Sunday, December 14, 2014

About that chick that was "harassed" 108 times in ten hours in New York

I'm a bit late to the party, but better late than never. Anyway, I bet a lot of you have seen that pro-feminist video that purports to show how a woman wearing a tight T shirt to accentuate her tits and dolled up hair walks through NYC and gets "harassed". If you haven't seen it, check it out.

There are a few things that rather annoy me. First of all, it is framed in a highly suspicious manner:

Sorry, you disingenuous propagandists, but you have to try again! She was wearing jeans an a crewneck T-shirt, but you seem to have forgotten to mention that she's wearing a very tight T shirt, and probably a (stuffed?) push up bra as well. She spent a lot of effort to fix her hair, and she's wearing make up. Women who don't want any attention don't dress like that.

Then there is the inconvenient fact that there is hardly anything that could be called harassment. You see a couple of guys wishing her a good morning or a good day, or saying hi. It seems that kind of people have a friendly word for basically everyone who walks past. Heck, I'm a dude and even I encounter people who ask me how I'm doing. It's a bad day for sales clerks too, because it's apparently "harassment" if you try talking to passers-by:

I don't want to know how often I got "harassed" by volunteers of Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientology, employees of mobile phone companies, or members of political parties.

In all honesty, the only instance that is bothersome is that guy walking next to her for several minutes. But, hey, if you spent ten hours walking around, in a city as busy as NYC, you'll invariably encounter some weirdos as well. Then there was that guy who was clearly hitting her, but that's life. He was certainly not forcing himself upon her.

Well, Shoshana B. Roberts, it's very unfortunate that you've become a useful idiot for feminist propaganda. You're not particularly good-looking anyway, so I suggest you enjoy all the attention you get, for as long as you're getting it. You, like very other arrogant bitch before you, will learn that past a certain age men just aren't that interested in you anymore. Of course you can then still tell yourself that people saying "hello" and "good morning" are "harassing" you, but then it would be even more ludicrous than it is now.


  1. This one went viral as well, but turned out it was staged. Here's a video of the young turks exposing it.

    you can find the original here:

    Frankly, I don't even know what to say to this. This is just utterly disgusting. It's staged and the only reason I can think off is because she's trying to put men in a bad light.

  2. the best part was when people started accusing her of being racist, because there's no white people in the video.

    logic and reason don't have any effect on their arguments, but playing by their own progressivist rules does. look for opportunities to accuse them of the things they accuse everyone else of being.

  3. is there some area in the world where acting like a douche actually gets you the girl?

    1. Splendid comment! ;)

    2. By the way... 108 is a sacred number in the Upanishads (Indian Sanskrit scripture)... but I guess, they didn't really intend to allude to that... *LOL*

    3. More importantly, is there a part of the world where acting like a kind gentleman gets you the girl?

  4. Yeah okay, if someone makes a video of a girl walking through Saudi Arabia looking like that, they'd see actual harassment in the form of witch-burning. Perhaps it would benefit feminists to attack the actual countries that actually restrict their rights rather than just going after the country that'll bend over on all fours and let them fist fuck it.

  5. So she was "harassed" 108 times, but how many men did she pass that did nothing at all...?

  6. Offtopic... Sleazy, any comments on this? :)

  7. Hey Sleazy. You got any comments on this youtube video "Sexodus: Why Are Young Men Giving Up On Women?"

  8. Hey Aaron, I had to quickly drop-in to say this:

    I just got your book a few hours ago. First thing, congratulations to the editors, they did an amazing job. Everything flows so well that it's literally effortless to read, and you can't put it down once you start reading.

    I also wish I had this book a few weeks back, so I could have just pointed the random PUAHATE trolls we get on here in the comments.

    - For example the chapter on "subtle signals" elegantly explains in 1,5 page what I'd take 50 rants to describe.

    [Do note] We have been informed by expert trolls in the comments though that subtle signals don't exist, and women throw themselves at you if they're interested, and are never shy about bluntly showing sexual interest.

