Thursday, December 11, 2014 Aftermath (I): Look at their gullible followers!

I've got two more observations to share regarding the PR disaster I posted about the other day. The first one, which I'll discuss in the following, is the incredible lack of critical thinking among some of their followers. It seems that Nigerian scammers should target the PUA crowd, since there apparently are some among them who believe literally anything.

I was surprised that a thread calling out their faked video was not taken down. I was even more surprised of some of the reactions. The first one is hard to top, but as we'll see, PUA followers are a deluded crowd:
Did you seriously started stalking to find this? Did you seriously created an account just for this? I have not bought anything from but damn... You should maybe get a life. You can start by doing Daygame :) You have all the techniques in YouTube for free. I will not say anything about this topic, I think it's best to just let some people live in the matrix, while others proceed and try to live the life we wanted. We know Daygame works, no need to convince others, if the latter ones just prefer to live miserable for the rest of their lives.

Apparently the "matrix" is so powerful that some people disregard any kind of criticism. In a related context, I once read the statement that there are some people who, instead of believing what the see, see what they believe. Indeed, this kind of completely twisted perception of reality is evident here as well. That guy is so deluded that he believes in his idols even after they were exposed as charlatans.

But, wait, it gets even better! Look at this:

How many times have we stopped a girl who is a singer or actress. Often. 
This means nothing.  
These guys from PUA HATE which is now SLUT HATE are really creepy guys. They have the potential to go out and shoot women. The fact that they would tear down another man for approaching a girl or demonize a girl for wanting to date is truly bizarre. All of these guys should be locked up and evaluated.
I don't even know what to say to this. That guy is either a shill for or, to put it mildly, fucking stupid. Actresses don't put on their portfolio when they were illegally videotaped by some PUA. That woman was paid for that.

Denial is seemingly the easier option, as yet another guy demonstrates.
If this is legit then it means that Tom or have made a fraudulent video.  But how much of a shit do I give? Zero.
Some other guy:

The only experiences that truly matter to me are my own, that happen in my own reality. So if a video is less than truthful, my world isn't going to fall apart. I don't see that there's too much to get excited about here.
Yet another guy:

Looks like some axes are being grinded here. Very disappointing.
What I find destructive here is Andy is indirectly fanning the flames by not deleting the thread or coming down on one side or another. The guy who posted is no doubt a PUA hate guy. Its not like a guy like this stops at Tom Torero alone, he is going to do the same thing to Andy or any other guy who is successful with women for that matter. Like I said before, they have mental problems.
In my opinion, it is a legit infield, she was an aspiring actress, she found out his name after and turned a negative into a positive for her career.
I think if anything we should all stick together on this.
Call me crazy for looking at the bigger picture. 
There just is no end:

The thing I find interesting here is the phenomenon that someone with a negative outlook on life will always assume that if someone else, a positive person, is having success, well, they must have cheated, there simply has to be a scam. Negative people can only process the world on these terms. 
I don't know if there is any truth at all to this story, but in my opinion it doesn't fit with everything else I have experienced with

Oh boy:

[The thread starter] just wants approval from random people on forums to be considered our savior, let's not give him the illusion that he is and let's ignore him and continue to practice Daygame and discussing things that actually matter to us, while he just sits on his keyboard creating many accounts on forums pretending he is the savior from the devil guys of 

What if people showed you proof that your doctor isn't really a doctor?

At least there was a small minority of people who assessed this finding for what it was:
disgraceful stuff from tom and daygame. lost my respect. 

The thread starter seemed to be the only sensible person in the entire thread. Occam's razor, anyone?

It's funny how hard you try to find an explanation. Remember, what is the easiest explanation of the following facts:
- Agency page (apparently not fake) of an actress quoting as a reference
- She writes Tom's real name
- uses the fake name from a product (date against the machine)
- looks the same as in the video (sure we don't see her face; but hair, posture, french accent... are the same)
Thus, it would be nice if Andy could upload the raw footage, so we can see her face.
Andy is doing it right. Just deny any knowledge and blame Tom (I don't know if this is the case).
If this is the case, Tom just heavily challenged/harmed (not destroyed)'s credibility.

Again, I don't blame giving shitty advice, being unable to fuck girls or challenge the concept of daygame. I just exposed that at least one infield video is fake. Please see it as quality  assurance.
This, of course, presumes (!) the existence of further fake infield footage (either from Tom or the entire team).

It seems that "Krauser PUA", or a guy who claims to be him, joined as well. Of course he's dismissing the incriminating video as well. Sadly he is too intimidated to post on my forum. I had fun tearing him apart.
This is my point - these PUAhate weirdos are just twisted. You convince yourselves only looks-money-status matters, as a way of avoiding doing anything to improve your lot in life. Then someone comes along and proves he can bang hot girls without looks-money-status and your world starts to implode and suddenly there's the threatening realisation that you're wrong and your failure with girls is YOUR OWN FAULT FOR NOT MAKING AN EFFORT. 
Rather than accept that, you latch onto the slightest hint of evidence - no matter how spurious - that such a guy is fake, so you can retain your Only-LMS-Matters ego-investment. The relentlessness, anger and duplicity with with such weirdos pursue their hating is driven by the desperate need to avoid taking responsibility for their own shitty situation. 
Normally I'm happy to let you all wallow in your own misery. The reason I take exception here is because: 
(i) Tom and Andy are legit quality daygamers
(ii) Lots of guys reading this board are beginners and thus a bit fragile getting over the initial brutal learning curve. They are more apt to tolerate your nonsense and let themselves get discouraged than the intermediate guys who've already racked up some lays and know from personal experience to ignore clowns like PUAhate. You're actively trying to drag down men who've proven themselves to be better than you. Crabs in a barrel.

I'll post on the hilarious attempt of damage control by the "CEO" of tomorrow. As a teaser, look at this quote:
Nevertheless, I'm investigating this.... it's seems absurd to me that Tom would hire an actress.... the guy is good at daygame and that kiss isn't even that great.... the only explanation I can think of that she found out about it after the fact and for some reason put it on her resum?.... I have no idea.
I had to laugh when I read this.


