Do women have to be initially attracted and "choose" you before you can run any game?

[devilkingx2]

a hook-up culture actually favors men, not women, because men prefer to bang as many women as possible on average/in general whereas women prefer to lock down and drain one person then move on to the next on average/in general, so theoretically speaking the market still favors men and actually favors men increasingly for as long as getting laid doesn't require any sort of actual commitment or providing

going back to the way things were in the 1920s benefits beta males and boring women. to the detriment of women who like sex or partying and to the detriment of men who have game

 

[IKO69]

I want to triple like this. Brilliantly said @RangerMIke! We could end the thread here on a high note lol

Let's summarize the collective wisdom

• Attraction CANNOT be created through game (the very rare exception is if you're a master Don Juan with insane, airtight game and even then you need some luck). It only exists when both the man and woman like each other's SMV. If the woman likes YOUR specific SMV based on her weighted criteria (ex. 40% looks, 30% status, 30% money), you're in. You can approach and spit game. She'll be receptive to any moves you may make, but you gotta approach and escalate or nothing's going to happen!
  
  
• Every woman has a different SMV checklist she's looking for in a man. One woman will want 80% looks, 20% status while another woman might want 50% looks, 25% money, 25% status.
  
  
• This means that unless you're absolutely hideous like Quasimodo, your okay SMV should be attracting some women out there who automatically like you and think you're attractive right now. However, you're limiting your options. You won't run into those compatible women that often out of the many attractive women you approach. You'll get rejected by most women because you don't meet their minimum SMV requirements (more looks, more money, more status). Those women will tune you out when you try to run game at your okay SMV.
  
  
• To attract the widest net of women possible, including the few that like you at your current SMV, you MUST work on increasing your SMV. Having higher SMV gives you access to game hotter women since they won't automatically reject you or roll their eyes at you like before.
  
  
• For any woman you attract from any HB point, you need game to escalate properly or she'll lose interest. Even if you have high SMV, you MUST possess a minimum threshold of game or else you won't get laid with any girl.
  
  
• As a man, you must have a minimum threshold of BOTH SMV and game or else you're going to struggle badly with any woman. You MUST develop both SMV and game in conjunction; they cannot be worked on separately. That's why there's handsome men who are clueless and average men who don't go anywhere with game. You can't be too lopsided in either category. Develop both and as much as you can!
  
  
• So you'll develop both, but which one did you work on more? Follow the Pareto rule. It's 80% SMV and 20% game. Spend 80% of your time working on your purpose in life and SMV while mastering game on the dates you go on as more women become attracted to you. SMV is for attracting (opening) and game is for closing. We have officially ended the looks vs. game debate that raged in this forum for years! The answer is both are essential at the right minimum thresholds for each individual man, with SMV having the heaviest weight in attraction.

That is pretty much it. Your "SMV" is what piques the woman's interest. We have already established that women decide pretty much upon first glance that exhibit a (the man) is either handsome or not. If he is handsome then she will be receptive to his "game", game really amounts to nothing more than just going to talk to her and demonstrate you have crap going on in your life - as well as the things that go without saying - do you look clean, can you hold a conversation etc. People over complicate the living **** out of this but it basically boils down to are you a ****ing normal human being? Do you think most guys out in the real world have ever read or likely even heard of pua? Obviously knowing about pua and all the other related offshoots isn't an advantage because there are plenty of guys who still can't make things happen for themselves. I'm not putting the forum down as it can serve a good resource once you wade through a lot of the bull**** - I'm trying to demonstrate that what we read online is not a substitute for ACTION and actually doing the WORK. Without ever having heard of PUA if guys go out and there and make a sincere honest effort to try and meet women, see where things went wrong and do better at every interaction, they would slowly master the process.