    - I loved the explanation about late 20s chicks who've stopped playing games and are more direct, and how to differentiate them from cougars who aren't actually the "easy to get laid" variety

    - My favorite quote in the book "Normally, you're not the guy of he dreams, but pretty acceptable. She might go for you if nothing better comes along. This doesn't sound flattering, but it's the reality of picking up girls".

    That right there is one of the main "secret knowledge" pieces that differentiates guys who get 5 lays per LIFETIME, and guys who can get a dozen or more per year...

    - I also love how you expertly destroy the myth about going for "plain janes", because you think that's all you can get. When in truth the slightly cuter/hotter girls are often easier to get, and the "rejections" are so much more positive than rejections from plain janes.


    I've only read about 1/4 of it (not in order), but I can say this... This book has ZERO fluff, everything is PRACTICAL, exactly what you need to know and no useless theorizing. I mean you cover EVERYTHING without overcomplicating it. NOT AN EASY FEAT! Everything from clothes, to picking a club, to timing in the night, to knowing when to escalate and when to wait... up to knowing when to approach, when not to waist your time. Knowing how to read and send signals. EVERYTHING, literally EVERYTHING is covered... yet done so in an elegant way where it's not overwhelming.

    It's REALLY HARD to strike that golden mean between...

    A) PUAHATE/feminist extremism (just be normal and girls will throw themselves if interested)... or mainstream "just wait until you get lucky and you get laid by chance"


    B) PUA overcomplicating bullshit where it's 2% substance, and 98% unverifiable theories and concepts that make NO difference in the real world.

    You've managed to make a book that's ONLY substance. Which is why some chapters are only half a page or a page and a half. That's because its ALL a guy has to know about the topic, and it's CLEAR you had a "NO FLUFF" policy when making this book. There is a VERY CLEAR occam's razor being applied here. IF it doesn't fit the 80/20 rule, it's not in the book.

    The only negative part about this book? Why the fuck didn't it exist 12 years ago, and why did I have to waste YEARS on sorting through endless tons of fluff/logical fallacies/kj theories etc... before I figured this stuff out. I'm kind of jealous of guys getting into this stuff now. They have a resource that didn't exist before.

    1. I agree 1000% - but I am far too lazy to write such a lengthy/detailed review ;)

    2. Novy, post that review of yours on amazon!

    3. Thanks for your detailed review, Alek! I'm happy that you like the book.

    4. Actually it's not a review. Just a random rant with some random things I liked. This doesn't even scratch the surface about everything the book covers.

      I'm up to 2/3 of it finished right now, and the TL:DR is the same. The main point is this.

      -> This book has everything you need*
      -> It is NO-NONSENSE, i.e. zero-fluff and won't waste your time
      -> This is the ultimate guide, has everything you need to know*

      *- (assuming you have the base foundations which it doesn't cover, i.e. it's not for you if you're a virgin or have had 2 girlfriends in your life.

      For example it doesn't go into explaining the most absolute base level of how to escalate. It only goes into the more nuanced aspects of escalation that apply to clubs, faster lays etc etc...)

    5. So that it doesn't seem like I'm saying everything is perfect. Perfection doesn't exist after all

      I did eventually run into two things that aren't perfect in that I think they aren't 100% clear. Which is actually a compliment, since it means everything else is 100% perfectly clear.

      1) The testing waters page, kinda confused me. It's not clear to me where the author is talking about the act of "walking up" (i.e. just getting physically near a chick) vs. where it switches over into actually approaching (saying something)... So it's not clear where the testing ends and where the approaching begins. And I read it multiple times. That section is very tangled and I couldn't untangle which sentence talked about what.

      Btw, the reason I find the subject of "testing the waters" fascinating is because the two best naturals I know in real life have an amazing success rate. Single digit ratios, really...