  1. There's zero incentive for Tom to lie here. This wasn't even a quality kiss close. If I paid an actress and she was obviously in on the jig, why would I not make it an epic moment instead of a crappy video that was poorly shot?

    1. Kenny your blog posts on this topic are unintentionally hilarious. I love how he we are supposed to "applaud" Tom for "manning up" and admitting that he faked a video, after the evidence was already out in public and had to do damage control.

  2. Well ... Cæesar himself already wrote 2000 years ago: "Peoole only too willingly believe, what they want to believe." ("Homines libenter id, quod volunt, credunt.")

    So, why would this be different regarding *ROTFL*

  3. Fortunately, web sites like this one talk about pickup companies. Some of the big "names" seem to be out of the pick up industry now: strauss, Jeffries, Sinn, dj fuji, cameron teone, bishop, deangelo, juggler, ... but, unfortunately, the weirdest and creepiest "instructors" seem to stay and still have followers: rsd, love systems, etc.

    Continue doing your blog Aaron!

  4. It's not uncommon to find pick up/seduction trainers who pretend things that aren't true. Just read their marketing.

    For example, Kezia Noble sells a book called: "The Noble Art of Seducing Women: My Foolproof Guide to Pulling Any Woman You Want"

    2 things to say: (1) "Follproff''??? "Any woman you want"??? Really... (2) She's a good looking woman and therefore what does she knows about the male situation? Even more funny, she uses pictures of herself half naked to sell products. Go to her web site, you'll see that.

    In the past, Ross Jeffries sold 2 CDs on how to be successful with online dating... What he didn't say is that he had to stop doing online dating because his success rate was close to 0%. (He wrote posts about it on his now dead speed seduction mailing list)

    Mark Cunningham, a hypnotist who was into the pickup industry 15 years ago, now sells a very expensive program called the renegade hypnotist project. The women who are hypnotized by Mark on the videos are actresses.

    I'd like to ask RSD's guys, love systems's guys, etc, 3 questions:

    - What's their success rate when they use what they "teach"
    - What's the success rate of their clients after a seminar and/or a bootcamp.
    - What's the percentage of clients who are unsatisfied after having paid these fuckers but who are afraid to ask for a refund.

  5. I just took a look into that forum thread and found one guy wrote:

    "Apparently you are saying I've been lied to for the last 3.5 years that I've been studying and learning from

    I guess all the kiss closes on the street and lays I've gotten are all a lie too....

    In the end who the fuck cares

    All that matters are if guys are taking action or not. The guys who piss and whine about something being fake or not clearly are more concerned about drama than they are about improving their life.

    If that's how you want to live so be it, everyone is entitled to think and do what they want but leave that shit on slut hate and don't bring it around here because I'm not sure if you know this or not

    But this site is for action takers, not whiners."

    I feel bad for him. I honestly do.

    He obviously is too invested in that BS to even want to recognise the ugly truth, even when it jumps him and pisses on his face.

    In a way I was very lucky, that PUA never got me anywhere.

    Had I even gotten the tiniest amount of pussy out of it, I might still be part of the cult. (Maybe not a real 100% cult member anymore, but nonetheless still pretty messed up in the brain department.)

    You are doing such an important job by debunking that harmful nonesense, Aaron!

    It should count as some kind of tax deductible charitable work :)


    1. Wow, if that guy got laid a couple times in the past 3 1/2 years it must be because of Day Game. No man could accomplish that without PUA!

  6. @Aaron and others.

    The guy in the forum post does not seem to be the real KrauserPUA. Krauser wrote some damage control post on his own website: He admits that Torero faked the video but defends him as a "elite daygamer". Ehm ... yep.

    Another post by Krauser why PUA is better than scientific data about dating advice and how his success rate would show that game would work pretty well. :P So he means "players outrank scientists in the art of seduction":

    In this article, he claims things such as: "... going in field is the only way to get valid data. Even if you get perfectly reliable lab data, it’s just in a lab. It’s not valid. It’s close to worthless. (...)

    My own success ratios were, rather ironically, used as evidence against Game. Apparently I have a low success ratio that suggests Game doesn’t work and I got my few successes either because (i) blind luck – the numbers game or (ii) determinism – there’s a limited number of girls who would consort with a man of my SMV rank and cold approach is just flipping stones to find them.

    There’s a few problems with this reading.

    My results demonstrably improved over time, every single year. In my first 1,000 approaches I didn’t get laid at all. I’ve approached maybe 400 girls this year and had sex with 19 of them.

    I’m having sex with girls who are, on average, 16 years younger than me and two points hotter. That should be impossible under the deterministic explanation. And of course you’d expect the success ratio to be low – that’s what happens when you aim high. It’s why boxers do statistically better in their tune-up fights than their title shots.

    Aspy gammas don’t have the nuance or experience to read soft data – such as me knowing that it’s taking less effort to get the same girls now that I’ve improved my skills. (...)

    Stop acting as if scientists are the authority on seducing women. When academia disagrees with successful players, it’s the academics who are wrong. Just look at their wives."

    Allright, Krauser ...

    1. "Stop acting as if scientists are the authority on seducing women. When academia disagrees with successful players, it’s the academics who are wrong. Just look at their wives."

      I like that. As a teacher, I met a lot of psychologists. I've found they rarely know much about people (oddly enough) in the real world. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. The psych major in general is a joke. Academic psychology is mental masturbation.

      In fact, every girl who can't figure out what she wants to do with her life defaults to the psych program. Every girl thinks she would be a great psych major simply because every girl loves to gossip and analyze other people's problems. Men are more action oriented. Begin to analyze everything and you'll end up like many women: undecisive, neurotic, ...

    2. Did I read this correctly: approaching 400 girls only to have sex with 19 of them....

      I must be living in a different world :)

    3. @anon: It's premature to make conclusions about an entire subject based on your perceptions of clueless undergrads. There are some heavily quantitative and rigorous degree programs in psychology, in which you'll have a hard time finding the people you describe. As you might know, a lot of girls are terribly afraid of mathematics.