100% of the failures and why men show up here are because they are simply targeting the wrong women. If you are the biggest ****ing AFC in the world you can still get women .... look around there are plenty of ugly, neurotic, screwed up women walking around who will literally take anything. I don't mean to degrade them but I am illustrating a point. Those guys, however, won't want those women and I understand that--- they'll want something "better" - the individual will have to look at himself and what needs to be corrected in order to attract a more attractive female. This then comes back to the person's "SMV" - they are simply going to have to raise it. How? Only they know the area's that need catching up. You'll sometimes get those who swear everything is in order and it's like yeah okay buddy - I honestly have no time for bull****ters like that. If you had everything going on and you have top tier this and that you wouldn't be struggling in the first place.


Once on my way to school I was taking the train and there was this fat guy next to where I was sitting - this man literally took up two seats, wore sweat pants with stains on them, grungy sneakers, unkempt beard - he was not attractive in the least. At this stop this really attractive blonde woman came on and she was obviously looking for a seat but when she saw the only one was next to him she flat out just decided to stand. I could absolutely tell that she processed the situation and was like hell naw. The fat guy noticed it too and legitly started BERATING the **** out of her on the train for like two stops. People were uncomfortable and he looked like the biggest AFC in the world, just a total goof. Now on some level I could somewhat sympathize with him because women can at times be cruel, but it's like "dude, you gotta at least show up to the race in order to have a chance to win it". He kept saying **** like He was tired women would avoid and how they are so arrogant and so full of themselves. The women was a snob for not sitting next to him blah blah. It was actually an eye opening experience because I thought about how there were times when I was younger I'd feel that way and I had to analyze what I was like then. Now I was never obese but I would go out wearing like death metal t shirts, wasn't aggressive enough etc. I realized I had to turn things around if I was going to have a chance in hell or end up somewhat like that guy.

 

[Trump]

I feel that the general consensus is that it's 80% SMV / 20% game.

I feel it’s 80% game, 20% SMV.

If your SMV doesn't cross a minimum threshold (resume), you can't even play the game (interview).

Sure you can.

I’ve gotten so many girls who thought I wasnt
good looking, I spit some game, they fall in love.

Women are the employers and we are the candidates. But if you are the highly skilled, high value candidate, then you can reverse the script and have the employers chasing you since you're extremely desired in the market.

You can be highly skilled, highly valued candidate and still not know how to run game with women.

High value does not equal desirability for women.

Are there other stances I'm missing? Which point of view makes the most sense from your experience in the dating game? Discuss.

It’s all GAME until they get married or pregnant. Then you can tell them you fooled them.

 

[IKO69]

I feel it’s 80% game, 20% SMV.



Sure you can.

I’ve gotten so many girls who thought I wasnt
good looking, I spit some game, they fall in love.



You can be highly skilled, highly valued candidate and still not know how to run game with women.

High value does not equal desirability for women.



It’s all GAME until they get married or pregnant. Then you can tell them you fooled them.

It would come down to game if every man got a fair shake but we know it doesn't happen that way. Every woman has her own likes and biases. To sum it all up - if she doesn't like you at the outset your running game won't amount to anything. We've all been in situation where we either were blown out of the water or no matter what we said or did fell on deaf ears - it is because the attraction was never present. It can't emphasize that enough - were told that it comes down to game and that PUA provides you with a system that will allow you to run successful game. Well if that was the case then it would be like a golden key that no matter who had it, his success with women would surpass his wildest dreams. They made sure to constantly emphasize that saying if you were like 5'1, 40, gray hair, balding and fat you'd have as a good a shot with a "10" as some young stud, total bull****. Your ability to run "game" is directly proportional to her interest....i've seen men with no game say and do the dumbest stuff and it was well received because the women had enough interest.

If you find a woman ugly/non attractive you won't care how nice she is or that she is a great cook. Why would it be different for women if you don't meet her expectations? This is long before you get your chance to run game.

