+- Postmasculine.com Forum (http://postmasculine.com/forum)
+-- Forum: PostMasculine.com (/Forum-PostMasculine-com)
+--- Forum: Dating and Relationships (/Forum-Dating-and-Relationships)
+--- Thread: sleazy's thread got locked? what a shame (/Thread-sleazy-s-thread-got-locked-what-a-shame)
sleazy's thread got locked? what a shame - crazyhorse - 04-28-2012 05:01 PM
100% certain that this is going to get locked again. But hey here's my response to what you wrote:
1) It states pretty much, that means not completely useless. It means there are more efficient ways to get girls. He says that if you find a niche, you can play the numbers game with much greater odds. I live on planet earth by the way.
2) I actually think that the guy who gets a 25% succes rate will be less inclined to objectify his social life.
I'm not a fan of these percentages myself. But if you dig up threads were guys say that they approached 500 girls and had 1 date. Well they are clearly not happy.
That same guy (25%) afterwards tried to approach randomly, he said it failed miserably. It's clearly not working for everyone. I don't think that he's weak if he's now picking something that works for him. He made a very mature deciscion, this doesn't work, well I'm gonna pick something else.
3) I meant they usually see you coming. And I also feel that they make up their minds pretty quickly.
4) I never said it couldn't happen. But how often do they happen? Are these the majority of your results? One thing that you should keep in mind is that a lot of people's lifestyles isn't suited to travel to world and invest tons of time in women. So efficiency counts for these people.
Another option that isn't being adressed, is that some people are genetically very sensitive to rejection. Can we blame these people for choosing a strategy with a higher succes rate?
Your last argument annoys me. Did I said I liked the controversy behind it? No, I didn't, I clearly stated that I wasn't a fan of it. I've always had a gut feeling to what he wrote in his article, but if I posted it on forums, I would get the typical community remark. Good job throwing arund insults!
But I'll give you credit for one thing, you did explain the premises this time!
RE: sleazy's thread got locked? what a shame - playmaker001 - 04-28-2012 10:25 PM
I started off shaky, but I've done well in cold approach lately. The idea is to approach a girl you find attractive, whether she sees you coming or doesn't (most of the time when I'm walking to or from class I approach and the girl doesn't see me coming unless she has eyes in the back of her head). So there's no time for her to even throw me signals.
I am a fan of percentages because I take a scientific approach to a lot of things and I like to know what works and what doesn't. I don't get why people have a problem with it.
However, I disagree waiting for a signal to approach a girl in daygame, it's not practical. First off, there's no completely accurate way of you knowing how receptive a girl is until you go up and talk to her/ touch her. Once I approach a girl with an "excuse me" or an "Hi" and she's not receptive I'll open more indirect and work my way up from there because it's low value and socially retarded in my opinion to tell a girl how beautiful she is when she's being unreceptive or negative. If she is receptive I'll go more direct. I almost always touch a girl, even if it's just an extended handshake. By the way, touch is one of the main ways Sleazy finds out if a girl's receptive, he talks about it in "Minimal Game" (great book). HE doesn't even always wait around for "signals".
I've pulled girls that were initially unreceptive, didn't send me signals, or mentioned they had a boyfriend. But, I don't think day game is for everyone. Some people are better off playing to their demographics. Day game takes a lot of skills and social awareness. Actually, I wouldn't even call it "skills", it's hard to explain... *sigh*
RE: sleazy's thread got locked? what a shame - Mark - 04-29-2012 02:12 AM
OK, this is turning into an argument about semantics... here are my final points, then I'm done with this thread, because I feel like it's not benefiting anyone:
1) Semantics and controversy aside, Sleazy's point is that social circle and waiting for AI makes it much easier. This is not a new point. People have said this before. I have said this before. I have an entire chapter in Models dedicated to demographics and recommending that men meet women through social circles and social events, particularly if they want a girlfriend. He just happened to word it in a controversial way, that's why this is suddenly treated as "Sleazy's idea." It's not. People have been saying this for years, myself included.
2) The whole, "Well, we don't all travel the world like you and blah, blah, blah" argument actually supports my point. In 90% of the venues I go to, I know no one, I don't speak the language, I have no social connections, and I'm from a different culture.... and I still get laid quite often. Whether it's Russia, Argentina, or Spain. You can make the whole, "well, you have an awesome lifestyle" argument, and that would be my exact point: stop worrying about crap like this and instead invest that energy into making yourself an awesome, intriguing, self-directed man. THAT is what produces long-term results.
3) Sleazy's argument is based on the premise that rejection is bad. I think this is an unhealthy mindset. I don't care if he finds a way to find a "99% success rate," the whole idea that avoiding rejection is bad is a poor mindset that I don't support. And to be honest, if I waited around every night to get eye-fucked in a venue with native English speakers, I would probably bat way over 25%, so I'm not really impressed. Fact stands that I approach women that interest me, not women that I interest them. My actions are based on MY interests, not on the interests of women around me. I would rather bat 5% with women I'm crazy about rather than 50% with women I'm only so-so on. But that's just me.
4) My results are a mixture of warm approaches, social circle and pure cold approach. I don't really keep track of the proportions, nor do I care. It varies based on where I am and what I'm doing. Again, the point is, I pursue women on my terms, based on my desires, not on what's handed to me. I will also say, that some of my most significant relationships with women started off as pure cold approach. If I had taken Sleazy's advice, I would have missed out on them.
RE: sleazy's thread got locked? what a shame - Warped Mindless - 04-29-2012 03:25 AM
People are still arguing about this? It all comes down to this...
