Unpopular "Game" Opinons!

[Isildur1]

IMO, an 'approach' doesn't mean you spent hours talking a woman to spread her legs. Then again, I don't know how @Solomon approaches women and how much time he takes for each approach.

some approaches end in seconds due to the women instantly rejecting or saying she had a boyfriend - some on the other hand can go on for 10 -15 minutes if the woman invests in an interaction- I think I got my first daygame lay on my 90th approach but between that one and my first there were other sets that did yield dates but unfortunately the chemistry was **** on said dates and nothing came of it

general rule is majority of approaches fail - some turn into numbers which yield dates and a portion of those dates yield sex and a small portion of those women end up in LTRS or FWBs

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

I never said I slept with 3,000 women that is absolutely correct! Also an approach for me is as simple as talking to someone for 30 seconds. Some people may not consider that an approach but if you talk and meet a random stranger what is it?

Like I said, I read that you approached thousands of women, I didn't assume you were bragging about bedding thousands of women. And you're absolutely right, if you approach someone and they're not interested, you move on and that can happen quite quickly.

I don't go out with the purpose of getting women into my lair, but I just meet a lot of women in my day-to-day activities.

Let's take today:
I bought a Citizen diver watch through Vinted last week, fitted with the standard rubber strap.


I tried the watch with the rubber strap for two days, but I don't like the feeling of rubber, so I wanted to remove the strap and put the watch on a NATO strap. Problem was that the rubber was very stiff and I couldn't open the spring bars, so I needed to go to a watch shop and ask them to remove the rubber strap.

So, this afternoon after the rain stopped, I took the watch and Klook and walked to the diamond factory around the corner from my house. They don't just trade in diamonds, but they're also an AD for Rolex and a bunch of other high end watches.
So I went up to the security guys, and asked them if I could go inside see if the watch technicians would remove the rubber strap from my Citizen watch.
They told me that I could go to the reception and ask them. The girls behind the reception desk were excited that I came inside (they told me they had seen me walk/cycle past with Klook) and they were enthusiastic about meeting him, even if they had to stay behind the bulletproof glass. One of the female employees who guides tourists through the factory started chatting and took me into the boutique to the ladies at the watch station, who packaged my watch carefully in foam and send it with the NATO strap upstairs though a tube system.
The 'guide' was chatting with me and had to excuse herself and go back to the reception area, but as I was chatting with the ladies at the watch station, other female employees came over to chat and take pictures of Klook, paying me compliments on 'the whole package' and suddenly the guide was back to mix with the other women fawning over Klook.
The tube returned my watch on the NATO strap and the young sales clerk (who had just stared at me the whole time) put the rubber strap in a velvet bag embossed with the label of the factory. Instead of putting it for me on the counter, she held the little bag out to me and when I took it she looked me in the eye and squeezed my fingers with the bag, then looked down. I thanked her and asked her if I owed them anything for the service and she said, "No, it was our pleasure. I hope to welcome you here again."
The guide came over and asked me if I wanted to leave through the usual exit (a revolving door) or if she could take me back to the reception area. I chose the latter so the reception ladies could say goodbye to Klook. After enthusiastic waving from the reception ladies I left the building, had a chat with the security guys and went to a café for coffee.
I took the bag with the rubber strap from my inside pocket to put it in my bag and felt a card in the velvet bag. It was a standard business card. When I turned it over, it had as small drawn heart and a mobile number written on the back. And the guide just started following me on IG.

So, in the space of about thirty minutes, I spoke with 6-7 women, and two were bold enough to get me their number / IG.

Edited to add: at no point in the conversation did I show romantic/sexual interest in any of the women. The guide told me her name several times. I was my usual charming self.

