Monday, April 16, 2012

Why do You Want Pickup to be Difficult!?

One of the more ridiculous comments about my rather controversial article “Why Cold Approaching in Mostly Useless” was by Mark Manson (Entropy). Just have a look at this statement and be in awe of his bizarre logic:

What bugs me the most about this though is the mindset it implies. It implies a mindset of, "Hey, you should settle for the low-hanging fruit. Take what's given to you."  
The idea that you should wait around for a girl to make eye contact, or that you have to join classes or groups to make it easier for yourself -- it's saying that you should wait around for women who want you, instead of directly pursuing the women who you want. 
For me, I approach women I want to approach for no other reason than I want to approach them. It doesn't matter if it's in a yoga class, on the street, in a night club or at a friend's birthday party. It doesn't matter if she's been staring at me for five minutes or if she has no idea I exist. I don't care and I don't really think about it. I approach based on MY INTERESTS not based on HER INTERESTS.

Let's just go through the lame rhetorics quickly and point out that "low hanging fruit" in this context means a woman who is obviously interested in you, whom you can get much quicker, and, if you so desire, are more likely to be able to keep around due to shared interests. Suddenly, Mark Manson doesn't seem to have much of a point anymore.

Another trap is that you can force your interest upon the woman. If she doesn't want you, she doesn't want you. At best you are a pan-handler, at worst a slimy insurance broker who forces fraudulent financial products upon an unsuspecting client.

What I find particularly odd is that now all of a sudden it's bad to make life easy for yourself. It's not even the case that you "settle" for anything less. After all, you will end up with much better girls if you skip indiscriminate cold approaches. You’ll find that it is much easier to get along with women who share some of your interests, and you'll probably conclude that all the "advanced game techniques" our PUAs peddle amount to an enormous steamy pile of crap.

Furthermore, let’s not forget that women actively put themselves into places where they want to meet men. They doll themselves up for dancing classes, for instance. This is just the most innocent example. It’s no big revelation if I told you that there are plenty of women who move to bigger cities in the hope of finding a decent husband for themselves. Don’t laugh! This happens on all levels of society. Young women move to the capitals of their country, or even go abroad to New York or London, not just to see the world, but also get themselves some better options than their small home town would provide. For some, just getting citizenship of a more prosperous country is motivation enough.

A great case in point is Tiger Wood’s ex-wife, Elin Nordegren. She was a model with no education, but she actively put herself into a position where she could meet men of enormous socio-economic status (by being au pair to a wealthy and well-connected family), thus trying to cash in on her looks. (And this despite being part of the elites of Swedish society as the daughter of a minister.) Surely she thought she could do better than getting, say, an accountant with a fat wallet in Stockholm.

Among au pairs, this seems to be a common motivation. Just think of the deal they get: they get to live with a wealthy family in an attractive city, help with the household, and in exchange they get a bit of pocket money. From a purely economical standpoint, it’s a highly unattractive deal. But if you imagine that it could net you an investment banker or a golf player. It’s not so bad. And if in the worst case, they end up with a divorce worth more than $100 million.

To connect the lose ends, let me ask you whether you think a guy like Tiger Woods would bother to go out and "cold approach" random girls. Do you really think so? He's just making the best of the option he has, and the average guy can do the same. You will probably not score a girl of Nordegren's caliber, but there are plenty of attractive girls out there who are looking for a decent guy, and who don't want to be approached on the streets like cheap hookers.


  1. While I am not a person who wants to apply rigorous logic in everything, but reading statements like these make me cringe.

    Mark here says don't go for "low-hanging" fruit. We have all been told in life that nothing worth having comes easy. Or no pain, no gain. Thus the moment you hear a statement like you are going for a "low-hanging" fruit, people immediately want to disassociate themselves from that, without actually seeing what the "low-hanging" fruit really is.

    I haven't really looked into him in a lot of detail, but I remember in some forum post he made another generic comment that "looks are a multiplier, so if you are ugly you just have to work harder." What he doesn't realize or say out loud is that plenty of girls will just reject you if you are not tall enough, or good looking enough and that most girls really make up their minds relatively quickly, especially in a cold-approach setting like a bar or a club, which going by this statement, he seems to be promoting.

    A lot of other PUAs also make similar generic statements like "girls are primarily attracted to charm, charisma and your personality which you can change with 'game'. Hence, 'game' works".

    Also going by personal experience, I have honestly never been able to pull a "hard" girl. Every girl I have got so far in life have all made it relatively easy for me. Doesn't mean I got them very quickly, but that they played very little to no games, it was always very clear that they were interested, they called/texted back to almost every text/call I made, showed up on dates on time etc.

    1. Mark here says don't go for "low-hanging" fruit. We have all been told in life that nothing worth having comes easy. Or no pain, no gain. Thus the moment you hear a statement like you are going for a "low-hanging" fruit, people immediately want to disassociate themselves from that, without actually seeing what the "low-hanging" fruit really is.

      It's the same in every area of life. For example it is very easy to lose weight and add muscle...

      But people don't want to hear that it is simple, they want complex solutions, they want a "glitch" or a "loophole" in the system. They for crazy idiotic theories about rep-ranges and rep-pause patterns... they go for paleo diets and crazy calorie-sequencing-carb-cycling thinga-miga-jiggies...

  2. I've been with over 50 women, and 3/4 of that was from cold approach pickup in the last few years. Many women made it easy for me, many I had to convince. It was my charm that convinced her to see beyond my looks. I'm a smooth talker. I'm a salesman. Game works.

    1. Tony,

      you can't convince a woman to have sex with you. In Debunking the Seduction Community I write about how men "backward rationalize" that they got the girl due to "game". The vast majority of women the typical PUA approaches have no interest, but why is it that those cases are ignored for the assessment of the validity of "game"? Why do you never say, "Geez, most of the women I approach don't want me because of shitty game" and not, "I guess they weren't interested and "game" doesn't have much to do with getting the girl".

      "Asking girls out game" works as well as (if not better than) all the bullshit the PUAs have come up with in the short sordid history of this industry. So, what is the logical conclusion of that?

    2. Aaron, tony's just fishing for a backlink. Remove the link off of his username. He's using your blog to raise his SEO rank.

