Tip for a players mindset

[youngprodigy]

Havent really been as active on the forums lately. The red pill was surely a bitter pill to swallow but with enough time and action I was able to accept the current environment we live in. Taking a break from the forum also helped with getting over the bitter phase since constant exposure slowly made me disgusted of the nature of women.

That negative and bitter mindset will affect your overal success rate with women. I believe in vibes, and that type of vibe will make a women feel bad for being a slvt. You do not want that. You want it to seem like you two are just having fun, like how sex is meant to be like. I noticed that girls I've been gaming lately (age 18-25) love it when you go full fvck boy on them. They'll want a piece just because all the other pretty girls did, and they need the attention of the same guy to see if they're at the same level of value as the other pretty girls to be fvcked by such a guy with value.

Anyways, I came up with a really effective tactic that's been helping me hold an abundance mindset. If this works for me it's bound to help another dude out so here goes.

I want you guys to think about the stigma of the "side chick". First things that usually come to mind are that she isn't a priority. Her purpose is mostly for sex and other things such as b1tch work such as making them run some errands for you. She doesn't deserve even 50% of your time and she's constantly seeking for your approval. You bang other girls since you aren't being exclusive for her and you don't (in most cases) give a **** about who she could possibly be talking to. This women is someone who you see as lower value.

For some reason if you apply red pill logic, your hitting all the points for being dominant in the relationship. You're not valuing her more than yourself. She's barely part of your life and there's the secrecy so she'll never know you completely. She's in her place.

I started applying this to all the women I interact with and I've seen interest levels of plates and potential plates greatly increase. I guess the point is see all your chicks as side things until she's screened and passes as LTR material then you're on your own cause I'm not so experienced with that part

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

Agreed with Amante.

-Genuinely holding this mindset keeps lower quality women and those with low self esteem around forever. Or, if they just fall in love with you at first sight and never 'let go' - i.e. you go straight to the top of their HS List and never leave; you'll always be able to go back. My ex gf of like 15-20 years ago still stalks me online occasionally; in fact, I might have anything up to a dozen old flames like this.
-However, there were a couple of instances last year where I maintained the attitude, or even was inadvertently an a$$hole, but the two girls in question both had at least half an ounce of self respect and understood their own quality.

Comes down to your own value, how that is perceived on an individual basis, and how it relates to each woman's value.

Eights and 9's (i.e. the minimum standard) have many more options than those in the lower ranks. Long story short, your value (or perceived value) has to be (usually significantly) higher than the value of all her other options, regardless of how many other women you have, or how you behave yourself.

For me, the real 'player mindset' is the way that I was from age 20-25; that being, not caring about anyone else's feelings, screwing who you want when you want, and not for the purpose of keeping a girl's interest up. By virtue of wanting or doing things to keep any one girl's interest, you're not a player.

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

You could argue that she falls under "low self-esteem", but then we could probably argue that about them all.

The more high-quality ones

Dunno really. I think it is relative, and as always, we can't really draw up any hard and fast, black and white rules.

'Lower quality' / low self esteem / besotted (oneitis suffering) individuals (it probably goes for men as well) have fewer options and therefore tolerate more nonsense / adverse behavior in a /potential partner, while also react more to game-playing.

Higher quality individuals and those with more self respect, though they do still enjoy the thrill of the chase and tolerate a certain level of bad boy behaviour, in my experience, the tolerance threshold for both is much lower. In this sense, they can require higher 'maintenance', because they need a constant mix of bad-boy and nice-guy approaches.

Was listening to something last week, and remember hearing something along the lines of.... "Being a 'nice guy' is not the issue; being a push-over is the issue". And that, I believe. The guys I know of who I consider to have the 'highest value' women under their thumbs, get this balance just right. They are 'nice' to their women; romantic even. But they are also their own men with their own interests, they don't get pushed around. I think this view of women is the same for men. No one likes a pushover, someone who is always just there, waiting for them. Being the centre of someone's universe is very suffocating.

 

[Konada]

Dunno really. I think it is relative, and as always, we can't really draw up any hard and fast, black and white rules.

'Lower quality' / low self esteem / besotted (oneitis suffering) individuals (it probably goes for men as well) have fewer options and therefore tolerate more nonsense / adverse behavior in a /potential partner, while also react more to game-playing.

Higher quality individuals and those with more self respect, though they do still enjoy the thrill of the chase and tolerate a certain level of bad boy behaviour, in my experience, the tolerance threshold for both is much lower. In this sense, they can require higher 'maintenance', because they need a constant mix of bad-boy and nice-guy approaches.

Was listening to something last week, and remember hearing something along the lines of.... "Being a 'nice guy' is not the issue; being a push-over is the issue". And that, I believe. The guys I know of who I consider to have the 'highest value' women under their thumbs, get this balance just right. They are 'nice' to their women; romantic even. But they are also their own men with their own interests, they don't get pushed around. I think this view of women is the same for men. No one likes a pushover, someone who is always just there, waiting for them. Being the centre of someone's universe is very suffocating.

