Saturday, December 15, 2012

Guest Post: What "game" is and isn't (by Alek Novy)

In the following guest post, Alek Novy dismantles "game" once again. In particular, he is responding to the claim that you can become more attractive by changing a few minor things. For instance, Mystery and Love Systems want to tell you that you have to approach from a 45 degree angle. Others tell you to pepper your language with "NLP anchors", and whatnot. The number of bullshit ideas in the community is endless.

The concept of "creating attraction" is fraudulent as demonstrated by science. I've argued and proven this over in length, I won't have time to argue now (I have a life, so no time). But basically, you can become more attractive in general by

  • Adding muscle, removing fat
  • Getting plastic surgery
  • Getting status in a given circle/community
  • Making lots of friends and raising your social status
  • Money
  • Money
  • Money
  • Fame

However, becoming more attractive to one specific chick doesn't work since it involves:

  • Personal compatibility (you could try to fake it, but you don't read thoughts, so you don't even know what to fake)
  • Being her type (genetic matching displayed through facial shape, skin type, body ratios, unique smell signature of your individual body etc)

You can become a more attractive person (scientifically validated to making a significant difference, go lose 50 pounds and tell me how many more dates you get, same with getting an expensive car).

You cannot, however however merely speak or stand or ask for the date in a "different way" and suddenly get drastically different results. You will still get roughly the same amount of yes responses per 100 chicks. No game believer has ever shown to get a yes per 100 chicks asked more often than a control subject (the control would be average beta-guy game by your terminology).

You can learn how to get laid more often, but that doesn't have anything to do with "creating attraction through walking, talking and acting differently" (the fradulent concept that all game is based on).

So I said that it is possible to learn how to get laid more, right? What is it that you "learn" when you learn how to get laid more? Oh, just how to

  • meet more hot women 
  • ask for sex more often

As for improving your ratio? (how to get more yes-es per 100 attempts)? That's simple too... It boils down to

  • identifying which chicks are likely to say yes to you
  • asking in a way that doesn't scare women away. 

That's pretty much it.

For example I've quadrupled the amount of lays I get during this past year. All it involved was simply building a life where I meet and am friends/acquintances with more super-hot women than you could ever even "open" doing cold-approaching. I literally am friends with hundreds of hot women (models, tv personalities, etc etc)... But that all falls under how to be rich and influental and well-connected and "how to network and build social status", not "game". Though I'm sure a game guru is about to claim to have invented networking skills any day now (I'm sure Dale Carnegie stole his ideas from a game blogger).

Asking for sex requires either balls or social intelligence. You could either ask every woman if she's down to fuck outright (experiencing a ton of rejection) or you could learn how to test and tell which chicks are likely to say yes, and only ask the hottest leads to come over to your place (pretty much what I do).

That's it. A PUAtard might chime in and go "Durr, my favorite PUA teaches us about IOIs too, and he also talks about how to network!" or "A guru once told me to join the gym!" But that's not the point! Game is not defined by what it shares with other disciplines, what defines game is its unique claims. Yes, one of the 52,456 PUA methods might also teach you to for example make lots of female friends - but that's not game, that's common sense. The game part is where he the guru claims that by standing differently or constructing sentences differently or communicating differently you will cause the woman to desire your cock more than otherwise. This is the fraudulent part. Get it?

The unique claim of game is that you can "create attraction" by merely displaying or acting out certain traits (not possessing them, merely acting them out). But this claim is without basis.


  1. Beiung a quick rant directed at some puatard's question it has a few omissions.

    FIRST - the first line specifically ends up looking like a contradiction just a few sentences later

    "The whole concept of "getting more attractive" is fraudulent ..."

    This was right after quoting the guy's questions. If it were a stand alone post, it would read "the concept of creating attraction is a fraudulent concept"

    SECONDLY I have to admit that it was you that I learned this part from

    "identifying which chicks are likely to say yes to you"

    So people should just get minimal game to learn that part. Now that I'm here at this level, I feel stupid that I didn't know this stuff before, especially since I thought I knew everything even before minimal game lol.

    This basic concept
    "Use responses to physical proximity, waist grabbing, hand holding etc to tell how sexually comfortable a chick is with you".

    Would you believe I spent years not putting things together and believing since it's a numbers-game, rejection is part of the formula - making moves is something you do when you isolate her?

    Since I've used your basic summary in minimal game on how to identify who is and who isn't DTF - I've yet to experience a rejection. From this perspective (today) I can't believe this wasn't intuitive to me since forever. And I think to myself "was I stupid"?

    But then I think about how low the average sexual partner count for the average man is, and then realize "Yeah, somehow the most obvious-intuitive thing on the planet is bred out of us men, otherwise everyone would be getting higher numbers of lays"

    If I could summarize Aaron's miminal game in two sentences (steps), it would be...

    -1> Keep making increasingly more sexual moves on a woman until she has either become uncomfortable or you have performed every move one can make in public/with clothes on

    -2> If she's comfortable with every move, ask her to come home with you

    Simplest method on the planet. With perhaps an intermmediate step of "take her aside to make even more moves" if she's uncomfortable/shy being hit on in front of others.

    -1> Keep making increasingly more sexual moves on a woman until she has either become uncomfortable or you have performed every move you can make with her friends being nearby

    -1a-> Ask her to go outside for "some air" and then make even more direct moves, even more intimate touching, makeout, and see how far you can get with your grubby hands

    -2> If she lets you do everything one can do with clothes on, ask her to come home with you

    1. "-1> Keep making increasingly more sexual moves on a woman until she has either become uncomfortable or you have performed every move one can make in public/with clothes on

      -2> If she's comfortable with every move, ask her to come home with you"

      So the chick in your scenario just sits there doing nothing and then, like magic, she decides it's cool to go home with you? You're just as full of shit as the PUAtards you criticize.

    2. You shouldn't assume that the girl just sits there doing nothing at all. She'll probably show some kind of reaction, either positive or negative, once you make your intentions clear. Many guys have the problem that they want to hide their intentions and think they can somehow trick the girl into sleeping with them.

    3. "So the chick in your scenario just sits there doing nothing and then, like magic, she decides it's cool to go home with you?

      Anonymous, by your reaction I'm getting the sense you didn't actually read what I wrote, but somehow misread it. I'm guessing you read something like

      "You appear at a club, just make some moves on a chick, and then you can just say let's go, and she will go home with you".