    3. you can't convince a woman to have sex with you. In Debunking the Seduction Community I write about how men "backward rationalize" that they got the girl due to "game"

      And this has been proven in pickup experiments by scientists since the 80s. They followed succesful pickups in bars, and then interviewed the men later on.

      The man would talk about how he "spotted and choose a cute a chick" and he would talk at length about what he said and did to "charm" and "win over" the woman.

      The researchers however noted that the woman had chosen and made herself get approached and picked up by the man long before he even spotted her. In every case the woman had chosen the man before he even said hello.

      It's an old trick the female of our species plays. It may even act shy/cold/neutral when you first approach (even though she chose you). Sometimes it is to get the male to invest more (the male is more likely to stick around if it believes it won over or "worked" to get the female). Sometimes it is due to shyness on the part of the female.

      There is absolutely zero evidence that a male has ever made a previously uninterested female be interested (at least sexually speaking).

      It is possible to make a woman who was previously uninterested in a RELATIONSHIP to now want to be interested in a RELATIONSHIP with you (long-term interest)... Interested in you sexually through charm? Zero evidence and proof of this.

    4. Alek,

      thanks for the hint. It's not possible to remove the links people submit when leaving comments. However, as I have just read, Blogger automatically activates the "no_follow" tag for comments, to it won't boost his SEO rank.

    5. Hi Alek Novy and Aaron Sleazy

      While i do hate the PUA community i´m still very sceptical of these claims that women choose based entirely absent viewing ones personality, and they cant change their minds, even if they met the person that is their perfect match personality wise, or in Disney terms "their soulmate". What you and Aaron basically are saying, is that no person can talk or charm other people into anything. cough "BULLSHIT" cough. Can you back up your claims with links to pointed scientific studies.

      Else it is just another sad claim from a person on the internet.

    6. Nobody says that looks are all that matters. Yet, they are a very important success factor and they decide whether you even get a foot in the door. If you have the greatest personality in the world but everybody feels repulsed by you, you won't even get to demonstrate all your great qualities.

  3. I don't have any ambition to interfere with Mr Sleazy's watchdog function, but here's a quote from Tony D (It's a mere accident I stumbled upon it just a minute ago) that might put things into perspective.

    (, halfway down)

    The Blueprint Decoded is a masterpiece of inner game teaching. Owen Cook (aka Tyler Durden) is a master pickup artist of the highest order. He’s some kind of genius and living proof that looks don’t matter. Not to Mention Jeffy, Tim and all the other great coaches. Rsd is a world class institution and these guys are for real. I’m a fanboy. I don’t think any other teachers still give me, “Ahah,” moments.

    1. Nice find! It really does put things in perspective.

  4. I don"t know in what world these PUA"s live and when they say .I"ll quote Tony D " I have gotten laid with over 50 woman on cold approaches " I wonder how many approaches he did to have all that time on his hands ,not to mention these idiots lie a lot .When PUA"S get laid they exaggerate on the caliber of the woman they sleep with most of these nerds get below average woman or fatties .It"s actually comical and sad at the same time .

    To admire Tyler Durden and those RSD tards you must be a big fucking nerd or be totally brain washed by the shitty so called seduction community .I don"t like puahate but you can find a lot useful things exposing RSD on puahate and tons of pics with these so call guru"s and there beat up HB"S below average skanks not to mention that it has been said by community guy"s that Jeffy only hooks up with fatties .To admire a guy like that you must have some serious problems .

  5. Oh please sleazy shut the fuck up already. You speak so much bullshit its fucking redicilous. You've already made urself a fool on pua zone cause of ur redicilous statement about cold approaching being crap, your WHOLE marketing trick is to mark yourself as an "anti pu who still pu" thereby attract customers. Jesus fucking christ, u even any good "in field" ? Ive heard you're pretty shitty compared to alot of the "bigger names". Now ull probably reply with "well puas are faggots" cause thats what you always do. However, the fact these "pua faggots" get way better "Results" than you from COLD APPROACH; doesnt that imply that ure a retard then?

    The statement "you cant make a women interested in you who aint interested from the beginning" is so fucking retarded I dont even know what to say, I dont know HOW MANY TIMES Ive had girls who fucking hated me from the beginning, at the end of the night going home with me.

    Its clear from me, as a very experienced pussy-fucker, that youre "experience" is fucking shitty.

    1. You can't even write proper English. You can't think either. What about her just wanting to be a bitch to any guy who hit on her? Does happen, you know. :P :P :P Sleaze addresses this. Guys who have no clue on the other hand, well, just have no clue. But if your childish fantasies help you...

  6. I wouldn't say Sleazy doesn't have experiences. I am sure he did what he's talking about, but I'd like to know how you, Sleazy, can be so sure about some of your theses, especially the "it's all about looks"-formula. I mean, don't get me wrong guys, I'm a guy who prefers a scientifical approach and don't buy the PickUp community propaganda of "you-can-get-every-girl-you-want-with-game". Yes, there are circumstances you can't control, and her preferences is one of it.

    On the other hand, I know much guys who are good looking and fucked it up by having a lack of intelligence of acting like a needy idiot. I saw it several times. And I had times where girls were not that into me and changed her mind after having different experiences which created an emotional connection.

    I mean, I know these scientifical theories of soziobiology/evolutionary psychology (including Helen Fisher's), but they're much disputed. There are even research's which tell us, it could be possible to create attraction through holding eye contact and having exciting experiences together. I mean, it's an emotional process. Yes, sometimes looks can release these emotions, but it's also known that emotions (especially if we're enamored) can the way we see people.

    So, I think we can't always say A (looks) -> B (attraction). Sometimes, and there are some theses for it, B -> A.

    For sure, if you're fat, spotty, have a bad posture, a shitty haircut and no style at all, even confident behaviour can't compensate your lack of looks. But the whole subject is too complicated to reduce it of genetical looks.

    Just my 2 cents.

    PS: Sleazy, I ask myself why you interpret Mark Manson's "fruit statement" in such a negative way. I mean, you reviewed his book and should know that his approach isn't to go "sarging" every day. I think he wanted to say it's not a good mindset to say cold aproach is bad in every situation at all, because much guys will think: "it's better to stay with girls who recognized me 100%" and they don't even try to approach the girl they desire, because she hasn't seen him yet.