      First one (my best friend) has a simpler method I've mostly modeled. He just walks up to chicks as if he's going to say something, but doesn't, just does a smile and a nod as if greeting an old friend he's known for years. He doesn't say a word unless they react to his presence in a way he likes. So hever actually makes "the approach" if he doesn't like the non-verbal response and just walks away with a smile.

      I'm suspecting "testing the waters" chapter was explaining something similar to what my best friend does, but I'm not sure... since it then goes into other things, more direct and bold approaches. It's not clear what is testing and what is approaching.

      Now the other guy (an acquaintance) is more fascinating, almost every approach he does ends in at LEAST grinding, at the very least. But this guy takes testing waters to a whole new level. His pre-approach routine might last anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes before he says a single word to a chick. From the moment they exchange first words, within 2-3 minutes he's grinding with her, max 2-3 minutes. But the "ritual" started long before first words were exchanged.

      It's hard to describe, but it's obvious he's doing something. It involves almost female-like behaviours of hovering, gradual distance decreases, over the shoulder glances, "accidental" brushing of bodies when passing the group of girls etc etc etc etc... It's very complex and I don't see him often enough to model him. And though complex its obvious he has it to a subconscious (no thinking and automatic) competence level, so it's effortless.

      So I'd love it if the "testing the waters" section went into more details and specifics... or I was able to understand it.

      2) I would have loved more specifics on the actual "take her home" bit.

      - "actually what to say" for the invite home. I.E actual lines to say to gauge reaction
      - How to interpret her response and when it means you just lead her by the hand
      -> when it means she only wanted a make out and some grinding, nothing more
      -> when it means you have to give her a better excuse
      -> when it means she wants to go, but needs excuse for friends, things like these...

      (From my experience, most girls don't just respond "oooh ok, sure, let's go to your place to bang! Though if sufficiently horny a portion do say, "sure let's go") At best in most cases it's a sly smile of approval.

      I'm somewhat experienced in this area, and yet I found it vague. I suspect someone with no experience doing this will find it even more vague.


      That's about it as far as "imperfections" go. Which is actually again a compliment because I was surprised that every other chapter is 1000% clear due to great editing. I.E you don't have to ask for clarifications.

    6. alex your second friend sounds like what i did back when i was in middle school,
      i didnt fuck the girls but i applied the same tactics in the bus, the female like.

      i can explain it as being near very attractive female, wanting to "bang"
      but at the same time i was very scared to make a move and i didnt realize yet that females
      are mother fucking aware of all the "accidental moves" so i will do things and see what i can get away with, importantly i would touch some hot chicks, some rarely chicks will get
      backed off and i would be scared of and wouldnt go with it with the particular chick.

      needless to say i stopped doing it after getting to high school and only did it buses.
      can say i will probably start doing it again, i am baffled at my courage in middle school however then i thought the chicks dont notice. lol.

      there were females in their 30 too. i put my hand on their legs and they didnt resist.

    7. Alek, what do you mean when you write "PUAHATE"? I thought people here did hate PUA.

    8. was an Internet forum that was shut down in response to the Elliot Rodger tragedy.

    9. @the real petermen

      When I say "PuaHate", I am reffering to the forum "PuaHate", not "the act of hating PUAs"... which all of us do.

      PuaHate was this forum for crazies, where half the members were butch lesbian feminists, and half the members were like Roger Eliott.

      They promoted some weird theory that was something like feminist theory with a twist.

      It went something like this:

      "If girls aren't throwing themselves at you (like they do at rockstars) they you must be butt ugly or inherently defunct in some inherent way. It's probably your face, and there's nothing you can do about it. So you are limited to dating feminist butch warpigs who throw themselves at you."

    10. Ok but why did he lump PUAHATE with feminists?

      "It's REALLY HARD to strike that golden mean between... A) PUAHATE/feminist extremism (just be normal and girls will throw themselves if interested)"

      Just curious.

    11. @The real petermen

      I guess we responded at the same time. I kind of answered this in the comment I posted at the same time, but if you want more clarification.

