btw, most conflations and stupidity in Puatard theories come from confusing interest and attraction. Those are two separate things where if a thinker confuses them, he comes up with shitty theories that don't match reality (i.e. pua theories).
c2-attraction can be increased in long-term by things that cannot be faked (money,status,fame)
Nope, let me correct that. EITHER this
c2-attraction can be increased in the long-term by things that cannot be faked OVER THE LONG-TERM(money,status,popularity) [i.e. anyone can fake being rich or popular for a night, but you can't fake being rich or popular for a month]
OR this
c2-attraction cannot be increased in the short-term by things that CAN be faked in the short-term (money,status,popularity)
"In other words, GETTING the real deal takes the same effort that the "faking skill" takes, it lasts longer, doesn't reset every morning, and there's no risk of being caught (works 10 times more)."
ReplyDeleteI think most PUAs are creeps that can't have those social circles because they are shit people, so they must create grupies on the spot.
They also need routines (stories from other people lives) and likable characteristics (also borrowed) to be accepted.
Maybe many of them are just shit people and this is the only way they can get sex?
How PUA manages to keep a normal guy from scoring for 4 years:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theattractionforums.com/newbie-discussion-forum/142043-4-years-pua-still-virgin.html
The whole thread, especially answers by miaddict, reeks of stupidity.
That's a great find! Thanks for posting this.
DeleteThanks to you and Alek for bringing much needed intelligent reflexions in an ocean of bullshit!
DeleteYou're very welcome!
Deletehttp://www.rooshv.com/the-decline-of-american-women
ReplyDeleteThis post and the comments following it are so delusional.
What about those manosphere bloggers who claim that "betas are invisible to women," so learning game is the only way to get noticed? It's easy for the "average frustrated chumps" to believe that since most of dating is rejection, rejection, rejection.
ReplyDeleteAnd what about those who claim that women bring fakery (in their case plastic surgery, fake charms, empty minds and fake educations) all the time to dating so "alpha fakery" in turn is all they deserve with their pump-n-dumps? Do you have any BS antidotes for these?
It'd be nice if we could all drop the pretences and be explicit and truthful with one another in person about what we're interested in (whether hooking up, actual relationships, etc.). But because of how awkward it is to ask straight out questions like "Do you have a boyfriend? If not, can I date you?" or "Are you as DTF as I am right no?", we get things like hurt feelings when one partner thinks it's a one night stand and the other thinks it's a relationship starter, and plenty of hatred all around.
Does "game" really get you noticed, especially when compared to taking steps that actually improve your life?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of the "trickery" of women: you notice plastic surgery, and you certainly realize when she's just putting on an act. I know what you mean by "fake educations." I've attended some very good universities, and I had the misfortune that some women wanted me to charm by pretending they were smarter or more educated than they were. But just because some women gets sent to a good university doesn't mean that she's making use of those opportunities. Thus, I often heard badly regurgitated freshmen liberal arts bullcrap. I've studied Latin in school, and even some Greek, and whenever a girl started to annoy me, I'd just wait for the next wrongly used "big word" coming out of their mouth, and ask them whether they actually knew about the etymology.
Girls who pretend to be smart don't impress me at all. Besides, "book smarts" don't necessarily have much to do with how smart someone really is. A lot of verifiable idiots go on to get Master's degrees and PhD. In many fields, success in higher education depends on how good you are at kissing someone's ass, and this goes up all the way to professors.
You don't have to ask, "Do you have a boyfriend?" Instead, just ask her out on a date. If she's interested, despite her circumstances, she'll say yes. Girls often claim to have a boyfriend when they don't want to go on a date with some dude. On the other hand, some do have a boyfriend, because they don't want to be alone, and if someone better comes along, they conveniently forget about him and quickly fuck you.
Yeah, just because you're able to recite Catullus' or Sappho's entire poetry repertoire doesn't mean you have a clue about what you should be doing. Still, getting noticed is the first step to building a connection, and the stereotype is that women "only look up, not down," which is where you get the nonsense about "DHV" in the PUA community. The fact of the matter is the vast majority of men don't know how to make themselves stand out (or in cruder language, "induce the tingles") to a woman they're interested in, hence the routines and stuff like "peacocking." Perhaps you could fill the rest of us in on how important "standing out" really is.
DeleteAs for the (ir)relevance of a boyfriend, I'd personally be concerned if a "target" has anyone else in the role of "significant other" right then. I've read too much about old boyfriends who can't let go (sometimes with fatal consequences), or for whom the "target" can't let go of. The PUA community calls these women "Alpha Widows," but I would much rather call them "Ginger Rothsteins" (from Sharon Stone's character in the 1995 Martin Scorcese film "Casino" who was married to the protagonist for a time but never could let go of her ne'er-do-well boyfriend Lester Diamond who always came by to mooch money and affection from her). Ginger for her part had a host of other issues, but that's tangential; the point is I'd rather not have to deal with hostile outsiders or those who for whatever reason have a hold on the "target's" heart if I can help it.
As for "quickly," I always thought it was a good idea to wait until STI tests came back for new partners in a new relationship. Nobody needs a case of genital herpes or HIV. Or is that something only "betas" worry about?
I write quite a bit about the importance of standing out, and how to do it, in Minimal Game, so you might want to check it out. :)
DeleteIn short: if you look non-descript, you'll basically be equally unattractive to all women. This means that you have to risk tailoring your style to attract a certain subset of women, even though this will mean that some other women will be turned off by you. Look into any subculture for examples.