    Is this misinterpretation because of a hidden intent?

    1. Moody, your comment contains exactly 12 missunderstandings and misinterpretations of what Aaron claims or what science claims or what non-gamers claim.

      How can he/they defend something he/they never said or claimed. You are either so brainwashed by PUA that you literally read and hear things that were never said or claimed, you are on drugs or you are a pua shill.

      If you are simply brainwashed or stupid, and you honestly misunderstood things, go to to get it cleared up (on all the confounding mess you said).

    2. I agree with Moody. I cannot resist to write something, because you and Aaaron, become so logical and negative. I mean pick-up is pleausible thing, things are not so straghtforward.

      I mean lost the sight it's about doing what you want. If they want to go to streets and approach 100 chicks, then they should do it. It's exciting and fun. Sure they get rejected, but's it's numbers game anyway.

    3. So you want to tell us that it's more fun to go out any get shot down by 100 or more girls than to look for activities you might enjoy doing? Seriously!?

      Nobody in their right mind "wants to go to streets and approach 100 chicks" (and get 100 rejections). Are you aware of how many posts there are of people who ask how to motivate themselves? If it was so fun, then NOBODY would write those things.

      On the other hand, it is fun to pursue your interests and meet women this way. This is also the reason why people who do that don't even find the community, and it seems to work so well that nobody ever writes how much it sucks to do things you enjoy and meet women there.

      You may not like logic, but, frankly, it's quite a wonderful thing.

  7. I couldn't find Mark's comment on the article on your site? Did he post it on the blog and I didn't see it?

    1. Yeah I couldn't find it either. What's your source Sleazy?

    2. It's the quote!! You guys must be blind or stupid. Did Mark send some of his minions over to cause a stir on this blog or what???

    3. LOLWUT? Mark keep your retards on your forum and send us some smart ones instead. Oh wait...

      Mark, Mark, o Mark, please try to be smart!! :D

  8. My official response to your criticism:

    1. Mark, I quoted your comment in full. If you think I made use of a "straw man", then you are either:

      a) dishonest
      b) butthurt
      c) intellectually challenged

      ....or all three.

    2. *snicker*

      Mark, o Mark, why just can't you be smart? You act like a five-year old. Oh, wait, you went to a mediocre university that accepts one out of every two applicants and did a shitty degree, so maybe that explains it. So, of course you're not used to touch competition and never really had to justify any of your positions.

      But due to your white middle-class background you think you are oh-so smart and interpret lack of people who challenge you as a confirmation that you've figured out. In reality, people are either to dumb to see through your bullshit, or don't care. It was a bout time someone putyou in to place, man.

      I loved Sleazy's review of your book Models where he bashed you for your PUA beliefs, and you thought he was praising it. Hahahaha!! Shows a lot about your ciriical thinking. Jeez, can'T be bothered to fix my typos. Have a nice day, Mark Manson, and good luck scamming people!!

    3. stop_being_so_negativeApril 18, 2012 at 1:56 AM

      In defense of Mark here,

      1) The reason he called you out on pulling a strawman was because you used his statement as proof that he wants pick up to be difficult and thus teaches this to his students.

      The reality is much more different then that. In this article, Mark clearly states that social circle (dancing, yoga...) usually means a lot less effort and more reward.

      Isn't this what you're trying to convey with your post as well?

      2) With this article you really gave off the impression of being someone who just stands there and only engages women who give him an invitation.

      I know that this is not what you meant by it. You either meant, approach women who seem like they want to be approached or approach women who seem interested in you. Common sense basically. Mark never denies this. When he states that he approaches on his interests, he falls into the first category. Namely, women who seem like they want to be approached.

      3) In the book models which you "reviewed" (*cough* cough*). He clearly talks an entire chapter about demographics and how selecting a certain crowd can make it easier.

      I think these statements should clear up a lot of the confusion that is going on. But it's also time for you to grow up and take a mature perspective on things.

      If Mark reads this and I havn't made things clear, then feel free to correct me. But I have a feeling that we won't be giving more attention to people who argue for the sake of arguing.

    4. Your thinking is a bit muddy, my friend. I used that quote to discuss the issue of "low hanging fruit". I wasn't making generalized statements about Mark Manson's teaching.


    I haven't read through much of Mark's website, but I feel this article reflects very well what I think of Mark overall that is a reasonably legit guy but still asks you to do way too much.

    There is a mention of going out often and approaching often without any mention being selective about where to go and who to approach. In my experience, indiscriminately going out hurt me a lot. Only when I got selective with who I approached and which venues I went out to, did I start doing well with some level of consistency.

    In fact, I feel if people got selective about approaching, that itself would resolve half the issues. If you are consistently approaching women who are either interested in you or open in general, that itself takes care of most of the social and sexual anxieties, being relaxed and all the other good stuff (with a little experience).

    Venue selection also tends to be extremely important in my experience. I have seen that in certain venues, I consistently do well even if I am in a bad mood, whereas other venues I do pathetically even if I am feeling awesome.

    Also the point about listening and relating sounds like too much to do. Once again, I feel if you are careful about who you are approaching, this issue gets taken care of.

    1. Johnny,

      thanks for sparing me reading that article. It only confirms the impression I had from his book: some sensible insights, but then absurd elaborations and excursion which proof that he's still deeply steeped in PUA thinking. I wrote that in my review as well.

      Really, Mark Manson often doesn't see the forest for the trees. (Examples are in my review of his book "Models".)

  10. Just to add a bit more to my previous point about being selective and making it easy on your self, which is exactly what Sleazy too has been emphasizing in these last few posts - and this just comes from anecdotal experience.

    So I have never "coached" guys, nor do I ever intend to, but a few months back I had gone out with 2 close guy friends. These guys had never done a cold-approach in their lives, nor ever read any PUA material. They were asking me about how I am able to go talk to random women.

    I told them about just these two points - that how certain places are much more conducive to meeting other people and helped them identify which women seemed open to meeting people. I got them to do a couple of approaches each.