    4. "Did I read this correctly: approaching 400 girls only to have sex with 19 of them.... I must be living in a different world :)"

      Why don't you congratulate him instead of writing such things? That's something I dislike about men: frequently comparing and mocking instead of motivating. He wrote in his message that he was improving:

      1000 approaches -> 0% result
      400 approaches -> 19 fucks

      Isn't it far better?

    5. Krauser dictionary:

      Aspy gamma - person who disagrees with you

      Awkward intellectual one-upmanship - pointing out basic errors in methodology upon which you base your teachings

      Reading soft data - discarding all possible explanations that go against PUA

  7. @Geert. 19 out of 400 in "daygame". That's kinda 5 out of 100 or 1 out of 20. It's a pretty good ratio and kinda the quote as Paul Janka or Goodlookingloser have (I think for them it's 7 or 8 out of 100 on average). They might be a little bit better because of looks. But we do not really know.

    He's also right that less good looking man has to compensate with vibe, persistence and connection building. But he also admits that even you're better in this than the average guy, your rejections will be harder sometimes, women tend to flake more, you get more congruence tests and have to be less needy and better calibrated than a better looking guy.

    On the other side, it's kinda weird that he needed 1,000 approaches until he got laid in "daygame" the first time. :P Seems like this guy lacked general social skills and a cool vibe very hard.

    1. @ Anonymous: 1 : 20 is still a far too low quota. It's not intelligent to waste that much energy and time (!) on the pursuit of random pussy. Doesn't he have better things to do with his life? Better to get URself into surroundings that are more promising. Btw. more or less randomly approaching women in daygame is stupid all unto itself anyway.

      "rejections will be harder sometimes" => ??? Certainly yes, if you approach women who clearly don't wish to be harrassed. Apart from that a "rejection" isn't the end of the world, because there is no "female mystique" about girls anyway. If she "rejects" you it means, you wouldn't have had a shot beforehand anyway. So why bother about that issue at all?

      "congruence tests" … pleeeease quit using this PUA mumbo-jumbo, it only contributes to general brain-rot.

  8. Depends how you manage it. When you approach one girl per day you can make 105 approaches in 3 and a half months. This means you have at least 1 girl per month or even 5 to 7 in total.

    Depends on how good your social skills (including calibration) are and how aggressive you go for it. For sure, it takes some effort, time to work through the numbers and go on dates, but it's a possible way. But yeah, pretty bad effort-to-result-ratio when it comes down to time and energy.

    Problem is, when you're bad with girls in general, you might get max 2 girls out of this 105 approaches and they won't be kinda below or your same level of physical attractiveness.

    And no doubt you need some sociopathic tendencies to go through all these numbers and don't get mental fucked up or develop some frustration when it comes down to dating women.

    Things change when you go for same day lays. But then you need a flat in a good location of your town where you can ping enough girls. Then you can get one or two girls per week. After half a year, this means more girls than the average guy will bed in his entire life.

  9. PS: Another anonymous guy wrote about Nick Krauser's post where he defends PUA teachings against social science:

    "Awkward intellectual one-upmanship - pointing out basic errors in methodology upon which you base your teachings

    Reading soft data - discarding all possible explanations that go against PUA"

    Could you send some links, material or give an explanation where his methodological mistakes are and where can I find "hard data" that explains that PUA is bullshit? Because it's pretty hard to find and Gamers often interpret social science studies in a way where it confirms the effectivness of "Game".

    1. Could you send some links, material or give an explanation where his methodological mistakes are and
      PART 1
      We used to have an entire site dedicated to it (seductionmyth), and there, every single pua claim, fallacy and misrepresentation of studies was taken apart.

      Unfortunately the owner killed it one day, because again the problem with Anti-PUAs is they have a life and don't have time to maintan anti-pua.

      -> I can't reproduce that website with its 1000 pages of content... But I can give you the TL-DR

      If you take a simple class in "logic" and "the scientific method", around 95% of PUA claims will apart right in front of your eyes, without any one having to point it out to you.

      The NUMBER one methodological error you will see applies to almost all Roisyitte claims is the following:

      "Does not follow".

      Typically PUAs do something like this...

      1) Study A found that this one kind of eye-contact is perceived as being indicative of higher status (they don't mention the 100 disclaimers in the study)

      2) Since we know that dominance pumps female attraction and gets girls to want to bang you...

      3) This means that using this kind eye-contact of makes women want to bang you... And we PUAs for years have claimed that you can create attraction by faking signals of status, therefore this study VALIDATES game!!!

      There are about 50 leaps between the study and the PUA's conclusion. The study itself says nothing about "game", "pumping attraction" "getting biotches to bang you", "faking status works"... The Roisyitte gamer makes about 440 leaps. And his retard readers lap it up.

    2. PART 2
      The MAIN thing PUAs choose to ignore is all the studies on honest signalling and NON-FAKEABLE signals - THIS IS KEY

      In the above example you'll see that one of the leaps of logic was assuming that if a girl perceives a higher x, then it must fool her into sleeping with you.

      EXCEPT there's an entire field that has studies and found it to be wishful thinking. Evolution would really suck if females of a species could be fooled so easily.

      Here's what the evolutionary psychology ACTUALLY says:
      (PUAs love to skip over this part, even though its huge)

      - If a signal is FAKE-ABLE, then it DOES NOT factor into attraction. Females factor in potentially fake-able signals ONLY if they have time to test them for veracity

      - In the short-term mating (think same-night lays, same-day makeouts), where females do not have time to test for veracity, the only signals that are factored in, are those that are not fakeable.



      - It means that if a chick is attracted enough to bang you the same night she meets you, that attraction is ONLY based on body-shape, facial shape, height, and obviously "look/image" in the sense of being part of her tribe etc. Some other traits might factor in slightly if they're REALLY hard to fake for an entire night.

      - (Don't Misunderstand) THIS DOESN'T MEAN that other factors don't influence whether you get laid or not lol. Smiles are fakeable, but they sure as heck do improve your chance of getting laid. If you hit on a girl with a smile vs "serial killer face", you have a higher chance of it going well... But it doesn't "pump" or "create attraction". Make sense?