      THAT'S NOT WHAT I WROTE! But it seems that's what you read. Here's a clarification.

      -> Some chicks are horny and want to fuck and are pretty sexually liberated and might want to fuck you (note the "some")

      -> YOU CAN find these chicks without ever having to experience rejection. The process above is about finding those chicks.

      -> If a chick is letting you put your hand on her thigh in the club, lets you do heavy petting while you makeout in the corner and even lets you cop a feel here and there, she will most likely say yes if you invite her home. MAKE SENSE?

      Did you miss this sentence "increasingly more sexual moves on a woman until she has either become uncomfortable"?

      With most chicks, you're just going to have a pleasant friendly conversation. Make sense? With most chicks when you try to lean in, get a little closer, you'll note her becoming more uncomfortable and you'll just stop there. It will never progress past a friendly conversation. Make sense?

      Or perhaps some chicks will let you come closer, stroke their hair, even kiss them, but if you try to get a bit more sexual (get hand lower down waist, toward buttock), they get uncomfortable so you back off and don't invite them home. MAKE SENSE?

      Hence "every move one can make in public/with clothes on"

      Yes, some of the chicks who refuse to let you become more sexual in a club might have said yes to going home with you... But they might also have not, you risk rejection if you ask them. Whereas if a chick lets you do almost anything possible in clothes, she will surely say yes to being taken home. MAKE SENSE?

      Although your comment was very unclear, so I'm just GUESSING what you're protesting. I'm assuming you're protesting the idea that you can just ask any random chick to come home and she'll say yes, so I'm clarifying that part (we're not asking any random chick, it's a process of testing and eliminating through a friendly conversation interspersing increasingly more bold physical moves). From a far the process should look like you simply SOCIALIZING WITH and being FRIENDLY to a ton of chicks. There are no nuclear rejections, because you move slow, and back off to a lower (less sexual level) anytime you sense discomfort.

      With most chicks it might not get past her letting you rest your hand on her shoulder before she gets uncomfortable. Make sense? With most chicks you just end up having a social conversation. Make sense?

      But if your snarky comment was about something ELSE

      "like magic, she decides it's cool to go home with you? You're just as full of shit as the PUAtards you criticize."

      Please clarify. Because "like magic" and "just sits there doing nothing" are completely confusing snarky remarks that don't actually tell me what specifically you're protesting (so I have to guess). There's no claim of chicks doing nothing or magic. So if my clarification failed, let me know if you were protesting something else. Thanks!

  2. Alek,

    I've changed the first sentence.

    Where did that "PUAtard" post? You mentioned "BP's place", but that doesn't ring a bell. I don't have the time to follow random blogs anymore, so I am a bit out of the loop.

    1. I don't either. I haven't opened a single blog on this subject in almost a year (since march I think) except for opening your blog/forum 5-10 times since then.

      BP -> Black Pill. You've quoted and linked to him a few times. I had the first day off in a while yesterday and I went to catch up on everything that's been happening in the past 6-9 months.

      Aside from the implosion of the manosphere which you covered, I've learned that nothing has changed, the dumbasses are still just as fucking delusional and dumb. And just the other day someone had accused a commenter asking a logical question of being "an aleknovy sockpuppet".

      I fucking can't believe this. I haven't even opened a page in this part of the internet for almost a year, and they're still meeting every question or doubt with an alek novy conspiracy theory. It's amazing.

      The even funnier part? I WAS ONLY criticizing them for 3 months. It's not like I had been around blogging about them for years, and then when I leave they still obsess me 1 year since my dissapperance.

      I only did about a 2-3 month campaign of writing 2 posts a week, one big debate at avoiceformen, and about 5 comments a week AT THE END OF TWO-THOUSAND-ELEVEN. (the avfm debate was october 2011). ITS NOW ALMOST 2013, and these guys are still living it out. Did I obliterate them that badly?

      Yet to this date, december 2012, these people are still butthurt and shake at the mention of my name and talk about murder, killing, assasinations, conspiracy networks organized by BP and Alek. How fucking delusional is that? I used to think these were gullible idiots. Now I fear they might actually have actual mental disorders, the kind which require heavy medication or even being locked up in an institution.

  3. Solid post!

    But I hope you weren't serious about plastic surgery? You would have to be exceptionally ugly to even consider that option. It's also very expensive.

    I'm definetly lookig forward to read more of this stuff!

    1. But I hope you weren't serious about plastic surgery? You would have to be exceptionally ugly to even consider that option. It's also very expensive.

      Do you have reading comprehension issues?

      It was not a list of RECOMMENDATIONS. It a was a list of things which can OBJECTIVELY change your attractiveness (provable in a scientific, measurable, objective way). I neither endorsed nor spoke against anything on that list.

      I'm definetly lookig forward to read more of this stuff!

      Don't. Reading is for PUAs. Go out and do. The only thing you'd need to read is Minimal Game by sleazy, but that's about it. He covers all the stuff on testing chicks for DTF and asking them for sex.

      I might in the future (2016th at the earliest) write articles explaining the other stuff (how to network, build powerful social status and connections etc).

      But don't wait, use common sense. You already know what it takes to make powerful,popular friends, you just need to go out and do it.

      And heck, that's just optional. Yes, it's a lot easier to practice minimal game if you're surrounded by high-status hot chicks and you're popular in that circle, but don't use that as an excuse.

      Do what Aaron did, you can do it on strangers in clubs too.

    2. at the beggining i finded myself reading everything i could about game. then i readed some of aaron stuff and i realized that it was pretty much finding women that were interested and not fucking up.

      i think that to much reading in fact hurted me, is like trying to learn a sport by reading a textbook and not doing the sport.
      i learned a lot more by going out more, focusing in the ones that give me eye contact and hovered me and moving the interaction foward. there are things that cannot be teached, they need to be learned by experience

    3. I think your last sentence very accurately describes the womanizer process. It comes with actual experience of success and failures with women. A personal journey what works for your you, instead of implementing vague and nonsense theories made up by some freaks.

      Thanks Aaron, Alek (and others) for preventing guys wasting time, money, energy and spirit in the conventional seduction industry and showing them a more down to earth and realistic version.