    Since they only ever approached "easy" women and never any difficult ones, most of the time these women very friendly, they put in effort in conversation and the like. Because of this, they never had to go through cases (which almost every cold approach guy has gone through) like 20 phone numbers flaking in a row, or women telling them to fuck off, or calling them ugly, or having a "pain-period", or any serious emotional ups and downs and the like. They literally started getting dates from their approaches within 2-3 weeks.

    1. stop_being_so_negativeApril 18, 2012 at 4:09 AM

      thanks for the clarifications Johnny!

      Personally, in my opinion, everybody is free to do what he or she wants to do. Do you want to approach? yes or no? Do you want to engage more in social activities? By all means, be my guest. In his book Models, Mark clearly states that our goal should be "to have the women in our lifes that make us the happiest". He never said that you should go for the proverbial 10 or that you should be roaming the clubs day and night.

      Venue selection is indeed important, for instance, if I go to a goth club I will simply not belong there. But Mark handles this topic in his book, it's called demographics.

      I somehow have a feeling that a lot of you went through a phase with a lot of rejections. Frankly with all the hype that is being sold through marketing, it doesn't surprise me the least that you become skeptical of what the community teaches. In fact, it's a rather healthy mindset, given the fact that so many people get brainwashed by RSD or Vince Kelvin.

      But in all honesty, that comment from Mark is taken out of context by Sleazy. That's not the way it was intended so it shouldn't be interpreted that way.

      I've been reading your blog a bit, good luck with your new dating life I would say ;).

      Just make sure you leave some women for us :D

    2. By definition the quote can't have been taken out of context because it is reproduced in its entirety. Jesus....

    3. I think it was your response that took the quote out of context. You play some interesting games with words. Where did this quote come from?

    4. Look for it on his forum, and you'll see. You know how to use Google, don't you?

    5. You left that part out of the article when you were using stuff from his forum to promote your blog is all. I think if I owned a website where I tried to make my name off of other people's names I'd at least link back to them. That's just me though. You really like to insult people and make them try to look dumb and you smart. Of course I know how to use Google.

    6. I wrote where I found this quote, so don't read too much into it.

  11. Its fun to read guy bashing Mark who is probably way more "successful" than everyone here with girls. Fucking internet keyboard jockeys.

    1. I doubt that Mark Manson is particularly successful with women. Do you know why? Because his comment to my book "Sleazy Stories" was (paraphrased) that books like this are the highlights of years of going out, while it covers roughly nine months, with some breaks.

  12. Where did you get this quote? I don't see it on your blog. From what I can tell you had to farm it off Mark's.

    I simply can't find it anywhere on your site or Mark's I'm a new reader to the blog. Where did you find this quote? It seems as though to me you took those words wherever you got them out of context as well.

    "Mark, I quoted your comment in full. If you think I made use of a "straw man", then you are either:

    a) dishonest
    b) butthurt
    c) intellectually challenged"

    I think you straw manned him also. I must be C because I couldn't really be 1 or 2. I like how instead of explaining why it wasn't a straw man you insisted he must be one of those three things though. That sounds like another logical fallacy. I guess though if I'm going to stick around and read this blog I better get used to those!

    I probably shouldn't comment. You are obviously trying to stir stuff up. I just looked at how many people follow you on Facebook vs. PM and you picking on Mark in your articles all of a sudden makes a lot more sense.

    1. The quote is from a post on Mark Manson's forum. They were not taken out of context because I have reproduced it in its entirety. He commented on my article, after all.

      Also, let me tell the issue with Mark Manson's strawman statement: He comes on here, vomits that I was using a stawman but doesn't qualify his statement. Using the language of Aristotelian logic, he only gives the conclusion but skips the premises. Try pulling that one of in, say, a university term paper or an academic article. Stuff like this might fly if your name is Ann Coulter and your audience are FOX viewers.

      He makes the claim, and he is supposed to provide the premises, and argue for it. Thus, he's arguing like a (stupid) fifth grader or an intellectually challenged sophomore.

      Lastly, regarding your lame ad hominem about facebook followers, you might want to read up on social media marketing and how some people reach their counts. Don't believe everything you see. Maybe use different metrics, like posts per member on my forum and Mark Manson's forum, and you'll realize something. ;)

    2. I think Wikipedia explained what a straw man was for Mark. Why should he go into any further detail. I don't think it has to be qualified any more than that you straw manned him.

      Your site isn't a university paper. It's a blog that makes money selling products to men. You claim not to be a "PUA" but your site looks pretty much exactly like any other PUA site I've ever seen.

      You use a lot of big words and things that evoke emotions like "vomits" to try and change people's minds. You keep calling him stupid and all sorts of things. It kind of ruins your credibility in my eyes right away the way you even talk about people.

      My "lame ad hominem" must have hurt man. Cool you have a bunch of people that go to your forums. Clearly not enough people care about your webpage to say, follow it on Facebook. I do read up a lot on social media and marketing and if your Facebook and reddit spammed links are indicative of your strategies YOU might want to read up on social media and marketing... Your face book is an RSS feed and you put links up on Reddit that get like 8 comments and 10 votes. Let's call a cow a cow man. I don't even understand how "posts per member" is a metric for success. You've attracted a bunch of guys that like to post in forums a lot. Does that do much for your marketing out in public at all? What are you even talking about.

      You seem like a guy that is trolling the internet to be honest. You are trolling it hard hoping people come to your blog and buy your products. I don't blame you because you have to make a living but you seem to pretend to be up on a really high horse with big words and insulting people with things like "Thus, he's arguing like a (stupid) fifth grader or an intellectually challenged sophomore.". Sorry, I don't personally take people like that seriously.

    3. You don't happen to be Mark Manson, Anonymous? ;)

      Sorry, but he hasn't shown what makes my post (which arguments?) a straw man. This just doesn't cut it.

      The remark about university papers was to illustrate that if you want to discuss something seriously, you just can't make unsubstantiated claims.

      If my site looks like "any other PUA site" then you haven't been much around on the Internet. For starters, I don't tell make exaggerated claims. Also, I don't sell overpriced products, and don't offer boot camps. Plus: I don't have to make a living off the spare change I pick up from selling my books. I'm not in it for the money. If I were, I'd use other strategies like typical PUA fear mongering.