 

[BaronOfHair]

Unless you're going to hire Black Cube to investigate every woman you have designs on, there's no way to know for sure what her body count is. Same way their's never a guarantee the waiter didn't s-it in that highly overpriced lasagna you just ordered at Spago's. Life is inherently filled with risks

 

[Bokanovsky]

Much of the old-school PUA advice didn't stand the test of time and turned out to be BS. A few examples:

1. "Call, don't text". This may have been good advice in the very early days of texting, before smartphones and blackberries, when you had to use the numerical keypad to input text (usually in short form). Back then, texting was considered kind of immature and something that only high school kids did. But that era ended 20+ years ago.

2. "By mysterious." This idea was promoted by the likes of Mystery. And by "being mysterious" they meant dressing in weird outfits, doing magic tricks, trying to throw girls off by asking strange questions, etc. In reality, those guys usually came across as weird and goofy rather than alluring and interesting.

3. Spam approaching, sarging, etc. Thankfully, this has become less common but it was a big thing back in the day. And I have no doubt it hurt more men than it helped. Spending hundreds of hours approaching thousands of women wth very little to show for it is hard on one's psyche and no way to build up confidence.

4. Wait "x" number of days before contacting her. This was once heavily promoted as an iron rule (the "x" varied depending on who you asked). This is a counterproductive strategy, especially when dealing with girls who have options and limited attention spans (which 100% of attractive girls these days).

 

[Solomon]

Much of the old-school PUA advice didn't stand the test of time and turned out to be BS. A few examples:

1. "Call, don't text". This may have been good advice in the very early days of texting, before smartphones and blackberries, when you had to use the numerical keypad to input text (usually in short form). Back then, texting was considered kind of immature and something that only high school kids did. But that era ended 20+ years ago.

2. "By mysterious." This idea was promoted by the likes of Mystery. And by "being mysterious" they meant dressing in weird outfits, doing magic tricks, trying to throw girls off by asking strange questions, etc. In reality, those guys usually came across as weird and goofy rather than alluring and interesting.

3. Spam approaching, sarging, etc. Thankfully, this has become less common but it was a big thing back in the day. And I have no doubt it hurt more men than it helped. Spending hundreds of hours approaching thousands of women wth very little to show for it is hard on one's psyche and no way to build up confidence.

4. Wait "x" number of days before contacting her. This was once heavily promoted as an iron rule (the "x" varied depending on who you asked). This is a counterproductive strategy, especially when dealing with girls who have options and limited attention spans (which 100% of attractive girls these days).

This post is spot on sir

"It's your fault" or "You didn't do this" aka "Game Will Solve everything"-Advised for guys who failed on a first date, While this may be true in a lot of situations sometimes it's not always the guy's fault for not doing something "Game" or even "attraction wise". I learned that if a woman is highly attracted to you, you can make petty mistakes as long as you don't **** up royally on a first date. I've also went on first dates where as soon as I saw a girl look at me like she was disinterested. The dates were either awkward, lack of energy or just down right bad nothing I coulda done to game them, even if my game was solid that night. What I have learned especially as I get older a lot of first dates fail not because of "Chemistry" (that's the term women like to use) but because of compatibility. It can be anything from communication, personalities, temperament, phyiscally heck even sexually, values etc. To many guys will say it's your fault you didn't "Game" her enough or you didn't escalate or kino etc. I've been in situations where I gamed my ass off and still didn't smash and if I've been in situations where I hardly did anything and took a girl back home on a first date. I've also been on dates where initially before the date even happend. I had a bad feeling or a feeling I couldn't shake. Those dates tend to go left, I don't get those often, but in those instances reflecting after I should have followed my instincts.

I myself was on a recent date with a beautiful woman however we were just not compatible with different personalities in regards to how we communicate. Men and women communicate completely differently and communication is huge not just for a first date but a relationship in general. If you go on a lot of first dates. You will meet a lot of women you may not be compatible with, due to one of the factors or others I mentioned above. I find the easiest women to date are ones that have a sense of humor similar to mine, are low key, and feminine

IMO the best way to vet for compatible is by asking probing questions before a date. If you got decent texting or phone game this shouldn't be hard to do without coming of like an interview. I doged a few bullets that way.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

I myself was on a recent date with a beautiful woman however we were just not compatible with different personalities in regards to how we communicate. Men and women communicate completely differently and communication is huge not just for a first date but a relationship in general. If you go on a lot of first dates. You will meet a lot of women you may not be compatible with, due to one of the factors or others I mentioned above. I find the easiest women to date are ones that have a sense of humor similar to mine, are low key, and feminine

It's very important to have standards. Don't waste your precious time on lukewarm women.

