User avatar
icycalm
Site Admin
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 11:06 pm

Broken Girls for a Broken Game

Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:26 am

PREVIOUS: WHAT STATUS MEANS (AND WHAT IT DOESN'T)


But if status cannot be conveyed in the street, and if the only thing women care about is status, why do a few approaches work now and then? Why do any approaches work at all? Granted 5-10% (or 1-5% post-Tinder) is a tiny number, but it's not nothing, and if you spend all day approaching in a big city center you can conceivably open 50-100 girls, effectively landing at least a new girl every day, and there's no other type of game that can match this result in sheer efficiency, so cold street approach aka daygame remains the most efficient type of game bar none for those who can handle it, despite its abysmal success ratio.

Yet the question remains that if status cannot be conveyed in the street, why do street approaches even work at all? This is the million-dollar daygame question that no one has come close to answering because no one has asked it because no one has ever realized that for a top guy to get 5-10% in the street (or 1-5% post-Tinder) when he can get 80-100% in a social circle is a cosmic discrepancy that cannot be ignored and demands explanation. And since the PUAs have never been at the top of any social circle, and they even regard the top guy's 80-100% social circle ratio as fiction, they have so far failed to answer the question, or to even ask it for that matter.

In the end, the answer came to me after I noticed a curious trend among almost all of my daygame successes, and especially at the top end of the hotness scale. I eventually realized that practically all of them were not merely introverted girls, but downright depressed to some extent or other, they were vulnerable girls. The hottest girl I've ever gotten from daygame was a 19-year-old 10 whose father had left the family when she was nine and didn't even bother to communicate with her at all for many years. After a brief sexual experience at 13, she had remained chaste until reaching 19, at which point she had quick meaningless sex with three or four guys in succession, and then met me in the street and fell in love with me. She was very shy with a barren Facebook profile with hardly any guys in her life or social circle at all (and the couple of guys she did know were effeminate losers). The second hottest girl was a 17-year-old 9 whose mother had died of cancer when she was young and whose father had taken a new girlfriend and "didn't love her". I met her in a semi-depressed state when she was on holiday in my island, with very little sexual experience because she lived in a tiny Swedish town where everyone knows everyone and promiscuity is difficult. I fucked her for almost an entire night, somewhere close to six hours straight—one of the greatest sexual experiences of my life—and she was mine for as long as I would have her. Another hot girl had just broken up with her boyfriend who was hounding her on social media, another had just been dumped not merely by a boyfriend but by her FIANCÉE, several others had just moved to new cities and knew no one and were introverts who felt awkward around big groups anyway, or middle-aged women whose lengthy relationships had collapsed, and on and on it goes. One of them, another Swedish girl, was even clinically depressed and showed me her pill collection! The only non-depressed but still fairly attractive girls I have gotten off cold approach have been horny sluts pure and simple. They didn't care about my lack of status because they only cared about dick and happened to be horny when I stopped them in the street. I passed their "attraction threshold" for fucking, per GLL's terminology, and usually I banged them the same day with no mindgames or resistance of any kind and usually never saw them again because I neither like sluts nor do they generally like me beyond the physical. That's what daygame gives you: the best girls (the vulnerable, depressed introverts) and the worst girls (the raging opportunistic sluts), and nothing in between. No normal girls in other words.

Now if you've read your Krauser and the other London fools you'll have realized by now that their results too back up my conclusions, even if they themselves are too dumb to realize it. For what is the "ideal London daygame set" that they drool over and pray for again and again? Isn't it "a lone girl with a backpack strolling slowly through London's sights"? That's the LDM "bread and butter", the kind of girl they get most of their successes from, as they themselves admit in innumerable instances. But what kind of girl goes sightseeing in a foreign country alone lol? "For whatever reason, a woman finds it impossible to be alone", says Roosh, "They'll rather spend time with someone they hate, or who they are intensely jealous of, than be alone". The lone tourist girl strolling slowly through London's sights is either an introvert, or at least somewhat depressed, or better yet both at the same time, and thus simultaneously emotionally vulnerable and without easy access to social circles with high-status guys. Such girls DO NOT normally play the status game, either because they are too caught up in their emotional issues to have the time and energy, or even the mood for it, or quite simply because they have no access to social circles or males at all (—at least for a little while, because it's impossible for an attractive girl to be socially isolated for long unless she's a complete basketcase).