      I don't think I called Mark Manson stupid. If anything, I have shown (!) why his way of arguing isn't particularly intelligent. HIs little drive by shooting, "Hey, straw man alert! Bye!" discredits him.

      Clearly enough people care about my materials and message to buy my books, visit my blog and engage in stimulating conversations on my forum. "Posts per member" is a useful indicator because if this is low, you can deduce that people didn't sign up because they wanted to post but because of some "freebie". That's also how people get their facebook and twitter followers.

      If you think you can make a living by selling books that cost a couple of bucks, then you are delusional.

    4. I'm not Mark but I don't plan on ever commenting on this site so I stayed anonymous. I don't think you need to know my name to hear my points. You play an interesting game of trying to discredit people in as many ways as you can by eluding to things like the fact I'm anonymous. Do you not normally welcome anonymous comments?

      You can't say because he didn't argue with you that his claim was unsubstantiated. Your claim of that is actually unsubstantiated. By doing that, he claims that you took what he said out of context. You copy and pasted what he said, yes, but then you went and put your opinion below it which wasn't actually a clear portrayal of what he had said right above your words.

      "If my site looks like "any other PUA site" then you haven't been much around on the Internet"

      You really like doing this thing where you just try to take someone completely out of the game. Now I don't spend much time on the internet. Ok man, cool. I'll tell you what. I've never read your blog before last night. I've heard about it but the entire premise just seemed silly. When I came, I saw you sell ebooks, phone consults, bash other guys in the dating industry, and have a forum that asks for FR's. You are a carbon copy of like 10 different websites in that regard. I guess you can say it isn't true all you want but for those of us who have "been around the internet" facts are facts. Take notes on what I have to say. I've been to a lot of PUA sites lately to see what they are and yours isn't MUCH different at all. You can sit here and say it is until you are red in the face but I'm saying that it's not and pointing at why (fr's, pua gossip, phone consults, pick up girls ebooks).

      You have many times insulted Mark's intelligence in these comments and you also guessed he isn't good with girls and made an "unsubstantiated claim" there. You've also eluded to me being dumb and not knowing what I'm talking about multiple times. You play a cute game.

      You basically told me to "read some books about social media" when your Facebook page has less than 200 followers. Yeah. I'm just going to leave that there.

      "If you think you can make a living by selling books that cost a couple of bucks, then you are delusional."

      If you think you can't sell ebooks for short money that adds up to a lot if they have good content and are marketed well, you don't know business and you are delusional. See what I did there? I just said you are wrong on the internet. Now I am right because I said it. I don't think you are delusional really, I just think it's funny how hard you try to paint other people as wrong and you as right.

      That's obviously part of your marketing though, as is copying text from other peoples forums and not sourcing it so people can see the discussion as it is. Seriously, you farmed half of your article from someone else's forum and in your argument you took what they said out of context. A lot of people have said that. You just keep dodging the point entirely.

      You seem as a business man to be fairly incapable of handling feedback besides trying to bash it down with a hammer. lol.

      Like I said before, if you are going to get content off a guys forums and quote him at least source the quote in the article. That's pretty lame. You are talking about sources and news and debates and scholarly discussions but you didn't even source the enormous quote you based your entire article off of. For anyone who "doesn't know how to Google" (lol what a dick) it just seems like you made that shit up man.

    5. You certainly write similar to Mark Manson.

      Let's keep this short:

      You can't say because he didn't argue with you that his claim was unsubstantiated.

      He offered a conclusion but not the premises. If you said, for instance, X is intellectually dishonest, you'd have present a coherent argument first.

      I've been to a lot of PUA sites lately to see what they are and yours isn't MUCH different at all.
      Yawn. Check out Debunking the Seduction Community (free), or Minimal Game (couple 'o bucks), and then compare it to your typical PUA ebook. Do your research first.

      You have many times insulted Mark's intelligence in these comments and you also guessed he isn't good with girls and made an "unsubstantiated claim" there.
      No, he said that about my book Sleazy Stories. A guy who has had sex with a lot of women wouldn't have assumed it took "years" to rack up those stories.

      You basically told me to "read some books about social media" when your Facebook page has less than 200 followers.
      You really are a bit thick, aren't you? The point is that I don't care much about social media and that people with thousands of followers haven't necessarily gotten them the way you think they did.

      If you think you can't sell ebooks for short money that adds up to a lot if they have good content and are marketed well, you don't know business and you are delusional. See what I did there?

      Yawn (again). Do you know how very few people make a living off their books? Just because a few people sell a million records doesn't mean it can't be done. But it does mean that it's quite unlikely, and that it would be absurd if you assumed every small band that sold a couple of records can life off its music.

      You seem as a business man to be fairly incapable of handling feedback besides trying to bash it down with a hammer. lol.
      You make it very easy for me. LOL.

    6. if you think I write like Mark Manson that is like one of the nicest compliments I've ever gotten. I like Mark because he uses his real name. Is this your real name? If not, aren't you hiding behind "anonymous" as well?

      "I've been to a lot of PUA sites lately to see what they are and yours isn't MUCH different at all.
      Yawn. Check out Debunking the Seduction Community (free), or Minimal Game (couple 'o bucks), and then compare it to your typical PUA ebook. Do your research first.

      You own a PUA blog. It put's it's own spin on picking up girls. sells phone consults, encourage FR's in the forum, gossips about PUA's, and sells ebooks about picking up girls (even if you talk shit about other people's methods in one of your books).

      You still didn't link back to the forum in your post although you demand journalistic integrity from your comments lol. Like I said, if you are going to use a paragraph from an enormous conversation, link the conversation. That alone is enough to say you straw manned the entire thing. Do you not understand what straw man is?

      Funny you bring up ad hominem when that appears to be your main way of getting traffic and interacting with comments... Enjoy your non PUA site man. I'm going to stay away from it because it's obviously a PUA site to me after doing my research. You failed at convincing me otherwise. Take notes on that and try to improve or just stay the same. I don't really care either way anymore lol as you lost a reader the first day they showed up to your site. That's because I'm dumb,delusional, sophomoric, ect. I get it.

      Enjoy not selling enough ebooks to make a living. If you wrote really good ones and did it right, you could, but keep telling me you can't because it's funny and I'm OK with you not doing so.