  4. One time an older gentlemen who happened to e former pimp put it to me like this: "What is about a man that he needs BOOKS to learn have sex with a women? There's whole schools set aside in Detroit for 12 years old who have gotten pregnant you need a BOOK!" Then he when on " The whole idea of GAME is to send a woman out and get her to bring you $250,000 not just to get her have sex with you!"

  5. "You cannot, however however merely speak or stand or ask for the date in a "different way" and suddenly get drastically different results"

    If someone is slouching, don't have a fucking clue how to speak and what to say, or he jumps out with date proposition in wrong time or manner (lack of social or emotional intelligence, nervousness or just lack of experience)he is surely more prone to being rejected than normally adjusted and confident version of himself. You are dismissing this? This is basically what most PUAs teach to guys and this is what makes the difference. I agree that crap about standing in 45 degree angle, and microloops of inversment bla bla bla are just shit, but this is not majority of the goods delivered to guys who are just scared of social and sexual interactions with women...

    1. Look around yourself. How many people do you see who terribly slouch, or are absolutely unable to articulate themselves? Let's just assume the average guy is an average guy and not in the bottom 0.001 percent. If she's attracted to you, she'll cut you a lot of slack and you can make basically any number of "mistakes." On the other hand, If she's not into you, then it doesn't matter when or how you ask her our on a date. PUAs don't tell you what's really important. Thus, you get the absurd idea that by "fine tuning" some of the scripts for social interactions you have acquired you can drastically improve your chances.

      Also, you are drastically overestimating the importance of verbal skills when it comes to pulling girls. If you make her wet, she doesn't care about "cocky-funny comedy", and if you don't make her wet, you'll only ever be an entertainer for her.


      We were discussing whether you can CREATE attraction through actions. You are giving examples of things that kill interest. There's a difference.

      It's kind of like seeing a super-hot chick, feeling like wanting to kiss her and then seeing her eat feces. If you see her eating feces she's not "less attractive to you", you are simply no longer interested in kissing her.

      Make sense?

      "If someone is slouching, don't have a fucking clue how to speak and what to say"

      Yes, if you act weird you will reduce your chances of getting her to show interest back. But the attraction is the same. Get it?

      She has the same level of attraction for you whether you have awkward body-language or not. The only difference is that if you act awkward she'll feel awkward and at unease around you. But she's not less attracted.

      don't have a fucking clue how to speak and what to say"


      A) If you don't know how to hold a BASIC CONVERSATION with someone, you have far more serious issues than lacking pussy and it should be the least of your concerns


      B) You have been brainwashed by marketers if you believe there are special things you need to say and speak about and of to humans that have a vagina you want to penetrate

      The conversations you have with a woman whom you might fuck are the same ones you have with one you don't want to fuck.

      "or he jumps out with date proposition in wrong time or manner"

      Despite the fearmongering of PUA marketers trying to fearmonger you into product-craving paranoia - in the real world women are far more flexible (they cut you some slack as Aaron said).

      If she wants to date you (and again 99% of dates on the planet were had between people who see each other on a frequent basis) she's dying for you to ask. In 99% of situations any type of asking out will work 99% of the time. Unless you say 'hey cunt, wanna go on a date to suck my dick" - she'll say yes almost any way you ask anywhere anyhow.

      Now, when it comes to strangers there's a little bit more finesse to it since women are shit-scared from strangers, so how you say or do things has a bit more impact on the outcome, but not much. The by fair main factor is he attraction which is pre-existing.

      "(lack of social or emotional intelligence, nervousness or just lack of experience)he is surely more prone to being rejected than normally adjusted and confident version of himself."

      Keyword - "normally adjusted".

      Yes, you being normal you will get dates more easily than if you're extremely weird and come off like a serial killer in social situations.

      But again, that has nothing to do with attraction. It's that women have an easier time admitting, showing and acting on their attraction if you make it easy for them. If you act nervous around her, she will feel self-concious about flirting with you, yes. But again, being less nervous around a woman doesn't "cause attraction" it merely makes it easier for her to admit if she has any. Do you get the difference?

      Besides, like Aaron said, if you have issues like those you mention, then lack of pussy is the least of your problems. If you have those issues, it means you lack a basic normal lifestyle which is necessary for good mental health.

      Getting a good life will auto-handle all the stuff you speak of.

  6. I get what both of you saying here and I agree with it. It's just a matter of perspective - I was writing about what PUA can give you if you are not expirienced around women, you were writing about how person can become more attractive from normal/average "level". However in both cases net result is the same - they get more women so I am against "throwing out the baby with the bath water". There is something else in PUA that even normaly adjusted man can find useful - cold approaching (I know you don't like it) and by that I mean art of creating conversation and breaking the ice in unfavourable social circumstances and with almost 0 knowledge about your "target". I'm using public transport everyday and I often see attractive women - PUA gave me tools to not fuck it up where something's there. There is plenty of other situations like this when you are traveling, eating out, doing groceries etc. I know women will give you some slack but try to stand there silent like an asshole for 10 sec and you're out. I've been there and I've done that, and I met awesome girls by doing that, so that's why it's hard for me to just brush it off as a scam.

    1. 1) If you are "normal" you meet girls through your wider social circle, which includes activities.

      2) A "gamer" has to work a lot harder than a well-adjusted person to get more women because cold approaching is just so inefficient. Just look at your own success rate. Heck, let's look at Paul Janka's. He says it's 10 % of all the women whose number he gets. How do you compare to Paul Janka?

      3) PUA is a scam because it makes empty promises and absurd claims. Or do you know of any fat, short, broke, ugly, old guy how has supermodel-caliber women beat a path to his door? I thought so.

    2. 3) I have not seen Asian guy with hot women in the Western world, like the US,Europe or Australia.I can't believe short Asian guys teaching pick-up or dating.I don't believe they are legit.I bet they paid to model and look nice on their home page or they used booze ( bottle service and table)

      Of course they can hit on hot women in Asia by cold approach or warm approach like through their activities.

      Paul Janka is one of the elite gamer.He has looks and game.

    3. 1)I work 12hrs a day and studying on weekends and I can't exactly build wide social circle. Second thing is - I enjoy company of old group of friends when going out and connecting on the wide scale just for girls is just not fun for me. My other social activities are not something that girls enjoy so that's why I was/am interested in PUA stuff.