If a woman isn't eager to be in your company, they are mostly useless to pursue at all. If a woman is attracted to you, she won't be disinterested or argumentative or interrogative or talking about her horrid exes. Watch for the red flags and bail. She doesn't deserve your attention and validation.

Whenever you date a woman, you have to ask yourself, 'Would I like to introduce this person to my friends and family?' If you even hesitate to say 'yes, she is', you best move on and find someone better. You owe that to yourself.

Some members here will still pursue low quality women 'just to f*ck, nothing serious' but you're damaging your personal integrity if you are so thirsty to have sex with trollops.

Don't go for low quality women.

 

[Solomon]

She wouldn't flake on Bradd Pitt, Drake or Cristiano Ronaldo

I totally understand the premise of this; however, it has always struck me as funny or even borderline delusional. What do Brad, Drake, and Cristiano have in common? Yes, they’re all uber-wealthy, and yes, they’re all good-looking, but they also have social status/social proof on a global level. Most men will meet women who don’t know who they are, so why would she treat you like a star?

In social circles, this is a bit different. If you have social proof, she may know who you are and your value. However, comparing yourself to Brad Pitt and Cristiano Ronaldo has always made me laugh. I don’t see anything wrong with a man having self-respect and walking away from a flaky, unruly woman. Self-respect is key—something Brad didn’t have with Angelina or Drake with his baby mother.



Redpill Men(Or Incels) Weaponzing "Chad Or Tyrone To Shame Women"

I get it—good-looking guys have it easier. Newsflash: life isn’t fair, and it is what it is. What always irked me, though, is when I see Redpill men or "game" guys weaponize the "Chad/Tyrone" rhetoric against women to shame them. You see it all the time on this forum or in Redpill comments. Men want the best-looking women, and women want the best-looking men. I would never tell a guy to get with a woman he’s not attracted to, so why do men expect women to do the same? I get it modern women's standards are delusional, however, shaming women isn't going to make them want you. Once you understand how women operate and understand the duality of female dating strategy you should be able to use that to your advantage if you're putting in the work!

I get that women aren’t always going for their looks match anymore, but newsflash: Tyrone and Chad don’t just hook up with hotties—they also hook up with “fatties” and “uggos.” It’s an open secret that has been around for decades. It’s just more recognized now that Tyrone and Chad have a monopoly on dating apps. Tyrone and Chad's will bang anything not all but more than you expect espeically in a drought. But in the real world, if you’re a regular guy and you’ve got your stuff together, you can still succeed.



Women Will Submit When The World Burns

I used to laugh at this, but the reality is that MGTOW, Redpill, and especially Blackpill incels have this fantasy of WW3 or some major event that will force women to revert to their "lady" ways. Sorry, that’s not going to happen. Yes, some women will be more focused on long-term relationships and locking down a man, but tough times will actually make women pickier.

A lot of men are struggling with dating in 2024, and I honestly think by 2034, dating will be impossible for an average guy(heck it's almost impossible right now as I type this). . If a guy doesn’t have anything that women value (looks, money, game, personality, etc.). The whole "women will come back to the table" end-of-the-world scenario is nothing but a coping fantasy that some men tell themselves to feel better. I’ve been around this forum since 2008, and things dating-wise have never been as toxic as they are in 2024. With inflation and AI coming within the next decade, it will get even tougher for regular men.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

I get it—good-looking guys have it easier. Newsflash: life isn’t fair, and it is what it is. What always irked me, though, is when I see Redpill men or "game" guys weaponize the "Chad/Tyrone" rhetoric against women to shame them. You see it all the time on this forum or in Redpill comments. Men want the best-looking women, and women want the best-looking men. I would never tell a guy to get with a woman he’s not attracted to, so why do men expect women to do the same?