    7. I would find it rather odd if "Mark Manson" was his real name. You know, it's an alliteration, and it's not particularly common to find people whose first and last name starts with the same letter.

      I keep links to a minimum. You can interpret this as you will. However, it's hardly the same issue as other people using faulty logic.

      Your use of "straw man" is absurd, and so is your lame spin on the economics of selling ebooks. Commercial success is hardly a measure for quality, by the way.

      Take care, man!

    8. You are lame! See. Two can play at that game. If its his real name he at least gets point for not being fake online. You are a dodgeball master sir. Congrats. Enjoy your blog mr. Anon. Take care as well!

    9. If, if, if, ... Really, I don't see how this would matter. Some of the greatest works in history have been penned under pseudonyms. This is not to imply that I think my output belongs to that category, but merely that it has a long and honorable tradition.

    10. You are implying someone's name isn't their name without having any clue. You already admit this isn't your name. You have a weird kind of integrity dude.

    11. Are we now in kindergarten? You claim his real name is Mark Manson, I question it. That's all.

      Of course, "Sleazy" isn't my last name. Seriously, pester some other people because your nitpicking only serves to embarrass you.

    12. Whatever you say mr. anon.

  13. Alek, I don't know what's going on with you, but seductionmyth isn't god. Helen Fisher's theories are much discussed and there are much studies which says, same shape of facial expressions probably are a criterion for selection of sexual partners, but can't explain everything. Maybe I'm wrong, but sometimes it seems like some guys are searchin' for theories they can use to apologize for their fear of rejection and less experiences with girls.

    1. but seductionmyth isn't god.

      I never TOLD you that non-game, sedmyth or aaron are "gods".

      You are not required to agree with what this group of people says

      WHAT I SAID TO YOU (and you managed to misread again due to the drugs)... is that you FUNDAMENTALLY missunderstand what these people are saying.

      Again, you are not REQUIRED to agree with what sedmyth (and aaron and science) say, but IF you disagree, you are required to actually KNOW and UNDERSTAND what they are saying. You ACTUALLY disagree with a GHOST, you DISAGREE with a MADE UP position that you MADE UP.

      Your entire post was based on things neither Aaron or anyone else has said.

      Was I clear enough, or will your drugs misunderstand what I said again?

    2. Ah, you remembered me to take some shit next days. Thanks, bro.

  14. Conclusion: Only approach girls which are open to talk to strangers and/or gives you signals/invitations, because it's a waste of time to approach a girl who doesn't seem like having fun to talk with strangers and try to "win her over". Also it's better to have a solid social circle instead of being outside for 3 hours and hit on every girl you see, even if you're not sincerely interested (and of course, there are much "PUAs" speak to girls they're not really into, just for getting a number or some validation). And that's the debate all about. Right?

    This advice isn't bad, but formulate too negative if you ask me (arg, my English sucks today =D ).

    1. That's a good summary of my original article. I really don't see how anyone could disagree with it.

    2. I don't think anyone with brain, and especially Mark Manson, would do (he explains the "Three Types Of Women" in his book and also says your appearance and lifestyle determines the quality of girls you get).

      I mean, the discussion became personal and failed the subject after a while. The question we talk about is this: I see a girl I really desire and she didn't saw me, or looked just for a second and turned away or talks on with their friends.

      How can I know the truh about her and the possibilities without approaching her? Sometimes I can, but sometimes not. Our intuition isn't a perfect scanning program and much times we limitate ourselfs by creating a story about her, ourselfs and the whole situation in our heads.

      And if some guys misinterpret your advice to fit the pareto principle well (for what your philosophy is aiming on, right?)and don't get over their fear of rejection because they didn't get clear signals, it's a mindset of a not needful limitation.

      And that's what the debate is about: What can I know before even showed up by walk over to her and say "Hi." (?)

    3. Well, that's why I advise people to put themselves in situations where they can meet women who are more likely to be receptive to their advances. Isolated counter examples don't do it in this case.

    4. Ok, it's a important factor of demographics, but has nothing to do with the cold approach question. What's about projection? We never see reality in an objective way. Warped Mindless posted this very interesting post at the @Postmasculine Forum:

      "I have a family member with a Ph. D in psychology and I was talking to him about "approach invitations" and warm approaches and all that. What he said to me was interesting and I'll paraphrase it...

      "In general, people see what they want to see. If you go out specifically looking only for girls who give you these 'approach invites' than thats what you will see. Are some of those girls actually sending you non-verbal signals to approach them? Sometimes. However, often times you will simply fool yourself into thinking thats what their doing because thats what you want them to be doing. Our minds are very good at deception and tricking us into seeing what we want to see.

      There really isn't a surefire way to know if shes interested or not until you go meet her. Its the same thing as minority guy saying that white women isn't into him. Will some women not be into him? Yes. But the majority of white women most likley doesn't care. But because he believes they do, thats what he sees. He will be talking to a white woman and he will interpret much of her behavior as showing disinterest in him when it doesn't mean that all. You simply see the world through the "glasses" you put on." "

      As I said before, you can't trust every "signal", because sometimes we see what we want to see. As a Nice Guy ("I'm such a faggot") and as a seducer ("yeah, I know, girls are chasing me all the time").

    5. What about skipping hypotheses and looking at what actually happens in the real world instead? Then, you'll for instance find out that the races normally don't like to mix. Of course, this doesn't mean that it never happens that a white woman fucks a black dude.

    6. To test any such evo-psy or psy or any other theory like this, just perform the following experiment. Approach lots of women who are 4-5 inches taller than you. Use whatever projects, beliefs, you see what you believe, techniques and other stuff which you think gives you an advantage.

      Now, repeat the same experiment with women who are 4-5 inches shorter than you. Drop everything which you think gives you an advantage - bring on the "limiting beliefs", drop techniques, bring on negative projects, don't create the "us" vibe, ask questions instead of making lots of statements and lots of other shit.

      Lets see which gives you better results. I think you already know how it is going to turn out.

  15. "How not to be a cold approach weirdo" by Wayne "Juggler" Elise of CharismaArts.

  16. Sleazy misinterprets Mark's point completely. Mark's point is for you to do what you want to do regardless of the outcome. Yes, there are arguments whether cold approaching is useless/working etc. But at the end of the day, it's all about doing what you want to do in your life with no regret.

