Lifestyle Journey For Men

Paying For Sex Is More Alpha Than Using PUA Methods

2011-10-18T22:33:00.003-04:00

If you assign a dollar amount for the use of PUA methods you will find that you pay much more than you get in return. It's like investing $1000 to get $50 in return. Now I will admit that for some that $50 is very important, like if you're a virgin and/or sexually/socially inexperienced. Then that $50 return is worth all the effort. But over the long term the use of PUA methods is definitely a losing proposition. Once the novelty fades it quickly becomes a low yield exercise in terms of results attained, and it has the compound effect of hurting your self image since you are trying to change who you are to adapt to what women are attracted to. I personally would rather pay for sex than ever use PUA methods again. It's a much more efficient use of my time. The closest thing I would ever get to using PUA methods again is to do mass approaches, but with my personality on display, not PUA material. And I would do this in order to get a regular girlfriend. In this part of the world where I am it's simply not worth it to be a player who hooks up with lots of women; the reason being that cold approaching here is very low yield. Therefore, it only makes sense to do it to get a steady girlfriend.

But if you want sex with different hot women on a regular basis then prostitution is the best way to go about it. It will save you all the grief, anger and emotional frustration that comes with using game - which by the way is a much higher price to pay than paying a prostitute, in my opinion. And it's even possible that a prostitute will cost less money anyway. For example, if you habitually go to clubs and the cost per club night is (say) $40-50, then you might end up paying hundreds of dollars before you finally hook up with someone (not to mention the many hours of approach effort that it took). For this amount of money you could get sex with a guaranteed hot woman, but with none of the effort.

So with all this in mind, these are the reasons I've come up with in favor of prostitution:

• You are only spending money, as opposed to money plus time plus effort, or time plus effort at the very least.

• It crushes the evolutionary argument that very attractive women always seek men with superior genes (mostly espoused by PUAs). So if you got money you can buy sex with a very attractive woman regardless of how much "reproductive value" you have as a man. This is a great thing and perhaps more fascinating than the use of "game" to get a higher quality woman since game is just an attempt to enhance attractiveness. But money is simply a shortcut to get the same result without any of the effort to boost attractiveness.

• Prostitutes compete with each other for your business/company, which helps raise the quality level of their service. This is unlike typical western females in the dating game which feel no need to compete for a man, so like a tight trade union they collectively lower the quality of what they give to the man while expecting much in return. But for prostitutes, giving little means the man just "shops" elsewhere next time. This is a switch from the dating/courtship/pro-female/male-supplication model to an economic model for which payment for quality of service is the only criterion for the pairing between a man and woman.

• In the economic model where the man pays directly for sex, the seller (the woman) typically respects the buyer (the man) much more than women in the dating scene do. The western dating scene is also based on a buyer-seller model, but one which is cleverly disguised with fake courtship rituals and relationship quid pro quo, with the added insult that the sellers (the women) typically disrespect the buyers (the men). It's like walking into a store, and instead of being greeted by the merchant you are ignored, and even scorned just for being there. You are starting from a negative position which you must climb out of somehow. In other words, you have to prove yourself worthy before even ATTEMPTING to buy.

• Paying money instead of using game means you don't have to change who you are. If you want to get laid, you just pay money, and your personality stays basically intact. So given a choice between the two, a truly alpha guy is more likely to just pay for sex than change parts of his personality in order to get women to have sex with him. Now some guys will say that going to prostitutes sucks because the woman doesn't actually like them, and is just doing it for money. To me, as long as I just want sex, it wouldn't matter to me anymore than if my mechanic likes me as a person. As long as he can properly service my car, that's all I really want. I'm not paying him to like me. I'm paying him to service my car, the same way I would pay a woman to satisfy me sexually. However, I would want her to respect me. That is important, the same way it's important that my mechanic respects my wishes with respect to my car.

Miscellaneous Points

2011-09-29T14:59:00.002-04:00

• We are all descended from twice as many women as men. There's a statistic measured from genetic data that 80% of women historically passed on their genes, but only 40% of men did. This means that we are descended from the most "fit" men, and men walking around today are themselves descended from the most alpha men. So it's ridiculous when PUAs say how inept the vast majority of men are when it comes to meeting women, since modern men can only be descended from the most sexually successful men of the past. This is a very under appreciated and unacknowledged fact about men. So it is absurd when PUAs say that the average man supposedly has so much to learn when it comes to meeting women, and that acting "normal" just doesn't cut it with the modern woman. This is in direct odds with the fact that the male ancestors of the average man did just fine acting "normal". The truth is that women, especially attractive western women, have become more narcissistic and demanding than their historical birthright would dictate, so to these women it only seems that very few men are good enough for them, when in fact their ancestral genetic record indicates otherwise. Hence, raising the bar on what men should deliver in order to please the modern woman is completely artificial, let alone ridiculous.

• One argument PUA proponents use for their methods is that acting normal and being themselves doesn't work, so it only makes sense to learn strategies and tricks to get women. But this panders to the spoiled world view of (modern western) women, and furthermore it doesn't even work except in very few random instances, which is a far cry from anything consistent. And it does more harm than good anyway since it communicates to women that they aren't doing anything wrong, just like bailing out wall street doesn't do anything to get them to change their ways, so they continue on with business as usual which is damaging in the long run. The truth is that only a male revolution can change things, the same way that a tyranny can only be overthrown by people banding together. A few rebellious individuals operating here and there cannot effect change.

• Consistent lack of success with PUA methods is an indicator that they do not work. If you put in the effort, and follow the script and you get poor results, then you must conclude that the methods don't work. Now for example, someone might say that your criticisms of Mystery Method (or whatever method) shouldn't be taken seriously because of your low success rate, but at the same time you cannot reach a high success rate using Mystery Method because the method itself doesn't work, or only works marginally. The same goes for other PUA methods.

• PUA thinking takes the position that the customer is always right, where the customer in this case is women you are attracted to. With this mindset it's easier to simply go after what you want and do whatever it takes. Except that it takes two to tango and the fact that women themselves (especially western women) are hardly proactive at all in getting men, when there's no reason not to be, means that the dynamics are heavily biased in their favor. To gamers (and some highly ambitious types), if you want something from someone then they are always right, and the only thing that matters is figuring out what it takes to get it from them, and if you don't do this then you will go without. It's a mindset taught as truth without actually being the truth because acting as if it's true will make you as proactive as possible towards achieving your goal.

• Men have an ingrained deep need to do something proactive where women (or any other object of their desire) are concerned. And pursuing, being active, hard selling yourself, using PUA methods, etc. is a way to do something in a powerful way. That's a big part of the appeal.

• Guys learning game embody the idea of not bowing to women only in the context of doing whatever it takes to get them. It's comforting to them to feel like they are not bowing to women while also being as proactive/productive as possible in getting women. It fills two emotional needs at once even though they contradict each other.

• From my own experience, a woman who doesn't open up quickly is a lost cause. Yes it's possible to get some kind of positive response from her using wit and funny banter (such as by using PUA material), but unless she decides from the get-go that she wants to know you better you are wasting your time and you will get no where with her. Another point to make is that it is 10x easier for someone to make themselves approachable than it is for you to approach someone who is unapproachable. As a result, the burden should be on women to make themselves approachable rather than men having to overcome their resistance to being approached. So it makes no sense to approach a woman who avoids eye contact and has a fuck-off vibe.

PUA Methods Create Little Attraction If At All

2011-08-02T12:39:00.002-04:00

If someone appears more successful using PUA methods it is because those methods got them out of their "shell", so to speak. It is like a placebo effect, or like drinking lots of alcohol, where it gets you to take risks and do things you normally wouldn't (such as approach a lot). But at least with alcohol no one says that it's the alcohol that makes you more attractive to women, it's what the alcohol got you to do that made you more attractive. PUA methods at best create a variety of delivery paths for your personality, which can bring out your personality more. But it's like training wheels, basically, and that's assuming it doesn't fuck you up in the process, which it usually does.

Probably the most useful PUA concept that has any measurable validity is the concept of social proof. It is true that if girls see you as a popular guy from a distance, your attractiveness will increase a bit in their eyes. But this is in addition to you already looking attractive to them, appearance wise, and then the social proof will help a bit. But those same girls also have to be receptive to meeting you for anything to happen. I've been in many situations where I had social proof (i.e. I was chatting up women and even occasionally making out with one of them), but other girls in that environment still acted indifferent towards me. At most they would look at me with curiosity and even some jealousy, but nothing more than that would happen. Time and time again I would see that socializing with the ladies (and even the men) almost always did nothing to help me hook up with other females in that particular environment (e.g. bar or club). Furthermore, I also made a habit of observing other guys who appeared socially proofed. For example, maybe they were with their hot girl friends or appeared very social and outgoing. I still didn't see them receive significantly more attention from other women than the guy who is just standing in a corner by himself. At most they would get looks from girls, and maybe a small amount of opportunity would present itself that wouldn't otherwise, but other than that social proof is hardly the powerful thing it's made out to be. And in my mind the reason for that is this: Girls need to be receptive to meeting men in that environment otherwise nothing works. You can be attractive, socially proofed, outgoing, preselected and none of that will matter in that environment if the women are not open to meeting men. And the irony is, if in the presence of social proof you are successful then you will also be successful without social proof, meaning that the women in that environment are receptive to meeting men.

Attraction and the desire to act on that attraction BOTH need to be present for social proof to work. And attraction itself is generated by a combination of your looks, mannerisms, and how you speak. This is independent of the use of PUA methods, excluding the placebo effect of course.

DHV doesn't work either. And neither does qualifying, negging, push/pull, cocky & funny, and NLP. At most these things can enhance attraction and/or interest a bit but they are completely ineffectual with women who have zero interest in getting to know you. And if a woman doesn't want to get to know you it is practically impossible to change that since it is something entirely within her own control and not yours, something PUAs don't like to hear.

Related Post: Making Yourself More Attractive To Women

What If PUA Methods Were Taught To Women Instead Of Men?

2011-08-01T17:35:00.005-04:00

This was an interesting thought exercise for me. I imagined a reverse situation where PUA ideology is applied to women instead of men, so that women were the ones who had to learn "game" in order to get with men, regardless of how men act. Read this and think about the reasonableness of it and if any of it seems ridiculous just know that the only difference between this and what PUAs teach is that here I am applying the PUA methodology towards the goal of women learning how to get with men (instead of men learning how to get with women). This will help expose the underhanded and fear-mongering tactics PUAs use on men, and will also make it even more clear why PUA methods are so biased in the favor of women and how they try to make men accountable for women's behaviour.

Here are examples of how PUA methodology would apply to women:

• Women need to learn how to attract men or their genes will be mercilessly weeded out of existence. The window for women to attract a quality man is short since (relatively speaking) she has much fewer reproductive years than a man, so she needs to act quickly while she's young and learn how to get a man before it's too late.

• Women must always look and act their best because men are constantly on the lookout for someone better and hotter.

• Men shit test women all the time to make sure that they are "worthy" females. For example, a man needs to know that you are interested in being hot for him. So if he says you look fine in those pants, it's probably a shit test which means you should seriously think about exercising more. And if a man says that it's okay if you don't wear heels because it hurts your feet, it's a shit test and he actually wants you to wear them, otherwise he will start checking out some other girl who does wear heels and who doesn't complain about her feet hurting. No pain no gain, and keeping a man is no different.

• Women must constantly strike a balance between being flirty, girly and witty (not boring) but at the same time not appear too smart because that can intimidate the man.

• Men are justified in being picky because they have much more reproductive time than women, and they can afford to wait. That's just the way it is and women have to deal with it since there's no point in arguing with biology.

• If a man just wants you for sex then it is essentially your fault for not making him want to be with you for reasons beyond sex. You must learn to be funny, and entertaining because if you aren't then he will just move on to the next woman who is funny and entertaining and who also gives him sex.

• Men are very good at figuring out if a woman doesn't measure up. It's necessary for men to have this ability since they can't possibly have kids with every woman who wants them, since it would be a costly mistake in today's hard economic times. Also, men are naturally very perceptive because they carry the "hunter" gene.

• If a man ignores you he is probably picking up on a vibe that you are inadequate in some way. Or maybe you are wearing too much makeup and it intimidates him. Every man is different and you need to learn to read the signs so that you can calibrate how much makeup to apply (and remove if necessary) so that you get the guy you want.

• Men will have sex with you right away as a way to determine your mate potential. You have to do it in such a way that they like you and respect you, but also don't see you as a slut afterwards. But at the same time if you don't have sex right away then he might think of you as a prude. The key is to calibrate and know exactly how much to give and hold back. One way is to give him "hoops" to jump through and qualify him so he thinks that you are not that easy and have standards before jumping into bed with someone. Also, a man could say that he wants to have sex with you to see if you take the bait and are therefore slutty. If you say yes you will fail the shit test.

• A man will always cheat with the hottest female. Men are horny creatures so just accept it. And besides, you don't really deserve a man's loyalty if you aren't hot enough. So if he cheats on you it means you screwed something up.

• If a man appears shy it's because you aren't attractive or interesting enough to make him want to open up.

• If a man flakes on you it's because you didn't do enough to attract him. Or maybe he was attracted but you came across as too easy.

• If a man gets bored with you it's because you didn't do enough to stimulate him sexually and mentally.

• You have to learn tactics to disarm competing females since a man will also judge you based on how well you can handle the competition.

• Every man can be landed using the right seduction method.

Related Post: PUA Scam

Making Yourself More Attractive To Women

2011-06-19T19:59:00.005-04:00

Making yourself more attractive to women basically comes down to avoiding obvious mistakes, for the most part. Yes there's the looks factor which can help significantly, but aside from this there are things within your power to change. For example, if you're fat, lose weight and get in shape. If your teeth are crooked, get them fixed. If you wear glasses, get fashionable ones. If you're balding, shave your head. If you smell bad, shower. If you have crappy clothes, get some new and more fashionable ones, but don't overdo this one since clothes that are too fancy can attract gold diggers who only go after guys with money.

Another thing you can do is improve your conversation skills if they are lacking, but they only need to be good enough so that you can hold a good conversation with a stranger, while at the same time being yourself. Also, if you are in a social environment, like a bar/club, you can boost your attractiveness a bit by socializing a lot with people there, thereby creating "buzz" around yourself. This can lure some women to you, but only if they themselves are willing to do their part in getting to know you. Otherwise nothing will happen. In fact, a good test for how attractive you are is to be in an environment where the women are approachable, friendly, and receptive to meeting men, because if they aren't then you may as well be 5 foot and weigh 300 lb for all the good it will do you.

So given that this is largely common sense, why do PUA methods go way beyond this in terms of what a guy needs to do to make himself more attractive? PUA based techniques are extreme because they take the woman's role out of the equation, thereby putting the onus all on the man to succeed. This comforts many guys because it gives them a feeling of always being able to control the outcome — "just do xyz differently next time and you'll succeed". It's an emotional security blanket for guys who want to stay as far away as possible from their former "AFC" days where they felt helpless to get with women. So they overcompensate by taking the extreme position that success with women is ALL within their control. With them having this state of mind they become vulnerable to PUA scams promising them all kinds of success with women if they just learn the proper methods. This is very similar to how people get sucked into self-help scams promising them the world on a platter if they just follow the right steps.

A common trap for guys who have trouble attracting women no matter what they do, is that they start down the PUA path of doing way too much, such as fretting over flipping attraction switches, push/pull, micro-calibration, negging, qualifying, etc. And as a result they unavoidably fall into the trap of over-analysis where they examine things which don't matter (mental masturbation) and lose that sense of give-and-take where the woman has to do her part in the mating dance, because it doesn't matter how good a dancer you are, if she can't (or won't) dance herself then nothing happens, ever!

Many guys experience constant problems with North American (or western-inspired) women, which I discuss in detail in my other blog (http://tomenunite.blogspot.com). So trying to succeed with these women, given that failure is often so high, can lead to obsessive-neurotic behaviour by men who are convinced that if they just change the right things in their "dating algorithm", success will happen. For some, going back to the drawing board is such a continuous process when trying to get with these fucked up women, that it can drive them practically insane (at worst). At best, it creates cognitive "blind spots" where they unconsciously lose sight of all their failures, and focus only on their relatively much fewer successes or the times they got "so close". This is just like a gambling addiction type of rationalization where they think they are getting so close to a big payback, but at most they can only really rely on luck (i.e. the numbers game). The antidote to this delusional thinking is to carefully document all your results, successes and failures, and then look at it all objectively. I did that and it's a big reason I've reached the conclusions I have.

www.beyondroutines.com

Most Damaging PUA Concepts

2011-03-15T21:55:00.014-04:00

These are in my opinion the most damaging concepts that guys in the seduction community are taught. This list is as extensive as I can make it, but chime in if there's anything you think needs to be added.

• Don't try to understand the concepts using logic since logic doesn't apply to women

This is a destroyer tactic for when someone tries to make sense of the concepts. It basically means that you should understand the concepts but not cross the line where you start questioning things on the basis of logic. However, logic is just a way to get closer to the truth. So to suggest that there are instances where logic doesn't apply is no better than someone saying that they are right and that you should just have "faith".

• Solid Game vs Fool's Mate

This is a bullshit concept coined by Mystery. If you show interest right away and the girl responds favorably right away without you having to use "game" that's fool's mate. In other words, you got lucky. This is just another way of saying that obstacles are normal and that "game" is the only reliable way to overcome them. However, maybe the real "fool" is someone who spends hours trying to game a girl rather than getting a girl who is into him right away.

• Mystery's 5 for 5 claim as a statement of his own personal skill level

In this claim Mystery said he is so good that he can go 5 for 5. He said that when you reach mastery level you will be able to approach 5 women and get 5 girlfriends. He made this claim back in 2006, but since that time it has never come up again, which means that it was either total bullshit and he NEVER attained 5 for 5, or it happened ONCE on a very lucky streak and he was not able to reproduce his results ever again, which is why he never brought it up again.

Around the time he made the 5 for 5 claim he also said that you are either an AFC or a PUA with nothing in between, using the analogy of having two islands that are far apart. A very black and white (i.e. cult like) point of view which basically says that you are either a PUA (like him) or a loser who can't get women.

This 5 for 5 claim is especially damaging for guys who keep running into lots of fucked up women and cannot make progress as a result of this. And this is especially true for North American guys.

It is estimated in the PUA community that Mystery had sex with 200-300 women and he approached maybe 10,000-30,000 women or "sets" of women (as PUAs commonly call groups of women). But interestingly, you can get the same success rate with just fool's mate lays, something he looks down on.

• It's possible to get every girl using the right seduction method

Philosophically this is true since pretty much every girl ends up with someone, so all you have to do is be that someone. But the only problem is that you would have to change your personality and life circumstances (at least in her eyes) according to each particular girl. First of all, that's impossible since you can't know exactly what every girl wants, and even if you could it would be very damaging to your psyche constantly having to be someone you are not.