      - Just look to the debate I had with roger
      - By the end PUAHATE had a ton of feminist regular posters
      - PUAHATE theory is VERY similar to feminism, as explained in comment above

      -> The reason I hate feminist "dating advice" is because it literally bullies guys by denying about 95% of the BS that men have to go through.

      -> Your typical feminist says "unless women are throwing themselves at you with undeniable lust, they must find you ugly.


      The differences between the two are small, which is why it was swarmed and overrun by feminists by the end.

      Just read the debate I had with Roger, it sounded just like arguing with a feminist, yet this guys was an obvious "puahate" member.

    12. "Ok but why did he lump PUAHATE with feminists?"

      I'm not lumping the people together. Just their theories on dating.

      Specifically the context is "dating advice". In previous comments with a broader context I've included "mainstream" in there.

      If we're talking about the group of people who promote just passivelly waiting for things to auto-magically happen on their own and demonize conciously and proactively trying to get laid... this group includes:

      - Mainstream advice
      - Feminist Advice
      - Puahate theory

      If we're talking about the group of people who claim that all interested women will throw themselves at you... and girls are never subtle. This group includes:

      - Feminist theory
      - Puahate theory

      This group also claims if a girl is not throwing herself at you, then she finds you ugly and she's not into you. This group also claims that if you don't have a regular sexlife (auto-magically without any conscious effort), then this means you are defunct in some fundamental way and should kill yourself.

  9. Why do I always agree with Alek ?

    Me too, I would like more info on the "take her home" part. Because in the book it is ALMOST written as if "oh say "let's go to my/your place" and the girl will just happily follow you".

    I'm also curious about the size of the bars or clubs you go in. What's the minimal size to have at least one chance to find interested ""targets"".

    Everything else is perfect tho.

    1. Anonymous: Because in the book it is ALMOST written as if "oh say "let's go to my/your place" and the girl will just happily follow you".

      You said it a lot more eloquently like me. That's kind of the perception the reader gets when reading those parts.

      There is no discussion what to say, just a few random examples like "sometimes I'll say y, and the girl will go do z with her girlfriend, and then we go home".

      So there are like 3-4 sentences on this, and they're in different sections. I would have loved a dedicated section that talks about just this. What you say, how she responds, what do you do if the response isn't perfect.

      Perhaps a list of excuses/pretenses to give her to come with you, and how to know if her reaction means "make a better excuse" "try later" etc... A lot of girls who want to bang you (from my experience) will not come on a direct "let's go get your coat and get out of here", but they will come if you give them some lame pretense/excuse for going.

      Like I said, I love that the book strikes a perfect balance between not being simplistic, and not overcomplicating. Every other area has just the right amount of information, no fluff, yet covers everything you need to know. So its perfect. This is the only one that I think is on the side of "not enough info", or oversimplifying.

  10. Sleazy, I read your book. Interesting but a lot of the things you wrote are similar to things Ross Jeffries said many years ago. Just a question: before being more natural, were you a speed seducer?

  11. What I find intriguing about you're work is that it literally stands out from every other book or product that's available out there. I mean, if you would read Models by Mark Manson after reading you're book, it would be enormously obvious that Mark Manson doesn't really know what he's talking about.

    Like when he needs 15 pages to discuss warm, lukewarm or cold women.

    1. Commercial authors, because they have to make a living off of it, they have to overcomplicate it. So there's always another product to sell and things always seem like there's something more to learn, because it's 99% unverifiable overcomplicated non-sense and 1% substance.

      The main problem with this is that it prevents so many guys from discovering sane advice

      Look to the latest surge of PuaHate type trolls who say that for example Aaron's advice is "exactly like PUA advice.

      PUAs have so dominated the non-mainstream conversation, that it's created a false dichotomy. Either you believe the mainstream/feminist oversimplified version of events. Or you must go to the other extreme and believe the overcomplicated PUA bullshit.