The problem is most men learning game treat it as a means to an end rather than a set of training wheels. There comes a point where being truly authentic allows a man to execute the push/pull dynamic effortlessly without thinking but rather just following his instinct.

Interesting that you mentioned 'lower quality' people tolerate more nonsense, but in their case wouldn't the same individuals also dish out the same BS and game playing too?

 

[AJ84]

Dunno really. I think it is relative, and as always, we can't really draw up any hard and fast, black and white rules.

'Lower quality' / low self esteem / besotted (oneitis suffering) individuals (it probably goes for men as well) have fewer options and therefore tolerate more nonsense / adverse behavior in a /potential partner, while also react more to game-playing.

Higher quality individuals and those with more self respect, though they do still enjoy the thrill of the chase and tolerate a certain level of bad boy behaviour, in my experience, the tolerance threshold for both is much lower. In this sense, they can require higher 'maintenance', because they need a constant mix of bad-boy and nice-guy approaches.

Was listening to something last week, and remember hearing something along the lines of.... "Being a 'nice guy' is not the issue; being a push-over is the issue". And that, I believe. The guys I know of who I consider to have the 'highest value' women under their thumbs, get this balance just right. They are 'nice' to their women; romantic even. But they are also their own men with their own interests, they don't get pushed around. I think this view of women is the same for men. No one likes a pushover, someone who is always just there, waiting for them. Being the centre of someone's universe is very suffocating.

Very good point about the type of woman or man who will put up with bad behaviour. Higher quality women simply won't put up with that and neither would higher quality men.

So true about men who have their own interests. That in and of itself is a natural game because all he's doing is enjoying his life and not revolving it around game strategies to get and keep a high value woman. Its a more sustainable and less exhausting game than constantly trying to one up, maintain frame, anticipate behaviours, outdraw the opponent basically. I mean if every dating situation is approached with doubt, mistrust, keeping someone in their place and one upping, how much fun is that really?

I think a friendly guy whose a 6 with a positive outlook on life and hobbies and activities he's passionate about will have more long term success than a bitter, dread game/neg game 10 who has nothing much going on in his life other than gaming women.

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

The problem is most men learning game treat it as a means to an end rather than a set of training wheels.

Interesting that you mentioned 'lower quality' people tolerate more nonsense, but in their case wouldn't the same individuals also dish out the same BS and game playing too?

I mean if every dating situation is approached with doubt, mistrust, keeping someone in their place and one upping, how much fun is that really?

Confirmed.

I've always said that being a 'DJ' is not the destination to be aiming for. You see some guys here, some good guys, with all the best intentions in the world, who don't look to be take the training wheels off any time soon.

Transcendence is becoming natural.

Leaving game and 'technique' behind, having amalgamated it to one's own personality is a scary process, because taking the training wheels off usually means falling off a couple of times before you learn perfect balance.

The last twelve months, I have been going out, without a single thought of 'gaming' women. Rather, I go and be my authentic self, albeit havign learned and re-learned some hard lessons about the dating game. Though I continue to make some royal blunders, I have met some really fine women, genuine 8s and 9s, many of whom would be gf material. Thus, I continue to learn.

Like begets like, and you find what you are looking for.
>The man who continues to employ/live game techne over natural seduction will continue to attract women who respond to gaming.
>On the other hand, the man who has augmented his own value (albeit by practicing a bit of game in part), proliferated his own potential and is able to naturally seduce that 9/10 by closely matching her value, is far more likely to keep her than the 7/10 guy who is spitting game, pretending to be something he's not.

The nature of the game has changed dramatically from it's original incarnations. For me.....
>Game was originally cultivated for low value men to attract girls of any value.
>Game (should) now increase the value of low value men; a consequence of which is the attraction of high value women.

True value and the need for game-playing are inversely proportional. True value plays the game for you.

I thought my desired age was between 25-30

Potentially the worst possible age: post party years for many; begin seeking the 'ideal man'; expectations therefore unrealistically sky-high; branch-swinging in full-effect.

Until my mid-forties, I'm sticking firmly with 18-25's. When I'm 50, I might add 35+ to that contingent. 25-35 is probably the most turbulent time in a woman's life, owing to conflict between social pressures both to settle and progress career, 'Eat Love and Pray' and the biological maternal instinct. Consequently prone to making extremely poor life choices and decisions, like getting married and having children with the most 'ideal' current option - i.e. usually the unwitting beta sap. I really don't like dealing with many females in this age group.

All that being said, I'll probably meet the perfect 27 year old this weekend

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

It also gets you filtered, chewed up, and spit out of a system that isn't designed to prioritize your needs being met.