      It just helps her feel more comfortable and eases her worries and fears that you're not going to hurt her... It doesn't actually "create attraction"


      - Things like personality traits, dominance, and whatever other fakeable trait PUAs focus on... DO factor into long-term attraction. What a female looks for in a long-term partner.

      - Here's THE KEY the PUAs ignore in every study about this. These things only factor into attraction if the female has had time to test them for veracity. This isn't concious. But it's why women delay sex over multiple dates and want to get to know you first before they feel ready for sex.

      (Hint, if a woman isn't ready for quick sex with you, but has done it in the past with other guys, and strings you on many dates, gradually giving it up (where she didn't with other guys) it's because you've shown traits that might make you attractive enough for a long-term partner... but you're not attractive enough for casual sex (the shallower unfakeable criteria)

      Anybody can fake being rich for a night, and this fakery might win you a date with a girl who is attracted to wealth. But she's not going to sleep with you until she goes on enough dates and activities where you prove your wealth.

      AND THIS IS WHERE THE CONFLATION with false positives happen

      These fakeable signals can produces lots of fake positives. By using them, you can get a more phone numbers, more dates, more unattracted women to chat with you longer etc...

      It doesn't ACTUALLY increase the BOTTOM line though (actual number of women who actually want to bang you). Doesn't "create attraction" per se.

    3. Another conflation happens because there ARE things that increase your success rate

      With experience you DO GET better at getting a higher percentage of women. This includes things like getting better at reading signals, getting better at communicating that you're safe... Getting better at creating excuses for girls to come home with you.

      I.E same number of girls want to bang you, but when you are less experienced you are not as good at getting them to act on the attraction. You make the move too soon or too late. You might be too blunt in how you invite her home, and don't realize you're putting her in a spot to be judged by friends etc etc...

      Side Note: Btw, this is the gold mean between PUA extremism and PUAHATE/feminist extremism.

      Oh just have normal interactions, and things will automagically happen, and if they don't, well the girls doesn't want to bang you. There is no skill to develop outside of being "normal".

      There are about 23232 variables you have to focus on to make her attracted to you, and you constantly have to worry about pumping her attraction.

      The golden mean between the two is what Aaron will teach you. Which is that a) You can't create attraction, but b) YES there are actually skills you can develop to improve your success

      - Reading signals is a skill
      - Knowing when to make a move and when not to is a skill
      - Social Finesse in how you move things forward is a skill
      - Knowing things that improve odds
      (random example, knowing that an apartment close by reduces the chance of her changing her mind by the time she gets to your place)
      etc... etc...

      These are all skills specific to getting laid. And contrary to puahate/feminist theory, they are not part of "normal social skills". 95% of men don't have them, and you don't use these skills to make friends. Which is why 95% of men only get laid when they "get lucky", i.e. they stumble into it by accident.

      The difference between "pua" and what Aaron, and other non-pua "get laid teachers" teach... is simply whether one believes attraction is static or can be "created" through actions

      PUAs believe the magical notion that there are special words or ways of standing that "create" or "increase attraction". Aaron and other sane teacher's don't.

      And this is where we get the PUA MATH Problem

      Talk to any mathematician, or even better yet one that helps researchers interpret study data... And ask them about the amount of variables PUAs "test" at the same time.

      A PUA will go out and test 60 different variables AT THE SAME time. Unless a PUA has a sample size of 10 million chicks (educated guess, it's in the millions), he can not untangle the correlations. In other words, when he says that (saying line x in situation y "boosts attraction"), it's complete BS.

      Unless he has a 1000 identical sets, with all else being equal, except that one variable, he can not tell what effect it has. But in real life...

      - a PUA is always changing things
      - experience itself muddies things as with experience you automatically get better overtime anyway (better at reading signals, automatically get better at timing etc).
      - It's incredibly easy to misatribute success to one of the 100 variable you change each set.

      Hint, it's why if you ask a 100 PUAs, they will give you a 100 different answers on the proper way to do something, lol. At least 99 of them have to be wrong.

      No two PUAs agree on each of the 100 variables (or even half), yet every single one believes that his set of variables is "field tested hard data", from a 1000 approaches, that no multi-variate testing algorithm on planet earth can untangle with such a small sample size, lol.

    4. where can I find "hard data" that explains that PUA is bullshit?

      AND FINALLY, we come to the conclusion. On the site I mentioned, we eventually stopped destroying each fallacy separately and started diverting everyone to ONE PAGE.

      This was the "challenge" page, what WOULD HAVE produced "hard data"

      You see you can't get hard data because PUAs themselves REFUSE to be TESTED in a test that would represent hard data. Does that make sense?

      Eventually we just stopped dismantling all this multi-layered BS and just said. "Ok, let's get right to the core of it, PROVE your method actually does what it does".

      - We get a 100 guys of equal experience, with no exposure to pua or anti-pua or anything...

      - 50 guys are given non-pua advice (let's say Aaron's), and just know to keep escalating as hard as the PUA group

      - 50 guys are given pua advice that "creates attraction". For example they apply 2-3 variables that a given PUA school claims "creates attraction"

      See whether the PUA group gets better results. Nobody ever took on the challenge, and think about it. The industry has existed for 20 years, but they've refused to be tested. It'd be great marketing too "Pua method x produced 47% more lays than placebo".

      It's funny that these guys are whining about hard data, when they themselves refuse to have it produced.

      -> A PUA saying that he gets 1 in 20 chicks, but used to get 0 out of 1000... and its because of the super-complicated variables he advertises?

      -> First of all, if you got 0 out of 1000 chicks, it MEANS YOU DIDN'T ESCALATE, you didn't actually ask for the date, didn't actually going in for the kiss, didn't actually ask them to come over etc...

      That right there tells you that this is insultingly bad as a manipulation attempt.

      -> Second, as mentioned above, experience itself gets you to the 1 in 20-30 ratio. You get better skilled at knowing when to make a move on whom, when not, how to make girls feel safe etc etc etc. (none of which has anything to do with "creating attraction".

      SIMPLE PROOF. Meet any natural, you'll find they have the same ratios. I know my best friend does. He does almost everything opposite of RSD. Yet he easily bangs 1 in 20 strangers*.

