Getting her to see you as a lover not provider.

[jaylondon]

Hi guys,

I'm looking for thoughts on techniques to get women to put me into the lover box. I live in london where there are a lot of women with good careers, high levels of education etc. To me they seem to favour guys like them. I want to get with these girls but I'm not a provider in jeans, brouges and a pullover. I'm also not an alpha Ruggerbugger and I don't want to be either of those guys. I want to learn to use what I've got. I dress well, I'm 26 5'7 kind of athletic build average and I have a low status job. I'm also more the calm charming type than a extrovert. I want to tempt her out of her usual pattern of boring choices and I totally believe it's possible with the right strategy. So thoughts and input are welcome, cheers guys.

 

[zekko]

I've never understood why men in the community are so hung up on short term vs. long term mating strategies. It seems to me that if you are taking care of yourself financially, you are going to be seen automatically as a provider type, and I don't see how that is a bad thing. She's going to fvck you either way.

Secondly, if you have a low status job, I don't see how that labels you a provider. If you want her to see you more as a lover, try to be more exciting. According to Mauser's current thread, the key to being seen as a lover instead of a provider is to be "extremely muscular", so if you believe that it's not enough to be simply athletic. Back to the gym.

 

[Mike32ct]

I've never understood why men in the community are so hung up on short term vs. long term mating strategies. It seems to me that if you are taking care of yourself financially, you are going to be seen automatically as a provider type, and I don't see how that is a bad thing. She's going to fvck you either way.

I get what you are saying and don't disagree. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I think the concern is "strings attached vs no (or few) strings attached." Both types of guys get laid. But the provider one has to invest a lot more time and money than the lover guy. So even though there is nothing wrong with the provider guy, sometimes he can feel resentful about the extra hoops he has to jump through to get laid.

 

[jaylondon]

Thanks for completly misinterpreting my post and dragging the discussion away from my point Mike. So let me be clear. I can't compete with rich provider guys or super alpha guys nor do I want to. I'm asking for advice how to get her to overlook those things and trigger raw attraction. Who cars if it's a long term or short term strategy?

 

[Suspens]

I'm asking for advice how to get her to overlook those things and trigger raw attraction.

Through genome engineering perhaps.

Troll alert.

 

[zekko]

I get what you are saying and don't disagree. I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I think the concern is "strings attached vs no (or few) strings attached." Both types of guys get laid. But the provider one has to invest a lot more time and money than the lover guy.

When women see you as a potential provider, maybe they would like there to be strings. But you are under no obligation to provide them. If she likes you, she's going to bang you by what? The first or second date?

I know that can be too long for some of these alpha types to wait, they want to bang her in the restroom of the club or in the dumpster behind it or they feel like a failure. I've never seen why it's so important to be in such a rush. I tend to be seen as a potential provider type because I make good money, but I've never had girls make me wait for sex.

PUA gurus tell you that if you have money, girls won't bang you because they want you to think they're nice girls. I think this is more about selling product than being a universal truth. I haven't really run into this in real life, but I don't date girls unless I think they're actually attracted to me. And if they're attracted, they want the sex.

 

[Trump]

Hi guys,

- I live in london
- there are a lot of women with good careers, high levels of education
- they seem to favour guys like them
- I'm 26 5'7 kind of athletic build average
- I have a low status job.
- I'm not a provider
- I'm also not an alpha

- I want to tempt her out of her usual pattern of boring choices and I totally believe it's possible with the right strategy.

Bro you are fighting a losing battle with those comments. You have to change and then you can run in their circles. Unless you give amazing sex, are rich or famous, things are not going to change.

 

[Poon King]

I've never understood why men in the community are so hung up on short term vs. long term mating strategies. It seems to me that if you are taking care of yourself financially, you are going to be seen automatically as a provider type, and I don't see how that is a bad thing. She's going to fvck you either way.

Secondly, if you have a low status job, I don't see how that labels you a provider. If you want her to see you more as a lover, try to be more exciting. According to Mauser's current thread, the key to being seen as a lover instead of a provider is to be "extremely muscular", so if you believe that it's not enough to be simply athletic. Back to the gym.