The game never ends, no matter how valuable you think you are.

I guess I mean, we transcend to being natural game players. Part of that high value is understanding how women think and behave, and, thinking and behaving accordingly. To a point where, you are 'just being yourself'.

I enjoyed prolific success in my early twenties, even though I had no formal understanding of the game whatsoever. 'Natural' game for me is simply observation of principles, opposed to a process that is actively undertaken.

 

[Konada]

You could be on to why guys who have highest value women submit to them are so. Women look at value as a lover/provider dichotomy. Rarely would you find a guy who can make their ginas' tingle while provisioning for their needs, thus satisfying their dualistic mating strategy.

I.E, the truest value comes from a guy who can exhibit first his ability to have strong offspring and second his ability to provide for his offspring

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

Which would beg a philosophical discussion on identity...

Natural game to me is an oxymoron

Which begs the question, how else do we define/explain the evolution of mating strategies, if you believe in that kind of thing...?

Let's take the humble Bird of Paradise as an example.
-The male builds an elaborate nest and does an equally elaborate display of plumage and dance, season by season, between the months of July and December. His sexual maturity typically peaks 'between the ages of 3-6 years'; indicating that, during those years, he evolves both nestbuilding and break-dancing skills over those mating seasons. He knows what the game is by year two and goes through the motions, but by year six he's learned natural game.
-However, every single female is sexually mature after one year.

In the same light, a human man doesn't read The Game then automatically go out in to the world pulling every woman in plain sight. He needs months or even years of practice in the field. You can't tell me that this process is not a natural amalgamation of 'game' and individual personality.

If you're still relying on game processes after a couple of years and don't feel yourself becoming in the slightest bit natural with women, you're doing something terribly wrong. Are you telling me that you don't view the world/women differently since you started? You do, I know you do; and that's what I mean by 'natural game'.

 

[Trump]

For me, the real 'player mindset' is the way that I was from age 20-25; that being, not caring about anyone else's feelings, screwing who you want when you want, and not for the purpose of keeping a girl's interest up.

Just curious, so now you care about people's feelings and don't have sex with who you want, when you want?

Sex has nothing to do with 'keeping the girls interest up.' Sex is what she gives the man because she has use for him in other ways. If she has no use for him, she won't care he is dead or alive, let alone give him sex.

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

Just curious, so now you care about people's feelings and don't have sex with who you want, when you want?

No. Because I have developed a moral fibre, having been burned several times myself, and I know what it feels like when someone treats you like a c*nt.

Sex has nothing to do with 'keeping the girls interest up.'

I agree. I was making the point because it was inferred in the OP that being a player involved 'keeping' a girl interested. During my 'playing' days, I didn't give a fck who remained interested in me.

Sex is what she gives the man because she has use for him in other ways.

I see you've been suckling at the embittered teats of Tenacity, Poon King and the like

If she has no use for him, she won't care he is dead or alive, let alone give him sex.

This is a very MGTOW statement and, therefore, unsurprisingly completely false.

 

[Trump]

This is a very MGTOW statement and, therefore, unsurprisingly completely false.

What does MGTOW have to do with it? If it's so false, then enlighten me...

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

What does MGTOW have to do with it? If it's so false, then enlighten me...

-If you think (all) women will only sleep with you when they want something, you're being a pessimistic MGTOW.
-If you're trying to apply said assumption to all 3.5 BILLION women on Earth, you're assumption is false.

Try turning the emotion down from 11 to about a 5. And consider yourself enlightened.

 

[Trump]

-If you think (all) women will only sleep with you when they want something, you're being a pessimistic MGTOW.
-If you're trying to apply said assumption to all 3.5 BILLION women on Earth, you're assumption is false.

Try turning the emotion down from 11 to about a 5. And consider yourself enlightened.

OK. You haven't explained yourself though, you are imposing your thoughts.

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

OK. You haven't explained yourself though, you are imposing your thoughts.

By implying that every woman on Earth wants something from every man she has sex with is you imposing your emotional subjective opinion on the entire female population, which is not only illogical and absurd, I can also personally verify it as false, owing to many objective experiences of my own.

 

[Trump]

By implying that every woman on Earth wants something from every man she has sex with is you imposing your emotional subjective opinion on the entire female population,

OK bro you are taking a common sense sentence and expanding it for your own purposes. But ok, let's rephrase. Every women = every woman over 18 that so suave members would consider attractive enough to sleep with.

I can also personally verify it as false, owing to many objective experiences of my own.

OK bro you obviously can't explain yourself. You are just using your own experiences to attest it's false.

 

[Red Legg]

The game never ends, no matter how valuable you think you are.

1 million likes...

 

[TheMonkeyKing]

Every women

You find what you assume you'll find, or what you go looking for. But sure, we'll agree to disagree.