    Because sometimes you see that super smoking hot girl in a shopping mall that you'd kick yourself out for days if you don't go up and talk to her. She may or may not be interested, but it's much better to talk to her and find out than not approaching her at all. Even if she rejects you, you feel like a man for going after what you want. It builds confidence and you have no regret.

    I don't want to turn 50 or 60 years old wishing that I should have done more x, y, z when I was younger in my life. Regrets will haunt me as I get older.

  17. Why do you think you wouldn't find "that super smoking hot girl" in an environment that might indicate that she's interested?

    Also, you should consider the long-range effects of your strategy. If you compare one cold-approach with one warm-approach that both go nowhere, you have faced stronger opposition in the cold approach case. Also, it's generally easier to get girls from warm approach. So what is your conclusion if you didn't approach ONE girl but went through many, many girls in a number of years? Surely you would agree that you end up wasting a tremendous amount of time, while your buddy who is following the warm approach strategy ends up with much better results, both time and women quality wise.

    Lastly, the more women you end up with, the less you will any regrets will haunt you. You may have this perspective you've only had sex with a few women. When you are a teenager, for instance, you think you can't miss a party, but as you get older, you realize that it's just another party and nothing special. It's like this with everything in life.

    1. You miss the point again. The point is not the result, the point is doing what you want regardless of the result.

      The worst case scenario for stronger opposition in cold approach is the word "no" and her walking away. Unless I do something extremely stupid that makes her call cop or slap me.

      There's no doubt that warm approaches is better than cold approaches. But if the opportunity doesn't present itself and you chicken out because of that, you'll develop the habit of always analyzing your approach to women. And in most cases, you'll turn into pussy most of the time. "OMG she's not looking, I should not approach." "Hm she seems busy I should not bother." "Hm she's reading a book I don't want to disturb her."

      That attitude is much more destructive than being rejected itself. By the time you find a girl with warm signals, you already pussy out because you've been avoiding things that you want to do earlier in the day.

      And let's be honest, who cares if you have a high rejection rate? Unless you're that Asian guy from RSD who fucked 1 girl out of 1000 approaches, then getting a girl out of 10, 50 or 100 approaches is better than zero.

      Of course, I'm arguing with a guy who has slept with hundreds of women, which means that his reality completely differs from mine. For you, women is a dime in dozens because you already racked up your laycount and get sick of it. Most guys, however, don't even come close to your "accomplishment" and still want more sexual experience with lots of women.

    2. You miss the point again. The point is not the result, the point is doing what you want regardless of the result.

      Do you honestly say that it doesn't matter what you do because the results don't matter? If so, what would you invest in?

      1) Treasuries with a guaranteed return on investment
      2) A pile of dirt in which there may be a few dollars hidden

      Do you want to know how I managed to "rack up my laycount"? Because I was looking for a niche in which I would find women who would be potentially interested. That's the whole secret of pickup. By approaching women indiscriminately, I would have burnt out sooner or later. Or do you think any healthy guy wants to approach 100 girls for one "yes" for a long time? After a couple hundred approaches, you say to yourself, "Fuck this shit", and you either drop out of pickup altogether or you look for people who might want to tell you how to improve your batting average (some of those guys have found me and are now doing much better, by the way).

    3. Yep, I am one of "those guys". I still think there might be value in say, you are out grocery shopping and see a girl you really like - sure go for it. But don't let these cases be the ones where you expect something to happen. Anything here would just be added bonus.

      Your majority results will certainly come from being selective about where to go and which women to approach. At least, that has been the case for me.

    4. You forget to account the situation a person is in when choosing those 2 options:

      If you make good money and have all your needs fulfilled and taken care of, then investing on treasuries is a much better option than finding a few dollars hidden within a pile of dirt.

      But a homeless guy who has no money and only had 1 meal a week ago, he'll do anything just to survive. Investing treasuries is completely out of his option, he has to look for a few dollars within a pile of dirt.

      The guy who makes money obviously has some money "skills". He knows how to "read" the investment climate and make the investment when the opportunity is great. He also know when to back down from doing anything because he knows the reward is small to none.

      The homeless guy? He doesn't give a shit. Even a dollar or two can fill him up for another day or two even if it takes him 1 or 2 days of effort to get that money.

      Replace "money" with "women" and you'll see how they're related to our discussion.

  18. fed up with classic dating adviceApril 19, 2012 at 1:22 PM

    To be honest, he's right.

    I mean have you read Krauser's blog? The dude roams the street for 8 hours? The dude goes to foreign countries cause else he can't get laid.

    There's an enormous elephant in the room that nobody adresses and it's almost always the role that your environment plays. I know a person who's like this as well. He has been with 75 women in his life, yet he's the bigest idiot I've ever met. The majority of these women he encountered when he was travelling abroad (eastern europe, russia). Do you think he has the same succes in his home country? Not a chance! I mean get real dude.....

    Think about it. There are so many women in danceclasses. And if you really like to dance, you can go to special dance events. How do you think the girl/guy ratio will play out in that field?

    I really can't believe that I led myself get brainwashed by pua and dating advice. That quote from Mark is ridiculous, but I guess he was showing his vulnerability (no pun intended). It's the same with looks, you always hear "all you need to do is work harder", but that is so vague. If you're a bit of a good looking guy (which I am), then you know that women will gladly trade up with you instead of another guy. I've encountered this one a couple of times.

    I mean in the game of dating (and life) limitations are very real. For some people these limitations are entirely in their head, but for some it really isn't.

    I wish Mark would explain his premises though. That quote wasn't even taken out of context. The least you could do is explain why you're thinking like that. This could have actually provided usefull information in this discussion.

    In reality it's so simple, find out hobbies and interest that are mutual for you and the type of women that you like. Engage in these and go to these events. The process will became way more enjoyable and you'll meet like-minded girls.

    I have posted in this thread as well, but I've changed my mind. It's insane, you've never even met these people in real life, yet they have some sort of power over you.

    let's keep dating fun and easy guys! I can't wait till another thread pops up "I have approached 500 women and I had one date". Dear god.... Or the advice that people give to shorter guys "just keep approaching taller women, eventually it will work out". Some shorter guys definetly hook up with taller women, but the exception does not prove the rule. And these are limitations, not limiting beliefs!!!!