Old boyfriends can be an issue. It's good advice to stay away from those women. In big cities, and if you are able to keep a low profile, it shouldn't be a problem. Once I was actually tracked down by some dude because I banged his ex. After he was sent in my direction, he wasn't quite so confident anymore, and after he said, "Are you X? Did you bang Y?" I just said, "Yeah." But because I was a good feet taller than him, that was the end of the conversation. Still, those situations can be difficult. When you meet a girl in a club who says that you should be careful because her boyfriend is around (and thus encourages you to make a move), you're better off just moving on.
Condoms protect against most STDs, and if you are careful, STDs are in general not a big issue. On the other hand, if you can't wait to thrust your cock into any hole that comes your way, you're literally asking for trouble.
I'm mainly here for the debunking part, and for finding out if terms bandied around the manosphere like the "cock carousel" have any basis in reality.
DeleteAs for boyfriend confrontation, it's nice that the situation you mentioned didn't escalate. But if that person is in a high-aggression occupation and used to simply taking what they want, they might very well take their chances or bring people to break your bones. Sexual betrayal, even if it's merely perceived, is in a class all its own for the ability to make people irrationally, even violently, angry.
The issue with male anger is that it subsides quickly. If you get caught in the act, then any guy could turn into a raging beast. This means that you should never get into such a vulnerable position to begin with. However, it's not so easy to keep staying angry for a week or so. I guess that dude simply approached me because he had said to a friend that he would confront me, or something like that.
DeleteI do intend to write a post on the "cock carousel" myth soon. Stay tuned!
Yes, please. A lot of the manosphere's advice is predicated on the premise that Game works and works often (i.e., "women will ditch you for someone with better Game," or "don't marry unless you are willing to keep up the masquerade that Game requires for life, or she'll leave you," etc.).
DeleteThe "cock carousel" is also predicated on the assumption that women only want alphas and will gleefully share one no matter how uncertain the chances of commitment or the like. It'd be nice to see how well this stands up to reality.
Here's a post I wrote almost a year ago explaining this stuff in more clarity:
ReplyDeletehttp://aleknovy.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/is-dan-the-male-version-of-ab-or-does-he-just-lack-reading-comprehension/
Alek brought up a very important point in the other thread: if your lifestyle is lacking to the point where you're entirely celibate, you have bigger problems to worry about than getting laid. You're not taking care of yourself and your own (financial, social, physical) well-being on a basic level. The lack of pussy is just a symptom of much, much larger issues.
ReplyDeleteI think the real tragedy of the "community" is that it makes dudes with serious issues KEEP those problems unresolved. I agree with the point of this post, and with Alek's comments here, but it's a goddamn atrocity that "this will get you laid" is the only message that men in this niche will listen to.
How about "this will make you fundamentally less miserable with your life and yourself?"
Good post Aaron, a girl will make up her mind if you have potential within 2 seconds based on your looks, style and presence. Physical attraction is the ticket to play the game, a 75 year old man will have a 0% success rate at every night club all the time. For guys that want to do well with women, actual game should only be maybe a tenth of what they focus on lifestyle, fashion, gym, money, status, diet are all just as important.
ReplyDeleteRoutines will not work on a girl who is not into you physically and more importantly the problem with fake routines is that you are creating a completely false identity, only a hardcore narcissist won't feel guilt from acting this way as a true narcissist only feels shame, not guilt. Every man should have enough dignity and confidence in themselves to be able to speak authentically.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/science-proves-game-works/
ReplyDeleteApparently science now proves game works
If alex novy wrote a book i'd buy it in a heartbeat. Every single one of his posts has opened my eyes to the scam that is the community. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteRepeat after me...
DeleteNO MORE BOOKS
NO MORE BOOKS
NO MORE BOOKS
You don't need another book. Go apply.
This is extremely interesting, Alek and Aaron, and it rejoins a thought I had a while back, when a local PUA of my country was talking about the night where he approached two hot girls, and one of them warmed up while the other one remained cold. I remember thinking that if he got two different reactions from girls while saying the exact same thing and being the exact same dude, it obviously meant that their reactions had nothing to do with him or what he said, but came from whether they instantly liked him or not.
ReplyDeleteIsn’t it ironic that PUAs teach you to Game girls that you don’t know? Think about it: in a non-social circle environment, there are only two reasons for a girl to see you again after an initial encounter:
-She is interested in you.
-She is super social (in that case, there is a good chance you will actually never see her again even though you had a good interaction with her: she was just being her super social self).
Now here is where it gets funny: PUAs say that girls always assume that a stranger who comes to talk to them is hitting on them, which is only logical. That means that, whatever you tell her (and NO, going “indirect” does not fool anyone), she is deciding whether or not she is interested. And that’s the kicker: for her to react positively to your approach, for her to start talking eagerly to you, she needs to be very social or to be interested, and this interest, as correctly pointed out by Alek, will stem from non-short-term fakable things, basically your style and looks. In order to spit your nonsensical game, you need her to want to listen to you in the first place, either because that’s her way of being or because she already likes you.
The funny thing is that PUAs do sense that some girls are initially more responsive than others, but, because of their deluded view of the world, they think that if the girls is non-responsive, it’s because they weren’t “alpha/unstiffled/detached/in the Now/etc” and therefore they need to stay with her and try to “plow” and persist as much as possible until she warms up. They also account for initially warm girls by the fact that they sensed their alphaness or whatever before they opened their mouth.
It is just crazy the extent to which these guys can go to avoid seeing the obvious. When you do Game on a girl, she has to be willing to listen for you to demonstrate your attractive qualities. And if she is willing to listen, she is interested already, by definition