      I know little about krauser except a crazy diagram of 550 variables I saw of his, and you have to apply all of them to make a girl attracted. I don't know a single natural who applies them... yet, you guessed it, they all have similar ratios...

      AND GUESS WHAT, no ther OTHER PUA has the same variables. This is THE MOST ABSURD PART OF IT ALL. PUAs say "our variables are real because they're based on hard data". BUT NO TWO PUAs themselves agree! How fucking crazy is that.

      *- (if he chooses to be indiscriminate, which is rare for him. In truth he probably bangs 1 in 4-5 girls he tries to, because he's really good at telling if there are good odds before he hits on a chick, he generally limits himself to high-odds).

  10. Ok, get it. Attraction can't be "created" through action and words. I don't wanna open up a too big debate about things you might have already discussed in Seduction Myth but then how do you explain women's statements as "Well, at first, I didn't think you are very attractive." or "You grew in me." These are the statements PUAs use to defend their "game". They say: "Game is needed to get girls who are lukewarm aka the "maybe-category". So it's not always the first impression and time can change things." Some truth in it or just backwards rationalization by PUAs and the women themselves?

    1. How often have you heard women say this, in a situation where you were actually sexually involved with them? My best bet is that the number is zero. Human sexuality just doesn't work this way. A woman telling a guy that he "grew in them" would imply that he managed to get out of the friend zone, which means that we're in PUA fantasy land. Women don't 'friend zone" you if they want to fuck you.

    2. Ok, get it. Attraction can't be "created" through action and words.

      NO! That's not what I said!!! Re-read the section on short-term vs. long-term mating.

      It means that "short-term attraction" can not be created. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?

      "Well, at first, I didn't think you are very attractive." or "You grew in me."

      It means as she got to know you, she discovered parts of your personality that make you a good potential provider/boyfriend. That's it.

      These are the statements PUAs use to defend their "game".

      I ALREADY COVERED THIS. Read "PART 2" again above.

      The conflation that PUAs do, is that they think they can take factors that influence LONG-TERM mating, and apply them to short-term mating. THIS IS WHERE the scam occurs.

      I.E yes if a girl gets to know you over time, her long-term attraction can increase (if she finds out you're into the same political causes as her, are caring toward children, likes your empathy etc etc etc... It is her "potential boyfriend provider" attraction increases, not her "casual sex partner" attraction. Do you understand?

      If a girl says that she used to not like you, but now she's grown attracted to you. It doesn't mean she wants to bang you for one night, and then carry on as if nothing happened. It doesn't mean you could have used the same personality markers to have a same-night lay when you met her.

      It means she's considering you for a potential long-term partner. Do you understand the difference?

      Evolutionary Psychology talks a lot about this, and it is very clear that there are TWO types of attraction. And women use COMPLETELY different criteria in each.

      A guy can be attractive for a same night lay, yet she may never consider him for a boyfriend and vice versa...

      WHAT PUAS conflate, is that they think they can create a routine where you approach a girl in a club, and talk about how caring you are toward children, and that will make her want to bang you that night.

      THIS IS what the science says isn't possible. Females do NOT factor in long-term cues into SHORT-term attraction.

      DO YOU UNDERSTAND? This is what the science says is BS. You can't take markers used in long-term attraction, to boost short-term attraction.

      P.S (you might now ask) "but wait, does that mean I can use PUA tactics to get long-term attraction?" "you're just saying they don't work for same night lays".

      ACTUALLY, evolutionary psychology is very clear on this too. It says that women ONLY factor in a trait into long-term attraction IF it has been shown well enough, and long enough to see that it's not faked.

    3. Alek, but this kind of long-term attraction you talk about has to factor in some amount of physical attraction, right? Otherwise, you'll end up with a gold digger or a woman who will cheat on you the first chance she gets.

      I mean, i'm not saying that women getting into long term relationships with men they're not attracted to doesn't happen. But if it was the norm, there would be no successful marriages ever, right?

    4. @Manuel: Alek, but this kind of long-term attraction you talk about has to factor in some amount of physical attraction

      It does. And I usually mention that. I'm simplifying for the sake of not writing a 2000 page treatise though.

      It's just that physical attraction is a much lower factor in long-term attraction. Which is why with one guy she'll bang him in 2 hours of knowing him, the other after months of dating. The second guy doesn't pass the physical threshold for short-term mating. But he's physically-attractive-enough for a boyfriend (if other boyfriend criteria are met too)

      Actually all factors account to some extent in all contexts.

      -> When I say certain traits only factor into long-term attraction... it doesn't mean they have 0.000% effect in the short-term...

      -> It just that means for most situations and contexts, the effect is negligible.

      -> When we say for example that "social status" makes no difference in short-term attraction, we mean "for all practical intense and purposes"... meaning you can not create a way of talking or walking that tricks an otherwise unattracted chick into banging you (as pua would claim)

      It means that in the OVERALL formula, it is a small factor in "attraction". So unless you have UNGODLY amounts of that factor (hollywood celeb)... it doesn't make an impact... for practical purposes.

      (Caveat: And we're not saying such a trait can't make a difference in RESULTS. Just that it can't "create attraction". It could actually make you get more chicks, but its not through "creating attraction".

      For example a girl who's already attracted to you, might be more likely to come home with you if she witnesses that you have some social status with people in the club. But it's not because it made her "attracted", she just feels more safe knowing you're not an axe murderer)

      -> It (a long-term factor) also CAN have a major impact on short-term attraction in extreme situations (walk into a club with 5 hollywood celebrities, and get out of a golden plated limousine)... (or some other extremely hard to fake indicator of social status)... Then yeah, it might make otherwise unattract chicks want to bang you that night... but you don't have a golden-plated limousine, and you're not friends with hollywood celebs.

      The PUA claim that you can create the same effect by merely "talking" or "walking" AS IF you were high-status, is a scam. Because anyone can fake that for a night.

      And yes, EXCEPTIONS obviously must EXIST. (evolution itself is random) There ARE plenty of chicks who have fallen for faking... but as a general rule evolutionary psychology claims that women as a group have evolved to ignore fakeable criteria in the short-term.