I think most guys are not very good relationship material, yet they shoot for the moon and only want to date 'hot women', when they themselves are not even matched with women of average looks. In that sense, they are just as delusional as average women wanting to date handsome men.
On the other hand, you can always fantasise. Just don't get angry and disappointed when your fantasies don't become reality.

I get it modern women's standards are delusional, however, shaming women isn't going to make them want you. Once you understand how women operate and understand the duality of female dating strategy you should be able to use that to your advantage if you're putting in the work!

Also, why would anyone want to date a delusional woman? Who wants to deal with someone who will just be dissatisfied all the time? Personally, I don't want to waste my time on women who'd prefer to be with someone else. If they don't want to be with me, I don't see the point to be with them. I value myself too much to be with someone who 'settles' for me.

 

[SW15]

Much of the old-school PUA advice didn't stand the test of time and turned out to be BS.

Good point to bring up. I'll offer some takes.

1. "Call, don't text". This may have been good advice in the very early days of texting, before smartphones and blackberries, when you had to use the numerical keypad to input text (usually in short form). Back then, texting was considered kind of immature and something that only high school kids did. But that era ended 20+ years ago.

I agree that this advice made sense in the days of flip phones and candy bar phones. Sending text messages was not easy on those devices. Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007, though the Blackberry had preceded it. The iPhone was the smartphone model that popularized the smartphone. By 2009-2010 at the latest, texting was overtaking calling. At that time, I was 26-27 and mainly dealing with women my age or younger. The expectation by then was that the man owned a smartphone and would use text messaging more than phone calls. This has only gotten more true since 2010.

While phone calls have value in the early stages of dating, it's very difficult to get a woman born in the mid to late 1980s or later on the phone for a call in the early stages of dating.

In the 2020s, there are plenty of men who have difficulty with the art of finding the right amount to text. There are also some important rules to follow around text messages, such as never double texting.

3. Spam approaching, sarging, etc. Thankfully, this has become less common but it was a big thing back in the day. And I have no doubt it hurt more men than it helped. Spending hundreds of hours approaching thousands of women wth very little to show for it is hard on one's psyche and no way to build up confidence.

As a whole, fewer people are approaching. Also, I don't think a lot of the people who do approach now are doing as many approaches as they might have in the past.

Spam approaching was always a bad idea. If a man takes a lot of rejections with in-person approach, it will do psychological harm. At the same time, a lack of results on swipe apps is also psychologically damaging. Even though men are taking a lot of rejections digitally, rejections digitally don't hit the same way as an initial in-person approach failing. Another aspect of tech-based dating that can cause trauma is the "one date, no sex, no second date" cycle. Due to tech methods of dating, many men have set up a lot of dates that weren't worth setting up. I think it is more difficult for many men to assess good dating prospects remotely.

4. Wait "x" number of days before contacting her. This was once heavily promoted as an iron rule (the "x" varied depending on who you asked). This is a counterproductive strategy, especially when dealing with girls who have options and limited attention spans (which 100% of attractive girls these days).

I don't hear as much about "wait x days to contact" anymore. Doc Love used to promote a 7 day no contact rule after getting a landline phone number back in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Many people promoted a 3 day no contact that I first heard about in the late 1990s/early 2000s when I was in high school and college and first looking to date.

Women do have more abundance now as compared to the early to mid 2000s.

I don't use any hard and fast rules on contact. In my in-person approaches now, I don't bother to collect phone numbers unless I set up an actual date. Phone numbers alone without plans are useless. While I used to use phone numbers as a metric at points in the past long ago, it's an outdated and useless metric in the smartphone era.

If I approach a woman on a Saturday afternoon in a daygame setting and set a Wednesday night date with her, I would text her Monday or early Tuesday and go from there. Finding the right texting rhythm isn't easy, especially after the first date.