• Women always shit test men

The rebuttal to this has its own separate post. See The Shit Test Fallacy

• The outcome is always within your control

This new-age perspective creates a false perception of your abilities, or lack thereof. When girls are into you you're a skilled PUA. When girls are rejecting you your game sucks. This is not one sided though, since it takes two to tango. And girls in different parts of the world are not equally easy to hook up with, just like not all cultures are the same. Even girls in different social scenes are not equally easy to meet. For example, meeting girls through friends is much easier than meeting girls in clubs.

This ties into the bullshit that women are the same everywhere, so if you fail in one place you fail everywhere. To this I say turn on the fucking news and watch world events. You will quickly see that the world is not the same everywhere. You can also go to any expat forum and read what guys say about foreign women compared to western women, based on their direct experience.

• If after spending a lot of time applying PUA methods you find that it's just not working for you then you must be doing something very wrong

This is another way of saying that no amount of real world experience can prove that PUA is bullshit. Think about this, let's say you spend years trying this stuff out and get poor to mediocre results, which makes you frustrated and angry, and then imagine being told that you are just not "getting it". You will feel like shit. And on top of that imagine that around this time you hear about Mystery's 5 for 5 claim. You will feel even worse!

PUA proponents make the mistake of being in favor of PUA methods because the theory sounds good. But if you look closely at those arguing for PUA methods they are either: 1) selling a PUA product, or 2) arguing on the basis of PUA theory being accurate because it makes sense (on paper). But it doesn't matter how good a theory sounds. If it fails the real world experience test, it simply must be wrong. So statements like "xyz must be true because it only makes sense" must also be balanced against one's own experiences. PUA theories sound very good on paper I will admit, but I've seen little evidence that PUA methods have any real benefit beyond just getting you to approach a lot, and achieving success that way.

You could lock yourself in a room and argue fervently why the sky simply must be orange, while giving all these reasons why it must be so. But no matter how good the orange-sky theory sounds, it won't change the fact that the sky is blue.

• Women want to meet you too and women love sex just as much as men

This is damaging in situations where it's just not true, such as when trying to meet women in public places, like daytime venues and bars. Meeting women through cold approaching is extremely low yield. This is not usually the fault of the man. PUAs say that it is the man's lack of game that causes the failure, and yet at the same time you never see women, or men, cold approaching other people in public. It's a social faux pas. So when you have poor success cold approaching in public it doesn't make sense to automatically say that you're doing something wrong. A culture can be socially frigid and there is nothing you can do about it.

• Women are naturally incongruent but men don't have that luxury

A double standard, where women are allowed to be flaky, unpredictable, and whimsical, but when a man is that way it's the woman's right to reject him because he's not a "real man".

• The first 1000 approaches don't count

A ridiculous statement by any measure. It says that learning the game is so elitist that you have to get past 1000 approaches before you are ready to start getting good. This goes hand in hand with the other ridiculous belief PUAs have; that you have to train for years to become a master PUA just to reach the level an HB (hot babe) is naturally at.

• Not acknowledging that it's mostly a numbers game

Some of these so-called PUAs approach many girls, claiming how "skilled" they are, and then end up getting the girls that are fool's mate anyway. By approaching a lot all you're doing is finding those girls that make it easy for you. You cannot get any other type of girl.

A girl who likes you makes it easy for you and will tolerate some weirdness (e.g. PUA behaviour) on your part, and then these PUAs think that they got the girl because of the PUA behaviour, not in spite of it.

It is natural that guys who constantly approach women eventually achieve higher success rates. But they mostly do so because they get better at detecting women who (from experience) they know they can get with. This is the main reason they appear to get better with women, but to inflate their ego they often chalk it up instead to improved skills at getting women (in general) rather than just an improved ability to detect women that they can hook up with.

To further inflate how good they are some guys in seduction community forums post lay reports using certain weasel phrases in the beginning of the post - weasel phrases such as: "I haven't really been keeping track...", or "I've been too lazy to post...", or "I haven't posted a lay report in a while but here's my latest one..." These weasel phrases make it seem like you've been getting laid a lot, but you're feeling charitable so here's the details of the latest conquest, when in reality the last lay report you posted was the last time you got laid - which might have been a long time ago.

When PUAs are asked what their success rate is they often give weasel responses such as, "It really depends on the situation", which can be true, but there is only a small percentage of girls in the general population that you will have sex with. This is a fact. But PUAs are generally elusive when it comes to answering this question directly.

PUAs also sometimes give statistics based on their best night, or their best single effort, disguising the role luck had to play. So if on one night you approach 5 girls and have sex with one of them, you say that your success rate is 20% (1 in 5) - while ignoring the previous 100 approaches where you got nothing. Or let's say you only approach women who have open body language and give you eye contact. That will also increase your success rate dramatically. But PUAs often spin this success rate as the success rate based on a random number of females, which is not the case at all. The fact is that out of a random number of women, only a small percentage will sleep with you. Lots of lays can only mean a much larger number of approaches. And you can only significantly increase your lay/approach ratio by screening who you approach, and therefore approaching more selectively. For example, I can spin my own online statistics in the same way. Of the last three women I met online I had sex with two of them, so my online success ratio is 67%. But in reality I screened hard and was selective about who I met, so that I didn't waste time.

Another thing that some PUAs on seduction forums do is omit their failures, and only mention their successes. This helps them attain "guru" status faster than someone who posts both his failures and successes.

Another weasel tactic PUAs use is padding their lay count with sex with ugly/fat girls, but only posting lay reports with the attractive girls. So if a guy has sex with 5 ugly girls and 1 attractive girl he can say something like this somewhere in his lay report: "This is the sixth girl I recently had sex with", making it seem like its the sixth attractive girl he had sex with.

• Women are always giving IOIs (Indicators of Interest) that only a skilled PUA can pick up on

No they're not. Most women give signals that they don't want to be approached, especially in public places. There is no secret-level communication going on which only an expert PUA can pick up on. Most guys don't approach women because they instinctively feel they will be rejected. And they're right.

• The Secret Society post by Tyler Durden of masf

This post, originally posted in masf, deepened the cult thinking in the seduction community. You can see this post here. After this was posted you got guys referring to themselves as Secret-Society members, while also calling other guys (AFCs) non Secret-Society members.

• Evolutionary psychology psychobabble

There's a lot of twisted evolution theory explaining and justifying the way things are with women using terms like "hardwired", while ignoring critical thinking which is also evolved behaviour and which can stop you from fucking up.

PUAs gets things backwards by thinking that you have to act a certain way to fit the "model" and that the way you naturally feel like acting is wrong (usually because it's not "alpha" enough). But aren't behavioural evolutionary theories (good ones, that is) based on observing how animals naturally act, and not on how we think they should act? A man doesn't need to act like a silverback gorilla to be a man.

Furthermore, any method used to meet women must over time become something that feels natural. If it's something that creates internal conflict, and gets poor results, then you know the method is a pile of crap. For example, some exotic male birds will perform very elaborate dances to get a chance to mate with a female, while the female simply says "yes" or "no". So some would say that (by extension) human males also need to go through an elaborate set of steps to get women. But we're not like birds, and in fact we are much more like chimpanzees (our closest relative in the animal kingdom). Chimps don't go through courtship rituals for sex. The males directly solicit the females and vice-versa.

• Always having to raise your value (DHV) and lower hers, and the notion that a woman cannot be attracted any other way

This bullshit concept can only work on very immature, low self-esteem, stupid women, but even then very inconsistently. It's also a confrontational state of mind crossing into neurotic territory.

• Obsessing over what is "alpha" or "beta"

This also leads to neurotic behaviour fucking up interactions with women and making relationships seem like a war, rather than something to be enjoyed.

• You have to be unique and stand out from other guys

Partially true, but PUAs fuck this up by telling you to be unique and stand out by learning tricks and routines, rather than by cultivating your personality which is going to be unique from anyone else anyway.

• Persistence is normal. Resistance from women is normal

Gunwitch is well known for pushing the importance of persistence. This concept he teaches that resistance from women is normal is the one thing about his method I strongly disagree with. Encountering resistance from women is not a good thing. In fact, easier is better. The phrase Gunwitch is known for "make the ho say no" is damaging because it makes you focus on the wrong thing: getting past a woman's resistance, which is usually impossible (unless you rape her, wrong to do). Instead you should be focusing on women who make it easy for you. In other words, you should never have to persist for the main reason that someone who likes you will make it easy for you to get to know them, and this is the only worthwhile dynamic.

If you look through Gunwitch's numerous old lay reports on masf he almost never uses persistence. So he misrepresents his method, probably as a way to brand himself with something catchy (i.e "make the ho say no"). And if you fail using his method the stock response is often that you should have persisted more. This is analogous to the Mystery Method type dogma: If you fail then you didn't display enough value.

• Dealing with the female Anti Slut Defense (ASD)

Since women have a need to protect their reputation you should have a way to deal with their ASD in order to turn things to your favor. But why is a woman's need to protect her reputation more important than a man's need to not play games and waste time trying to decipher the "code" of women's insecurities. Besides, women can have as much discrete sex as they want. Some prostitutes do it all the time. It's not hard to do.

The other problem with the ASD concept is that it tends to justify crappy female behaviour. If she's rude, it's her ASD. If she's resisting you it's her ASD. If she's playing hard to get it's her ASD.

An equivalent analogy for children would be ARD (Anti Responsibility Defense). A child will often act in ways to avoid being accountable for his or her actions, because it is "scary". But we don't justify this by calling it a defense mechanism. Instead we try to teach children to be responsible and accountable and be mature about certain things that are part of the adult world. But in PUA land, when it comes to ASD, men are the ones who have to suck it up and just find a way to deal with it.

• Women are justified in being picky, selective, bitchy etc. because they can get pregnant, unlike us, and therefore carry more of the risk if they make a mistake in mate selection

This is also used as a way to justify crappy women behaviour. I address this in a separate post here.

In summary, PUA passes the "paper test" in that it sounds good on paper and seems to fit in with a lot of what goes on in the world. But it fails the real world test where you apply the theories to see if they actually work. It is then that you find out that it is almost all bullshit. It takes so much effort and skill to get PUA methods to work for you and to get any real results from them. But doesn't that just prove that PUA methods are shitty to begin with and that there is a difference between wanting something to work and knowing if something works. PUA doesn't work.

People who spend too much time in the seduction community get addicted to the extent that they no longer seek out rational advice that is useful, but instead advice they can mentally masturbate to. These guys often become the "gurus" on PUA forums, who are basically regular posters who have been there the longest. But ironically they end up being among the worst people to listen to simply because they are the most likely to be mental masturbators.

How Picky Should Women Be?

2010-08-21T14:35:00.000-04:00

It's common "wisdom" in the seduction community that women's picky-ness is justified because they (unlike men) can get pregnant. I recently wrote a post on my other blog that discusses this in more detail. I explain how most of the time, from an evolutionary perspective, women are not justified in being very picky.

Women Are Not Justified In Being Very Picky

Be Realistic About Positive Thinking

2010-07-12T20:46:00.008-04:00

You have to be careful how far you take the positivity and detachment mindset in explaining how reality works. Many proponents of this type of thinking believe that your beliefs, negative or positive, will manifest what happens to you. They give the impression that the mind is all-powerful, and if you have the right beliefs you can manifest anything. And of course anything that contradicts this belief is categorized by them as "being negative" or “self-defeating”. Now, I will say that being positive and detached can be a good thing, especially when meeting people, but if those people have issues then problems will occur no matter how "powerful" your state of mind is. I know from experience that certain good things started happening when I adopted a carefree, detached mindset in the presence of women. In some instances I was getting good reactions that I wasn't getting before when I was busy chasing after results. And it was tempting to start believing that I had found the magic pill, so to speak. But over time I realized that, although I was experiencing better reactions, many problems still existed. These problems were outside my ability to control. It taught me that the most you can do is take care of your own shit, which will attract people who in turn have their own shit together. So no matter what, it always takes two to tango.

Furthermore, you don't even need to be in a 100% perfect, detached, carefree state of mind for good things to happen. I've been in situations where I was feeling a bit angry inside about certain things, such as women, and then certain women in that environment still talked to me or made it easy for me to talk to them. For example, at this club once, I was on the patio leaning against the railing and looking out at the parking lot, feeling kind of down, and this woman came and stood maybe 3 feet from me, also leaning against the railing and looking out at the parking lot. Sensing her receptiveness, I asked her how she's doing and the conversation immediately flowed from there. But this woman was Russian, and I have long known that foreign women are better. And of all the women in the club she was the only one who made it easy for me to talk to her that night. So clearly my vibe was okay enough, but from her end she was also receptive enough to allow the interaction to take place.

I believe that some guys who are attached to the outcome are giving off very off-putting vibes, and when they adopt a detached, carefree mindset it produces a sharp change in their behaviour, which certain receptive women pick up on. And then they automatically think of the mind as being an all-powerful thing, almost as a knee-jerk reaction. But this reaction is the result of being too excited and over-zealous at what appears to be a breakthrough discovery. The associated passion can result in an explanation of what has happened in exaggerated terms. But let's be clear, the detached, carefree mindset of the guy does not create the receptiveness in the women. The women are already receptive in general, and you simply gave off the vibe that attracts, or in other words "clicks" with these women. But if there are no receptive women around (i.e. they are all prudish and uptight) then your mindset (no matter how detached, carefree, zen-like, etc.), will never get any of these women to warm up to you. There are things that are in your power to change, and there are things that are not. Only wisdom can teach you to distinguish between the two.

The flaw in thinking the mind is all-powerful becomes even more obvious if one looks at how many women appear unapproachable through their facial expression and body language. And yet, according to some (such as PUAs), the burden is still on the guy to change something about himself in order to be able to connect with these women. But instead, wouldn't it make more sense to give the same advice to the women as is given to the men, telling them to think happy thoughts and clear their mind of negativity, so that they become more approachable? This underscores the fact that it is in women's power just as much as ours to change the situation for the benefit of both. This directly contradicts the view of the mind as all-powerful. Because if it was all-powerful then the state of a woman’s mind would not matter, because I can still turn it to my advantage, which means that women's minds are not all-powerful, because even if a woman thinks negative thoughts, good things will still happen as long as the guy has his shit together mentally. This implies that it is only up to the guy to fix the reality of the situation when women appear hostile or unapproachable. Or it implies that somehow women's thoughts are already "perfect" and if anything screws up it's always the guy's fault. Both assertions are completely ridiculous and it tells you a lot about how faulty, one-sided, and dishonest the self-help/new-age type of thinking can be. If you can create your own reality, then so can everyone else. But this means that it's impossible to always manifest what you want by thinking the right things and having the right mindset. It's impossible because everyone is different and people constantly think different thoughts (either good or bad), which means they are manifesting different things than you. This proves that the mind is not all-powerful and that not everything is within your control.

It seems to me the basic problem is this: People in the grips of desperation will tend to deify and exaggerate the power of anything that can help them, even if it's only a little bit. For example, let's say I'm always upset and angry and anti-social and have no friends, and then I buy "The Secret" and start following its advice regarding positive thinking. What will happen is that I start changing my life for the better, because having a positive outlook certainly does help. But as a result I will have a tendency to over blow the power of positive thinking and see it as all-powerful. So in a sense the book and author will appear as a godsend, a saviour in other words. And I will tend to embrace everything the book says as absolute truth, holding on to it like some sort of life raft. My vulnerable state will have created a blind spot in my reasoning and judgment and you could sell me the Brooklyn Bridge as long as I am in that state of mind. This highlights how vulnerable people can be duped by scammers by way of selling them something with nuggets of good information that can actually help them, while also selling them a load of garbage. Due to their vulnerable state of mind they swallow all of it. In their mind, "If I found one bit of advice to be true it must all be true". It's only natural to think this way. If you gain an animals trust by feeding it once, it will allow you to feed it again, even if it's poison the next time.

There is also the possibility of the following black and white thinking: "It must all be true because if there's something about it that isn't true then it must all be untrue, and that will mean I'm wrong regarding X". So if I discover X in the book "The Secret" to be true then everything in the book must be true. And if there's anything in the book that is not true then it must all be untrue, including X, and that will mean I'm wrong. As long as someone has this mindset they will strongly resist any criticism of the book, and give it more praise than it deserves. Black and white thinking is a very common flaw in reasoning (false dichotomy) and points to the human tendency to categorize and think in terms of extremes rather than considering a wide range of options. So you have to watch it. It is much more accurate to assume that some things in the book are true and other things are not. And this is usually true for all sources of information, although it is desirable to keep the things that are not true to a minimum, such as is the case with peer reviewed scientific publications

This helps explain why so many vulnerable young men get sucked into the seduction community, because there is that small percentage of good information that can help them. But due to limited life experience and their vulnerability, these young men get sucked in by the scammers selling them a whole bunch of bad information as well. They wrongfully assume it must all be good (or most of it) because of the small amount of good information.

www.beyondroutines.com

The Shit Test Fallacy

2010-06-28T15:09:00.022-04:00

In the seduction community men are taught that women give men "shit tests" in order to weed out the non-dominant, wimpy men. The premise is that if you pass these so-called tests, you stay in the game, and if you fail these tests a woman will lose interest in you.

I used to be a strong believer in this but eventually I came to the conclusion that women who are genuinely interested in a man don't test him. Instead, they go along with him and make things easy for him. In other words, when a woman likes you and wants to get with you she doesn't try to throw up obstacles, such as "tests". So what's going on? Why is the "shit test" concept so ingrained in the PUA mindset?

One reason is because its description is so vague. A shit test can be described as anything a woman does which can be interpreted as a "negative". If she asks you a strange question, it's a shit test. If she challenges you on your behaviour, it's a shit test. If she asks you if you're gay, it's a shit test.

Many practicing PUAs get so-called shit tests for the simple reason that they act so damn weird, and when women bring attention to this behaviour or react negatively to it, voila... it's a shit test.

"Why are you wearing dorky clothes?"

The PUA interpretation: It's a shit test.

"We've heard that line before."

The PUA interpretation: It's a shit test.

"Are you gay?"

The PUA interpretation: It's a shit test.

If you are a guy who is using PUA material, consider that your behaviour might come across as a little strange, to say the least. So not surprising, some women may call you out on that behaviour. And to you that will seem like a shit test.

Shit tests also appear to occur when you act confrontational and cocky, and when a woman gives you a taste of your own medicine (i.e. she does the same to you), you interpret that as a shit test.

In the seduction community, the half-assed evolutionary explanation for shit tests is that women (especially attractive women) need some way to quickly judge men's "worthiness". So they "throw up" seemingly crazy questions without purpose in order to achieve that goal. But regardless, you have to pass the tests or you are out!

If she asks you why you are wearing dorky clothes you have to say something like, "What is it you like about dorky clothes?"

If she says she heard that line before you have to say something like, "I only used that line 300 times today".

If she asks if you are gay you have to say something like, "You're almost as good looking as my last boyfriend".