      I'm sure there are exceptions who take bigger risks and bang guys faster based on generally fakeable criteria...

      It's just a bad strategy to follow as a guy, always trying to see what trait to fake. Even if it worked its made harder by the fact that there are 200 PUA schools which all give 200 different sets of things to fake... so why bother?


      Countries are passing laws to make this illegal. Feminists have defined this as rape. In other words if you lay a chick by faking something, it is considered "rape by deceit", so there's that too...

    5. Thanks for the thorough elaboration, Alek.

    6. hi alek i think we should change short term attraction to sexual attraction
      and long tern attraction to stay with the guy attraction( minimal sexual is a necessary
      for "stay with the guy attraction" to not turn into gold digger type of thing)

      i think we should maybe change terminology as they might be confusing.
      as long term attraction isnt sexual like short term and short term isnt always sexual,
      like celeb in the club.

  11. @Aaron, well, the situation was this: Met her in a night club, she gaze me a long gaze and gave me a cocky smile. She moved on.

    I met her later on, gave her a compliment, we danced and made out. We exchanged numbers. I managed to meet up with her two weeks later. I moved things a little slow and did awkward things. In the end, we had sex and some fling. We talked about attraction and what she likes and so on. She told me, she would have give me the gaze because she likes to get attention sometimes and she wasn't super hot for me.

    After we get to know each other, she felt more and more for me. She said she wasn't interested in having sex with me too fast because of emotions. She would do this with guys she does not care much.

    But ok, this would confirm the short term vs. long term attraction theory Alek named. Or she actually was short-term attracted but I did too much awkward things (was too slow) and she lost some interest somehow and it set boyfriend/provider dynamics.

    Another thing: My experience is, time CAN help, but the problem is, you never know. Could be you spent much time with her, but she won't feel any attraction because you do not meet her looks threshold, you're not her type or she not sexual available because of dozens of other reasons. It's not a good strategy and only works in very, very few cases.

    1. Or she actually was short-term attracted but I did too much awkward things (was too slow) and she lost some interest somehow and it set boyfriend/provider dynamics.

      That's also possible. It's why your ratio improves with experience. It's also why its funny PUAs quote a better success rate as indicative of their crazy theories being valid.

      You can not apply a single thing RSD/krauser claims is needed for success, yet find that given enough experience you get the same improvements in success rate.

      You just end up (with experience) doing less screwing up, i.e. scaring girls away etc...

    2. Ok, so what do you think about this EvoPsych-study? It says there would be evidence for the claims PUAs make. Or does the author conflate interpersonal attraction with sexual attraction and short-term with long-term attraction?

    3. Or does the author conflate interpersonal attraction with sexual attraction and short-term with long-term attraction?

      It seems to be some croatian student's paper of some sort. It's not a study, lol

      Or does the author conflate interpersonal attraction with sexual attraction and short-term with long-term attraction?.

      Yep, pretty much. I skimmed the attraction part. Btw, he's talking about mystery/neil strauss game, which even 99% of PUAs laugh at nowadays.

      The paper writer says:
      - "mystery once said that humour creates attraction"
      - and there are studies where women were asked what they like in a PARTNER, and they said they like men who make them LAUGH, so there might be something to this pua shit...

      Yeah there is, it's fucking called false positives you clowns that go around performing routines to make random women gigle, you retards.

      I don't have to go reading further, because nowhere does he mention SHORT-TERM vs LONG-term. Which means he's not even aware of the distinction.

      Btw, evolutionary psychologists themselves only realized the distinction "recently", I think in past decade. So they themselves conflated long-term and short-term. Then some papers came out by people who were like "oh we fucked up, the reason our shit doesn't add up, is because long-term and short-term are totally different".

      Since then most papers have talked about short-term vs long-term.

  12. PS: Funny thing is, in the last years, more and more PUAs seems to get this. Or let's say the more non-mainstream guys. Funny thing: Even Jon Sinn/Jonathan Lee ("Sinns Of Attraction") says how important screening is and recommends GoodLookingLoser as a decent source for get laid advice. Lee says, if a woman does not let you touch her, does not follow your lead into isolation or resist to qualify for you, she's not into you and you should move on. He also talks about false positives because of the male sexual overperception bias. Listen to this podcast from 31:45 to 35:50 minutes:

  13. Hmmm I know you're not big on game (nor am I) but would you not agree that you basically talk to a girl that is interested about buying socks (maybe a bit extreme) and do NOTHING special at all as long as you "close" so to speak. I have no idea who Tome is but I find a lot of this "game" stuff is a placebo. The girl was ALREADY interested.

  14. Wow! Been a couple weeks since I checked this Aaron. Never heard of this Tom guy before from but he has his own youtube channel I see. This guy could be ripped to shreds. He has an audio where he "bangs some hottie(or an hb10 as he would call her :P) the problem though, how do we know she's not big bertha? You don't even as much see a silhouette of the woman he bangs. Also a video of him on a ship where he nailed another hottie and there's blood on the sheets and condom wrappers on the floor. Apparently he nailed a "model" in his room while she was on her period? When the hell are people going to wake up? Never heard of this guy until a few hours ago and people are still buying into him even a fake video that was fucking corny to begin with? Should I start a Pickup company? I thought the economy was in rough shape?

    1. Ok. I had a bit of free time this afternoon before Christmas dinner and find this Tom guy very amusing. He totally does not look like the kinda that gets laid a lot. Hell maybe not at all. So upon looking at his site I see this!daygame/chhl

      He says there are 6 girls he "bought" with him to a party (pretty sure he meant brought but...if he's willing to pay for a corny "kiss close" maybe he has to pay for women just hang out with him? "Give ya an extra 50 if you say I daygamed you earlier")

      He has a pic of him with a bunch of women around a table. He says he fucked 4 of them through daygame approaches and 2 of them he had a ménage à trois with that night,

      Back the fuck up. How many guys on here would want to sit at a table with 4 random women you already fucked? How fucking gullible are the people buying this PUA bullshit these days? Do you know how easy it is to get a picture like that?