Most men want to be the "lover" because that "lover" usually gets sex faster and easier than the provider.

The provider gets the used up, post-c0ck carousel "ready to settle down" expired milk women. And you see "nothing wrong with that"?:crackup:

The lover gets easy access. The provider has to jump through hoops and be an emotional tampon before he gets laid (and strictly on her terms with limited frequency). And you see "nothing wrong with that"?:crackup:

The only time the provider beta gets frequent sex is when a woman is in a rush to have kids. Because beta providers are not "sexy" they are "practical". Like a mini-van, toaster, sofa, remote control, and other tools.

To the OP:

Changing you attitude is the most important step on being seen as a lover. Your attitude needs to be free and breezy. You need to be a man who is enjoying life and living in the moment. You also need to live in the moment with women. That is key. Thinking about the future in the context of dating women is strictly beta provider territory. The MOMENT is all the matters for the lover.

 

[donking]

Have been both lover and provider. Will continue to do both. You need stability and excitements at different points in life.

 

[zekko]

The provider gets the used up, post-c0ck carousel "ready to settle down" expired milk women. And you see "nothing wrong with that"?:crackup:

The lover gets easy access. The provider has to jump through hoops and be an emotional tampon before he gets laid (and strictly on her terms with limited frequency). And you see "nothing wrong with that"?:crackup:

It doesn't sound like you bothered to read my post, and instead just jumped to typical knee-jerk reactions to certain buzzwords. I said that women tend to see me as a provider type since I make good money, but I have never had girls make me wait for sex.

I have always said it is best for a man to take the best attributes of the lover AND the provider. Not to provide for a woman - in this current culture, screw that - but to have the resources to support yourself and the type of lifestyle that you choose.

I do not believe in the PUA clichés, stereotypes, and labels that you are so fond of. Those are good for teaching tools only. If you put them out in the light of reality, they don't hold up. Because men are individuals with mixes of a variety of traits. No one is 100% Provider or 100% Lover.

PUA gurus love to tell their clients that having money will hurt you with women: "What, you don't have any money? Well, that's actually good, because if you have money, women will see you as a provider and make you wait for sex and jump through hoops". However, that statement has more to do with selling their product than with describing reality.
Lol and :crackup:

 

[Mike32ct]

PUA gurus love to tell their clients that having money will hurt you with women: "What, you don't have any money? Well, that's actually good, because if you have money, women will see you as a provider and make you wait for sex and jump through hoops". However, that statement has more to do with selling their product than with describing reality.
Lol and :crackup:

Haha agreed. Actually the other funny thing I heard by a PUA guru was that good looks can hurt you. She will assume that you are a player and reject you. You are better off being ugly so you can "come in under her radar" lol.

Summary: broke and ugly works best :crackup:

 

[Between_The_Lines]

Be a "lawyer" that still lives at home with his parents, always have a cigarette in mouth and those squinty Richard Gere eyes that perfectly blend "bad @ss" with possible gerbil up the @ss, and check your phone every 45 seconds while saying stuff like "Jesus, can't she take a hint!?"

I haven't field tested it yet, but if that doesn't put you in the "lover" compartment, you're probably overdoing the squinting part.

 

[Poon King]

It doesn't sound like you bothered to read my post, and instead just jumped to typical knee-jerk reactions to certain buzzwords. I said that women tend to see me as a provider type since I make good money, but I have never had girls make me wait for sex.

I have always said it is best for a man to take the best attributes of the lover AND the provider. Not to provide for a woman - in this current culture, screw that - but to have the resources to support yourself and the type of lifestyle that you choose.

I do not believe in the PUA clichés, stereotypes, and labels that you are so fond of. Those are good for teaching tools only. If you put them out in the light of reality, they don't hold up. Because men are individuals with mixes of a variety of traits. No one is 100% Provider or 100% Lover.