      When something becomes the accepted belief, it blinds people from seeing differences. The moment they see anything more complex then
      "oh, just be yourself and wait for things to automagically happen, that's the only way you can get laid, and never have concious or proactive actions to get laid

      The moment anything is more complex or nuanced than this, their mind automatically goes into "oh, this is some pua bullshit". And I blame that cunt Mark Manson all those other cunts like him.

    2. @Alek: Good to see you're still around!

      Thank you very much for going so much into depth and clarifying stuff! Especially when you propably could be partying with cool guys and hot chicks, working on your buisness sucess, relaxing from doing the latter etc. instead of helping anonymous guys from the internet to stop overcomplicating AND oversimplyfying stuff and get a (sex) life!

      I think many guys, especially the starters (like me), benefit tremendously from your comments.

      @Aaron: Got my copy of Club Game delivered yesterday. WOW! FUCKING WOW! :)

      I was crossreading the chapters that looked most appealing to me and most relevant to me being a semi-virgin (i.e. mainly the chapters about fashion, types of women, female signals) until I had to put the book down because I got headache and the lines blurred in front of my eyes. I really was that excited while reading it! Like some kind of intelectual gluttony ;)

      Let me tell you: Even although I will have to work still for quite some time on my foundations and the "Chris-Common-Sense" type of game (i.e. social circle, dance classes etc.) before I can even think about doing club game, I still feel I got more than my money worth!

      I will propably read the book from page to page unhurriedly within this week, let it sink in for a while (some weeks maybe, in which I might read certain parts again) and than give you a bit more detailed feedback.

      If I was forced to review your book -from what I have read so far- by only using one word it surely would be "masterpiece"! :)

      Merry Christmas, guys!

      Take care!


    3. right? how can you not like alek and aaron?

      man just from reading this blog i let go of alot of bullshit.

      like you cant really make yourself likeable or attractive to a certain person
      it just depends if its already so and so it is decided before the communication even starts.

    4. @Brent

      Thanks, but it's not that altruistic on my part... It's my way of procrastinating. Some people watch television, others watch cat videos or play video games or watch sports... the way I procrastinate is by arguing with trolls online who say stupid shit that insults common-sense.

      If I'm here more often than 1-2 comments a month, it means I'm procrastinating on some important project... so I'm not as happy with myself about being here :)

  12. I must say you are a very entertaining writer.

    I definitely agree with most of what you say minus the cold approach aspect. I've personally found daytime cold approach very effective. Not "game" type bullshit though, just regular talk. I also don't run up and down the streets for 8 hours a day "surging"

    I find if you look good you often see women during day to day activities (going to the mall, grabbing coffee, groceries, gym etc etc) that will check you out anyways. Some will give such strong eye contact it's basically a slam dunk when you go over and approach(if you look really good though, sometimes the women aren't single that are checking you out but find you attractive It's all part of the mating process). If not getting really any eye contact or a smile, then yes it can be quite ineffective. I only do it if the girl gives eye contact, smiles way too hot not to approach (Life is too short imo. If a girl gives you a raging boner from looking at her sexy booty in a pair yoga pants, then I say go for it!) But yes, social circle will ALWAYS be the best way to meet women.

    Do you just not like doing it? Is it frowned upon more where you live? Then again, I don't find bar game that effective so perhaps to each their own.

    1. That's (mostly) not what I call "cold approaches", but warm approaches. Cold approaching, as PUAs use the term, means walking up to women randomly. If she gave you eye contact, then it's a "warm approach". But let's not argue about semantics too much.

    2. The sad thing in some western countries - mostly due to feminism - is though, that women often deliberately will not signal their interest or respond to a prompting smile from the man, even if they are quite interested. Mr. Alek Novy previously elaborated on this in detail.

    3. Oh ok. Thankfully I'm not too up to speed on all the PUA terms :) I just moved to a bigger city and it's been unreal for these warm approaches then as they're called. My social circle blew up within the couple months I was here too. Life is good. Could one argue that location may be just as important as looks/status?