      2) My ratio is 6-7 numbers and 2 lays for 10 approaches but we are talking about situations when they choose me based on my style (which is indicating subculture I can be considered part of) and looks. Cold approaching is almost useless - I don't do that if girl isn't beautiful and does not look like I could have something in common with. To sum it up - approaching outside of your social circle in bus/street/store/cafe/bar can be effective given right circumstances and that is girl is choosing you and you know how to take it further.

      3) Agree 100%. Also NLP, "special body language", "negs", "cocky & funny", "DHV's" and "routines" and all that freaky shit is absolutely destroying peoples confidence and social competence. I lost my face few times from trying this. Worst experience of my life.

    4. I didn't suggest to hang out with friends just so that you meet girls through them. Some PUAs, though, stubbornly go to yoga or tango classes with no interest in the actual activity and thus come across really creepy.

      Getting involved in a subculture is exactly what I advocate. You like it, and the girls are much more open to being approached by you because you are "one of them." We don't disagree at all on this point. Also, if you see a really cute girl at the bus stop, or wherever, and she's looking at you, then just walk up to her and say hi. That's totally fine. It only gets problematic if you think that you have to approach 10 girls every time you walk to the grocery store.

  7. There's a lot of painful cognitive dissonance involved in the early stages of "PUA recovery."

    It's brutally painful to admit to myself that I used to take this shit seriously. So, trust me, I know.

  8. I just wanted to give Shackleford credit. He claimed that manosphere advice was basically Fratboy/Douchebag culture repackaged, and sure enough one of them has come out explicitly saying so!

    1. Oh boy, that Matt Forney dude is one ugly motherfucker:

      Seeing his picture after reading his love letter to buff dudes makes me wonder whether he's a closet homosexual.

    2. ahh, so perfect. Here's the funny thing: I could just as easily make a "hot chicks with normal looking dudes" tumblr and have endless material. These are the types of guys you would also want to have a beer with.

      Which brings me to my next point: I had a privileged educational experience, going through the private school lacrosse-culture thing. During this time, I noticed that the smartest, most athletically talented, and best looking dudes tended to settle with a hot girlfriend and stick with her. sure, they had side pieces here and there, but they were essentially conservative in their romantic lives. These guys were also generally pretty civil people. Think of the Winklevoss twins in the Social Network for example. Their talents and genetic gifts are so self evident that they don't have to engage in chest thumping to prove themselves. On the other hand, it was the guys in that clique who had less status that (occasionally) slept around, stayed single, and had violent tendencies.

      It's the same example in the urban culture I currently run with (bands and artists). We musicians generally have attractive girlfriends and use our free time WORKING ON THE ACTUAL TALENTS WE HAVE. See, in this magical world called reality, getting laid isn't some laborious activity where you have to cross the Misty Mountains to consult the douchebag king of Rohan. But if you're as ugly as Matt Forney, I guess you need all the help you can get.

      I guess my whole point after writing that is: how bankrupt as a movement do you have to be exalt jersey shore style dbags as your heroes? What red pill are you talking about again?

      Now, this isn't meant to insult ugly guys, or shame guys who sleep around. I just get a kick out the pure rage guys like Forney and Roissy have against SWPLs, liberal arts majors, hipsters etc. You know why that is? because these types of people generally have good romantic lives while not following Roissy's script. I can see the spittle come out Roissy's mouth: "EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY TOLD ME THIS WASN'T SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN! AAAARGGHHH!!!!

    3. I'm also part of the entertainment industry but your experience doesn't match mine fully. Most of the guys I hang with sleep around a ton.

      Yes, they don't brag about it, and do zero chest thumping, (some of them even match the profile of a "beta" by manosphere standard) and yes they do have one main official relationship (their main bitch if you will). But they tend to rack up hundreds of one-night-stands on the side.

    4. Oh yeah, fully understood. I needed to clarify that I live in smaller city, so there's only so much sleeping around you can do in the music scene. Side pieces definitely happen, though, but discreet behavior is the order of the day. On the road however...

      Sounds like you live in LA.

  9. Roosh trying to encourage people to start new Manosphere blogs. I guess he has to because the old ones are all dying out:

    1. Oh, look at that:

      "5. Haters gonna hate. Got hate comments? Nuke ‘em and ban ‘em. It’s your blog. It’s your real estate. If haters want to shit on your blog, moderate heavily and use the banhammer relentlessly. Don’t engage trolls… ever."

      Also noteworthy is that Roosh acknowledges that the manosphere moves on:

      "There will also be opportunities for younger guys to take initiative as myself and some of the other first-wave manosphere bloggers retreat from the game battlefield and move into lifestyle, political, or cultural topics. Gaps will be created for new guys to fill them."

      Yet, they have little to contribute to those topics. It will be interesting to see how this will pan out.

  10. Good post but I disagree that "status", "money" and "fame" create attraction. If that were the case women would get wet for Danny DeVito.

    1. Alek Novy mentioned looks as well. Besides, Danny DeVito certainly has it a lot easier than a guy who looked similar to him but doesn't have his millions, or enjoy a similar degree of fame.

    2. Good post but I disagree that "status", "money" and "fame" create attraction.

      You have missed the clarifiers...

      Read the clarifier about the difference between long-term and short-term attraction on the pretending post.

      Studies have found that all that matters in short-term attraction (same-night, same-week mating) is looks, physical typing, facial shape, height etc...

      In the long-term however they've found that things like status, wealth, personality traits (etc) start playing a role.

      The only exception where something like status can be a significant boost to short-term attraction is when it's an extreme amount of status. -- (in other words a hollywood celebrity doing a cold approach will fuck significantly more chicks than a random guy of equal looks. However in 99.99% of real-world cases if a chick fucks you off a cold approach it's entirely based on your looks.).

      -> If you meet chicks in social circles where they get to know you over months, you bet your fucking ass you're getting more pussy if you're rich/popular/higher-status in that social circle/niche.

      -> If you approach strangers, she only cares about your looks (for the most part)

      Do these clarifications make it clearer?

    3. >>Besides, Danny DeVito certainly has it a lot easier than a guy who looked similar to him but doesn't have his millions, or enjoy a similar degree of fame.

      Yes, but these women don't skeep with him because they are ATTRACTED to him but simply because they are gold-diggers!

      >>Read the clarifier about the difference between long-term and short-term attraction on the pretending post.

      I agree with your distinction between short-term and long-term attraction. This is something I have pointed out in Sleazy's forum on numerous occasions.