PUA gurus love to tell their clients that having money will hurt you with women: "What, you don't have any money? Well, that's actually good, because if you have money, women will see you as a provider and make you wait for sex and jump through hoops". However, that statement has more to do with selling their product than with describing reality.
Lol and :crackup:

That's not what you said and all bro. But nice damage control. and :crackup:

 

[Peña]

It doesn't sound like you bothered to read my post, and instead just jumped to typical knee-jerk reactions to certain buzzwords. I said that women tend to see me as a provider type since I make good money, but I have never had girls make me wait for sex.

I have always said it is best for a man to take the best attributes of the lover AND the provider. Not to provide for a woman - in this current culture, screw that - but to have the resources to support yourself and the type of lifestyle that you choose.

I do not believe in the PUA clichés, stereotypes, and labels that you are so fond of. Those are good for teaching tools only. If you put them out in the light of reality, they don't hold up. Because men are individuals with mixes of a variety of traits. No one is 100% Provider or 100% Lover.

PUA gurus love to tell their clients that having money will hurt you with women: "What, you don't have any money? Well, that's actually good, because if you have money, women will see you as a provider and make you wait for sex and jump through hoops". However, that statement has more to do with selling their product than with describing reality.
Lol and :crackup:

Agreed. He is a beta troll.

 

[skinnyguy]

Haha agreed. Actually the other funny thing I heard by a PUA guru was that good looks can hurt you. She will assume that you are a player and reject you. You are better off being ugly so you can "come in under her radar" lol.

Summary: broke and ugly works best :crackup:

Lolllll shameless attempt at getting money from AFC.

The thing is I've never seen a PUA guru who wasn't good looking already. Funny how there are no short Indian dudes who are coaches, only in shape white guys.

 

[mangotot]

Why is there no Indian pua coaches?

 

[skinnyguy]

Why is there no Indian pua coaches?

Cause the kind of Indian guys who would be into "game" are AFC's and have no chance with hot women.

I have never, in my life, seen an Indian AFC turn into a pvssy slayer. PUA guru's have failed miserably in this aspect. The only guys they can actually train are white and occasionally black.

 

[El Payaso]

Why is there no Indian pua coaches?

Because they just don't ring on the attraction scale. On a general race basis, I don't know of any race that are attracted to Indian men besides Indian women. Definitely not white women and definitely not black women. This is based on race as a whole.

 

[El Payaso]

You CANNOT control how people see you. The only thing you can control is your mindset.

You do what YOU want to do and let people come to whatever stupid conclusion they want.

Your mindset should be to bang as many women as you can with as little attachment possible.

PUA gurus would have you believe that if you're rich, you'll be seen as a provider by women. So what? Let her see what she wants. When you're done banging her and you disappear the next day without a trace. She won't see you as a provider anymore.

Providers with or without money try to hard to get women by offering their time, money or attention at the woman's whim. She says jump, they ask how high?

Lovers get women almost effortlessly because THEY DON'T CARE and don't use their resources to "prove" anything to the woman.

So stop caring how she sees you because it doesn't matter.

Some of the girls I've banged have said at one point or the other, "Payaso, when I first met you I thought you were this good, clueless guy but after our first night I was shocked. It was like you were a whole different person".

People will always have their own perceptions of you. It is a pleasure watching their shocked faces when you prove them wrong.

 

[zekko]

Haha agreed. Actually the other funny thing I heard by a PUA guru was that good looks can hurt you. She will assume that you are a player and reject you. You are better off being ugly so you can "come in under her radar" lol.

Summary: broke and ugly works best :crackup:

Yeah, I've heard that one too, lol. Those broke and ugly guys never knew that they were ahead of the game all along!

That's not what you said and all bro. But nice damage control.

Everything that I said, I meant. But don't assume that just because I said one thing, that means that I think another. Like I said, I don't believe in fitting into stereotypes and labels.

The thing is I've never seen a PUA guru who wasn't good looking already.

I'm no great judge of male beauty, but I don't think Robert Glover, Style, or Owen (Tyler) are particularly good looking.