      "Hey girls, who's having a good time tonight? Let's get a picture of us all together"

      Apparently Tom's followers are as retarded or something. Andy Yosha's reply of "she must have found out about it after and put it on here resume" is fucking priceless. So sad people are falling for this!

    2. He totally does not look like the kinda that gets laid a lot.

      What do you mean? Do you mean "doesn't get laid a lot with hotties?". Which makes sense because he doesn't seem very good looking.

      If you mean "get laid at all", how can you tell that from a photo? Are you sure you're not falling for PUA mythology that says a guy has to have a certain dominant body-language to get laid?

      I look like a guy who doesn't get laid a lot by those metrics.

      Unless I force myself to be social and friendly - My default me is that I'm grumpy, asocial, mildly autistic, anti-charming, have absolutely no ability to chat or make small conversation and have akward body-language and eye-contact. Most people think of me as a "weirdo" when I'm my "natural self".

      I get laid equally in both modes. Whether I force myself to go out and force friendly charm and good body-language, or be my natural grumpy asocial self.

      The main difference between the naturally akward weirdo me, and the forced charming me? The forced charming me gets more false positives. Also the steps seem more effortless (less friction)... less bs from the girl's friends etc... but in terms of hooking up, just being able to escalate is the main factor.

    3. I am not very sure about the theory that charisma/bodylanguage (relaxation, good eye contact, slow and symmetrical movements), voice and charm would have small influence on how sexual attractive someone gets percieved.

      You might say it does not matter but I am pretty sure I have lower chances when being high-energy for example. And I do not talk about false positive signals.

      For sure body language does not outplay looks in such a big way as PUAs wanna tell guys but I would say it makes some good 30 - 40%.

      I know, you might say it isn't very scientific but my own observation confirms Illuminatus insights about sexual attractiveness and relaxation in his "One area Sleazy hasn't talked about" thread:

      Because it has to do with your vegetative nervous system it would fit into your criteria for not fakable traits because it needs long-term investment or drugs to change someone who is generally more tensed.

      Because we love science that much, there's also some data that women prefer chill guys:

      I would also say - as long as a guy fits her minimal criteria in looks - "vibe" (bodylanguage, voice, charm, style) can compensate looks to some degree and sometimes a guy gets percieved as attractive when in motion but not hat much on a picture.

      British actor Benedict Cumberbatch is a good example for this. For sure, some girls dig his looks. But I also heard they did not thought he's attractive until they saw him in motion.

      I know this effect for myself. I am pretty sure I would not had a big chance with some women when only being seen on a picture. "Vibe" can not outplay looks totally. But it brings me slightly more opportunities with girls slightly above my league (for sure, not as much as my looks would be better in general).

    4. Of course@

      - Being charming and social INCREASES your odds of getting laid
      -> Of course, DOH!

      - Having good body-language vs akward increases your opportunities and odds
      -> Of course, DOH!

      - Of course being tense and having a bad vibe lowers your odds
      -> Of course, DOH!

      - Of course having a better vibe brings you more opportunites
      -> Of course, DOH!

      Here's the distinction you missed

      -> We are talking about SHORT-TERM attraction or specifically LUST, how much she craves for you physically

      -> PUAs claim they can CREATE physical attraction where NONE existed. This is what's being challenged... do... you... understand... the... distinction?

      It might sound like semantics, but it's crucial

      You might say

      -> "Ok PUAs say to have a good vibe and body-language, you admit the same thing gets you laid more, what's the difference, just semantic?"

      The difference is that

      a) in the PUA case you BELIEVE that you are "creating" physical attraction and CONTROLLING it with your actions and vibe etc...

      b) In the sane paradigm, you believe that you are MERELY increasing or decreasing her MOTIVATION or helping her be comfortable with ACTING on a PRE-existing attraction. You don't create it.

      Does that make sense?

      Because we love science that much, there's also some data that women prefer chill guys:

      Did you miss out that whole discussion about partners vs hookups and short-term vs long term? Please read that. The thing you link to is talking about what women prefer in PARTNERS (i.e. long-term mates, i.e. provider boyfriends).

      If you look for it, you'll find studies that compares what women want short-term vs. long term, and in case of traits like this it's OPPOSITE. That is she wants a less masculine guy for a provider, but a more masculine one for hookups.

      The whole reason evolutionary psychologists came out with the "long-term short-term" models is because they found that the old stuff didn't match. They wondered "how come women/men say they want x in a partner, and then constantly hook up with people who don't have x?!?!"

      Well, the thing they found is that the criteria are DIFFERENT for the two contexts, and then it all made sense. Which is why if a paper is serious, it will specify which context it refers to.

      (what you linked to, refers to "partners", i.e. long-term mates). There is NO EVIDENCE that you can walk up to a random chick, FAKE a trait attractive in the long-term, and that makes her wet or increases her PHYSICAL lust for you.

      There is (anecdotal evidence) it can improve your results though, but again, that's because you're making her more comfortable, because you're not creeping her out, etc etc etc...

    5. I'm not very sure about that. There are studies which show that personality can influence our perception of a person's physical attracttiveness.

      Look at this:

      And here's a full paper:

      Btw, 'evolutionary psychology' as a follow up term for former 'socio-biology' is highly questioned and Aaron often pointed that it could even be seen as pseudo-science.

    6. @anynomous... Did you actually read the thing you're pointing to? And then compare it to the "long-term vs short-term mating" context?

      From the paper you linked to:

      Another problem is that most studies on physical attractiveness—including the few that examine nonphysical factors—are based on the evaluation of strangers.

      This paper is primarily about showing that over time you can become more attractive to someone due to your personality as you get to know each other.

      The longer you've known each other, the higher the effect. It's only in the long-term context that it has a major effect.

      In the short-term, in practical terms its negligible - within the context we're discussing. A change in personality will not make more women in a nightclub desire your cock that night harder.

      (A change of personality might get you laid with a higher number of women who do crave your cock, but its not because this changed personality is creating lust in more women...)

    7. I read it. And it's not clear which amount of time is needed. It's also known that you can shrink the felt get-to-know-time when being at different places when meeting first timefor example.

      You also miss to see that "initial opinion often matters less than initial compliance.