      However, even in the long term, things like status, wealth and fame do not create attraction BY THEMSELVES.

      Imagine the situation were reversed and you were living with a 70-year-old sugar mommy with sagging tits. You may enjoy your life and her paying for all your stuff, but would you be ATTRACTED to her SEXUALLY?

    4. Aren't Danny's marital woes due for the most part to his being a "ladies man"?

      Anyways, its fun to read all these PUA secrets wafting about, like becomining a chick magnet by holding your head at the proper angle, lol.

      Entertaining like the staged "reality" shows, that is.

    5. Alek Novy said:
      Studies have found that all that matters in short-term attraction (same-night, same-week mating) is looks, physical typing, facial shape, height etc...
      I'm well aware of the studies showing that ovulating women are more prone to want short term sex and are more attracted to masculine facial features. But is there really any studies showing that the physical attributes are "all that matters"?

      In the long-term however they've found that things like status, wealth, personality traits (etc) start playing a role.

      What studies exactly are you referring to here? thanks

    6. Randian Hero,

      why don't you spend five minutes on Google and Google Scholar, instead of demonstrating to the world that you require handholding with the most basic task of the Internet age.



      We've argued about all of this and all the studies over at seductionmyth a year ago. That's your website for the more academic and analytical debunking of PUA shit.

    8. Aaron, that's what I have been doing. "all that matters" is a strong claim and as far as I can see, it's not supported by the usual suspects like BBC, this and this. I see numbers clearly and repeatedly indicating increasing importance of looks during short term mating, but nothing that totally excludes all other traits.

    9. Hey man,

      I've clicked on your second link, and look what I found in the abstract:

      "Women with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation, as compared to women with a restricted sociosexual orientation, are more likely to engage in short-term relationships and obtain fewer nongenetic resources from their mates. Thus, they should place heavy emphasis on male masculinity as a sign of genetic benefits available from their mates."

      Do you know what "heavy emphasis on male masculinity" means? (Hint: it's not about "game".)

      In good old PUA shill fashion, you set up a strawman. Alek Novy has written "Studies have found that all that matters in short-term attraction (same-night, same-week mating) is looks, physical typing, facial shape, height etc..." You get hung up on "all that matters", but what he meant was obviously that those factors are the most important ones, and "game" won't compensate for any deficiencies on that part.

    10. ****Let's see if this is someone arguing in good faith, or a paid PUA shill strawmanning on purpose****

      ----I am going to post one LAST super-clear clarification----

      Here goes. (pay careful attention here)

      There are TWO things you must differentiate here.

      A) ATTRACTION (how much she physically lusts after your body)
      B) INTEREST (how interested she is on ACTING out any attraction)

      ARE YOU FOLLOWING SO FAR? Do you get the DISTINCTION HERE? Please nod before you continue reading. Good? Good... ok...

      Now, when I say "all that matters in short-term mating", I am refering to short-term ATTRACTION. Not interest.



      WE HAVE NEVER ARGUED that behaviour doesn't change OUTCOMES. We argue the behaviour doesn't change ATTRACTION (in the short-term).


      So you might say "what's the big deal, aren't you waxing semantics?". The BIG DEAL is that PUAs sell a scam where they say that by simply changing your behaviour you can "create" attraction in the short-term in a SIGNIFICANT way.

      =======>(in other words a woman who'd never even consider the idea of fucking you, would now fuck you, simply coz you walked or talked differently - THIS is what game claims to sell <======

      GET IT? This is what we're arguing.

      We are not arguing that behaviour changes outcomes. OF COURSE IT DOES. The major difference is that if you know that attraction is almost entirely static in the short-term you BECOME MORE PRODUCTIVE.

      Instead of focuing on behaviour to "generate attraction", you instead focus on "how do I locate the women who already have potential attraction in me, and how do I behave to get them to act on that attraction".


    11. Hey Aaron, I posted a large reply on here a week ago, and it never published. Can you check it out? I posted a large one today, see if that one doesn't go missing either.

      It tends to often happen when I have large replies using a lot of formatting code.

    12. Hey Alek,

      sorry for the delay. I have been very busy recently and I'm sitting on a huge backlog. Your comment is still in the queue. I'll get to it once I've got a spare hour or two.

    13. Alek,

      your other comment is now also on the blog. Sorry for the undue delay.

  11. Money is mentioned three times, so it seems it is of great importance. But what does it mean in practice, and how much is needed to make a difference? Is being in the western middle class even enough? Also, it's not like you can see someone's bank account balance written in their face, so how do you display it? Expensive watches, cars, clothes? And let's say you're ugly, short, or in any other way physically less attractive - won't everyone just see you're (over)compensating or being a transparent try-hard showoff?

    1. Dude, don't fucking overanalyze the specifics. In the end it doesn't matter which factor contributes how many percent in what case. Trying to find out in excuse to not leave the house and apply the shit.

      Its simple. MAXIMIZE ALL OF THOSE and you will maximize the amount of women who are likely to fuck you. It's simple. Then just use Aaron's information on how to check for DTF. Simple.

      Why does it matter how much status plays a role in which scenario and for what men? There are thousands of studies out there by the brightest minds and nobody is yet able to quantify such specifics.

      Just leave the house.
      Build an amazing social life.
      Make as much money as you can.
      Make as many female friends as you can.
      Build the best physique you can.

      That's it. Those 5 sentences are all you need. Don't make it more complex than that

      And let's say you're ugly, short, or in any other way physically less attractive - won't everyone just see you're (over)compensating or being a transparent try-hard showoff?

      This question is an excuse your mind came up with to continue theorizing and finding reasons to not apply this shit. Go and make as much money as you can. I assure you, if you double your income you will NOT be in a worse place than you are today. Stop with these overanalyzing what-ifs.

    2. I agree with what you're saying here, but money was still mentioned three times, and as such it seemed more important than it does now after you specified more in your reply. The word "money" by itself, and having a lot of it, can in practice mean anything from showing it off with wild spending to it being completely invisible because you're doing strict savings and investing toward becoming a financially independent millionaire and reaping the lifestyle benefits later. Obviously it gives your lifestyle much more freedom than if you are poor in any case, but related to making yourself more instantly attractive to women, I think working out and maybe being very social should be mentioned three times, probably not money because it's very vague.