Your bound to say "So what is the ****ing point in learning game then?" There isn't a point as long as you can understand and know that if you made it to this community it's because you screwed up somewhere. If you're broke, skinny, dress poorly, are a bad conversationalist, have no friends - you recognize those things will need to be changed and you take the steps to do so. After doing so you may very well find yourself having success. The majority of men you see out there who have a girlfriend/wife don't know who David Deangelo is or scarce even know what PUA is/have ever read it.

 

[mellow_yellow]

I feel it’s 80% game, 20% SMV.



Sure you can.

I’ve gotten so many girls who thought I wasnt
good looking, I spit some game, they fall in love.



You can be highly skilled, highly valued candidate and still not know how to run game with women.

High value does not equal desirability for women.



It’s all GAME until they get married or pregnant. Then you can tell them you fooled them.

If you are consistently pulling girls who tell you you didn't look attractive at first and your experience in life tells you it's 80% game, then you may be the exception to the rule. You probably have the gift of gab. Some people do have this rare gift, but they're at the tail end of the bell curve. I wish I did. It would be so much easier to chat her up and tell her to come back to my place over hitting the gym and dieting haha

Yes, you can have high SMV and screw up in closing the girl big time by having zero game. I didn't say high SMV is the end all, be all and that it's 100% SMV. Even with high value, you have to possess enough game to close the deal. When I said "highly skilled, highly valued candidate", I'm talking about guys like guru who have high SMV and high game; those guys can name their price when they're that good.

When you say "it's all game", I get what you mean in context where SMV/game/everything else is part of the bigger chessboard we play, the game of life.

 

[mellow_yellow]

It would come down to game if every man got a fair shake but we know it doesn't happen that way. Every woman has her own likes and biases. To sum it all up - if she doesn't like you at the outset your running game won't amount to anything. We've all been in situation where we either were blown out of the water or no matter what we said or did fell on deaf ears - it is because the attraction was never present. It can't emphasize that enough - were told that it comes down to game and that PUA provides you with a system that will allow you to run successful game. Well if that was the case then it would be like a golden key that no matter who had it, his success with women would surpass his wildest dreams. They made sure to constantly emphasize that saying if you were like 5'1, 40, gray hair, balding and fat you'd have as a good a shot with a "10" as some young stud, total bull****. Your ability to run "game" is directly proportional to her interest....i've seen men with no game say and do the dumbest stuff and it was well received because the women had enough interest.

If you find a woman ugly/non attractive you won't care how nice she is or that she is a great cook. Why would it be different for women if you don't meet her expectations? This is long before you get your chance to run game.

Your bound to say "So what is the ****ing point in learning game then?" There isn't a point as long as you can understand and know that if you made it to this community it's because you screwed up somewhere. If you're broke, skinny, dress poorly, are a bad conversationalist, have no friends - you recognize those things will need to be changed and you take the steps to do so. After doing so you may very well find yourself having success. The majority of men you see out there who have a girlfriend/wife don't know who David Deangelo is or scarce even know what PUA is/have ever read it.

Yeah PUA courses are marketing scams that separate the desperate from their money by promising a "get laid quick" scheme. There's no quick way around success. It takes hard work and long term consistency to improve your deficiencies. People don't frame it right. You can't lose 30 pounds in 1 month and keep it off permanently by following a crash diet. You lose it over a longer period of time through discipline. Developing SMV and game is the same way. It takes months to years of trial to become the greatest version of yourself.

I'll expand on your low SMV vs. young stud example by saying things in real life don't work in a vacuum of limited choices. The woman doesn't have 2 choices of one or the other. She has multiple choices, 10 or more guys with varying levels of SMV and game, ranging from balding, fat guy to the Chad stallion. In a lineup of 10 men, balding fat guy is dead last and doesn't have a chance against the other 9+ men. He won't even get 3 seconds of her time to make a pitch.