These might diffuse the situation and even get a laugh out of her, and in some ways they are good responses, but they are no more than fast remedies to a situation that you created. The truth is that you would not have to learn to pass shit tests such as these if you don't use PUA material, which is what triggers these type of negative reactions to begin with.

If you act normal and a girl wants to get with you, she will never "shit test" you.

The other point to make is that, from an evolutionary standpoint, women can't really test men for "alpha" traits because alpha men don't care to pass tests, women's or otherwise. In addition, it doesn't make sense for women to test men for manliness because manly men would never even entertain the thought that women are testing them, and would not feel that they need to pass their tests if they do. In a real man's mind, either she likes me or she doesn't. So the whole idea of women testing would never show up on a real man's radar, therefore it would be an unnecessary screening mechanism for women to have. And since evolution takes the most economical path, testing would never become an active part of women's psyche.

But PUA's argument is that women test men unconsciously, which is why women are unaware that they do it. This is just a clever way of hiding the improbability of something under the veil of "unconscious action". If someone denies that they do something you just say they do it unconsciously, and for some that would shut down debate. But for the more intelligent there is another plausible explanation. It just doesn't exist, period.

In defense of the shit test, some PUAs say that they only ended up having sex with women because they passed tests. To that I would refer them to the above argument. They probably said or did some weird things, directly from the PUA guide book, and the women reacted negatively to it. But they managed to deflect it and still ended up getting the girl. In this case it would then seem that passing shit tests is important. But it's a circular type of argument. A causes B. C fixes B. Therefore B and C are valid.

An extension of this is the PUA belief that women shit test you because they are attracted to you, and they just need to make sure you are the real deal. This is nonsense because women who are attracted don't generally want to fuck up their chances with you by giving you a hard time. However, if you act weird or confrontational then she might respond in kind by giving you what appears to be a shit test. This illustrates the following faulty logic: A woman is attracted to you. You act weird or confrontational. Result, she tests you. Therefore, women who are attracted shit test you.

PUAs say that if a woman isn't shit testing you then she isn't into you. Let's look at this one more closely. Let's say I'm a PUA and a girl is not testing me or giving me a hard time. I then conclude that she isn't interested in me (yet). So what I do is reach into my PUA bag of tricks and start doing cocky-funny, teasing or whatever. As a result she starts giving me a hard time (shit test), but not because she's becoming attracted, but because I'm acting weird and she's reacting negatively to that. But I just figure she's becoming attracted, so I keep at it. Eventually she just walks away. And from that I conclude that I failed her shit tests. I then go back to the drawing board feeling that I made some progress because I did manage to attract her after all, and I just need to polish my shit-test-passing competency skills. But what really happened was that she saw me as a weirdo and I alienated her with my behaviour. The truth is that she might have liked me and that's why she wasn't testing me or giving me a hard time to begin with. But I interpreted that as a lack of attraction and started doing things which I thought would attract her. But it just drove her away.

Consider that PUAs often say that the best reaction to a shit test is to ignore it. In other words, pretend it doesn't exist, and then the situation will right itself. There is in fact an important clue in this statement. If the best reaction to something is to act like it doesn't exist, then maybe the reason for that is because it doesn't exist to begin with. Why test someone who is seemingly unaware they are being tested, and then reward them for their ignorance? Remember, evolution takes the most economical path, and such testing could never exist.

If a woman likes you and wants to get with you, and assuming you act normal, she will never "test" you. That's all there is to it.

But if it happens that a woman is genuinely testing a man, then she is screening not for alpha men, but for approval seekers, since only an approval seeker would care about passing tests. But this is hardly normal female behaviour. It is the behaviour of an abnormal woman who is likely just trying to push a man's buttons in order to get the (possibly angry) reaction she is seeking, because that excites her. This type of behaviour tends to screen for abusive men who have little or no control over their emotions.

The other possibility is that some women give men a hard time because they themselves have issues, possibly stemming from their inability to enjoy intimacy. And if you do manage to push through their resistance you will find the sex to be very lacking, and your time together filled with drama and bullshit. This further proves that shit testing is not real because there is no real "reward" for passing. The best sex and company is with women who don't test or give a hard time.

Also keep in mind that the shit test concept has the potential to boost women's ego. Women who already think highly of themselves will tend to embrace the idea that men have to pass their tests. This fits well with their world view that they are the prize and that they are above criticism for their actions. In their mind, "I'm not being a bitch. I'm just testing to see how much of a man he is".

The shit test concept is the result of looking too closely at the little details without regard for the big picture. It's the kind of faulty left-brained type logic that involves lots of analysis, but not much thinking.

Related Post: Dealing With Bossy And Difficult Women

The PUA Scam

2010-02-23T15:48:00.052-05:00

In this post I'm going to summarize the major problems with the PUA (Pick Up Artist) industry and how it scams men out of their money. The false teachings and predatory practices of the industry will be exposed here in full.

Contradictory Messages

The seduction community has two major flaws: The first flaw is that it teaches you the very contradictory message that you have to learn to be masculine and be your own man while catering to women and their actions. So no matter what she does, it's up to you to calibrate it for best effect. If she wants cocky and funny you better be cocky and funny. If she wants an asshole you better be that too. If she wants entertainment and you aren't entertaining then she will move on to the next guy who is.

Ironically, PUAs say that they take women off their pedestal, which in a manner of speaking is true. But in reality all they do is take women off one pedestal (created by mainstream society) and put them on to another one.

This is the pedestal created by mainstream society:

• Women are delicate flowers.
• To get women you have to give them compliments, buy them dinner, be a nice guy, and tell them how much you want to be with them.
• You have to pursue women and win them over.
• You have to impress women with lots of money, nice car, etc.

This is the pedestal created by PUAs:

• You have to game women, figure out what they really want, and then give it to them. Yes, it's a lot of work but who cares, since that's the man's job. And besides, women are not supposed to pursue, since men are the ones with the "balls".
• Women evolved powerful screening mechanisms to discern worthy guys from unworthy, and women are very good at filtering out men that don't measure up.
• Women shit test men and you have to learn to pass their tests or you're out.
• Nice guy behaviour is a turn off, so you need to learn to be alpha using cocky/funny, various seduction methods, dominant body language, etc.
• There are numerous attraction switches that women need to have switched on before they will want to be with you.
• You always have to be on the alert because women are always testing you to see what kind of man you are.
• Only a select few men can become very good with women (most men are betas, or AFC). Getting attractive women is an elite achievement.
• Women naturally throw obstacles in the way of sex. It is the man's job to figure out how to overcome them.
• Women will always cheat with the most alpha guy. Unless you are alpha women won't respect you. In other words, a woman is only justified in respecting you if she is attracted to you.
• Be wary of giving women compliments, buying dinner, or being "nice" because she can interpret that as weakness on your part.

As you can see, PUAs are merely a more sophisticated type of woman pleaser; bolstered by a unique mix of fatalistic, evolutionary psychobabble, where women are concerned. It's a more advanced form of ass kissing, but behind the scenes instead of out in the open.

The second flaw is that the seduction community never or rarely addresses those things that women are doing wrong. It's like a child who throws a tantrum and instead of disciplining him or her you take the position that you have to find out what it is they want and give it to them. There's this intense fear that if you call out women on their misbehaviour you are a chump or weak or unable to take it like a man. So rather than do that many guys prefer to just take the "spoil the child" approach to getting laid. Game is basically a coping strategy for women's rotten behaviour. If a woman has attitude and is unresponsive god forbid you tell her to open up. It's your job to figure out what buttons to push.

The fact is that PUA gurus almost never talk about the dysfunctional dating culture (in North America and some other westernized countries). To do that would admit a weakness that can't be marketed in the form of a product. In other words, you can't make money off that.

Pushing The Fear Buttons and Twisting Evolution Theory

Let's look at Mystery for instance. He's always teaching coping techniques on how to deal with any and all adverse dating situations. His classic line: "Men must learn to attract women or their genes will be mercilessly weeded out of existence". Great line BTW, plays on fear. And once the fear is primed a solution is offered. Very cult like. The only problem with this classic line is that it's relatively easy to eventually propagate your genes with someone, even in a dysfunctional dating culture, as long as you go out enough and talk to enough women. Furthermore, the whole notion of "HB10" and "beautiful woman" is biased because in Mystery's and his followers view, only dolled up 18-25 year olds are classified as beautiful or "perfect 10s", and since the PUA techniques play on these women's insecurities (very common for girls in this age range) they are lauded as superior; i.e. they get the "best women". And if the techniques don't work, and they won't on older more intelligent women, it is said that these women are not the best anyway. Yada yada and you can say that the techniques are engineered to get the highest quality women and they won't work on the lower value women (anyone over 25). It's PUA sleight of hand basically. The thing is, with evolutionary psychology arguments you can prove just about anything. Lots of makeup is called superior beauty and immaturity is called exceptional femininity. Therefore, the (dysfunctional) techniques work on the "most beautiful, most feminine women".

And then there's David DeAngelo, who does provide some good information, but also some very bad. He seems to underscore all his good advice with this one sentence: "Do this to get women". Learn hobbies, be funny and interesting dot-dot-dot because it helps you get women. You have to wonder how far along he really is in his personal development. But then again, he's making a ton of money so it's not as if he'll come out one day, admit he was wrong, and then close shop.

Like Mystery, one of his favorite techniques is to push emotional buttons to get guys to buy his products. He makes it seem like it's so crucial to get things "perfect" where women are concerned. And what about the women? Well, they just dash you with a finger if you get it wrong.

Speaking of priming the fear, here is a screen capture of an image ad that David DeAngelo put up in his online advertising campaign.

Pretty effective marketing I'd say, although a bit on the low side (even for him). It basically says that unless you learn how to become more attractive (from him), women will think you are a big Loser. God forbid that ever happens! I must do what David D says! Cha-ching!

Buying Into Feminist Propaganda And Double Standards

Currently, the PUA community sees women as superior beings, and men as generally deficient (since we're the ones who have to be taught what to do). This is very much in line with feminist propaganda.

The PUA community loves to say how inept the vast majority of men are when it comes to women. They say things like, 95% of men are totally clueless when it comes to women, which is a very suspicious number considering that meeting people is an intrinsic part of people's social psychology — in other words, we are wired to want to socialize and be around people. So it's simplistic to say that so many guys are completely clueless when it comes to meeting women. It legitimizes the very real difficulty men are up against in western culture, and introduces artificial solutions to solve it. The PUA is an artificial solution to a problem that runs much deeper than just a basic lack of "seduction skills" as the gurus claim.

But no, don't criticize women and don't criticize the social engineering that molds their behaviour. You can criticize GM and Chrysler for making shitty vehicles, and no one would say the problem is with you. But if you criticize women for their actions then the problem MUST be with you. And what does the PUA industry do, it capitalizes on this artificially induced feeling of incompetence men have where women are concerned.

Here's some double standards that are common in the PUA community:

It's okay for women to be unapproachable (because that makes them selective), but if men are unapproachable (or don't approach) they are labeled as shy or socially inept. If a woman has a wall around her then it's your job as a man to "break through". You miss 100% of the shots you don't take, after all. Great line, except that it takes two to tango, and if the woman isn't doing her part it's like dragging around a corpse.

It's funny how so many women say that guys don't approach them because they're intimidated by a strong, intelligent, confident woman (more feminist propaganda). As if I can know that about a woman just by looking at her from a distance. The truth is that the only thing men can know about a woman from looking at her is, is her body language inviting? In other words, is she approachable?

PUAs are perfectly okay with men taking responsibility for women's shortcomings, but the reverse is completely unheard of.

Another double standard is, when a woman shows interest in you right away you have to play hard to get and qualify her to show her that you have standards, otherwise she'll think you're too easy. But nowhere do PUAs raise an issue with her expressing interest in you right away. So it's okay for women to be interested right away but it's not okay for a man, because that would mean he is easy and has no standards.

Women in western (feminized) culture are elevated to a level that is totally undeserved, and in part this is because their shortcomings are too often spun as a sign of strength. It's a serious form of deception, one which the PUA community takes to a whole new level with their pseudo-scientific evolutionary psychology psychobabble which SO MANY men fall for. Let's look at some of these false arguments.

It is often said that women are more socially savvy and much better than men at reading social situations. But the reason it might appear this way is because in this culture women (as a whole) take virtually no risks and always play on the safe side. They are so hell-bent on getting society's approval that they go to all these extra lengths to make sure that they don't do anything "wrong". So as a result, we never or rarely see women make a fool of themselves. Of course not; they don't do anything! Men do all the work, take all the risks, get rejected, and then (many of us) go back to the drawing board to "up our game". And the PUA is merely an extreme case of this.

Men in the seduction community frame women's whimsical, immature, standoffish, selfish, weak, and stupid behavior as indicators of higher awareness, virtue, and social intelligence. For example,

• A woman can't initiate and lacks conversational depth — The PUA interpretation: She is testing your ability to "plow through" and lead.

• A woman is prejudiced and rejects you based on some stereotype she is carrying in her mind — The PUA interpretation: She is picking up on some vibe that you are inadequate or weak. Women are masters at picking up on subtle cues, after all. In other words, you need to up your game.

• A woman can't take responsibility for her actions and flakes on you — The PUA interpretation: You didn't do enough to attract her.

• A woman is with friends who regularly cockblock — The PUA interpretation: You have to win the friends over (never mind what she thinks). So learn group theory.

• A woman loses interest soon after talking to you — The PUA interpretation: You didn't stimulate her enough.

• A woman resists you — The PUA interpretation: She is testing you to see if you are man enough and skillful enough to break through her defenses.

• A woman acts unpredictable, whimsical, and immature — The PUA interpretation: Women are more "complicated" than men and there are numerous attraction switches you must turn on in order for them to want to be with you.

• A woman needs her friends' approval — The PUA interpretation: You must get her friends' approval.

Looking at these it's pretty obvious what's going on. Women's rotten behaviour is justified using some form of twisted evolutionary psychology argument, or deftly reframing the situation to always put the burden on the guy to get things done.

Now imagine if a child did some of these things. What would the interpretation be?

• A child can't initiate and lacks conversational depth — Society's interpretation: He/she isn't mature enough.

• A child is prejudiced and rejects you based on some stereotype he/she is carrying in his/her mind — Society's interpretation: The child must be taught not to judge people based on appearances, and learn not to stereotype.

• A child can't take responsibility for his/her actions and flakes on you — Society's interpretation: The child must be held accountable in order to learn to be responsible and respectful of others.

• A child loses interest soon after talking to you — Society's interpretation: He/she has a short attention span (not a good thing).

• A child acts unpredictable, whimsical, and immature — Society's interpretation: This behaviour is wrong and the child needs to learn to be more disciplined in life and be more respectful of other people's time.

• A child needs his/her friends' approval — Society's interpretation: He or she has low self-esteem and hasn't matured enough to think for him or herself.

It seems that less is expected from women than from children. That alone speaks volumes.

No Pain No Gain

In the PUA ideology, the process is supposed to be difficult. That's just the way it is. Anything else is just you getting lucky or "fools mate". Furthermore, you have to approach at least hundreds, or even thousands of women before you start to get "good". In other words, you have to do tons of approaches before a PUA method will work for you (since it is a skill just like any other). However, it is not quite a skill the way welding or gymnastics is a skill. You see, in these skills you are dealing with something neutral (such as gravity), which doesn't care either way whether you succeed or fail. But in interactions with women you are dealing with someone who can consciously work with you or against you. So knowing that it's a matter of free will, why would you choose to work with someone who freely chooses to make things hard for you? A shy virgin can get laid with a woman who really likes him, but even an experienced ladies man will encounter difficulty with certain types of women. So why focus on something that's difficult when there are clearly easier options out there.

The bar in the seduction community is low. Many guys will pay PUA instructors tons of money, for basically just some motivational speeches, and learning how to go out and talk to women. And these guys will feel it was money well spent. I read many glowing reviews on various boot camps, seminars, and books but very few of the reviewers even suggest that they got real results. Most of the reviews seem to be of the epiphany-seeking mental masturbation type, which confuses delivery with content. This is a very common mindset among the self-help crowd, where they just want to be offered a solution that "feels good", even though it might fall way short in giving actual results.

What's missing in virtually all the PUA methods is proof that they work on a consistent and reproducible basis. So you see, it's not a skill, like welding or gymnastics, because these skills are consistent and reproducible. A trained welder, or gymnast can reproduce their skills perfectly (or almost perfectly) every time. But for PUA methods, you must repeat your efforts over and over to be successful (even the veterans). For example, let's say a guy goes out and does tons of approaches after reading about some PUA's method. Result: He eventually gets laid. He then lauds the method as the greatest thing since sliced bread. But really, the reason he got laid was BECAUSE he did tons of approaches. Pretty much anything will work if you do it enough. It's called statistics. It is for this reason that PUA methods are not a skill like any other, but rather the law of averages masquerading as a skill.

A common way the PUA industry deflects criticism is by saying you didn't approach enough. But it's like someone selling you the winning lottery numbers, and then telling you that you have to play them many, many times to be guaranteed success.

You are not really doing anything powerful by practicing PUA methods, other than just building up a pain-tolerance for doing lots of approaches; with perhaps some skew towards certain types of women which are most compatible with your style and personality.

Sex As An Elite Achievement

PUAs make sex seem like an elite achievement, and unless you are properly trained you will go without it. You will notice that when guys on PUA forums post lay reports (especially gurus selling something) they tend to break down the lay report in an effort to explain how a certain application of seduction principles produced the desired result. But if you look closely at the lay reports you will usually notice that, from the point of view of an observer, they are basically just normal interactions perhaps peppered with some PUA material which really makes no difference in the overall outcome, and certainly no difference beyond just normal talking and basic flirting. If you read enough lay reports you will notice this pattern. So it is a complete fallacy that anything that results in sex must be a result of some PUA principle, or a combination of different PUA principles.

And if it is not immediately clear how PUA principles could have worked for someone who got laid it is said that this person either got lucky (fool's mate) or he has "internalized" the principles. So if I have sex with an attractive woman, and I am unable to break the interaction down into "tangible steps" related to the pick up arts then it must be that either I got lucky (meaning there was no skill involved) OR I internalized the PUA principles and that's why I can't explain them. But imagine the possibility that the interaction cannot be broken down in terms of PUA principles because no PUA principles were actually used. It's simply a normal interaction between a man and woman that resulted in sex, hardly a great feat. Now, it's certainly true in western culture that there are a great many entitlement princesses, which greatly affects men's overall success with women. But the problem here is not a lack of seduction skills (which men have somehow devolved into, according to PUAs). It's a cultural shift for the most part, which has created the difficulty men experience. PUA theory takes the extreme position that men are usually to blame for lack of success with women. This of course complements the (radical) feminist view that men are inadequate. So PUAs are basically sympathizers with the feminist view that men are intrinsically lacking. And one side effect of this is that it translates into a somewhat hostile view that PUAs have towards "normal" guys, referring to them as "AFC" (Average Frustrated Chump).