      Much of the time, people simply make choices due to situational factors, unconscious influences and persuasion, rather than due to strong preferences. Then, they backwards rationalize after-the-fact.

      In other words, rather than choosing what they like - most people end up just liking whatever they choose.

      That means, if you can persuade the guy you like to ask you out, he will find you more attractive AFTER he does the asking.

      Or, that girl will find you more likable AFTER you convince her to give you her phone number. Persuasion and influence leads...while preference and opinion change follows to match."

      You say it won't change her desire, but desire has also much to do with sexual arousal. And this is something you can create with actions (as long as she does not think you're repulsive). So as long as she's "lukewarm" getting compliance and arouse her can increase her attraction and the way how much she desires you in a sexual way. For sure, it does not work out all the time, but it increases the possibility.

      It also depends on the given context (who's available for her at this time and moment) and she does not have to be highly attracted to the guy to sleep with him.:

      For sure, it's more likely in social circles but I also know stories where girls became horny and had sex with a club-guy because she thought "Mhh, why not." I made this experience too.

      Yes, personality is less important for short-term mating and you say "a change of personality might get you laid with a higher number of women who do crave your cock, but its not because this changed personality is creating lust in more women", but this is just a thing you make up where the research is not clear and real world situations much more contextual.

      When a woman isn't into you at all, I agree. But when she's not-sure-yet, or "lukewarm" I say actions can definetly create lust in her. You might say anecdotes are shit and maybe the women were into me or the other guys I know from the beginning, and I can say: "Yes, some were but some were not, they told me".

      As I agree with the different preferences in short-term and long-term scenarios, I say it's possible to make lukewarm girls more attracted and do things that can create sexual arousal aka lust in women.

    8. As I agree with the different preferences in short-term and long-term scenarios, I say it's possible to make lukewarm girls more attracted and do things that can create sexual arousal aka lust in women.

      And how can you tell you didn't merely uncover pre-existing lust and she just became more comfortable with acting on it? Are you inside of her body?

      This is why the conflation happens. How can you untangle whether your actions merely made her more comfortable with admitting pre-existing attraction, or whether you created it?

      Believing that you can create lust with your actions is the same magical thinking that was behind crap like hypnotizing women into fucking you, and the equally crazy PUA believe that you can create attraction.

      There's a very simple way to disprove this crap!!!

      If you can "create lust" through your actions, how come nobody has drastically different ratios from other guys (all else being equal except actions)? How come everybody eventually ends up settling around the same ratios?

      Even though you can take 40 guys* applying 40 different "behaviour strategies", they they all fucking have roughly the SAME SUCCESS RATE!!!

      *- We're assuming all 40 have the basic "don't creep her out and make her uncomfortable" behaviour out of the way. So they're at least not akward and somewhat socially smooth. Aside from that, you can find guys promoting 40 completely different action sets, AND THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME SUCCESS RATE.


      How come?

      Why is there no one that has a DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT RATE? If it were possible to control and create attraction, wouldn't there be differences in success rates?

    9. Btw, one reason that a lot of guys in PUA believe this stupid theory that you can "create attraction" through behaviour is because MANY OF US come from an akward background.

      When you've been an akward guy that's made women uncomfortable your entire life, and you first start making those baseline changes, you see MASSIVE shifts in how women act around you, and you find them flirting back etc etc...

      This is ussually when guys are suckered into this theory. After all, they've seen a MASSIVE effect where they can fuck like 500% more girls just by changing their behavour!!

      Except what they don't realize is that they simply went from NEGATIVE to baseline normal*. That is they stopped creeping girls out, making them akward and scaring them away.

      *Btw, in this case "normal" doesn't mean average, most of the male population is the negative and akward around women, not comfortably smooth and mildly charming.

  15. @Alek

    1. You misunderstood me. I did not say I believe it is possible to create sexual attraction when there is none. I said it is possible to create sexual arousal in a girl that is at least lukewarm or clearly interested. Because a woman can think you are attractive but does not have to be aroused just by looking at you. Yes, she can be aroused because of your looks only, but this is not always the case. More sane PUAs and even guys like Nick Krauser admit that "creating attraction" is more about increasing the already (somewhat) given attraction and in 99% of situations you will not get girls that give you a clearly no. Jon Sinn or Mark Manson talk about this too.

    2. You can arouse a woman through actions like 60 Years Of Challenge talks about ("seductive" eye contact, getting into her personal space, touch, caressing, "seductive" voice tonality and topics). For sure, this will not work if she thinks you are not her type at all. If that is the case she will feel uncomfortable when you hit on her.

    3. There are "yellow girls" aka known as the "grey area". Aaron and 60YOC talks about this. For sure, it is not clear if she's sceptical or not-sure-yet or already sexual interested but feels uncomfortable.

    4. Sexual attraction is more a continuum than a simple binary thing. There are situation like "Wow, he is hot!" or "Mhh, yep, he is kinda interesting/"cute" etc."

    5. It is also possible that she is attracted but does not act on her given interest if she is not sexual available. It is also possible that she is lukewarm in the beginning but decides she does not like what she sees or what you do. This means there is no chance to get all "yellow girls" and it is more about polarizing her to being receptive or unreceptive by making her comfortable, making a move and so on. Some will like what and how you do it and it will increase the given attraction and arouse her and some will not like it and they will become unreceptive. It is not always a binary yes or no thing from the very beginning. But I admit her polarization to receptivness or unreceptiveness is more a matter of minutes than hours.

    I hope I could make my view more transparent. But maybe it is better we discuss this at another place. Is it possible to get in contact with you? Because I am always interested to learn more or let down false perspectives and deepen my knowledge about scientific research.

    1. Dude you just switched the goalpost to a strawman. Now you're talking about arousal (seductive eye contact, touching her, putting her hand on your crotch, stroking her hair etc), which obviously I don't disagree with. I call that foreplay.

      You just wrote a comment I don't disagree with. This was not the original discussion. The original discussion was "can you create ATTRACTION through PERSONALITY in a short-term context".

      You now performed a bait and switch and changed to topic to "can you arouse a woman"...


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