      Anyway, thanks for the reply, I agree with all the five sentences above. With those in mind most of the PUA "industry" is completely unneccessary (which we all now know to be true).

    3. "all falls under how to be rich and influental and well-connected and "how to network and build social status","

      It would be very interesting if you have any insights to share on these topics- or if you could point to any resources that you would recomend.

    4. It would be very interesting if you have any insights to share on these topics- or if you could point to any resources that you would recomend.


      Hence the triple mention of money the other guy mentioned. Getting more money is the fastest way to get all that other stuff.

      Random Example A
      You can use money to buy status and popularity indirectly. For example if you want to become popular in the rave niche real fast, just go and pay all the top rave-DJs to come to your parties (even if you take a loss), you'll become a high-status rave organizer in no time.

      Random Example A
      You can use money to buy status and popularity indirectly. For example if you want to become popular in the PHOTOGRAPHY niche real fast, just go and pay all the top most popular photographers in your city to coach you PERSONALLY for a few months. Become half their income (it's easy if you have money, since most popular dogs in most niches are barely surviving). Not only will these guys mentor you into becoming one of the top guys in that niche in like 5-6 months, BUT BEING THAT You're pouring a ton of money into him, he'll also introduce you to, and spread good word about you to everyone in that niche too.

      Money is the biggest leverage in the world. You can use to buy shit directly, or indirectly. You can't buy sexual attraction with money directly, but you sure as fuck can use money to buy it indirectly. If you had a ton of money you could:

      -> Hire the best personal trainer to turn you into an adonis
      -> Buy status from the top dogs in a niche
      -> Get regular coaching sessions with Aaron until he turns you into a beast
      -> Be able to go to a ton of different events (so you're seen and noticed everywhere and you can post check-ins and photos from a ton of places)

      etc etc...

    5. Thank you I appreciate the response.

  12. I was having trouble replying directly to the subthread about Roosh above, but I want to point that it's very interesting he's absorbed all the criticisms we've thrown at him over the last few months and adjusted his tone now. Recent posts have shown him emphasizing engagement with subcultures and having a busy life over the singular pursuit of racking up lays: (key section: "pursue a unique hobby")

    The most revealing omission from all of these posts is any sort of discussion of game techniques. Also, a while back Sleazy pondered what would happen as Roosh starts aging. Roosh basically addressed that in a recent post by saying something along the lines of "I'll settle down when I'm 40."

    In the end, Roosh's ability to absorb everyone's criticism and shift the tone is why he's probably gonna last the longest of all the manosphere types. That is, until he burns out on traveling and ends back up and DC, but can't game because he's more or less a pariah there.

    1. I'm surprised how versatile Roosh is.

      Roosh can't deceive people much, though. In his "I hope she flakes" he only writes that he's oh-so busy, but doesn't quite reveal what it is that actually keeps him busy. Further, he is actually traveling around the world to pursue pussy, so nothing has changed. If he only wanted to write, he wouldn't even have to leave his mother's basement.

      I can't see Roosh settling down either since he is a bad long-term prospect for any woman in the Western world, and if he ends up with some chick from Thailand, one might seriously ask him whether he needed "game" for that.

    2. Surprisingly, some of his advice in I Hope She Flakes is good. If it wasn't for the fact that much of it is so contradictory to what he was writing just weeks ago and if it was the first thing of his I ever read without knowing anything else he ever wrote, I'd be impressed.

    3. Does Roosh have a tumblr or a flickr account or something. I'm not going to accuse him of faking his travels or anything but it would be really nice to see that he actually ENJOYED himself in places like Latvia and Iceland and took at least a couple pictures of nice looking things!

  13. I do think you game deniers make legitimate points. I just don't think "game" is a figment of the imagination. I would agree that game is a lot less important than looks and fame. But...

    We've all known that one guy, he may not be tall, wealthy or handsome, but for some reason he's just a natural with women. The guy may possess some combination of charisma, alpha personality traits, charm, confidence, humor, popularity, style or whatever and does extraordinarily well for a guy with his level of looks. Is this not a form of game? Charisma combined with charm, confidence and humor is the ultimate game.

    It seems like you guys think that any woman has already pre-selected what man she wants merely by looking at him. Yes, some women have made their mind up that they want you at first glance. Some have made their mind up before you open your mouth up that you aren't their type. There's also a lot of middle ground. Women that may be indifferent toward you initially but that you have the ability to win over with the power of your personality and game. I think that's where game is effective. I also think game is effective in speeding up the process of a woman that is already interested, so that maybe you sleep with her on the first date rather than the third.

    Of course "game" at the extreme end is probably ineffective. I mean stuff like NLP and wearing fuzzy hats with blinking lights. But that's just a caricature of game. Attacking that nonsense is nothing more than a straw-man argument.

    1. I have never met "that one guy", and I have met an awful lot of people in my life. It's all just PUA marketing nonsense.

    2. This comment made me smile. Somehow every single guy who believes in PUA/game knows or has seen this "one guy" who maybe fat, maybe short, maybe balding, isn't a drug dealer or a mini-celebrity in some niche but yet he does very well with women!

      Interestingly, it is never the guy himself (unless he selling PUA products) nor is it ever like the person's best friend. It is always someone who he "knows" or has "seen" or is someone his friend knows. We also never get concrete details and specifics about this guy. I wonder why?

      I somehow never end up meeting this guy. I have tried looking for this guy in more than 30 different countries of this world. Please tell me Chris, where do I find this guy? I would really love to meet him.

    3. "That one guy" must be the PUA equivalent of Bigfoot or the monster of Loch Ness. Plenty of people believe those really exist, too.

    4. Meet Mr. Conflation, the number one way PUA beliefs are held.

      Specifically I USED to DO THIS FOR YEARS TOO - I USED TO GO AROUND TALKING ABOUT "that one guy" - you know why I did that in retrospect, I was so inexperienced that I couldn't tell the difference between INTEREST and ATTRACTION (a common conflation among PUAs).

      Being inexperienced, I would see an ugly guy surrounded by lots of hot chicks and I WOULD ASSUME he was banging them, because back then I had little experience. I would go around on the net AND TALK about knowing this "one guy who's fat and ugly and he's killer with the ladies".

      DO YOU ACTUALLY see him taking any of them home? Have you actually seem him makeout with multiple (out of his league) chicks a night?