Putting an end to radical feminism and holding women accountable for their actions will do much more to boost men's success with women than even the best PUA methods can.

Some might say that what I'm saying is not really true and that it is a man's job to initiate and lead. But that is a form of chivalry, which has no place in an egalitarian society. PUAs expect that men must take up the slack for women when it comes to dating, while ignoring the fact that women themselves, in many walks of life, show a capacity to take charge and be decisive. So from this you can conclude that taking initiative and going after what you want is a conscious choice. Ask yourself, how come women need to be pandered to when it comes to sex and dating, but for other things like holding down a job and taking on responsibility, they are fully capable.

The PUA does not hold women accountable, and instead pushes the black and white view that success with women is ALL up to you (the man). The truth is that it's up to both men and women, but since you can only sell self-improvement as a marketing angle where everything and anything is within your control, criticism of women won't enter the picture. Or if it does, it will only be as a last resort, or as a seduction tool in itself to get her to f*ck you (since, after all, women get turned on by men who put their foot down). In the seduction community, even putting a woman in her place is used as a tool to bed her (e.g. negging). It's all massive supplication, with whitewashing to make it seem like PUAs don't kiss up to women. So in other words, be a man and put women in their place, but only in such a way that it gets them more into you. This attitude is very pervasive in the seduction community.

Some would say that what I'm saying is unfair, and that there is good PUA material out there. That's true there is, but it's only a small percentage. Think of it this way, if a movie is 95% crap you're not going to give it a good review are you? It would get two thumbs down. So why laud about how great the pick up arts is when only 5% of the material is any good. Why is the bar so low for this stuff? The argument is always that you must sift through it and take what you need. But that's a 95% waste of time. If a book has only 5% quality content would you buy it? No way. The amount of unlearning you would have to do would greatly exceed the amount of learning.

One of the only good things about the pick up arts is in the various forums, where you read about other men's experiences with women. But the underlying PUA ideology that drives the points of view are generally deeply flawed, at least to some degree, so you have to be careful. You really have to be skilled at separating out the dogma in order to extract any value from these forums. But if you're new to dating then you won't know the difference between good and bad, and will most likely be taken in at some point by some scammers charging ridiculous amounts of money for how to get laid using a bunch of steps you don't need.

Supporting The "Successful" Lifestyle of Certain PUA Gurus

There are a number of so-called PUA gurus who have "cracked" the dating scene. These gurus have one thing in common. They have made a lifestyle out of meeting and picking up women. This is made possible (i.e. financed) by guys taking their seminars & boot camps.

Here's the angle:

"I will teach you how to be successful with women, for a hefty price. That will make me enough money so that I can devote myself, and travel to different places (for seminars and bootcamps), and meet lots of women. And thanks to you I will have the time and energy to do so (since I won't need a job). And due to the law of averages and the advantages of exposure, this will result in me actually being successful with women. This will justify me teaching guys how to meet women, and charging for it."

It's like a positive feedback. These guys make a living out of picking up women. This will statistically guarantee their success, which reinforces the perception that they are "good" and have a "method" that works. This keeps the demand high for their seminars & boot camps, which keeps the money flowing (thereby supporting their lifestyle), and the cycle continues.

So in large part, students of these seminars and boot camps are financing the pick-up lifestyle of the gurus, which is precisely what allows them to be as successful as they are (if they are successful at all).

But in reality, there are no superior methods and there are no actual gurus. At best there is only the law of averages and lots of exposure wrapped up to look like a viable strategy.

Ask yourself, what reasonable man would want to spend so much time and energy meeting women, unless he could somehow make money off it.

I'm reminded of a pyramid scheme I heard explained once by David DeAngelo (if you can believe it). He was talking about how, as a younger man he wanted to make a lot of money, and he said that one way to do that was to put an ad in a newspaper saying that, if you wanted to make a lot of money, send one dollar to the address in the ad, and you will be sent information on how to do it. So you send in a dollar, and then you are sent the information, which tells you to put the same type of ad in a newspaper, telling people to send you a dollar to receive information on how to make lots of money. Neat, huh!

Here's another example. Create a website telling people how to generate a lot of internet traffic. Put in some filler to make the site seem somewhat credible, and watch the traffic grow. But in reality, the way the website is actually growing is by milking the interest of many people who are looking up ways to generate lots of internet traffic.

So, do you want to be successful with women and have a life where women are in abundance? One way to do this is by teaching guys how to go about it, and charge a lot of money for it. Throw in some decent information to raise the credibility of your services, and the income will allow you to sustain the traveling and life you want where you can naturally meet lots of women. This will "prove" you know your stuff, and the wheel will keep turning. It's a self-perpetuating business model. It's quite brilliant. Too bad you have to be a sociopath to do it.

Related Posts:

The Shit Test Fallacy
Most Damaging PUA Concepts
What If PUA Methods Were Taught To Women Instead Of Men?
PUA Methods Create Little Attraction If At All

Make sure you read the comments below. I address many of the common criticisms that some people have of this article. For example, some guys think that I believe women should change the way they naturally are so that guys can be lazy and still get laid. That's not true, and I talk about that.

It's Not Always Your Fault

2009-10-28T15:52:00.003-04:00

It seems very little dating advice aimed at men acknowledges the faults women have, and that is a big mistake. It's all geared towards self-improvement, which men must undergo, which is fine, but the sin is one of omission. Why should men have to shoulder all the responsibility for making things happen? It takes two to tango right?

The typical dating advice for men consists of the girl doing something, and no matter what it is, you have to "convert" that into something positive, like a date, lay, or whatever.

There seems to be a real reluctance to admit that maybe the girl is "damaged goods", and you should pass her by. But that would be like an admission of defeat, and in the seduction community that is regarded as "beta". Alpha men don't give up, after all.

Also, consider that if you have the mindset that women are perfectly in their right doing whatever they do, with no critical feedback, they will only get more and more spoiled. That, in a nutshell, is the problem with "game". Game essentially says that you are okay with whatever behaviour women display, because you will always find a way to overcome it. In other words, "game" is a coping strategy for women's behaviour. If she only likes asshole jerks, then it's your fault for not acting like an asshole jerk. If she only likes rich men, then it's your fault for not giving off the "success" vibe. If she's rude and disrespectful, then it's your fault for not "negging" her. If she's a drama queen, then it's your fault for not giving her the drama that she needs. If she "shit tests" then it's your fault for not passing that test. If she resists your advances, then it's your fault for not breaking through her defenses. If she flakes on you at the last minute with a lame excuse, then it's your fault for not making her so attracted that she would never dream of flaking. If she is with a group of friends at the club, which is hard to penetrate, then it's your fault for not using group tactics to break through. If she doesn't return your calls, then it's your fault for not leaving an enticing message laced with subliminal NLP to get her to call you back. If she changes her mind about something, then it's your fault for not keeping her focused. And you can go on and on.

STOP THIS NONSENSE!

It doesn't have to be this way.

The way I see it, men are already doing too much as it is. So when I see statements like: "95% of men have no clue when it comes to meeting women", I immediately think that there's no way so many men can be so wrong. And it is statements like these which make women assume en masse that they are perfectly in their right doing whatever they want. After all, it's up to the men to figure out how to get with them regardless.

God forbid we ever tell women to start making it easier for men, and to start taking responsibility for their actions. That wouldn't be the "manly" thing to do after all, since "real men" take on challenges and don't run away from them.

Unfortunately, as long as men have this mindset, things will never improve, and women will never have any incentive to improve themselves and fix their shortcomings for the benefit of everyone.

Imagine if women put in a fraction of the effort men do in self-improvement, especially men learning game. So many difficulties men experience in dating would disappear. Game is no substitute for getting women to do their part in the mating dance.

Game is not the answer. Getting women to do their part is.

Women doing their part means they meet us halfway. This means we should never have to break through their resistance, or struggle to keep the conversation going, or try to calibrate anything and everything she does. It would just be assumed that if they want you, they would show it, and there would be no games or bullshit.

Unfortunately, this is not happening. So many men are trying too hard to compensate for women's actions, instead of treating them as adults. And women, knowing this, are free to embrace their sense of whimsy, knowing that there will be no consequences for their actions. On the contrary, "he will only want you more".

You can see this imbalance in dating books. Dating books for women generally teach avoidance, subterfuge, withdrawal, playing hard to get, etc. And dating books for men generally teach pursuing, persistence, and never giving up. You would have to be crazy not to see the problem with this! For starters, it means that both sides are consciously taking on roles that are polar opposites of each other (instead of meeting in the middle), and then assuming that this is the way things should be. It's utter madness!

And yet, this is so incredibly common.

Like most everything else, this is not a black and white issue. There are things you can do in the name of self-improvement, and there are things that the other side can do in the name of self-improvement.

The mistake men often make is assuming that they are the sole cause of their difficulties with women. And the mistake women make is letting them believe this.

It's dishonest, misleading, and just plain wrong.

Fortunately, there is a solution, and it's a universal one. Both sides have to take a deep hard look at themselves and be willing to fix those things that need fixing. I created two blogs just for this purpose: This one, which focuses on self-improvement for men, and my other blog which focuses on what women are doing wrong: http://tomenunite.blogspot.com.

David DeAngelo Undermines Your Progress

2009-07-05T14:57:00.009-04:00

David DeAngelo (David D) puts women on another kind of pedestal.

Let me explain.

Read between the lines of many of the things he says, in his programs, and in his newsletters. Look at what he is actually communicating. He is often times promoting empowerment with women from a position of disempowerment.

He puts women on a pedestal by making them seem infallible and hard-to-reach. He says things like: You must do this, and when women do this you must do that (otherwise it's game over). He makes it seem like getting women is an obstacle course.

This is what the seduction community commonly does, by the way. It justifies quirky female behaviour using various forms of (flawed) evolutionary psychology theory. It's like saying that it's okay for me to steal, because I am merely playing out my self-preservation instinct. Yeah, right...

So basically, anytime a woman does something, no matter what it is, it's up to you to calibrate that for best effect.

Constantly back to the drawing board...

David D teaches you to model yourself after what women want instead of modeling yourself after what you really want, and it just so happens that women are most attracted to this anyway. He has it totally backwards.

First you get your own life in order, and learn to live happily WITHOUT women, and then you are able to accept women into your life with a much healthier mindset.

I went for two years without sex and meeting women, and I was perfectly fine with it. I focused on my own life and my own interests. And when it came time to get back into the dating scene I did so seamlessly. There was no loss of "game", no "rustiness". Because I focused on my own life, it was natural that offshoots of my life (such as women) would automatically be taken care of as well.

David D harps on the necessity of knowing how attraction works and how you have to "get it" or you're screwed. But what HE doesn't get is that a guy who is trying to model himself after what females find attractive is NOT being the one thing that women DO find attractive: a guy who doesn't try to impress them.

By trying to be the guy that women find attractive you ARE being the guy that's trying to impress them.

All he's doing is teaching men how to emulate certain qualities that attractive men already have. He's teaching you to display the symptoms without getting the actual "virus". In this case, the "virus" is being your own man and learning to be happy without women.

After going for two years without sex and learning to be happy without women I can safely say that I have the "virus". And when the day came that I did hook up, guess what, it wasn't even that special. In fact, it was on par with "jerking off". You know that your neediness is taken care of when the prospect of sex is no more exciting than jerking off.

David D constantly frames getting women as very important, by way of subtext. On the one hand he is teaching you to stop being a "wussy" which is good, but on the other hand he is teaching you to stop being a wussy because it turns women off. Getting women is the subtext behind everything he says. Do you see the problem with that? It's a bit subtle but basically he puts the goal of positive change for the sake of getting women. So he starts off strong with good advice but then adds the final "sticky" as to why you should be doing it.

Be a challenge......................... because it gets women

Don't be a wuss......................... because it gets women

Be strong and decisive......................... because it gets women

Although you are removing the wuss behaviour technically speaking, you are still (deep inside) being a wuss who's wearing a "man" costume. You will still be the guy who goes home after a "sarge" wondering how you could have made the man-costume more convincing. Not that there's anything wrong with continuous improvement, but it has to be for the right reasons.

The end result - you will still be needy for women. The core problem will still be there. You will not internalize anything truly powerful and long lasting using David D's advice.

Jump farther

Run faster

Leap higher

... Because it gets women.

Or, alternatively:

Jump farther

Run faster

Leap higher

... Because it makes for a more fulfilling life.

Now which do you think is better?

The problem with David D (like most seduction "gurus") is this: He puts women on a pedestal. He assumes that getting women is like getting to the top of a tall mountain, and by giving you all these "tools" you will be able to scale the mountain and get the women.

These seduction teachers are no different from the typical guy who buys women drinks, dinner, and gives compliments, in order to win them over. They are merely using more "sophisticated" tools to win the women over (climb the mountain).

But they miss the reality; the mountain is an illusion. Women are not nearly that far up. They are actually at ground level. And once you realize that you are basically done.

So the best way to "climb" the mountain is to say: "there is no mountain". And the mountain will come to Mohammed (so to speak).

It's funny, all these "tools" that men are taught on how to get women are basically ways of making it seem like you're not using tools at all. In other words, climb the mountain without making it look like you're trying to climb a mountain. But what's the point of that? Just don't bother trying to climb, or assume that you have to.

Here's a gem from one of David D's newsletters:

"Women test men CONSTANTLY.

And ATTRACTIVE women test men MUCH MORE INTENSELY than “regular” women.

If you don't know how to spot these tests (and most of them are very subtle), and then deal with them, you're going to lose your chance to create ATTRACTION before you even GET it."

Again, the mountain analogy applies: Women test men CONSTANTLY, therefore men must be up to the "challenge" or they will lose their chance (oh-no).

Can you think of anything that drains more of your power than this one single statement?

That mountain is indeed very high. You gotta get in great shape. You gotta get the right climbing equipment. You gotta do all these things or you will miss your chance to reach the top of that peak.

And the more attractive a woman is, the more INTENSELY she will test. It's like climbing frikkin Mt. Everest lol.

And furthermore, the tests are subtle so you better learn how to spot them and deal with them.

Give me a break!!

How to be a wuss in a man-costume — that's what David D is advocating here.

By the way, this will be a good time for you to read Moving Beyond Seduction And "Picking Up" Women.

There is nothing truly empowering about what David D teaches because even his best messages are diluted with the get-women subtext. He cannot help those who want to evolve to the ultimate level, which is, get to the point where you don't need women in your life to be happy.

Social Status Is Not That Important

2009-06-29T16:41:00.002-04:00

Nowadays, social status is much less necessary to bed women because they are in the same social class as men. It's not a matter of survival anymore for women to chase after high-status men because the class system is much more equal. So women who chase after high-status men are essentially going for bragging rights.

By going through the effort of "displaying higher value" to lure women, you are (in a manner of speaking) soliciting prostitutes. But instead of paying for sex with money you are using status (or the promise of it).

In fact, a woman has no more attraction for a man with "high status" than a man who is simply willing to pay her for sex. The only potential advantage of having high status is that it can be a "cue" that you might have certain attractive traits worth checking out (e.g. strength of character). But by itself, social status means little in terms of generating attraction.

By playing the "value" game, you are basically orchestrating situations where women are most likely to prostitute themselves for purposes of gaining status (at least in your eyes). So what happens when she gets the status (validation), or the status runs out? The same thing that happens when a ho gets the money... next.

So by using seduction techniques such as The Mystery Method you are in a way replicating social conditions, which are now obsolete. The current social reality does not support the bubble you have created. It will eventually burst, which means you will have to constantly blow new bubbles to keep yourself in the loop.

The best low maintenance strategy to bed women is to make it all about sex. Don't offer or imply any side benefits for having sex with you. This way, all she will want from you is your dick (and hopefully your company too).

Here's some links which expand on this subject (added October 18, 2011):

Famous men get laid because of exposure

Some women have sex to gain social status

Does social status make you more attractive?

Belief Systems

2009-06-04T16:29:00.004-04:00

The question is sometimes asked, what is the best belief system for success and how do you adopt it?

The answer may surprise you.

The most important thing is not beliefs, but intelligence and awareness. Which belief system do you need to drive safely? You don't, but you do need a certain level of smarts and awareness while behind the wheel.

Beliefs should reflect reality. So you shouldn't put blinders on. Sure, ignorance might be bliss but it's not a responsible way of going through life. If everyone did that there would be no improvements in social injustices, because everything would be "hunky-dory".

So which beliefs should you adopt?

The beliefs that best reflect reality.

Reality is something you learn through trial and error and trying different things. Beliefs are a byproduct of reality.

I'm not going to keep myself ignorant so I can be happy and successful in life. Good things happen, and bad things happen. You acknowledge them, and move forward. If you refuse to acknowledge the bad things then you fall into the trap of delusional positivity. You can get caught up in thinking that you have to do all sorts of weird affirmations and positive thinking to be successful in different areas of life, such as women. And you avoid negative opinions fearing they will affect your positive state and your successful streak will end. In the seduction community you sometimes see this; guys making a big deal out of positivity, and worrying that if they take their rose colored glasses off they will stop getting laid. It's basically overcompensating for their fear of failure.

I personally have never found it to be good on the long term to adopt a delusional positive state where nothing is wrong and nothing bad ever happens. The fact is that sometimes shit does happen and you have to confront it. Anger and sadness is sometimes there for a good reason, it means something is wrong that needs fixing. And chances are that you would never be reading this website if you truly believed that everything was A-okay in your life.

I'm not saying it's okay to wear a scowl on your face when you go out. Clearly, that's not good. You don't want an aura of negative energy around you. Your default state of mind should be positive. I know from personal experience that being a happy person is the best way to connect with others, plus it makes me feel better inside. But when shit happens there's no need to force that positive state of mind to continue as you're dealing with the issue. You deal with it and then you bounce back to your positive state.

Personally, I'm always friendly and enthusiastic when I meet people. This is my default state when I'm being social. But if someone rubs me the wrong way I plan a quick exit and in some cases I'll even speak out against what that person did. This does not make me a negative person. I am simply reacting to the facts.

When it comes to meeting women, some guys will fret over which affirmations to use, which belief systems to take on, and how to make them stick. I have never done that. I always found it a waste of time. If a belief system is not grounded in reality it has no staying power, and this is especially true if you are an intelligent person who is in the habit of making himself aware of what goes on around him.

I know that I can only fix myself and deal with my own issues, but that does not mean that other people's issues are going to magically disappear as a result. I will still run into problems occasionally but I will know that chances are good that I won't be to blame (assuming I have myself sorted out first).

Thinking all women want you is not the solution. It might feel good to say that, but the fact is that not all women will want you, and when that reality hits you it's silly to go back and reinforce the belief that all women want you. The belief was wrong to begin with. If you think this is disempowering then you should ask yourself if the truth is something you're willing to overlook just to keep yourself in the best state of mind.