If a woman who you find attractive is giving you approach invites and you want to approach herthen go approach her.
If a woman who you find attractive isn't giving you approach invites but you want to approach her then go approach her.
Also, if you approach 100 women pure cold approach and you still cant get laid, focusing only on women who give you approach invites probably won't get you laid much either because your fundamentals are severely lacking.
Seriously, if you cant get laid even ONCE after cold approaching 100 women then something your doing is way off or your coming across as really weird. Because of that, the women who do show you interest and give you approach invites will soon be turned off by you too once you do approach.
RE: sleazy's thread got locked? what a shame - playmaker001 - 04-29-2012 03:38 AM
^
This x1,000,000
RE: sleazy's thread got locked? what a shame - Tim - 04-29-2012 04:45 AM
*Said in movie trailer voiceover voice*
Since the dawn of time, men have been meeting women with the intent of trying to sleep with them. And also since then, those same men have been finding as many ways possible to unnecessarily overcomplicate the process of doing so.
Now, in the year 2012, Warped Mindless, in association with Mark Manson, Postmasculine.com, Nike, and Basic Fucking Common Sense, is bringing a revelation to a brain near you: Just Do It.
RE: sleazy's thread got locked? what a shame - crazyhorse - 04-29-2012 10:44 AM
I never said I didn't agree with you Mark. Hardly, I mean i've made "marketing" (if you want to call it that way) for you on reuniting and yourbrainrebalanced and also to other friends of mine. Guys on yourbrainrebalanced are now already making post saying that they like your stuff. So don't try to think that I'm trying to get even with you here.
tip: guys who suffer from porn addiction are an untapped market.
The reason I wanted to make some things clear, is because I had a feeling that the majority of the people who attacked his post didn't even understood the meaning. And I really felt it had some wise things to say. That doesn't mean that I agree with it 100%, since I think that the idea of developing your lifestyle and becoming a more interesting man is really valuable. But what if you could combine the two?
And even know people misunderstand the meaning:
- He never said rejection was bad. He said that if you create a niche, you play the numbers game with greader odds. This doesn't mean that you get every girl.
- Again he never said to purely wait for IOI.
Arghh.... I guess we won't ever find the true meaning of his post. Do we?
To be honest, if you're just starting out, you can play it more safe. That's a great way to build confidence, since you're probably still too sensitive to rejection. I also felt that he mainly wanted to attrack the community point of view which states that "getting laid is supposed to be difficult". Ever read one of those threads were a guy says "I got laid from social circle so it doesn't count?". off course that's ridiculously stupid.
But I can really understand the value of his approach for people with a very busy lifestyle. And if they are happy with these girls, then who are we to critize them for?
Some people just attach far more importance to safety, I guess.
RE: sleazy's thread got locked? what a shame - trader4life - 04-29-2012 01:07 PM
(04-29-2012 02:12 AM)Mark Wrote: OK, this is turning into an argument about semantics... here are my final points, then I'm done with this thread, because I feel like it's not benefiting anyone:
1) Semantics and controversy aside, Sleazy's point is that social circle and waiting for AI makes it much easier. This is not a new point. People have said this before. I have said this before. I have an entire chapter in Models dedicated to demographics and recommending that men meet women through social circles and social events, particularly if they want a girlfriend. He just happened to word it in a controversial way, that's why this is suddenly treated as "Sleazy's idea." It's not. People have been saying this for years, myself included.
2) The whole, "Well, we don't all travel the world like you and blah, blah, blah" argument actually supports my point. In 90% of the venues I go to, I know no one, I don't speak the language, I have no social connections, and I'm from a different culture.... and I still get laid quite often. Whether it's Russia, Argentina, or Spain. You can make the whole, "well, you have an awesome lifestyle" argument, and that would be my exact point: stop worrying about crap like this and instead invest that energy into making yourself an awesome, intriguing, self-directed man. THAT is what produces long-term results.
3) Sleazy's argument is based on the premise that rejection is bad. I think this is an unhealthy mindset. I don't care if he finds a way to find a "99% success rate," the whole idea that avoiding rejection is bad is a poor mindset that I don't support. And to be honest, if I waited around every night to get eye-fucked in a venue with native English speakers, I would probably bat way over 25%, so I'm not really impressed. Fact stands that I approach women that interest me, not women that I interest them. My actions are based on MY interests, not on the interests of women around me. I would rather bat 5% with women I'm crazy about rather than 50% with women I'm only so-so on. But that's just me.
4) My results are a mixture of warm approaches, social circle and pure cold approach. I don't really keep track of the proportions, nor do I care. It varies based on where I am and what I'm doing. Again, the point is, I pursue women on my terms, based on my desires, not on what's handed to me. I will also say, that some of my most significant relationships with women started off as pure cold approach. If I had taken Sleazy's advice, I would have missed out on them.
Any success that you have is only because you're tall....and white....haha!
RE: sleazy's thread got locked? what a shame - baller08 - 04-30-2012 07:47 PM
(04-29-2012 03:25 AM)Warped Mindless Wrote: People are still arguing about this? It all comes down to this...
If a woman who you find attractive is giving you approach invites and you want to approach herthen go approach her.
If a woman who you find attractive isn't giving you approach invites but you want to approach her then go approach her.
Also, if you approach 100 women pure cold approach and you still cant get laid, focusing only on women who give you approach invites probably won't get you laid much either because your fundamentals are severely lacking.
Seriously, if you cant get laid even ONCE after cold approaching 100 women then something your doing is way off or your coming across as really weird. Because of that, the women who do show you interest and give you approach invites will soon be turned off by you too once you do approach.
Awesome post, WarpedMindless.