      When I was inexperienced, ANY GUY WHO COULD HOLD A CONVERSATION WITH A CHICK AND MAKE HER SMILE, I automatically assumed he could fuck her and that she was attracted. This is what the "I know one guy" dudes do.

      That does happen, when the guy has some status. A guy who's popular in a niche will generally fuck chicks hotter than himself.

      CHRIS SAID "charm, confidence, humor, popularity, style "

      HOW THE FUCK IS THIS GAME? We're anti gamers and say the same shit. What are you gamers about to claim to have invented. Are you going to say you invented sliced bread fuckers?

      CHRIS CONTINUES "and does extraordinarily well for a guy with his level of looks"

      WE HAVE NEVER CLAIMED that "level of looks" is the only factor in results. We specifically says that status, popularity, fame, and charm make a difference in RESULTS.

      We however claim they can not create PHYSICAL ATTRACTION and that FAKING THEM doesn't work. GET IT?

      Game IS NOT about "having charm, confidence, humor, popularity, style" ---> THIS IS FUCKING COMMON SENSE.

      WHAT DIFFERENTIATES GAME FROM COMMON SENSE IS WHAT MAKES IT DIFFERENT THAN COMMON SENSE, and that is the claim that you CAN FAKE those traits through how you walk, talk and gesture and you can LEARN to "display these traits". MAKE SENSE?

      YOU CANT FUCKING ADOPT everything on the planet and call it game, like some of those bozos claiming that gyms are game. As if gamers invented weights and weightlifting.

      A DISCIPLINE IS DEFINED BY WHAT IT DIFFERS BY FROM OTHER DISCIPLINES, NOT WHAT IT HOLDS IN COMMON WITH THEM. You fuckers sure didn't fucking invent either fucking popularity, nor did you invent fashion, and I'm sorry to fucking say, you don't hold a monopoly on weightlifting either...

    5. "I would see an ugly guy surrounded by lots of hot chicks and I WOULD ASSUME he was banging them"

      Lol I was this guy just last week at an event. I was at my cousin's birthday party and we were 2 guys and 10 chicks or something. Most of these girls are like little sisters to me. If you didn't know that and saw me interact with them, joke around with them, tease them etc. you would easily think I am this big pimp.

      This is why it is very important to actually know these people up close before making judgements. Reality is usually very different from perception.

    6. @Alek, I don't know what's with your combative tone. It's just a damn discussion man. Calm the heck down.

      Of course things like charm, alpha traits and charisma are part of game. Any aspect of your personality that could be used to take you from being indifferent in the eyes of a woman to making her feel attraction toward you is game.

      And yes, I have known dudes that weren't mini-celebrities and weren't great looking that were just naturals with women. If they broke up with a girl, they'd have another within a week and never seem to lack for a sex life. I'm in my mid 30s, I'm thinking all the way back to high school and college days before the game industry even existed. Those guys were just naturals. Having "game" is a concept that has existed for a long time and far predates the PUA industry. I remember talking about guys with game when I was in the early 90s. Of course then "game" simply meant a guy who has a way with women and seems to get laid a lot. It didn't mean wearing a Dr. Seuss hat and performing magic tricks. I had no idea at the time what these guys were doing. And they probably didn't either since they were "naturals". But in retrospect, I see that these guys just exuded a certain natural confidence, masculine frame, ability to be smooth and charming, make her laugh, easily turn the conversation sexual and quickly escalate. Sometimes they were good-looking dudes, sometimes not.

      I'll be the first to admit that charisma is not something you can teach and it would be damn near impossible to fake unless you are a professional actor. Same with many alpha traits. But the important thing here is to be aware of what these traits are, to not be duped into thinking women want the sensitive nice guy(despite what they say) and looking at these traits as something to aspire to and try to incorporate into your personality over time.

    7. One of my best childhood friends had what can be called "natural game" thanks to alpha mannerisms. So this is not a Loch Ness myth. When looking at it in retrospect, he has very typical alpha mannerisms (yes, the ones that the PUA guys like Mystery also talk about) for example turning his head slowly when called, speaking slowly, not trying to prove himself etc, never ashamed of himself. In an environment with few girls and many other good looking guys, he still had no competition. The fact that he had bigger sisters and that his family was always relaxed about sex probably also had a significant role.

      Now when I think of it, I had also a younger friend that was the typical guy that would never be nervous or afraid even of the older guys in the school or the teachers. Just by coincidence half the girls had a crush on him? His taller brother that had similar looks (both clearly above average) and talents was instead a bit uncomfortable and attention seeking, and got no girls at all. Now you can say that this is not "game" but this was always what I found most interesting in pickup, and I don't think it's wrong to call it "game".

    8. George,

      do you seriously believe that your "childhood friend" gets girls because he is "turning his head slowly"?

      I find it amazing how desperate you PUA shills have become.

  14. Roosh keeps getting more ridicuous:

    1. Why is that ridicolous? I'm doing two high-school seniors myself right now.

    2. I'm saying it's ridiculous because he feels the need to brag about it on twitter after his track record of so many failures. For example you are banging 2 but never brought it up until it was directly relevant to something being discussed just now.

    3. I find it amusing that Roosh writes he is "dating" that girl. Does this mean that he's left his player persona, to which he was never able to live up to, behind, or that he wants to bang her and she's only stringing him along? Given his travel schedule, he'll only be around for a few weeks at most anyway, so any notion of "dating" seems quite out of place.

    4. Anonymous:"after his track record of so many failures"

      I think it's wise to point out a clarification here for anyone new reading - there's anything wrong with failure per se, and I don't think any of us anti-gamers would mock a man MERELY for him racking up a lot rejections.

      A lot of disprivileged men have no other option and don't know any better (like how to build a sphere where interested women show interest first and you choose).

      The PROBLEM with gamers is the absurd COMBINATION of them claiming to be gods with women, posessing super-elite skills, and yet failing so much. How can you have a special skill, and get results worse than the average guy without your "ultra-special skill"? How can you arrogantly spend all of your time online mocking "the average guy" for not learning your super-magic-duper-luper "skillz" and yet get so much failure yourself?

    5. Good point, and I totally agree. What I was mocking was Roosh still trying to create this image of an envious lifestyle by spinning the slightest wins into evidence of living a rockstar life, when he consistently has shown that spectacular crash and burn failures are his actual norm.