I feel there is too much metaphysical new-age discussion surrounding this topic, such as what constitutes great inner game, etc. Personally, reality is my inner game. I made an effort to understand how things work, and as a result I simplified things for myself because I now know how things work. And it's not nearly as complicated as some make it out to be. Everything I've written on my blogs is based on how things actually work and my beliefs come from that. Power comes from knowing the truth.

For instance, I know that women know right away if they are sexually attracted to me, so I don't need to waste time courting them. I can be direct and upfront because I know that's the best way to go. That's my belief, based on the way things actually are. I don't have to pretend that I'm so hot and chicks want to bang me right away, and when they do it's because of the belief. The fact is that some girls are willing to bang right away, so there's nothing metaphysical going on. It's just a fact of life.

A lot of times guys will do these things with women which sound amazing, and they call it "tight game", but it's really just the way things worked all along. It's significance is exaggerated because it's so different from what they originally thought would work. The fact is, reality is sometimes amazing, and when you discover that for yourself, you needn't think that some "magical" belief system came into play that "altered" or "stretched" reality, allowing you to do something that couldn't be done otherwise. Reality was there all along and you just hopped on board.

There's nothing special about the inner game of some guy who knows the truth about the way things work. He simply acts on the truth and that's the source of his strength.

www.beyondroutines.com

New Blog

2009-05-30T19:25:00.003-04:00

I have a new blog I created for guys who live in and around the Toronto area. The intent is to open a "portal" for men in this area to share their views and experiences meeting and dating women in the city.

The blog posts will be most relevant to Toronto and the surrounding area but will also be very useful for guys living in other cities as well. So feel free to check it out wherever you are.

Participation is encouraged by all (not just those from Toronto). The blog is going to cover a wide range of topics. I will cover some topics in more detail than I go into here, and will introduce other topics which I haven't talked about here.

http://tomenunite.blogspot.com

What About Long Term Committed Relationships?

2009-03-24T19:46:00.005-04:00

One of the social models for success is the notion of long-term committed relationships. It is often sold to us as the only really worthwhile arrangement that can exist between men and women. Everything else, such as short-term flings, one night stands, and polyamory are frowned upon by many people. These people generally see these things as a waste of time and "morally wrong". In their minds, anything which isn't 100% commitment should not be tolerated within a relationship.

Now, as for things that are morally wrong, I am against stealing, killing, deception, manipulation, and greed (to name a few). But where this definition becomes perverted is when people start justifying irrational selfish behaviour with stretches of moral reasoning.

What's wrong with seeing more than one person at a time?

What's wrong with having sex with more than one person at a time?

What's wrong with not wanting to commit to only one person?

The truth is that there's nothing wrong with these things. People naturally socialize with each other, and with socializing comes the possibility of something more, such as intimacy and sex.

On the other hand, you have people who are committed to only one person, and are therefore off-limits sexually to anyone else. That's great if that's what you truly want.

But not everyone wants that. Some people would be happier if they were sharing themselves with more than one person.

The naysayers would call this "selfish" and "wanting your cake and eating it too". Why is that? Just because I don't want to be with just one person doesn't make me selfish. More than likely that person is being selfish for wanting me all to themselves. Even the times that I'm away from them they still have ownership over my actions. How ridiculous is that? This does not seem rational to me. But only with the standard and accepted social model do people think this way. However, this reasoning doesn't apply to children. For example, what if a child complained that it's not fair that his brothers and sisters are getting attention too because he wants it all for himself? Would you take him seriously? I doubt it.

If someone truly wants to be in a committed relationship there should be reasons for it other than looking out for number one. For example, if there are kids involved and they need attention and support that's a good reason right there. You should not be out meeting other people at the expense of not looking after your dependents. However, when there's an opening in your schedule, go ahead, meet other people.

But if I have to commit just to make someone feel better and more secure then its no-deal. Am I disrespecting that person? No. Not any more than a parent is disrespecting his child by giving his siblings love and attention too. But it appears some people can't grasp this because their all-or-nothing, black-and-white view of the world doesn't permit it.

But what if the person you are with gives you everything you want? It's possible, but it won't be true for everyone. It's likely that they can give me a lot of what I want, but there are other things which I must get elsewhere. And this might not have anything to do with them. What if no single person can give me what I want because what I want is to be with different people?

"Doesn't this mean the person you are with isn't good enough?" Again, more stretching of morality. It's certainly possible that one person can make me very happy. But the problem isn't necessarily that they aren't making me happy. The problem is that I can't be with anyone else. I have to close myself off to new experiences just so I can hold on to my current experience. That might be okay for a while but after some time has passed I will start thinking that it's dumb to do that. I would be thinking: You mean I can never spend romantic time with anyone else? Ever? Even when I'm away somewhere and no one would get hurt? It's like saying I can never eat pizza again because it might hurt the feelings of the ice-cream man. You will eventually start resenting this restriction.

These are considerations that must be addressed. But rather than address them head-on, many prefer to deal with the consequences. There are people who lie and cheat and say whatever they think they must say in order to satisfy expectations. It's like role playing, and each person is acting out a script that is imposed on them by society, and which doesn't necessarily come from their own ethical insight. But unlike actors, these people tend to get emotionally invested in their scripts, and are hurt as a result.

How many so-called pristine arrangements end up in the gutter because of unrealistic expectations?

Most people who adopt the social model for success end up unsuccessful.

It's much better to be honest upfront and say what you really want, no matter what it might be.

"I want to be with you. But I also want the freedom to be with other people. And don't worry, I'll play safe."

That's all you would need to say. If they balk, you can try convincing them but it's usually a waste of time. It's much better to find people who already think this way. By doing this you are screening out a lot of selfish people. And you are screening-in a lot of intelligent people who are in the habit of questioning things before reaching their own conclusions.

www.beyondroutines.com

Debunking Some Myths

2009-03-20T21:51:00.008-04:00

Here are the myths:

Attractive women are approached all the time by men so you need to stand out

When you try to stand out chances are you're going to do things that a lot of other guys are doing, and that makes you not stand out. The best way to stand out is to be yourself. People are unique individuals. I've personally never known two people that are exactly alike. They all stand out in their own way, especially those that weren't trying to fit in to a particular "mold".

You should listen unquestioningly to guys who are successful with women

Not necessarily. You must look at the manner in which they are successful. Are they successful because they are approaching tons of women? There's a name for this method. It's called the Law of Averages. It works great if you are in the city and don't have any other hobbies.

It's natural for males to chase after females and try to win them over. Look at animals

It depends. For some animals this is true but not for others. Our closet primate cousins, the chimps, don't use courtship behaviour at all. They solicit for sex directly. Both the males and the females do this.

Attractive women can have any guy they want. I wish I were in their shoes

So why are so many of them still looking? It's easy to wish the roles were reversed, but the funny thing about human nature is that we tend to want things we don't have and when we get them we get bored and want to move on to the next adventure. It's not all it's cracked up to be.

Women want a guy with balls and if you don't chase after them and show them you really want them they will dismiss you

Having "balls" and wasting time are close cousins. Don't let your ego dictate what you should and shouldn't do where women are concerned. Women can just as easily take the initiative as men. They prove it all the time.

You have to provide women with chemistry and sparks

Women are certainly entitled to want these things, but given that they are abstract intangible concepts which make no sense to most men, it's better just to let women experience these things on their own. If the way I laugh gives her butterflies, great. If the way I talk gives her tingly feelings, great. But that's her territory, which has nothing to do with what I want to project. What I want to project is honesty and direct-ness, with maybe some flirting if I'm in the mood. If that doesn't do it for her she is free to look elsewhere.

You have to give women relationships. If all you want is sex you won't have a chance since they can get that anywhere

What if all I have to offer is sex? Don't fall into the trap of thinking that just because something is common it has low value. Just because something is easy to get doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy it. Do you avoid eating ice cream because it's inexpensive and easy to get? It's a silly notion.

Although what I'm offering (sex) is similar to what a lot of other men are offering, it won't be exactly the same. No lover is exactly the same. No experiences are exactly the same.

You can't "be yourself" because that just doesn't work

If you peel back the layers of insecurity, emotional baggage, and bad social conditioning you'll find that being yourself is actually a pretty cool thing. The fake you, the facade that you've been taught to present to the world, is the wrong kind of "being yourself".

Women have rules with regards to dating and when to have sex, so you need to follow them if you want to get laid

There is something very wrong if you always need to follow somebody else's rules to get what you want. It's better to find people that think the way you do so you don't have to go through all the unnecessary BS. Believe me, they are not in short supply.

Nice guys come in last

This is plain wrong. You can be nice, just don't kiss @ss or supplicate. The latter is the typical context for the "nice guy". Not being like this does not mean you have to be a jerk, either.

Only jerks are successful with women

Guys who don't kiss @ss or supplicate are successful with women. However, they might seem like "jerks" to some, only because they don't put women on pedestals.

Women are always testing you to see if you are an attractive "alpha" male, and if you fail their tests they will dismiss you

Could a statement be any more disempowering? First of all, if you have to prove anything to anyone about how "good" you are, you're coming from a weak position. Furthermore, women can't test men for alpha traits because alpha men don't care to pass tests. The idea of trying to pass women's tests is ridiculous. She either likes me or she doesn't. And all she can do is observe me to see if she likes me or not.

Consider this: If women can be attracted to men from a distance whom they've never even talked to, how on earth did they manage to throw in any "testing"?

Guys in the seduction community like the concept of women testing men, because it appeals to their ego. When they pass a "test" they feel powerful. When they fail a "test" it makes them determined to do better next time. But the concept also makes them prisoners of women's reactions towards them. They feel they always need to come up with the proper response, and this can make them appear confrontational and weird. Women will sense this and respond in kind. And this reinforces the idea that they are being tested. It's a nice loop.

Fortunately, attraction between men and women is not this complicated, and is not based on stupid tests.

Women are attracted to men based on their appearance, mannerisms, and the way they speak. In other words, their "maleness". And men are attracted to women based on their appearance, mannerisms, and the way they speak. In other words, their "femininity". We are born naturally attractive to the opposite sex. It's only when we start messing with the basics that things get screwed up and people start misconstruing cause-and-effect.

Women can sense insecurity in men

This is not a special talent women have. It's just that they are usually so darn experienced from all the men approaching them, that they can tell which guy is overselling and which guy is chilled out. I can do the same. It's called street experience. When a guy at the bus terminal is telling me a long-winded story about how he missed the bus and is in town for his brothers wedding, I know he is going to ask me for spare change. I've had it happen many times before.

The hottest women are the young twenty-somethings. These are the high-value women only the top "gurus" get

The reason many of these so-called gurus (like Mystery) usually end up with the "hot" young twenty-somethings is because they are the easiest to win over using canned lines and fake personas. More mature and experienced older women are less likely to fall for the schtick of men in the seduction community. But the seduction community does a clever thing. It refers to these older women as the "not as hot" ones, and refers to the younger women as the "hot ones". Therefore, the methods work best on the "hottest" women. It's convincing logic, but falls apart upon closer examination.

www.beyondroutines.com

Give And Take

2009-03-20T21:50:00.005-04:00

The current way of doing things is such that men are doing most of the work to get women. Men are approaching. Men are asking for numbers. Men are asking women out on dates. And men are trying to close the deal. And her job is to say yes or no, at any point.

It is generally assumed that the man's role is to do most of the pursuing. It is said that this is what men must do if they are to have any success in the dating world. And for the most part people have bought into that. And isn't this part of being chivalrous?

The problem is not one of chivalry. The problem is that women have proven they don't need these things to happen in order to be attracted to a guy. It's just one of those things that persists in the culture despite all the evidence to the contrary, kind of like religion. Many just want to believe that this is the way to do things. But in reality, attraction and sexual desire has almost nothing to do with the "activity" known as courtship and dating. It's like taking a woman shopping in hopes that she'll want to have sex with you. She might like shopping but it will not make her want to sleep with you. And dating is not that much different. So you have this unequal playing field where men and women are concerned. And the usual checks and balances used to correct social inequalities are not happening in this case. The reason for this is because it's "politically incorrect" to do so. No one wants to be accused of "hating" or "disrespecting" certain groups of people, and women are among these "sensitive" groups of people.

So here you have most men doing most of the pursuing, with most women on the receiving end. Who wouldn't enjoy free dinners, or nights out on the town? I would. But when you treat people who are otherwise your equal like they are special, the unavoidable end result is that they are put on a pedestal. And it fosters a sense of entitlement.

Now some might say, let's just reverse the trend. Get women to chase after men instead. Now this might work for a short while by helping restore some balance, but it's just using one extreme to try and correct for another. And there will eventually be issues with that too. What if she thinks you're not interested because you didn't return her call the first time? You see where I'm going with this. Double standards are hard to justify no matter how you spin it.

So what's the solution? It's simple: give and take. She shows interest in you and you reciprocate (assuming you're interested too). Or you show interest in her and she reciprocates (assuming she's interested too).

Here's a practical example:

You're at a bar. You approach a woman. You chat and show interest. You then give her your number. By doing this you are giving her the opportunity to prove that she really wants to be with you too. Now some might think, what if she gives you her number instead because she's used to guys calling first. Shouldn't you call her then? In that case no deal. I did my part and now it's her turn. This is not about me playing games or being rigid (unless you think equal reciprocation is playing games). It's simply give and take.

"But what if she's really hot and would never call a guy because guys call her all the time. So you need to step up to the plate!" Then I would say you need her too much, and neediness is your main problem, not who-calls-who.

By the way, there's nothing wrong with telling women who are used to men doing all the pursuing that you expect them to do their part.

Another practical example is if she shows interest first and then you offer to call her. However, she might ask for your number and insist on calling you. In that case fine. I won't try to change her mind, since she's clearly made a choice on what she wants to do. But again, the only rule that makes sense in general is give and take. Asking for someone's number after showing interest first is not as solid a move as giving your contact info. In sales it's a more effective strategy to allow them to contact you, since someone calling you afterwards is a stronger sign of interest than if they had simply returned your call.

"But what if she's too shy too call?" Don't worry about that. See my post Treating Women As Equals. If she can't call she can't do her part and you are wise to move on.

"What if you call and she doesn't call back?" Move on. Why would you call more than once? That makes no sense. Would you call back someone you were interested in? Yes, you would. Again, it comes back to that concept of equal reciprocation.

"What if you make a move (on the get together) and she resists your physical advances. Should you try again after a few minutes?" I personally wouldn't. Experience has taught me that it's a waste of time. If she's interested in me she'll show me. In the world of give and take persistence doesn't apply. Sure, it might make your ego feel good because you overcame the "challenge", but in reality persistence follows the law of diminishing returns. The extra something you do get once in a while is not worth the extra effort.

"What about setting up future get-togethers? Who calls?" The simple answer is, who called last time? That will tell you who calls this time. It's not complicated. And this is not a hard and fast rule either. But just know that if you are always the one calling, initiating, and asking out, there is an imbalance and it cannot survive.

Alternatively, it might feel good to be the one that is always pursued and it might make you feel more powerful. But if you want something with staying power that applies in general, and which follows basic common sense, the law of equal reciprocation applies.

www.beyondroutines.com

Dealing With Bossy And Difficult Women

2009-01-03T15:50:00.009-05:00

Sometimes men find themselves on dates with difficult or bossy women. For lack of a better word, these women behave like "brats", giving the guys a hard time at every opportunity.

So what do you do as a man, if you find yourself in this situation?

First of all, realize that it is not your role to waste time trying to deal with women like this. You are not her parent so there is no need to have to shoulder such burdens.

Secondly, realize that she is not "testing" you in the way the seduction community likes to explain this type of behaviour. So there is no need to try and "pass" her tests, or overcome her difficult behaviour in order to prove to her how "alpha" you are. This type of thinking is a trap so don't fall for it.

The only thing that is happening here is that this particular woman is being a brat with you. Now, some women will say that they want a guy that can deal with her bad behaviour and "put her in her place" so to speak. That may seem valid, except for one problem; these women generally have no interest in putting a stop to their behaviour. They enjoy it too much. So they'll just keep ramping it up, and pushing your buttons, because that's exciting for them.

And then, when the date doesn't work out they'll blame the man because he couldn't handle her. But in reality it's a no-win situation. If the man doesn't constantly put up a fight he will be viewed by her as "weak" or "giving up". And if he does put up a fight she will view him as "reactive", meaning that she got under his skin. And she will have won again.

Women like this are in the habit of rationalizing their bratty behaviour by saying that the guys aren't "man enough" to handle them. But that's just an excuse for them to act the way they do, and not take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

True alpha males don't care about passing bratty women's tests (or anyone's tests for that matter). So by being difficult, such women are not screening for alpha males, but for guys who are determined to win their approval no matter the cost. These are the only type of guys who are willing to stick around (whether she likes it or not).

If a woman gives an alpha male a hard time he will respond strongly at the beginning, telling her to stop, or whatever. And then at that point, if she is interested in being feminine, will immediately start behaving better. But if she is not interested in being feminine, and is more interested in being a brat, she will continue to test and give him a hard time.

Such women are not interested in Yin and Yang. And a man would be foolish to put up with their behaviour for long. So it's much better for him to end the date early.

An alpha male knows that he is under no obligation to prove anything to women like this. It would go against his nature. He knows that to continue to stick around to try to score points and do the "alpha" responses, he is acting weak and is approval seeking. It is nothing more than advanced supplication.

At the first sign of trouble, real men respond, but also don't stick around when the women continue to give a hard time. Smart women understand this.

By the way, sex with bratty women, if it gets that far, is usually not that much fun either. The reason is that they are not interested in receiving female pleasure. They are more interested in getting the upper hand. And this affects them in most every way, including their ability to orgasm and enjoy intimacy.

Remember, worthwhile women make it easy for the man. They are fun to be with and get to know. This is in contrast to brats who behave like children in a woman's body; which is hardly attractive and certainly not motivating.

So be careful of women who try to use men's sense of masculinity to control them and get them worked up. It's a no-win situation, doomed to failure.

www.beyondroutines.com

What If She Resists You?

2009-01-03T15:44:00.003-05:00

If a woman resists your physical advances it's best to move on. It's generally a waste of time to try to go further. Like I said in my last post, women are equal to men when it comes to sex and dating. So when she makes it hard for you that's your cue to move on to something else.

Persisting generally doesn't work and those rare times when it does it usually results in lackluster sex. The same goes for LMR (Last Minute Resistance) tactics where you try to manipulate her into sex using withdrawal and "freeze outs". You may end up getting her but her heart won't be in it and the sex will be very mediocre. And the next time around (assuming there is a next time), her defenses will probably be up even more.

Trying to overcome a woman's resistance is pretty much a waste of time. She might be attracted but she has decided that sex isn't going to happen, at least on the timetable you want.

Not a big deal. She might have issues with having sex on the "first date". So at the first sign of real resistance pull your pants up and leave, or ask her to leave because you have some things to do (if she's at your place). And then leave it up to her to contact you if she's willing to have sex the next time (if it's so important for her to do things that way).