      Btw, you are a life saver. "Debunking the seduction community" was LITERALLY life changing. I was already in shape, tall and cool style with somewhat decent financial situation (still working on it though) and felt like I needed all those lines and routines. The book was a real eye opener. It's amazing what being NORMAL will do when speaking to women. Couldn't be happier man. Best of luck in the New Years with whatever you do!

    4. Thanks for the feedback! Yes, location is very important as well. I'm quite sure I've made that point in a few blog posts. It's furthermore mentioned in Club Game and Minimal Game. The bigger the city, the more opportunities you will have.

    5. @Marco Polo: Good Point!

      I hardly ever get women smiling at me out in the streets, shopping malls, parks etc.

      Maybe I don't smile enough and/or naturally enough myself.

      What I do notice is that when women hold eye contact with me in this kind of non-flirty places/scenarios they either wear some kind of poker face or they stare at me with their eyes wide open- kind of like a scared deer :D

      For a long time I thought they considered me a creep/psycho and were scared of me, but in that case would they not kind of quickly look away (sideward, even turn their heads away sideward) and try to completely ignore me and avoid eye contact instead of holding eye contact for quite some moments?
      (They sometimes break it, then it builds up again, then it breaks again, this all might repeat itself several times.)

      I’m pretty convinced now, that this is some kind of “IOI”. (At least I hope so =P ) The girls get nervous and don’t know how to act. Maybe they even would like me to approach and are nervous the same way a guy gets nervous who sees a chick, he’s about to approach or at least wondering weather he should do so. (My little theory.)

      What kind of eye contact do you get from females here out public here in Tschörmony?
      Do you observe this scared-deer-look when you’re out, too?


    6. Aaron do you have any explanation for this with location? Not only is it easier to meet women in bigger cities due to the shear volume but women just seem more down in general.

      Prime example, women willing to leave a club quick (the clubs I was used to were small so a bigger club helps too), women eyefucking hard during the day and one girl I met on a dating app had me pick her without even meeting me yet.

      Where I lived before women were more distant and less open to things. Which is weird because almost everyone knows everyone. In a big city, there's way more "potential harm" for women but yet they seem down for way more stuff.

    7. In a small city as you said, "everyone knows everyone" so if a girl fucks around people will know. And she most probably doesn't want to have the reputation of a whore... A friend of mine is in that situation. She loves sex, but the place she lives in is small, so if you meet her there she's not gonna be as open as in a big city/foreign country because she's afraid the people who know her will judge her.

      => One good reason to stop slut-shaming :p.

      I'm not claiming this is the only reason of course. For example, I find small cities in general to be more conservative-thinking than, say, Paris or Amsterdam, which can mean that the girls themselves will not be that open-minded concerning one-night stands.

  13. The idea of the cold approach is that the woman has had zero interaction with you. So, if you see a cute girl you want to meet, how can you meet him? By putting yourself in the position to meet her. You can cross the room, park yourself seven feet to his diagonal, turn and look at her. Now that she’s in your line of sight, she has an opportunity to make eye contact with you.

    But what is the success rate when you try to talk girls who before approaching them they are ignoring you and they never look at you or send any signal at all, despite being next to you and you give some direct eye contact looks at them? which happens 99.9% of the time when you are an average joe and they are quite attractive. Plus one when you're in a crowded bar with a surplus of cocks. I never did daygame, only nightgame.

    I am reading in a this forum that Alek Novak says you ask 200 cute girls out, or maybe 1000, you can get some date and girlfriend later. So does a ugly or average guy has to approach 200 cute women to just get a maybe date?? Please don't say that if you sample on a cold approach a lot of attractive women you get results! I already did it, and got dismal resutls, 0% success rate of 217 attemps!

    if a girl doesn't give you some solicitation signal, non-verbal
    come-ons, direct eye contact, smile.. You can't do anything to force her to like you, and just because you get numbers from girls doesnt mean something, any girl would give her number to get rid of a guy.