      I wasn't mocking him for his failures but rather for his persistent delusions of grandeur in spite of his failures.

  15. Where u been Alek??
    Just to avoid confusion, Chris (who posted above) is not GoodLookingLoser (me).
    Good article, everyone has a different definition/concept of game, PUA is able to capitalize on it because they can pass different things off (girls laughing, girls giving phone #s) as "creating attraction" when they are generally just being polite to the funny man PUA... "game" changes when u go physical on chicks, then you'll see who is DTF and who's just patronizing you.

    1. "Where u been Alek??"

      HEY MAN I LOVE YOU (no seriously), your "be a creep" post revolutionized my life over the past 6-9 months. This should be required reading for most men

    2. GLL is the guy who things that ssk08 guy from his forums is a beast, when in reality, after making thousands approaches (not getting paid for any of this when he could be) and getting laid like less then 10 times from it, he is getting depression for being on the bottom of social hierarchy and not being able to get decent girl. Probably most women in the ages 18-40 from his city think he is rapist. You really love this guy?

  16. Sleazy -

    Have you read "The Great Gatsby?" It's pretty much the most extreme version of what you're talking about - guy falls in love, gets rejected, and transforms himself *entirely.* Becomes rich and successful high-status socialite. All so he can have a chance with this one girl.

    ... which makes it tragic when he still fails.

    1. I do have a copy of this book in my personal library. However, I have no distinct memories of it. I either read it and quickly forgot about it, or I just never read it.

      It has been about a decade since I last tried to read any of his books, though, so I might have another go at it. Thanks for the suggestion!

  17. You are right in principle, but overall you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. While I totally agree that lots of all this PUA stuff is bullshit, some core ideas really work.

    Attraction is not a simple yes/no thing. If it was, humanity wouldn't exists anymore, because people wouldn't be able find mates in the past. So in reality (biological) attraction is much "wider" than you may think.

    The real reason most people aren't attracted to each other isn't biological, it's because of social aspects. For example women today are quite spoiled concerning looks of men by the media which makes them *think* that they aren't attracted to a certain man - even if they are on a pure biological level. If the "PUA" is now able to circumvent this and can make the women feel just the biological attraction instead of her unrealistic expectation based on media influence, it may be possible to get her.

    A PUA would call this "creating attraction", while in fact attraction was already there but burried under a pile of social and media bullshit.

    1. So, you're saying that the media promote the idea that attraction is based on looks, but that women aren't really attracted to the men they go gaga for. Instead, PUAs are somehow able to "circumvent" the wrong images promoted by mass media and appeal to their "real" biological urges. Right...

    2. "Attraction is not a simple yes/no thing."

      THIS IS WHERE YOU HAVE TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THERE EXISTING THREE DIFFERENT TERMS which are SEPERATE TERMS yet PUAs/Gamers "conflate" into one term they call "attraction". In truth there is 1) "short-term attraction", 2) "long-term attraction" and 3) "interest" and those are three *separate* things

      IT IS TRUE THAT Interest is NOT a yes/no switch. This statement is correct if you use the word "interest". It changes, grows, reduces, flows and ebbs.

      Long term attraction is the same, flowing, changing, growing, reducing etc...

      SHORT-TERM ATTRACTION however is NOT a variable, it's a static. DO YOU GET IT? When we are bashing PUAs here we are bashing their concept of being able to WALK INTO A ROOM and have the chick have a different level of short-term attraction to you at 11pm than she did at 9pm.

      DO YOU GET IT?

      => YES, WE DO BELIEVE YOU CAN CHANGE A WOMAN'S INTEREST between 9pm and 11pm (interest in acting on her pre-existing attraction). That is possible.

      => You can't however change her SHORT-term-attraction to you between 9PM and 11PM in any significant way no matter what you say or do or how you act.


      "The real reason most people aren't attracted to each other isn't biological, it's because of social aspects."

      I would agree, except you used the wrong word. You're making the SAME MISTAKE PUAs are. You're using the word "attraction" when you mean "interest" For example you said.

      "while in fact attraction was already there but burried under a pile of social and media bullshit."

      In other words you admit the attraction is there all the time - it was always there. It's just that people are unaware of it. I'd rephrase what you said as...

      The real reason most people aren't interested in each other isn't biological, it's because of social aspects. -> There Now I agree with you 100% :)

      If the "PUA" is now able to circumvent this and can make the women feel just the biological attraction instead of her unrealistic expectation based on media influence, it may be possible to get her.

      Dude, the PUA crap is not "circumventing" anything on the woman the only thing you're circumventing is your own insecurities.

      If pre-pua you thought you had to look like a fashion model in order to hit on a hot chick, you wouldn't have done it and missed even the signals that were present.

      Then you adopt a pua theory that says "do technique megablaster 2000 and hot chicks will become wetter for you" all it does is it gives you the CONFIDENCE to go hit on more hot women. It's motherfucking called placebo.

      So you escalate (+ do a bunch of pua tricks [placebo]) get one out of 20 chicks you try it on, and go OMG IT WORKED IT WORKED IT WORKED, thinking that the lame trick got you the chick. No, all it did was get you to leave the house and ESCALATE on a chick you wouldn't have escalated on before.

      GET IT? It's called placebo motherfucking sweet jesus of moron holy fucking retard. There is no "circumventing" nothing in the woman. The only thing is you're circumventing your own insecurities and issues you might have had about hitting up on chicks. That's it.

  18. I'm 6ft 4, after my second first year in college I weighed 240 pounds, girls never talked to me, just hung out with my buddies that's it.

    over that summer break I lost 50 pounds in 5 months by going to the gym 6/7 days a week. when I when back to school for 2nd year in college I was not only being approached by girls I was getting hit on by girls to the point I was uncomfortable. Too many times to count I've had girls just stare at my all day and one of their giggling friends comes up to me and says their friends like me.

    All this PUA talk is BS, looks matter, A LOT. It's reality and I feel sorry for this people going to PUAs paying thousands and getting robbed

  19. What do you do if you are shorter than most girls? I am 24 years old with no experience with women and I think its because of my height of 5 feet. What do I do? Am I out of luck?

    1. Your height will severely hold you back. Get some inlays for your shoes, work out, dress sharp, make money --- and focus on girls that are shorter than you.

    2. There are not too many girls smaller than me (none in my social circle), So is there a way to get taller women?


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