You don't waste time trying to convince people that have already decided what they want to do. If they come around later fine, but in the interest of good time management it's better to part ways and let the future run its course.

For example, let's say you are making out and you reach for a condom, and she says: "We're not doing that!" Okay fine. You figure there's maybe a bit of token resistance there. So you continue. But again she says: "We're not having sex!"

At this point you just say "fine", get dressed, tell her it was nice meeting her, and then part ways. That's it.

And if you're generous with your time you may just decide to lie back for 15-20 minutes and give her the chance to take the initiative, if that's what she likes to do. But once that time has passed and nothing happens, you tell her it was great, but now you have to get going. Or if she's at your place you politely ask her to leave because you have things to do.

As well as being effective time management this is a great way for you to overcome neediness where women are concerned. Having the willpower to cut short the get together when things aren't going well is powerful behaviour. It's confident behaviour.

Getting out of the needy mindset means setting boundaries for yourself. There is no downside to this. You stick to your guns and you also treat her as an equal. You will feel good about this, and as a further benefit you're helping her to correct any bad beliefs she may have about men willing to do anything to get laid.

www.beyondroutines.com

Treat Women As Equals

2008-12-10T16:44:00.008-05:00

When it comes to sex and dating women are equal to men. All the evidence is there, plain as day. Ask yourself why you need to put in so much effort trying to get women to do what you would like them to. The fact of the matter is that they know, very quickly, what the score is. This is not a reason to feel powerless. It is a reason to feel powerful.

If you ask women how quickly they know if they will (or will not) have sex with a man, they usually say that it takes them a few minutes. Some even say it takes them a few seconds.

On the other hand, if you ask women how long they wait before they will sleep with a man, they often say that it takes a few dates. The common stock response is that they want to get to know the man first. Fair enough.

But why go on dates if the outcome has already been decided early on?

Do you want to have a better shot at closing the deal? Do you want to see if you can "convince" her? Fat chance. Women, like men, know right away if they want to have sex with someone, and you can almost never change their minds. In this regard they are equal to men, completely.

Dating has absolutely nothing to do with sex. It is an add-on.

It is what society has told men and women, especially women, that they must do before getting naked. It's nothing to get upset about. It's just the way it is.

You however, can change your strategy accordingly. You need to put dating in its proper perspective. If you just happen to like spending time in restaurants or at the movies with a woman, regardless of the outcome, then by all means, go on dates. But if you are only on the market for casual sex then you must avoid this.

You must be more direct in your approach with women. Keep the "dates" short. Have one drink or two, invite her back to your place, and be ready to move on if she declines. If you feel that you need to put more time in or do something more, or maybe see her one more time, then you are not treating her as an equal.

You don't even have to tell her that you are open to a relationship, because then you are lying and she will know that you're lying just to get into her pants. Remember, she's your equal. You can tell her the truth.

There is power to be had by treating women as equals because you don't have to do any of the thinking for them. You don't have to worry about what buttons to push, and in what order to push them. You don't have to worry about learning NLP, pushing and pulling, Mystery Method, cocky-funny, or anything like that. You don't have to worry about learning seduction. None of that matters. In the first few minutes you don't have time to do any of that anyway. All you do have time for is showing her that you are confident and direct, and know what you want. Nothing can be simpler than this.

The cardinal rule is simple. Treat women as equals. Whenever you catch yourself wondering a little bit too much about what to say, or do, then remember this rule. Whenever you find yourself wondering what you could have done differently or if you "calibrated" her correctly, remember this rule. Are you treating her as an equal?

Stop trying to think for women. Stop assuming that you need to do all or most of the work. Stop assuming that it takes so much skill to learn to meet women. Reject all the programming telling you otherwise, both in the mainstream culture and the seduction community.

Some may say that putting in the time and "game" is necessary because that is women's social script and you need to follow it even if she already made up her mind about you.

In that case, be prepared to unconditionally give away your power in the name of getting laid.

Be prepared to accept that women will have power over you because they have something you want. You will either pay for the dates or pay for the game.

Is it really worth it?

How does it feel to have your highs and lows dependent on how someone responds to you?

There is absolutely no way of arguing that this is a good thing.

But what if you do what I suggest and you don't get laid?

So what.

Women aren't a rare species. Stick to your principles and over time you will meet women who are a match for you.

You don't have to stay at home. You meet them as you go about your business in your day to day life. You meet them when you go out to bars and clubs. You don't have to try to pick them up. Just be friendly and socialize without wanting anything from anyone, and chances are they will come to you. Yes, it's very liberating knowing that you don't have to do the thinking for anyone because they are smart enough to take things to the next level if they really want to. And lucky for you, many women are craving the opportunity to take charge because they are so used to guys doing all the work. All you have to do is give them the opportunity, by doing less.

The key to mastering this is to learn to be happy even when there are no women in your life. Once you master this you can do the above without second guessing yourself.

As a matter of fact, this applies to other areas of life as well. If you aren't needy for other people's approval and acceptance then you will never kiss up to anyone again. You will own your destiny and you will be happy no matter what.

But maybe you need to figure all this out for yourself. Maybe you need to go down the rabbit hole many times before reaching similar conclusions. And then once you get that experience you will know. That's perfectly fine. I can tell you that that knowledge will be much more valuable than anything. In fact it will become the one thing that keeps you on the right path even when there are so many that would tell you otherwise.

www.beyondroutines.com

This Is Not A Fad

2008-04-16T18:05:00.002-04:00

There is growing talk of the new direction the community is taking towards self-improvement and away from pick-up techniques. I believe this is a good thing as it means that there is growing emphasis on evolving as a person. But I want to address the naysayers who feel that this is a cop-out excuse to sell more products with less effort. This may be true in some cases where the main motives are to make money (and if people are helped for the better then that's a bonus). But I can tell you that it isn't just a fad at work. Some men are actually evolving and are sharing their knowledge. You can call that a trend or a fad, or whatever. I prefer to call it reality.

But I also realize that it may just be a matter of time before the trend once more shifts back to more technique-oriented thinking. By that time self-improvement will have become "tiresome" and men will once more demand the techniques that are guaranteed to get you laid.

But you know what, it's actually fairly straightforward to get laid if you are dead set on making it happen. Want to know the guaranteed techniques? Here they are:

Approach tons of women everywhere. Clubs, bars, daytime venues, etc. Set aside enough time, I would say at least 10 hours a week, to do so. Get numbers, emails, and go for same day or same night sex whenever you can. Be bold. Be aggressive. Learn the smooth player lines. Be like the salesman that just won't quit. After several weeks or months you'll start seeing results. Keep at it and you'll eventually start getting laid fairly regularly. But make sure you don't stop because things will quickly "dry up" for you. This is a tried and true method. You don't have to worry about the details of what to say or do exactly, because over time, and with the law of averages on your side, the details won't really matter as various pickup methods will basically yield the same results. So if you're okay with putting in that kind of time and effort, and are okay with the potential grief involved, then go for it. You will eventually get laid. It's a statistical truth. The other guaranteed way is of course to pay a prostitute. But either way you pay.

But I don't promote this stuff. I've moved past this nonsense of chasing after women and spending so much time and energy doing so. I've seen what it does to me and what it does to others. And it's just not worth it. You might say it brought me face-to-face with some inescapable truths. Yeah I resisted it but eventually, with enough Pain + Disappointment + Failure, my eyes opened. The solution was right in front of me: I would have to find deeper meaning inside myself and make all these other things like money, work, and sex a secondary result of me living my life genuinely.

Let the marketing drive the masses and vice-versa. When the next trend comes along wanting to do away with these so-called new-age platitudes, you can bet that those who have truly evolved will stay the course and won't be swayed.

www.beyondroutines.com

The Final Solution

2008-03-13T13:27:00.002-04:00

The question has been asked, if this blog is about moving past dating then why am I writing all this stuff? This blog is not really about moving past dating. It's about moving past traditional dating and moving towards more natural interactions with women. However, I sometimes still refer to these interactions as "dates" but only because it's a compact and convenient word. But to be more precise they should probably be called non-dates or get-togethers instead. So it's a question of semantics.

The other thing I want to address is the idea of detachment. If you are truly detached and have your life in order then what is the purpose of reading this blog? If you are reading this blog doesn't that mean that you are attached somewhat even if the main message in my posts is about detachment? The answer is yes, you might still be attached. And this is why this blog is NOT the final solution. And neither is my ebook. They are intermediate steps, footholds if you will, which can help you get to the final level where you are truly enlightened and are your own person. And once you get to that point you will no longer need this blog, or anything else.

www.beyondroutines.com

My Journey From Then To Now

2008-03-10T22:06:00.001-04:00

I have a new blog in which I share my journey from the beginning to where I am now. I discuss my past dating and "pick up" experiences using the perspective I had back then, and progressing to the way I see things now. It's an interesting and amazing journey, one you may enjoy reading. It starts here: The Beginning.

Going Without Sex

2008-03-10T21:49:00.002-04:00

I've gone almost a year without sex and it barely registers. I've just been busy doing other things. It occurs to me that many men have a hard time going without sex. But if you really want to deal with your neediness and attachment to women then go without sex for a long time and do other things, such as personal hobbies. It will cure you. You will realize it doesn't matter that much. One way to think about this is to realize that chasing after it inevitably brings you back to the point where you want to keep chasing it. And there is no joy in that. Only empty addiction. It's much better to have things happen naturally in that regard. Let sex and other things, like money, fame, etc. be a byproduct of you living your life genuinely.

In the old days I would learn all these strategies to get laid. And if I encountered resistance I would just keep at it and plow through since men are supposed to not give up. And since there are men who do this sort of thing regularly and are getting results it is often said that they should be copied. Wrong wrong wrong. It's like saying that if any amount of good can come from stepping on a nail then you should step on the nail. Maybe I'm exaggerating. Maybe I'm not. But if you are smart enough to realize that something is not working that well why on earth would you stay on that path just because other people are doing it? There are certain instances where the majority is wrong. And understanding those instances comes down to your internal wisdom. It's like having an internal compass. Are you going to let your internal compass be affected by others? I will do something that feels right to me or I won't do it. This is not the same as pain avoidance or being lazy. It's about being wholesome, which includes compassion, authenticity and empathy.

The idea of chasing after women is now so utterly alien to me that it's hard to imagine who I used to be. It's funny because some may wonder if I know what I'm missing? Yes I do, and I don't miss it at all.

I won't go out to "pick up".

I won't pretend to want a relationship to have sex.

I won't waste time to make sure sex happens.

Of course I would never tell a woman when she should or shouldn't sleep with me, but I certainly wouldn't date her or go through hoops in order to have that happen. I don't mind being friends or acquaintances beforehand but only in a natural setting where we know each other as a result of our daily activities, and not as a requirement to be "friends first". It would be unwholesome to do that.

A few weeks ago a friend asked me what to do if a girl flirts with you and shows interest. I told him that if he likes the girl he should invite her back to his place directly. Very simple. Why would you ever do anything more? The only reason you would be compelled to do anything more is to "secure the deal" better. A logical fallacy brought on by attachment. If you want to understand clearly why the direct approach is best then remove your attachment. Attachment has a way of clouding good judgement. So just remove it.

This brings me to another thing I'd like to discuss, and that is the notion of masculinity. What is it? Since I am a man and I do things that truly come from inside me then my actions will tend to be masculine. And for a woman, if her actions truly come from inside her then they will tend to be feminine. There is a natural yin and yang since these two sets of actions are generally not the same. Problems can occur when we try to act differently and cross wires that weren't meant to be crossed. So let's be true to our nature and masculinity and femininity will naturally follow.

These days men make it so easy for women to have a companion. This is something many men envy and wish to experience themselves. But it is true that these same women are generally not very happy with this sense of "abundance". Some find it boring or annoying while others try to turn it into an opportunity to get more. A familiar cycle which we know doesn't work. But we can learn from this. We can stop chasing after women knowing that even having a lot of them won't be truly satisfying.

I'm not one to rigidly tell people what they should or shouldn't do, or which path they must or must not take. I will only say that the good thing about going down a bad path is to know that it's not the correct one. And based on this knowledge I have chosen the better path, and I'm much happier.

www.beyondroutines.com

Alphaness

2008-03-10T21:37:00.002-04:00

Alphaness is a term often used in describing social hierarchies in the animal kingdom. For instance, you have the alpha male or female which represent the leaders of the pack. It's also a term often used to characterize interactions between men and women. For example, if an interaction goes sour it is often said that the man wasn't "alpha enough" or something similar. It can become a very ego-based discussion which generally goes nowhere. But there is a way of understanding alphaness, without involving the ego.

It is true that most people tend to be followers and aren't in the habit of thinking for themselves. Alphaness is basically thinking for yourself. It's not about being alpha for the sake of being alpha (chest beating - ego). It's a level of intelligence where you are able to see beyond yourself, think critically about things, and use good judgement. And as a byproduct people tend to gravitate towards someone with these qualities for reasons of security and comfort. It's not even that the alpha wants to lead, but that he will not be led. He has a direction that he's going and if others happen to follow it's because they like that direction too. It's based on choice and free will on both sides. Now if others don't follow that doesn't matter to the alpha, as his direction will stay the same.

Where the concept of alphaness goes awry is that some men (and women) make a big deal of being "alpha", such as in the relationship. This is all ego, and possibly politically based. These people are generally close-minded, and insecure. They want the title of leader but lack the foundation. It is the fact that they are unable to look beyond themselves and their ego which makes them unfit to lead.

Now it is true that in general, women prefer to have the man lead in the relationship, but there are a few instances where a minority of women prefer to direct themselves in the relationship. These women are best matched with men who truly prefer to be led (who are also in the minority). But it's a choice to lead or follow. It's nothing that should be forced on anyone. It comes down to looking deep inside yourself and finding out where you stand and then finding people who are compatible with you.

www.beyondroutines.com

Dating Is For Women

2008-03-10T21:33:00.001-04:00

Dating by itself is a social activity which tends to appeal more to women than to men. It is similar to shopping. Most men don't go shopping for the sake of going shopping. Women however, do it all the time. Similarly, women go on dates just for the sake of going on dates. It's a social activity for them. Often times men get caught up in dating because they feel it will help them get women. But they don't generally view it as a fun social activity any more than they would spending a few hours at the mall.

So why do it?

Is it because you think women will appreciate you more?

Is it because you think it will help you get sex?

And if you do get sex, what precedent will you be setting for all your future interactions? Will you be expected to give something in return every time?

Just something to think about.

www.beyondroutines.com

Don't Be Afraid Of Using Logic

2008-03-10T21:22:00.006-04:00

Figuring out what women want and then trying to be that man is a losing strategy. It trains women to be hedonistic, and you become a slave to their emotions. It's true that men and women are generally different but as a man why should you adjust your natural behavior just to accomodate a woman's behavior. Extending courtesy and respect is fine but why do things that are unnatural for you?

If a woman's respect for you is based on how attracted she is then we have a problem. Unfortunately, with the way many men act that often ends up being the case. Many women are expecting chemistry and sparks and will settle for nothing else. Men have trained them to act that way. Fortunately, by applying a bit of logic you can start setting things right. To see the kind of logic I'm talking about read this post: Moving Beyond Seduction And "Picking Up" Women.

www.beyondroutines.com

The Way Things Really Are

2008-02-15T22:06:00.007-05:00

We are surrounded by forces telling us what to desire and feel. We are taught to chase after things. Hold on to things. Things that can make us "happy". Things that can satisfy "thirst". But all too often these things result in our suffering. Why is that?

The answer to this is actually really simple. It is the pursuit of self (ego) and our attachment to objects that gives rise to suffering.

Let me illustrate with a story.

Back in my school days we used to occasionally do presentations in front of our teachers and peers. I remember in elementary school it was generally easy for me to do them. I wasn't nervous. It was just like having a conversation. But in high school the presentations started becoming more nerve wracking. For some reason I had developed a serious case of "stage fright" presenting in class. It was odd because in elementary school I breezed through them. So what changed?

What changed was my view towards presenting, brought on by the increased expectations at school. For instance, it became more “important” to do well in school. There was more “competition”. “Screwing up” was less acceptable. Grades were more important. The stakes were higher, etc. Furthermore, the people at school were saying that it’s normal to be nervous during presentations. So here you have a situation where you are taught to respond a certain way and then told that your response is normal.

If the issue had never come up and if the burden of expectations were never felt then I would never have been nervous. It would never have occurred to me to feel anxiety, simply because there would have been no attachment. And ironically, I would have done better anyway.

To illustrate with another example, consider how men are taught from a young age that it's important to have women in their lives. And if they don’t they will be unhappy, unfulfilled, less of a man, etc. Many men take this to heart and go through tremendous effort to have women in their lives. For years I was one of those guys. I made getting-women a part of my identity. It was absolutely necessary for me to have women to be happy. I saw this pattern in many men and it reinforced my belief at the time.

Unfortunately, it was doing me more harm than good but I had no idea why at the time.

Fortunately, my eyes were opened when I discovered that there were men who were happy even without women in their lives. They didn't chase women, or avoid them. And things happened naturally for them. I was forced to re-examine the situation and eventually I realized for myself, that you can be happy without women. It became my new reality.

So imagine how much control you truly have. You only have to realize certain things to make them true. Mind over matter. All this stuff in my head about needing women was programmed in me as being true. So once I re-programmed myself to not need women anymore then that became true in its place - and with a much better result. I became much happier. And naturally it led me to wonder what else you can detach from which some may currently believe to be difficult. Are you trying to quit smoking? Are you of the belief that it's difficult to quit because the "experts" tell you it is? I can tell you that if men can stop desiring women then you can stop smoking just by choosing to.

Can you live without your Blackberry?

Can you live without your IPOD?

Many people would say No. But wasn't there a time when these things weren't around? And is it reasonable to assume they were unhappier? I think not.

Don't be afraid of letting go of desires. If you don't then you may very well find yourself a victim of them.

This is not an abstract or unnatural thing to undertake. In fact, it's completely logical. It just means understanding the nature of desire and how it relates to your sense of self (ego).

Realize that when you chase after something, chances are you are doing it to reinforce your sense of self. And as it often happens, you get caught up in the chasing part of it. And even if you do get what you wanted, the urge to chase is still there. You may want something else, or something better. And that something may be just as fleeting as this thing you have, having no value except that which you have given it or which others have given it - all subject to change, and non-constant. It's like trying to hold on to the wind. Does it make sense to do that?

Why grasp at something which has such fleeting, intangible value? It cannot, and never will live up to your expectations, and that will unavoidably cause you grief.

Many men chase after "beautiful" women - women who spend hours on makeup and clothes - which must be "re-applied" on a regular basis. So much energy chasing after an illusion. Where is the logic in that? And then there’s chasing after sex, knowing that the activity of sex doesn't remove the desire for it. Where is the rationale?