    I can't get warm approaches with mutual eye contact because I'm not handsome. And then? Keeping me out doing just cold approaches with 1,000, maybe 10,000 cute girls? Note I've gotten 217 refusals until now.

    1. Tip: in his latest book Aaron has a section called "testing the waters". It's about how to test before you approach. We discussed in the comments here, look it up


      What is with all these people coming out of nowhere with complete lack of reading comprehension!??! I didn't say you need to ask 200 to get a date and 1000 to get a girlfriend.

      I didn't say any such thing when those numbers were mentioned. I was talking about the closure principle / closure experiments which simply refers to the idea that

      - You can't claim something is "impossible" until you falsify it beyond doubt. You don't know if its an excuse or legitimate until you falsify it beyond doubt

      - In other words if a dude is whining that he can't get a girl who's type x, i.e. it's impossible

      - I tell him to either stop whining, or go ask a 1000 of those girls out BEFORE he claims its impossible. If all 1000 say no, then you have a point.

      - I said it rarely takes them doing more than 20-30-40 before they get their first yes. The "1000" is simply a mental construct for the sake of "lifetime closure".

      - Nobody ever actually has to get to a 1000, because they achieve the goal way earlier. When they start getting dates, they do change their belief and say "oh yes I actually can, I was wrong"

      - This is NOT an actual STRATEGY or a way of living life, lol. It's just an experiment to bust through mental barriers and self-deception.

      This refers to any area of life too

      If somebody claims something like "oh my body just refuses to lose weight, I've tried so many diets, my body just physically can't get below this certain weight".

      - I would tell them, stick on this strict diet for a HUNDRED DAYS in a row, and then if you truly can't get past your so-called physically limited plateau, then yeah you can accept your are "physically limited". Until then you might just be lying to yourself. So 100 days, no exceptions...

      Note I've gotten 217 refusals until now.

      I doubt it. I forget to mention that when I give the "1000 closures" experiment to friends who claim they can't get success... there's one more thing...

      They have to be DIRECT UNMISTAKABLE point-blank yes/no attempts, so you can not trick yourself that something was a "refusal"...

      The odds are if you have "had 217 refusals", it's because:

      a) You're lying to yourself and interpreting vague lack of enthusiasm to vague moves on your part - as a refusal
      b) You're the world's ugliest man, haven't bathed, in 10 years etc etc...

      I find A (self-deception) to be the main cause for everyone who claims they can't get girls.

      - Which is why my "closure experiment" makes it specific you have to get POINT-BLANK verbal refusals to point-blank direct requests for a date.

      - Talking to a girl and asking in a roundabout indirect way if she'd like to continue this conversation and her not responding with jumping up and down glee, doesn't count as a refusal in this experiment.

      - You have to point blank ask a **direct question** the kind that requires a yes/no answer. And if the answer is vague, ask for a yes or no.

      If you do this experiment it's impossible to get to 217 refusals (as defined here)

      P.S - My experiment has nothing to do with cold/social whatever

      It's about direct moves of any type to any girl anywhere. I don't like or do cold-approaches myself. Mostly social circles, niches, and warm or approachable strangers. Look into testing the waters discussion again.

      You don't have social circles to ask girls out in? Your priority should be to get into some hobbies immediately.

    2. Disclaimer again: Again, it's just an experiment to bust through self-deception, not an actual long-term way to do things or live.

    3. Alek, sometimes when I read your posts, I feel a bit of bitterness.

      With principles from Ericksonian hypnosis, you can improve the likelihood that the girl will want to be with you. Erickson developed a lot of techniques in order to deal with very resistant patients. These techniques can be apply in everyday's life with women too. Sometimes, the resistance doesn't come from not liking you but it comes from social conditioning ("what would my friends think ...'' blablabla), or because her mind is busy with bullshit when you approach her.

      As a teacher, I use these principles with my students. They help to improve the quality of their work and their motivation.

      To me ericksonian hypnosis is like the makeup that girls wear. It makes your message more appealing.


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