    I'm really fed up with dating advice. It contains way to much of nurture type of thinking. Not everything is possible for everyone. I think if people could get this into their head, they would actually start enjoying their dating life.

  19. fed up with classic dating adviceApril 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM

    Another enormous elephant that nobody adresses is this idea that everybody can get hot chicks (or the hottest chicks). You know, either you have the looks to get those. And if you don't have the looks, you better be very popular or have a lot of money, fame.

    I can understand perfectly why some people only approach women who give them signals. I mean face it, so many guys are borderline depressed due to the constant ammount of rejection that they are facing. Off course when they ask for advice the guru tells them that they are making excuses.

    I never encountered this enormous storm of rejection. But I'm starting to belive that if you're average, you better keep it low profile. This may sound cynic, but I see it happenning all the time. Hearing these stories from other guys really makes me realize that I came from a luxury position.

    It's amazing, some guys really have potential and they get good. Others are best served with focusing on other aspects. Become rich, succesfull, that way they can have their picks of the trophy wifes later on.

    I mean this has repeated itself over and over in history.

    1. Those two comments were really great. I'll re-post them soon on my blog so that more readers will see them.

  20. I get the feeling that all this has to do with idealisation of women, indirectly. Meaning that if you believe that there is a Special One somewhere, if you really want to be sure you get her, you need to be able to approach her anywhere. So the PUAs get used to approaching in the most difficult environment just to be able to "choose from a larger possible panel".

    What these fucktards don't see however is that as long as their success rate is not 100%, approaching on the streets does not actually give them more choices. They have more targets to approach, but if I approach 10 girls and fuck 5 of them, while they approach 100 and fuck the same amount, they don't have any more choice, they just waste more time and energy getting to a place I am without effort.

    Being able to approach anywhere would mean more options if they was a surefire way of generating attraction in any woman you meet (well, whaddaya know, exactly what PUAs are pitching), but since it's not the case, the whole "I cold approach to have more options" is flawed. Until you use the specific chloroform-rope-duct tape-van routine.


  21. Johnny

    This is the part the tards don't get. They view everything in rules and black and white.

    Of course if you see a once-a-lifetime chick running across the street, and she's makes your heart pound in a special way, go run up to her and say you just had to meet her. Aaron said mostly useles, he never said it's illegal to ever do it.

    If you only cold-approaching in the rarest of occasions, you will most likely have a very genuine tonality too, if you really reserve cold approaching only for the most special of women.

    But nobody sees "special chicks" 20 times a day. Who the fuck are these guys fooling? Themselves?

    If you have even the semblance of life, like many social hobbies and shit, you should be meeting dozens of chicks that outright give hot and warm signals to you... And let me make it clear,your success rate with chicks who give warm and hot signals can be as high as 50%.

    So if you have a LIFE TM you should be getting at least 10 warm and hot offers a week, just by living your life. These chicks should on average be of the same quality as chicks on the street or mall.

    Again, this doesn't mean to never approach chicks in the mall or supermarket. If you look semi-decent, look clean and fit, even a trip to the mall and supermarket should produce at least a few WARM signals.

    So if you have a life, you should already be getting more warm and hot signals than you have time to date.

  22. NonTard is full of shit.

    He's obviously never been to parties where the groups are cliquey and girls don't really want to meet you unless you know x y z friend of her friends.

    Nor has he come to realization that just because girls are friendly in social hobbies and shit doesn't mean they're interested to date you. They're nice because it's social norm to be nice, especially when their friends are around. So 50% warm/hot signals is smoke and mirrors.

    If a girl is interested, she's interested. Doesn't matter when/where/how you meet her. This is as bad mental masturbation as pickup community dudes.

    1. """He's obviously never been to parties where the groups are cliquey and girls don't really want to meet you unless you know x y z friend of her friends."""

      Wtf does that have to do with anything!?!? Generalizations are not rendered untrue by exceptions. Wtf are you even talking about foo?

      """Nor has he come to realization that just because girls are friendly in social hobbies and shit doesn't mean they're interested to date you."""

      This is you projecting shit. Most of us have known the difference between a chick being nice and a chick flirting since we were 15. Not everyone is a PUA who first left the house at 24.

      """ They're nice because it's social norm to be nice, especially when their friends are around. So 50% warm/hot signals is smoke and mirrors."""

      Learn to read moron. I never said "50% warm signals" moron. I said you can get as much as 50% of the chicks who show interest in you.

      """If a girl is interested, she's interested. Doesn't matter when/where/how you meet her."""

      That's obviously fucking not true. The exact same chick, if you meet her in the exact same way, all equal, you have much more chance to score in a social circle. This is for many reasons, including safety and security concerns.

      Somebody even posted some studies the other day that prove this, that chicks will sleep with dudes they know of much more readily, than strangers. This is like even scientifically proven.\

      """This is as bad mental masturbation as pickup community dudes."""

      But you engaged in it too tard. Both you and me are doing the same shit, only claiming opposite things you fucking tard.

      The I-Am-Superior-Coz-I-Don't-Theorize AMOG of yours only works if you don't engage in theorizing either you fucking tard. Go back to your PUA cave.

  23. At least, I would say, the "Lovemap"-theory of US-psychologist John Money describes the process of mate choosing very well:

  24. The post by 'NonTard Anonymous, Apr 20, 2012 10:48 AM' is spot on! Nobody is saying never do a cold approach, but running around opening sets is pretty weird!

    I really don't get why people are arguing with Sleazy and AlekNovy, they're trying to make everything simple for you, why do yous not get that?

    And as for Sleazys review of Mark Mansons 'Models' , I found it to be very honest about what was good and bad. Through that review I actually considered purchasing the book.

  25. "I approach based on MY INTERESTS not based on HER INTERESTS."

    Ha, and what's the result if you like her and approach her, but you pay no regard for her interests?

    Seems to me this leads to a high likelihood of... getting REJECTED!

    Good luck with that delusional approach to life, as opposed to seeing reality for what it is, as Aaron alluded to in the rest of the post.



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