Many women also fruitlessly grasp at things. They pursue "relationships" in order to affirm their ability to “keep a man”. They sometimes withhold sex to achieve that goal. And they are often not able to enjoy sex because they are too concerned that he may leave after - an example of not living the moment.

Actually, both men and women are often not living the moment when it comes to sex and dating. They are too caught up in a consumer mentality and it makes them miserable in the long run.

Enjoying the moment means enjoying the process, which means you don't care about the destination. When you live the moment there is no association between where you are and where you want to be. You are truly relaxed and enjoying yourself.

When you're living the moment your actions come from inside you and you are not preoccupied with results. It’s good to extend this mentality to your lifestyle, the friends you make, your livelihood, etc.

Avoid the common trap of being happy and wanting something that can make you happier. What can happen is that the desire to be happier can consume your thoughts. And in that instant you are less happy than before. Let that realization hit you like a bolt of lightning.

It's wise to develop a strong sense of awareness and be mindful of how you do things and react to things. How are your thoughts and actions affected? How does that relate to your sense of self (ego)?

Make your thoughts and actions congruent. For instance, don't tell yourself to be indifferent towards women and then go to a bar to "pick up". Don't tell yourself that you don't care whether you have sex or not and then take her out to an expensive dinner, or read up on "seduction". Your thoughts and actions must be congruent or you will have inner conflict.

Think of your thoughts and actions in terms of suffering and happiness, not just your suffering, but others as well. Follow the wholesome (happy) path and avoid the path that leads to suffering. It may take wisdom to differentiate between the two so don’t be discouraged if you don’t get it right the first time.

www.beyondroutines.com

Moving Beyond Seduction And "Picking Up" Women

2007-11-30T23:15:00.001-05:00

I'm going to discuss in depth the pitfalls of the seduction movement and how it undermines men and masculinity. I will discuss how men can recognize this and how they can re-assert their identities. This is not a superficial treatment by any measure. I pull no punches and lay it out as clearly and truthfully as I can.

Most Dating Products Drain Your Power

This is everywhere: products, slogans and copy write strategically presented to lure in potential buyers and "convert". I see a lot wrong with this, not from the marketing standpoint, but from an ethical standpoint.

Advertising and teaching men how to be men generally don't mix. The reason for this, is because the reward system isn't external, it's internal. Dating products typically teach men how to be better by "getting something", in this case women. But here's the crux, truly being a man is it's own reward, which means, it doesn't depend on or seek "shine" or "promises". It simply means being a better person from the inside out.

Being a better person of course means introspection, potential hard work, and coming to terms with the ego. There can be no sales pitch in this regard because as far as internal reward goes, that's not how it works. That’s not how marketing works.

The dilemma in western culture is that people have generally been conditioned to want something external, like a car, more money, a trophy girlfriend/boyfriend etc. If you tell people that they have to fix themselves to feel validated you are going to get a lot less "conversion" simply because it doesn't satisfy the need for gratification or appeal to the ego. Indeed, it would often mean putting the ego in check.

But like it or not, putting the ego in check is one of the most important things you can do while undergoing self-improvement.

It is unfortunate that true self-improvement isn't something you would often see on a billboard or advertised using a lot of money and resources, because whoever does that would go broke in no time. It also unfortunate, and ironic, that the best self-improvement information is often hard to find. It could be in that small area of the library or on that limited edition audio CD, which you never heard of.

But not all "shiny" products are bad. Some merely lure you in using the "shiny" packaging as bait but then deliver something different and better. In this case the packaging was only used to lure, make a "sale", and ultimately convince someone of something they would never have accepted going in.

It is my belief, however, that people should be told up front what they are in for and then let them decide if that's ok with them. Give them free quality information that is congruent with the actual product and then let them decide if they still want it. This way you avoid all the people who feel cheated and who spend money on something they thought they would get but which they didn't.

It is true that you do end up helping some people using the "shiny" package approach, but that does not justify those instances where people feel cheated when they don’t get what they paid for. For this reason I believe it is unethical to apply traditional marketing strategies to self-improvement products designed to address someone's core identity. Therefore by extension, it is unethical to apply traditional marketing strategies for products claiming to teach men how to be better men.

Here are some typical marketing phrases used to lure men into buying dating products:

• How to get the women of your dreams

• How to get the women you desire into bed

• Learn how to avoid the top 10 mistakes guys make with women

• What women really look for in a man

• How to be the man women want

• How to get strippers

• How to be a pickup artist

These phrases are unethical because they intentionally address the core identity of men, by promising external validation (i.e. getting women). There are countless examples of this all over the Internet and (more recently) in the media. Even website domain names, such as www.attractsexyhotbabes.com are guilty of this by the premise they imply.

Dating products with the trademark advertising lure in men with the promises, but they rarely address the core issues, such as - improve yourself and get your inner-self handled. Instead these products tend to drain men's personal power by contributing to feelings of inadequacy.

People have been conditioned to want results. They require steps and something solid to go on. And so the marketplace caters to that. That doesn’t make it right however.

So men are given the steps. They are given the "structure" to get the "babes". And it makes them feel like it was money well spent.

This has lead to a plethora of information overload, which is contributing to the global feelings of inadequacy, which in turn feeds the purchase of even more products, and a vicious cycle results.

I've seen dating "gurus" interview the few men who actually do give good advice on how to be men (without the strategizing and routine-ism), and are selling those interviews. Fair enough. But then these same interviewers go and do other interviews with men who do use strategies and routines to get women, and sell those as well. It is highly hypocritical to do this and it suggests you are only after money.

As I alluded to earlier there are those who teach good lifestyle, how-to-be-men, advice but who market their products in the usual power-draining fashion. Obviously this lures more men (buyers) in, and some guys are changed for the better as a result, despite the opposition to their original mindset. But others come out with the same bad beliefs as before because they still weren't really taught anything about how to "pick up". Moreover, they are embittered because they spent a lot of money for nothing. These men should have been made to understand going in that their way of thinking is going to have to change. Get them to accept that FIRST and then they can be coached on how to be a better man. Otherwise no self-help advice is going to help these men because it's always going to be filtered through the "How does this help me get girls?" mindset.

It's so easy to lose your way in a sea of bad information, which is why men need good role models to find the correct path. And the path to learning to get women is of limited usefulness. It may help men initially since their is (some) personal growth associated with that but inevitably it will prevent further growth the same way a house cannot be built on a foundation of sand.

Men who seek the acceptance of women to be confident will not be the owners of their confidence. They are leasing it from someone else (in this case women). They will never truly be happy. Their happiness (and sadness) will swing in cycles in accordance with the "dry spells" and the times when they “get lucky”.

It's All Ego

It's amazing how some guys get caught up in totally irrational behavior patterns when it comes to women. It truly defies all logic.

For example, when guys haven't had sex in a while they have a tendency to lower their standards and are willing to have sex with anyone they can get their hands on. And when they do experience "abundance" they get cocky, raise their standards etc., only to repeat the former when the next dry spell hits. What does this tell you? It's all ego.

Think Critically

There's one very disturbing trend I see among the seduction community, and that is, the use of tactics to remove the feeling of responsibility women have for having sex. I have a huge problem with this as it assumes that women can't think for themselves and can't take responsibility for their actions. That is utterly false as women are very capable of feeling good about sex and even initiating it in some cases. Furthermore, since sex is enjoyable why would anyone want to take responsibility for getting someone to do what he or she wanted to do anyway? It boggles the senses.

Some men are very good at convincing others of non-truths. For this reason it is of the utmost necessity for the truth to be vocalized just as strongly.

I strongly suggest you put your critical thinking cap on the next time you hear something which has a following.

Why are the biggest claims (fisherman's stories), often made by those who have something to sell? And why are so many men who are "successful" with a certain method selling the method? Do they see potential in the method (altruistic) or do they recognize its potential as a cash machine (greed)?

It is said that learning pickup skills are important for men. Why is it important, to build confidence and create happiness?

It is better to build confidence and create happiness from within. It tends to last longer.

It is said that males court the female in the animal kingdom, so men should do it too. That may be true for some species but in the animal kingdom Chimps are humans closest relative and they don't court at all. They directly solicit the females and vice-versa.

It is said that seduction works for some men so it is a viable strategy. Now, one has to be careful with this, as there is a grain of truth here. One must ask, is there an overlap between seductive behavior and some men's natural personalities, meaning that the specifics won't matter as long as you’re being you? Or does it work for some men in spite-of, not because-of, meaning that routines and techniques are extra "baggage" a woman puts up with when she really likes you?

It is said that women need to be entertained because if they aren't they'll just move on to the next guy who is more entertaining. Furthermore, you have to pass women’s tests because if you don't you're not worthy. This is a big one. First of all, as a man do you not see the problem with these statements? Do you think that a masculine (dominant) male would ever think along these lines? And do you think that a feminine woman would select for masculine dominant men by making them submit to tests?

"I want a man who is strong...but I also want him to satisfy X, Y, Z requirements". Do you not see the problem with that?

By asking what women look for in men the BEST answer they can give you from the position THEY are coming from is, BE YOURSELF. It makes perfect sense for them to say this.

Furthermore, by insisting that women tell you what actually attracts them they can only speak in the past tense and only with respect to men who were confident. Any specific details are part of the personalities of those men. The only commonality that matters is confidence.

By asking what women look for in men, you are not being a confident guy. You are being the approval seeker.

Now, just for the sake of argument let's say you went through a bunch of steps and she is attracted and is going along with you. It would seem that these steps are necessary. But that's not necessarily the case because more than likely she is only responding to you being yourself. She is submitting to YOU. The details are irrelevant.

If you were of the approval seeking mindset, any steps you take that resulted in success can be passed off as necessary (since she went along with it).

But knowing the truth, that the steps are unnecessary and that confidence is more important, isn’t it MUCH better to keep things simple and direct because that is also you being yourself.

Yes, it can be difficult to meet normal people who realize this. The fact is that guys who make a habit of reading information in the "seduction community" are generally a bit off. But it’s certainly understandable, as the montage of negative and weird information will inevitably mess with your head.

Here's a good example of the circular logic you will find in the seduction community: Women test men. This becomes a man's belief. He carries this belief into interactions with women, causing him to act in confrontational and strange ways. The women react by "pushing back". This proves that women test.

Men are masking insecurities by learning steps to get women. It might seem like well rehearsed techniques will cover that up (fake it until you make it) but you'd be surprised what women (and men) can pick up on. Women can sense that you are trying to impress them or secretly get something from them. They are experts at figuring that out. And so are the guys who watch this sort of thing go down with their female friends.

Men are largely responsible for all the things they complain about that are getting in the way of their success with women.

Act Normal, Chill Out and Be Direct

When meeting women just act normal. Chill out. Relax.

If you meet someone you like (beyond just her looks) and she is responding well, then be direct and invite her to your place to hang out. If you feel that you need to do anything more than this, you are putting her on a pedestal. Even if nothing happens you still did the right thing because you weren't investing time, energy and therefore excess emotion. By doing things quickly, no matter what, you will never attach a lot of significance to success or failure. And that is the key.

You might be thinking: If it's so easy then why isn't everyone doing it? Society is full of examples of people not doing simple things, which are good for them. For example, losing weight - this is as easy as eating more healthy food, less junk food, and exercising more.

Meeting women has to be a natural consequence of you living your life and being a part of the world.

These days I cannot bring myself to put any serious energy into hooking up with women if it means putting aside what I naturally feel like doing at the time. If I don't feel like going out and I force myself to go out in order to meet girls then that is bad for me. But if I feel like going out and I meet someone I like as a result of that then that is good for me.

I have moved past the 20-something chest-beating phase where I'm trying to impress other men by my "conquests". I honestly couldn't care less anymore. It's just not who I am anymore.

Wasting Time Doing Too Much

Years ago, I spent a lot of time learning NLP and specific conversational strategies to get women. And I got very good at it. But I eventually came to the overwhelming conclusion that it was useless and totally unproductive to any form of success with women. It was hard to let go because I had acquired a degree of skill and women were responding well to me. But it was too much effort for what I was getting so (swallowing my pride) I stopped it entirely.

I started doing less, a lot less in fact, and stopped caring. And I found that women were just as attracted, if not more. But more importantly I freed up a lot of time for my own projects and personal hobbies. That resulted in a lot of personal growth and confidence building. This is the kind of personal development you could never get by doing hundreds of approaches in a bar or taking a bunch of seminars.

By working on me I am able to talk freely and openly with anyone (including, in a bar setting) about anything without anxiety (or having to rehearse), simply because it is core to who I am. When I wake up it is who I am. You never have to warm up or practice if it’s just who you are.

You don't need to do a lot. Trust me. The no-pain-no-gain propaganda is useless here.

You will never get ahead reliving misery over and over because you feel that is what you signed up for. So snap out of that bad cycle. Not just with women, but with life, the type of work you do, the friends you choose, etc.

By detaching yourself from outcome you will see the truth clearly. But you have to be willing to let go of your ego and start with a clean slate, if necessary.

Realize that the answers are not necessarily difficult to arrive at. I say this because at any point you can CHOOSE the better path. You just have to realize that your current path is not the way. You don't need someone with a PhD to tell you. You can trust your gut instinct. And trust that feeling regardless of what anyone else might say or how powerful that social programming might be. Just choose. And realize that you are only one choice or one action away from doing things the better way.

Choose the better way and choose not to envy people who are doing things the old way and are getting some results from that. And hang in there no matter what because once good things start happening for you with the new way, you will never entertain the idea of going back.

Being A Man

I personally feel that it's a collective lack of wisdom that is the root of all the misinformation surrounding seduction and “pick up”. Too many young men with little life experience have found niches with other like-minded men, and are regulating themselves without any elders to show them the way. This is partly a consequence of the politically correct western culture, which tends to create a void where masculinity is concerned. In many cases, traditional values have been abandoned in the name of "change" forcing some of us to relearn those values through trial and error.

Masculinity is fragile, which means that men need good role models because our path is easily corrupted. And part of this path is realizing that a real man doesn't follow "techniques" to get women because it puts him at the mercy of their responses. Such a man would never give up his personal power in that way. Indeed, getting women is not a panacea for manhood.

The traditional ways of dating and the time-honored belief that men have to court women have led men astray. And truthfully, teaching men that they need to learn pick up skills is not that much better. It's just a better Band-Aid, or a better "crutch". It doesn’t address men's side of the equation, which is, lack of confidence and the need to get a handle on that.

So many men are trapped in their own heads and caught up in mindless details, either by the latest DVDs, or the latest techniques, or the latest "ground breaking" methods. This "get girl" mindset is so embedded in guy's minds that even some instructors who are evolving past that are still teaching a bit of bad with a bit of good. For example, they tell guys to be a man and do their own thing, and then they tell guys that only the most “worthy” man gets the girl. You can sense the old mindset working its way into the new mindset, as if trying to survive. Indeed, you can't do both. You have to give yourself over completely to this better way of doing things and completely shed the old way. It’s not an overnight process. It takes time and awareness.

The old way can easily trickle back into your behavior if you let it. So it's good to develop awareness for it.

A few days ago I was reading some great advice from this guy who was talking about being your own man, not using routines, etc. And this other guy challenges him by telling him that "dating guru X" gets hotter girls than him. But instead of ignoring/dismissing it, this guy gets defensive saying there's no way "guru X" gets hotter girls than him. So this guy still has a bit of inner work left to do (even though he is further ahead than most).

Once you realize the truth it will not go away. You will not be fighting it to keep it at bay, or struggling to rationalize it over and over. It naturally rises to the surface, and resonates with you. It is not something, which can be denied or made into something else. And it stays with you week after week, month after month, and year after year.

Blind Leading The Blind

As I'm writing this I'm also reading some stuff on this online forum I stumbled across. It teaches men "advanced pick up artist techniques". This includes patterning, NLP, how to talk to women, how to be witty, etc. And on one of the other pages I'm reading there's an introduction, "Are you tired of being lonely?" Of course these guys are selling something. This is a good example of how men's vulnerability is exploited under the premise of helping them.

There's more, "Avoid the deadly mistakes that make you wind up 'just a friend'". As mentioned earlier, this does not address the core problem that needs fixing, and can even make it worse. Here, the mistakes are referred to as "deadly", implying that getting women is very important. And then there’s the “friend” reference, implying that women will demote you to friend-status if you don't measure up. I believe marketers refer to this as a call-to-action. I would admit that if I had low self-esteem and wanted a fast solution I would be seriously tempted to sign up for this stuff. Good thing I know better.

Now I’m reading through another online forum. One guy is posting about how bad he feels because he doesn't have a girlfriend. Some posters have responded by telling him to stop caring so much and take an interest instead in his own life (the correct advice). But then some other posters totally screw it up by telling him that he should find some girls to have lots of sex with because that will make him feel better. And what does this guy do? He accepts THAT advice instead of the good advice. Duh! That will take him right back to his original problem, which is - not being validated by his own life and relying on something external (in this case women), to help fix himself. Masculinity is very fragile indeed.

Honestly, I can almost feel myself being emasculated as I read this kind of stuff. The only good thing I can say about it is that it helps guys who are so extremely introverted that any kick in the ass to get them moving is good. But unless they evolve towards being a self-confident man then the most they will ever be is highly developed "women pleasers".

Now, some might think that I am suggesting that men treat women badly. This is not true at all. Not trying to impress someone and treating them badly are two different things. I am of course referring to the former.

I am talking about treating women normally by being relaxed and chilled out, and treating them with respect. I am talking about getting in touch with your masculinity. Many have lost that way. But it can be found again.

Traditional Dating Vs. Modern Seduction

Traditional dating feeds the marketplace by way of expensive gifts, dinners, movies, etc. In other words, it feeds the food and entertainment industry. The Pickup Arts feeds the marketplace by way of expensive seduction seminars, products, etc. In other words, it feeds the wallets of dating "experts". And these guys are cropping up everywhere now. Supply and Demand gone wrong.

This stuff is not complicated. It is ludicrous to look for complicated answers instead of simple ones, in ANYTHING. And it is equally ludicrous to try to codify human interactions. It's utterly nerdy and has no place in the reality of a socially well-balanced individual. I know this because I used to analyze a LOT (more than most). In fact I did it so much that I came full circle faster as a result, by realizing that it's NOT the way.

Contrary to what some people may think I am not going against our evolutionary nature by suggesting that men stop trying to cater to women. It's well noted that you should put your best foot forward. And I agree with this but only insofar that you aren't acting fake and trying to be something you aren't naturally. By trying to be something other than YOU, you are not putting your best foot forward. You are being inauthentic rather than authentic.

Moreover women (human females) don't need to be courted or won over. They know right away (just like men) if they are sexually interested or not. So why on earth would you go through 20 extra steps to get something that was already decided at the very beginning? It makes absolutely no sense to do this and the only reason anyone would go through this is to prove some extra measure of "worthiness", which is fake in-itself. And really, what woman would expect this of a man? I can only think of one type of woman. You guessed it, a fake woman. It is no wonder there are so many breakups and divorces. People aren't being real from the beginning and it catches up to them.