When unattractive women approached me, I would sort of zone out and my mind would wander to different thoughts because I already dismissed her before our conversation got going. When you're not interested, you keep your answers short and do nothing to carry the conversation. It's messed up, but that's our world. Women get approached far more than men so they will zone out or roll their eyes hard when a man they're not interested tries "gaming" her as if there is a secret string of phrases to make her open her legs.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

a hook-up culture actually favors men, not women, because men prefer to bang as many women as possible on average/in general whereas women prefer to lock down and drain one person then move on to the next on average/in general, so theoretically speaking the market still favors men and actually favors men increasingly for as long as getting laid doesn't require any sort of actual commitment or providing

going back to the way things were in the 1920s benefits beta males and boring women. to the detriment of women who like sex or partying and to the detriment of men who have game

Whether men or women are better off, in relative terms, is arguable. What seems certain is that the greater good of society is the big loser. The social/ cultural capital is quickly spent and life slides back into the dog eat dog world, or state of nature. This was what morality was all about... the greater good.

It is this kind of individualistic logic that is the problem. Whatever happened to 'all for one, and one for all'?

 

[devilkingx2]

Whether men or women are better off, in relative terms, is arguable. What seems certain is that the greater good of society is the big loser. The social/ cultural capital is quickly spent and life slides back into the dog eat dog world, or state of nature. This was what morality was all about... the greater good.

It is this kind of individualistic logic that is the problem. Whatever happened to 'all for one, and one for all'?

I don't care about what I can do for society unless what society can do for me is worth whatever it's costing me, that's the whole concept that the government is based on, that it's supposed to serve us so much that it's worth giving away our state of nature freedoms

nothing about american society pre-1960s is appealing to me, not the depression, not the great wars, not the red scare/cold war, not the race and class and sexism issues, etc. so it's not worth a single sacrifice to preserve or return to for me.

 

[resilient]

Whether men or women are better off, in relative terms, is arguable. What seems certain is that the greater good of society is the big loser. The social/ cultural capital is quickly spent and life slides back into the dog eat dog world, or state of nature. This was what morality was all about... the greater good. It is this kind of individualistic logic that is the problem. Whatever happened to 'all for one, and one for all'?

Perhaps off topic from the OP, yet I've observed that people have much more freedom of choice in the dating field for both genders today. OLD and social media have increased the opportunities on top of real life game at work, public, and socials.

Whether or not people are happier with more choices or unhappy from indecision and unwillingness to commit/settle is rightfully arguable. If they do settle, they wonder if they dated down or could do better when they compare themselves to other couples that look happy and successful.

If the relationship hits a snag in the road, boredom, lower IL, she can branch swing with readily available options (unless she hit the wall and hasn't maintained her appearance, cratered SMV, etc.). That in itself is why I see more women becoming less likely to invest themselves in a LTR and keep the focus purely on their needs and wants in the moment instead of long-term gratification of going through the motions and ebbs and flows of a committed relationship.

We're all replaceable and that's one of the hardest cognitive dissonant concepts I've struggled to realize post-divorce in my mid-30s when investing in a woman emotionally, physically, and spiritually. The bond can easily be broken over night.

How does one trust and value the person they are with?

It's almost like you have to be a sociopath and unattached to date these days.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

I don't care about what I can do for society unless what society can do for me is worth whatever it's costing me, that's the whole concept that the government is based on, that it's supposed to serve us so much that it's worth giving away our state of nature freedoms

nothing about american society pre-1960s is appealing to me, not the depression, not the great wars, not the red scare/cold war, not the race and class and sexism issues, etc. so it's not worth a single sacrifice to preserve or return to for me.

Yes, the American view of government, and part of the problem. I believe JFK had something to say about that....

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

How does one trust and value the person they are with?

It's almost like you have to be a sociopath and unattached to date these days.

The contradictions inherent within the logic of middle-class mediocrity are working themselves out. People were assumed to be homo economicus, motivated by self-interest, and then relationships [marriages] were considered to be contractual between two parties. All of this is doomed once people realize that, like money, nothing backs it and therefore the contract/certificate is not worth the paper it's written on.