@EyeBRollin promoted an idea on contact frequency in the early stages of dating that was a modern adaptation from Doc Love's 1990s era contact tactic.

Text game

Here’s my thing - so I just banged the HB 7.5 I spoke about in the other thread (to which I thank you for your advice!). Since we banged, she has been texting almost nonstop with very high interest. Due to our schedules we couldn’t see each other for 9 days (down to 7 now). If I essentially...

www.sosuave.net

 

[Solomon]

Educated White Women Are tough..True but...

After my recent back and forth with @SW15 (whom I respect even if we disagree at times) I agree with a lot of what he says but I think there is a lot of nuanced being missed when it comes to educated white women(Bachelors&Masters). I think if you're dealing with a particular type of educated woman then yes they can be tough but in my experience why would you want to deal with a woman who is narcissistic, insufferable, and shallow? Even if these women are hot or cute IMO it's not worth the stress.

I get it some of these women are hot(white women) and highly sought after In my experience the best-educated women to deal with are the ones who have an agreeable personality. I think with educated women it's a mixed bag. One of the smartest women I ever dated was in Stem, she was a really cute nerdy (white)chick and had a nice butt. We had deep conversations that I enjoyed immenstley. I have yet to find a woman with her intelligence.

I have also dealt with country women who aren't educated IMO they are the most feminine submissive women they cook, clean, and throw it back with no argument. The problem with these types is that they aren't mentally stimulating but they are fun and chill to hang out with so IMO the pros outweigh the cons

I think with "Bougie" educated women or even party girls while they may be good to look at and pound, I find these women boring, a lot of them have basic personalities. Lack depth and care more about materialism. Even Pook talked about these types years ago

What's the point of this? the point is that as a man you have to have your standards and boundaries and regardless of looks or education if a woman doesn't meet them, then keep it pushing. But @SW15 is right in the sense that when it comes to these shallow, narcissistic white women there are far more of them then the humble, feminine, in-depth ones

 

[SW15]

After my recent back and forth with @SW15 (whom I respect even if we disagree at times) I agree with a lot of what he says but I think there is a lot of nuanced being missed when it comes to educated white women(Bachelors&Masters).

I respect you and your contributions to this forum. I don't have to agree 100% with anyone on here.

There is nuance with educated White women. Also, a White woman with a bachelor's degree may be different in attitude than a White woman with an advanced degree.

Educated White Women Are tough..True but...

I think with educated women it's a mixed bag.

I think with "Bougie" educated women or even party girls while they may be good to look at and pound, I find these women boring, a lot of them have basic personalities. Lack depth and care more about materialism. Even Pook talked about these types years ago
USER=153736]@SW15[/USER] is right in the sense that when it comes to these shallow, narcissistic white women there are far more of them then the humble, feminine, in-depth ones

Educated White women are very common women in US big cities. They've been the primary women I've dealt with since I finished my bachelor's degree. I think a lot of educated White men deal with them.

Many men would find them boring with basic personalities. Shallow and narcissistic ones are common.

There are also some that are good looking. They can be found an upscale gyms and standalone fitness studios.

Many of them are around office buildings as well at their jobs.

I have also dealt with country women who aren't educated IMO they are the most feminine submissive women they cook, clean, and throw it back with no argument. The problem with these types is that they aren't mentally stimulating but they are fun and chill to hang out with so IMO the pros outweigh the cons

I agree that country women who have less than a bachelor's degree are often very good women for dating and relationships. The pros outweigh the cons. It can be difficult to meet some of these women as earning a living in a smaller town is difficult. In general, men don't move to some random smaller town to find a good LTR. When men relocate somewhere for work opportunities, it is usually a major city.

There are times when women from smaller towns move to a bigger city and these women have either a high school diploma/GED or some associate degree/trade certification. The associate degree/trade certification is usually in something medical and they work as some sort of medical assistant.

The smaller town females who make it to a bigger city might retain some of their small town upbringing. Others become toxic big city females. It depends.

I've spent my post college life in some bigger US cities dating bougie educated White women. My perspective might be affected by this.