Going through all the extra effort for nothing is like deliberately going through a bad business venture and trying to lose money. Putting in $1000 to get $100 back (at best). So even if you do end up getting her, the sex will mean too much, and you're still out at least $900.

The other problem with trying to be something you are not, and doing more than you have to, is that it makes others have an impression of you that is potentially different from the impression you have of yourself. So you might get upset when women see you as a "clown", or "gay", or an "entertainer". You get upset because you want to be seen as a man instead. So be a man, and stop pretending. You are only working against yourself if you do. You set yourself up into a character, which you will have to keep going. Game begets more game, and fakeness begets more fakeness.

You will never remove women from a pedestal by trying to become a master Pick Up Artist. At best you will be placing yourself beside her on that same high pedestal.

It’s much better to keep her at your level by treating her normally.

It’s funny, we want women to be hot and sexy and then we ask stupid questions on how to get them because they are so hot and sexy.

It's also very amusing when guys use lots of "game", they get girls, and the girls tell them to be real and wonder why they went through all that.

The guy feels like a champion for succeeding with the techniques and she simply put up with them.

Here's a common pattern. It may be familiar to you.

Guy goes out to meet women and "score". He does tons of approaches, uses "game". But he doesn't get anywhere. But he keeps at it, since he's told that persistence is important. Eventually after weeks and months have passed he gets frustrated, and stops caring. So he goes out just to have a good time. Result: he becomes more attractive and genuine, and hooks up with someone. All is good. But then he becomes outcome dependent again, chasing after the previous result. And he's giving the vibe that he's after something. And this creeps girls out like before, and just like before, weeks and months go by until the guy gets frustrated enough to stop caring. So like before, he just goes out to have a good time. Result: he hooks up again. After a few more rinses and repeats of this, the guy realizes that it's better to stop caring and just have a good time.

But by not caring, what can also happen is that you might find some things more interesting to do than going out. So you make that a priority and only go out when you really feel like it.

Super Social Skills...Not

You don't need super social skills to be successful. You just have to be comfortable talking about a variety of topics. Just practicing talking to people anywhere about anything is all you need to do. It doesn't take a long time to get good at this. If your mindset is relaxed and non-needy, you will be further ahead than the guy who goes out all the time, and talks to hundreds of girls with the intent of getting laid.

Acting normal and women being attracted to normal acting guys is not a higher-level thing and is not something that someone should be paid hundreds or thousands of dollars to teach. It is furthermore not an extension of any known “pickup method”. It is unique and distinct from that. Simply put, one is authentic and the other is inauthentic.

Awareness

Being aware means removing all the things that hurt you including any old terminology and ways of thinking you have in your head from the old way of doing things, such as DHV (Display Higher Value), pumping BT (Buying Temperature), using "game", calling women "hotties" or perfect 10s, wondering how long to make the phone calls, wondering what to say on the phone calls, wondering how to react, etc. All these things need to be removed as they all contribute to loss of power with women.

Look at it this way, let’s say you do succeed with some women using all this stuff. These women could never be aware of it. All they could ever really know and look back on is that you were confident and sure of yourself. So isn't it better to actually BE confident and sure of yourself?

But you still want to get women and I haven't really showed you how

If after reading all this you're still in that mindset then I obviously haven't gotten through to you. But I will try one more time.

Women are a byproduct of you having a happy and fulfilling life. It is nothing more complicated than that.

Whether women approach you or you happen to meet someone really cool, all that has to happen as you go about your normal business. This could be going to the store, or going to the bar to relax. This is simply something that happens to you while you are doing your own thing.

You have to remove the strong desire of wanting something to happen where women are concerned. You just have to not care. And I don't just mean not caring if nothing happens, but not caring if something does happen. Being indifferent and not attaching importance either way.

Furthermore, don't make the mistake of thinking that just because you are a guy it is justified to lust/chase after women. I can tell you right now that you have a lot more control over this than you might think. Remember what I said about ego earlier? This applies. It's a choice. So make that choice now.

When I committed myself to this not only did I find myself less attached and happier as a result. I also found myself losing the attachment I had to the emotional high I would get by thinking/fantasizing about women. Now that too is almost gone.

www.beyondroutines.com

The Sex Life Of Primates

2007-11-26T09:44:00.000-05:00

The social structure of primates (especially chimps - our closest relative in the animal kingdom) resembles our own in many ways. But there is one way in which we really deviate from them (and not really in a good way). And that is, mating patterns.

In many human cultures mating has been defined in the spirit of what we think it ought to be. This has often resulted in dysfunctional dating practices, unnatural courtships, and massive confusion and gender wars. How many times have you read an article on what to do and not to do on a date? It's endless. If you want clues on what you should be doing you have to look at nature and history. It's unbiased.

The mating practice of chimps is pretty straightforward. The male solicits the female or vice versa and she or he accept or rejects. That's it. There is no longer-term evaluation process. They are either into each other naturally and right now or they move on.

Now there may be several factors that go into how mate selections are made, based on rank, appearance, etc., but all that is rolled into a fast decision.

Also interesting about chimps is that persistence on the males part doesn't really make for greater mating frequency. In other words, female chimps, by resisting solicitation, aren't selecting for persistent or more aggressive males.

It's not as if we evolved past fast hookups and are now at the evolutionary stage where the male courts the female via dinner, dates, gifts, etc. If we did then by rights we would resemble the Bonobo apes, the females of which usually offer reconciliatory sex to the male even if his courtship sucked. This doesn't happen with humans though. So we have to be direct. It's in our nature. And some ways to do that are:

• Small talk followed by invitation for "drinks" at your place if it happens to be close by
• Invitation to your place directly, skipping dating altogether
• Wordless sexual initiation like a sudden rush into a nearby washroom or bedroom

This might seem hard to believe but it happens a lot. Men and women know relatively quickly if they're sexually attracted, so it is counter productive to draw it out when you know they know where you stand.

www.beyondroutines.com

Status And Older Women

2007-11-26T09:41:00.002-05:00

I happen to have a preference for older women. Not old. Just older. I realize this goes against many men's belief that younger is better but my preference is well rooted.

It's the media and our programming as males that bias our view towards the younger women, giving them great status. There's this and the ego of men who confuse "harder to get" with "better".

Many men see women above a certain age as having little or no sexual status (or value) in society, therefore men shouldn't be sexually attracted to them. I personally find this ridiculous since I have found some women in their 30s, 40s, and even 50s to be very physically attractive. Attraction isn't a choice, right?

In fact, my best experiences were with older women. The intelligent, high self-esteem, takes good care of herself, variety. It's a combination of all around physical and mental maturity that makes them the better pick over their younger sisters. You know those younger girls I'm talking about; those expressionless, all done up, Barbie doll types. They don't have much to say, often times - a bit scarce in the social skills department.

For many men, their egos (and Maxim) tell them that the young ones are the ones to go for, but let's look at some logic here. They are usually less experienced, more whimsical. Their bodies are not as matured. In fact, their bodies are only HINTING at the shape they'll eventually have - that body shape of a women who is sexually peaked, who is in her thirties (sometimes forties), and knows what she wants and likes.

Also, from an evolutionary perspective, women 30+ have less reproductive time left so it makes sense for their bodies to ramp-up the attractiveness to attract mates. And naturally, their interest in sex goes up, and so does their tendency to initiate sex. And this, combined with more maturity and fun personality, defines true sexiness in my book.

www.beyondroutines.com

Understanding The Seduction Community

2007-11-13T01:05:00.000-05:00

The Seduction Community began as a subculture whose purpose is to help men achieve greater romantic success with women, and to improve social confidence. It gained popularity by way of internet forums and word of mouth. Men give each other advice and share techniques on how to get women, following the tenets of the "player manual" - a collection of information meant to "reprogram" the AFC (Average Frustrated Chump) into a PUA (Pick Up Artist).

Generally speaking, the advice and techniques are meant as social "training wheels" but what often happens is that they become much more important than learning to ride the bike. You get men who become overly reliant on them, integrating them into their personality, and never outgrow them because they have gotten attached to whatever success they have achieved using them (which usually isn't much). It's this unhealthy attachment that the community is notorious for creating.

Moreover, the techniques are often harsh and deceitful, calling for the use of manipulation tactics designed to keep women "off balance" as a way to increase their attraction and sexual receptivity. The justification is that, it works for other men and that's the way things are with respect to women. This leads to many community members accumulating certain personality traits over time, as they try to assimilate this information. This results in a "montage" of weird and negative behavior.

They begin to see women as adversaries in their quest for sexual happiness and see other men as competition. They view male and female interactions as slightly robotic and as her testing him and rejecting him if he makes any "technical mistake". This often creates an atmosphere of confrontation, causing women to "push back", aggravating the original view that women are working against him, resulting in a vicious cycle.

This pattern of behavior can go on for years, in various degrees depending on the individual. Most men experience little to moderate success, eventually leaving the community. In other, more rare cases, some achieve a high degree of success despite their inevitable misogyny, and teach newcomers what they know. They have usually gained a lot of followers, and have become well respected in the community. For this they are the most dangerous, as they have a tendency to (indirectly) attack men's self-worth while being regarded as a source of good information.

It's an ongoing cycle, with a lot of bad fallout. Unfortunately, many men are unwilling to question this "system" because they feel that the alternative is going back to being an "AFC" - dateless and not having any girls.

Unfortunately, most are not shown that there is a way to do things where you are not an "AFC" or a "PUA", but a man.

I personally feel that it's a collective lack of wisdom that is the root of this. Too many young men with little life experience have found a niche with other like-minded men, and are regulating themselves without any elders to show them the way. This is partly a consequence of the politically correct western culture, which tends to create a void where masculinity is concerned. In many cases, traditional values have been abandoned in the name of "change" forcing some of us to relearn those values through trial and error.

Masculinity is fragile, which means men need good role models because our path is easily corrupted. And part of this path is realizing that a real man doesn't follow "techniques" to get women because it puts him at the mercy of their responses. Such a man would never give up his personal power in that way. Indeed, getting women is not a panacea for manhood.

www.beyondroutines.com

Removing Attachment To Women

2007-10-30T10:21:00.000-04:00

Attachment is suffering and it can be overcome. Buddhists have understood this for centuries.

We can apply Buddhism in our lives to become happier individuals. I’m going to discuss, in practical terms, how men can improve their dating lives using Buddhist philosophy.

Desiring women is a source of attachment.

You can enjoy their company without attachment, just like you can enjoy a meal without attachment to fine dining.

You have to become aware of those things that are contributing to your attachment and remove them, even if it’s difficult.

These are examples of how men show attachment to women:

• Pushing conversation on a girl, even if she’s not being responsive, to get a favorable result

• Using technical explanations for male/female dynamics, the kind found in the seduction community

• Learning seduction methods to get women

• Wondering how quickly, or when a girl will “give it up”

• Using the term “going out to pick up” rather than “going out to meet people”

• Purchasing fad marketing products on how to meet women

• Viewing “hot chicks” as an ultimate achievement, and feeling validated if you do “achieve”

• Not being direct

• Assuming women “test” you and assuming you have to “pass”

• Wanting to learn, which man to be to best attract women, rather than figuring out who you are independently

• Making an effort to meet other girls to get over your desire for this one girl. By doing this you’re replacing your attachment to one girl with attachment to other girls

Lastly, avoid any teachings which masquerade as teaching detachment but which do not.

For instance, avoid anyone telling you to remove attachment to outcome, because it will get you what you wanted. This only contributes to the attachment. For example, a "dating method" telling you that you have to stop caring about getting girls and just have a good time, because that will get you girls. Better to say that you should stop caring about getting girls, and have a good time, because no matter what happens, you'll still be happy.

www.beyondroutines.com

We Are More Than Survival and Replication

2007-10-24T10:53:00.000-04:00

It's been said by certain seduction community "gurus", that humans basically function by surviving and replicating.

The pitch: "If I can't replicate with a beautiful woman then my genes will be mercilessly weeded out of existence (therefore teach me how to replicate)", cha-ching.

There is a lot of wrong in the above statement.

For instance, there's this notion of 'beautiful woman'. What we perceive as beautiful is the result of lots of makeup and the right clothes. Women spend all this effort creating this illusion and you spend all this effort chasing it. Beautiful women are simply pretty women with lots of makeup on. So the HB10 is all in your head.

Now let's talk about Survival and Replication. As it stands, the S&R model is a flawed premise wrapped by scientific half-truths to make it seem valid. The argument by proponents is that S&R is inter-twined in human existence. That's like saying the same about food and water. True enough but a gross simplification. But it allows a lot of the blanks to be filled in with whatever makes the most money. Unfortunately, it feeds off the self-esteem and bank account of those men who have no real masculine role models.

S&R also shifts focus away from our true potential. We are inventors, explorers, musicians, artists, scientists, engineers, etc. If we were simply S&R then we would be willing to dig in the dirt all day and cat call girls as they walk by.

This model, like most other models taught to attract women, puts women on a pedestal. Every step and routine followed is like adding one more gem to her "crown".

It is said that seducing women is a skill learned like any other, and that guys who are naturally good with women have all these skills internalized. This so-called "internalization" is a way of saying that some men have to learn what comes naturally to others. But if this is true then why do Naturals balk at the use of methods? Because in their world it makes no sense to be analytical and try to "problem solve" their way into a woman's pants. It's just not cool and places too much darn importance on the issue to even consider it. It completely goes against the carefree vibe and just having fun.

But... what if this stuff ACTUALLY works, you might be asking? It doesn't, not directly anyway. The only times it seems to work is with guys who come out of their shell when using the "method". It gets them talking and feeling good about themselves because they now have a "way to get the girl". It's a placebo effect. But it's only temporary success. Eventually, their identity breaks down, and they end up feeling worse than before.

The methods work best for in-field instructors as they take their "entourage" of students out on the town. This by itself is attractive to women as it gives the instructors a perceived rank in their eyes. So in this context, the instructors socialize using their "method", act non-needy (also codified as part of THEIR method), and voila, attract women in the process. And this sells. It's brilliant. But you can save yourself lots of bad information and $$$ by going out with your friends, socializing without being needy, and you will get the same result. It's MUCH easier to BE non-needy then go through 20 steps to make you look non-needy, don't you think? It avoids inner game problems and you're not lying to yourself.

Meeting women is not a skill the way welding or cooking is a skill. It is a natural process and adding artificial difficulty to it will work against you. Furthermore, when you are PUSHING for an outcome, women will sense this and make it more difficult for you. So the more you try and apply effort & skill the more they resist, meaning that to SUCCEED you have to apply effort & skill in a way that makes it look like you are not applying effort & skill. But what's the point of that? Just chill out and treat them normally.

www.beyondroutines.com

Stop Unnatural Conversations With Women

2007-10-24T10:50:00.001-04:00

I'm going to be blunt. Get rid of all routines and canned stories.

If you need to rehearse a story, a move, a Kino technique, a phone call, a kiss technique, a dance maneuver, or whatever, then you are on the wrong path. You are admitting that you are naturally not good enough and that getting women requires special skills.

A DANGEROUS truth is that some men who do engage in these behavioral gymnastics do go on dates, meet women, get laid etc. This is a dangerous, dangerous truth because it confuses "in spite of" with "because of". I can eat a bad diet and still do ok in sports but that does not mean that THAT diet is the way to go. There IS a better way.

"So what did you do this weekend?"

"What do you think of place X?"

But this is the boring usual stuff all guys talk with women about. Yep, and there's more:

"What places do you like to go to?"

"What do you do for fun?"

If you feel like you have to do anything more than this than you are putting her on a pedestal. And if she expects more from you then she is putting herself above you and disrespecting you. Either way you lose. So wouldn't you rather lose by being yourself rather than by wasting energy trying something else?

When average guys are speaking their "boring usual stuff" they are usually coming from a needy place. A guy, who rehearses the better material, and better stories, is coming from that SAME needy place because he IS depending on those things.

The most effort you should put into meeting women is no more than the prep work you do when going out on the town (such as getting dressed up, grooming, being well rested, getting in a social mood, etc.). That is universal effort and comes with being part of society.

www.beyondroutines.com

How To Be Happy With Or Without Women

2007-10-24T10:48:00.000-04:00

We are able to achieve much with our intelligence and ambition, without any dependence on others for fulfillment. This is especially true for men who can isolate themselves for periods of time in order to focus on their goals, before releasing their creations into the community and gaining recognition. Our social value, in this regard, is core to us doing our own thing. So there is no need to establish social pecking order for the sake of social pecking order. Women are more inclined towards that sort of thing. They will compete with other women to fit into a world, which for the most part, is created by men.

You're going backwards by trying to have women in your life to complete your existence. There is nothing wrong that needs fixing. You just need to reframe the situation and be happy regardless. Don't let the "it's an instinctive drive" rationale justify you giving yourself over to feelings of neediness and loneliness. You can overcome it. The choice is there, and it's DEFINITELY within your control.

Find something you are good at and something you can really get into and focus on that. It could be anything, like learning a new instrument, a sport, a new language, or building something in your workshop. The point is, get busy.

And when you go out, talk to people and share those things you've been doing. You'll have a certain energy and enthusiasm which will be contagious. You'll notice a difference from back in the day when you used to hesitate before approaching; wondering what to say, relying on "warm-ups" to get you going. You're already warmed up just from doing what you've been doing. Fear and nervousness take a back seat, as meeting new people becomes a by-product of the interesting things you have to share.

www.beyondroutines.com

My Introduction To Dating And The Seduction Community

2007-10-24T10:40:00.000-04:00

A few years ago I started down the road of learning to pick up women. I had realized it was finally time to deal with this part of my life called "women". I was addressing my neediness you might say. I had subscribed to newsletters, listened to NLP, joined seduction forums, and met like-minded “wingmen”. I was becoming a pick-up artist. I was meeting women, going on dates, getting laid. This went on for a few years. But the problem was, even though I had experienced success the neediness didn't go away.

I was needy for more success. I was needy for greater success. And I was needy to keep the success going, since everything in my life had been about constant improvement. Academics and my strong desire to achieve was the precedent I was trying to follow. And it was a bad path to be on.

It had dawned on me that the road to becoming a pickup artist is not the same as the road to becoming a man. Being a pickup artist means that you define success and failure by how women respond. If you didn't get her it means you have to go back and retool, because you weren't good enough.

It was very ironic that, even though my skills had gotten better I was still working my ass off to get laid. I would make a post on it on the seduction forum, and I would just get an echo of the usual advice: more push/pull, more qualifying, more busting, etc. I had always done these things to various degrees but with inconsistent results. So I knew something was wrong. I knew I had to rethink everything and make a new foundation for myself.

And that’s how it started. I was fortunate enough to have an inkling of what was wrong, as I was finding myself gravitating towards certain non-seduction advice contrary to the mainstream, advice such as, be-yourself, and stop using routines. Nothing complicated by any means, but something, which now had my attention.

www.beyondroutines.com