For better or worse, marital values derived from the cultural capital that once existed, and that has effectively been squandered today. Though not impossible, it is a lot more difficult for two individuals to marry/ LTR today - they would essentially have to be united in some sort of sacred pact, and in turn view the whole world, with all its utilitarian logic, as utterly absurd. Order or chaos, a simple choice.

 

[devilkingx2]

Yes, the American view of government, and part of the problem. I believe JFK had something to say about that....

John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau aren't american

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau aren't american

They provided the enlightened ideas on which America was built.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

The problem with America is its revolutionary and completely ideological outlook. It could never balance out ideas with reality.

 

[corrector]

I feel it’s 80% game, 20% SMV.



Sure you can.

I’ve gotten so many girls who thought I wasnt
good looking, I spit some game, they fall in love.

What type of game do you use? Are we old-school David De'Angelo "Double Your Dating", or is it something else?

You can be highly skilled, highly valued candidate and still not know how to run game with women.

High value does not equal desirability for women.

What is your learning curve to running game? How did you get good at this?

It’s all GAME until they get married or pregnant. Then you can tell them you fooled them.

But they can divorce you? Pregnancy is more permanent.

 

[simongtown]

You are setting up a set of "rules" in your mind which can only confuse you.

One example: I thought *I* chose the girl this weekend by eyefvcking her into oblivion. In reality, she was making a beeline and eyefvcking *me* into oblivion first. Does the order really matter? There was strong mutual interest so it's rather pointless to decide who initiated what. Flip a coin.

 

[jacketrunner]

I would ephasize humor / comedy...

If you can make her feel good through laughing, odds are she'll look at you different and say something like 'hey, you're kinda cute'.

People are more attractive, when they are having a good time. Sticks in the mud, can go sit in the corner.

Being a funny **** is the best way to create attraction out of thin air. If you can get her to laugh at herself and how cool you are, you can increase your value by a lot.

That being said, it's not magic. You won't be pulling girls like this if you're in a wheelchair.

 

[wifehunter]

Being a funny **** is the best way to create attraction out of thin air. If you can get her to laugh at herself and how cool you are, you can increase your value by a lot.

That being said, it's not magic. You won't be pulling girls like this if you're in a wheelchair.

You're right, humor is only part of the full package. The point is, to be the full package.

 

[apotheosis]

3. If you have to approach 100 women to get laid once or twice, you don't know wtf you're doing.

But based on the consensus of posts since your one, it seems clear that maybe you are doing nothing 'wrong' at all and the girls simply aren't into you and you don't meet their 'threshold' of 'handsome' and so it might take you like 500 approaches before you meet a girl who thinks you are decent looking

So i don't think we can say that you are doing something wrong or 'don't know wtf you're doing' if it takes you thousands of approaches to get laid, because as we've determined, there is a barrier to entry that is largely out of ones control.

We can't create attraction - only build upon it.

I don't have concrete stats, but I think it takes me roughly 150 approaches to get laid, personally. And I think I do everything 'right'. And i've tried more than one method (mystery, RSD game, etc etc)

 

[characternote]

Tom Torerro is supposed to be one of the best Day Gamers, and I think he said he gets laid like 1 in 30 approaches or so (and if he's in the top few percent in terms of ''skill'/'game', 1 in 150 might be normal for someone who is not that handsome and has intermediate level game?)

Surely the guys implying that you can get laid with very few approaches are either flat out dreaming, are very very good looking, or have EXTREMELY low standards!?

It's not as though 'game' is some kind of black magic, is it!? It sounds like from what I've learnt in this thread, she needs to preselect YOU first (based on your looks) and then you need to have enough 'game' to not mess it all up!?

Also, when it comes to looks, the things that make people ugly such as a huge nose, massive sticking out ears, being super short etc, can't really be fixed without lots of dangerous, expensive surgery. Just getting ripped would be like putting lipstick on a pig most of the time!