In the entire history of pick-up I have seen only one person who understands the above, and it was neither Mystery nor GLL, it was an obscure Argentinian PUA named Yohami. Don't bother googling him, he did have a blog for a long time but he wiped it a couple of years ago and, interestingly enough, he replaced it with a small videogame development company he now seems to be running. The relevant post wasn't even made on his own blog but in the comments section of someone else's blog that I happened to be posting in (and as usual was quickly banned from lol). Here is his analysis:
Yohami wrote:Women want safety and resources. They want to be in the ingroup. They will switch lower tribes for higher tribes, ditch old friends for new friends, etc., it's a neverending quest for getting to the center of the tribe, which is also the hierarchical pyramid built by men, but it's flatter in the eyes of women because it's not climbed through work and competition, but in relationship nodes, social cues, idioms, slangs, ideologies, identification markers, signaling. It's a soft net of relationships—all destined to secure her position on the tribe and advance her to the center.

What's in the center? Unlimited security and resources. What also is there? The King. What will the king do? Fuck her wild.

So that's the fantasy, that's the script.

Turn that script reverse and from the eyes of men, you build and climb that pyramid with work and competition, becoming a better man in the process, build a world, that then spins around you and erects you as a god, and then you see the neverending flow of women coming your way.

So as a man you're at the center or you're a transition point to the center, or a supportive cast, or a step on a ladder.

As a woman you're a node on a net, pulsing to get closer to the center of the net.

So.

Women are always moving there, entering new social circles, and screening the men there. The tribe, social status, level of competence is where the screening starts. Girls start by screening the men who are higher on the tribe, all the way up they can, and then screen down for alpha male traits and try to get the best balance.

So the girl will find the "big salary guy" attractive even if he's not alpha, will move into his life as a friend or as a soft girlfriend, connect with his tribe, then ditch the guy for one of his friends or his boss or whoever the alpha guy of that tribe is. Rinse and repeat.

Climb up in the ladder of the tribe and get the king there. Then trade up.

That'd be the basic normal.

Also why daygame is flawed in that it targets the girls who're not actively in that cycle—unless you can communicate in seconds that you're a king of a tribe she'd like to belong to, you'll get the outliers who won't or can't engage in the normal female script, aka are broken somehow (more than normal), which would match your also broken script, because you didn't go and became the king but are looking for the outliers.

That's daygame in a nutshell: broken guys with broken scripts looking for, and occasionally finding, broken girls; and the reason the ceiling of success for daygame is 5-10% is quite simply because that's how many broken girls tend to be walking in the street at any given time (and the reason Tinder took this down to 1-5% is because HALF of the broken girls are now looking for, and sometimes finding, validation and happiness on Tinder, hence are no longer open to finding it in the street, which for a girl is the ultimate last resort, and is hence reserved for the direst cases and circumstances).

And in fact things are worse than Yohami says, because even if you're clearly "the king of another tribe" and "can communicate this in seconds", the typical girl in the street still won't give a fuck. Sure, on the spot she'll be attracted and chat with you and play with her hair while doing it and give you her number, but the interaction still won't go very far the vast majority of the time, and will quickly fizzle out for the simple reason that the circle of which you are the king is not real to her. This is where girls' "solipsism" comes in. Solipsism is another high-falutin' concept mercilessly debased by the brainless PUAs. They call girls "solipsistic" because they only care about themselves and don't think of other people. But that's not what solipsism is. Solipsism is the philosophical idea that one's mind is the only thing that certainly exists, and that the existence of everything outside the mind is doubtful. But the girl isn't doubting your existence lol, she just doesn't care about you, and that has absolutely nothing to do with solipsism any more than girls dumping guys for guys they like more has anything to do with hypergamy (because in many cases it is hypogamy, as in e.g. girls dumping celebrities for their bodyguards and personal trainers and so on, or even for their drug dealers) or wearing a leather jacket or being popular or "having game" have anything to do with being alpha. These are complex, advanced concepts that the PUA nerds' effeminate minds have dumbed-down, simplified and feminized, and one should show no sympathy with their pathetic interpretations of them and mercilessly crush them wherever one encounters them.

But the fact still remains that females have very narrow horizons compared to men, and that they are typically incapable of conceptualizing of anything that exists beyond themselves and their immediate social circles. My favorite example to illustrate this phenomenon and its effects is the marriage of Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Zeta-Jones was a seriously hot piece of ass in her youth, and when Douglas saw her in the 1998 movie The Mask of Zorro he called his agent up to find her agent and get him a date with her. They went on the date, and she became his wife. This is how men act. When they are looking for the best, they don't confine their search to their tiny social circles lol, they REALLY do look for the best, on the entire planet. It would have been utterly absurd for a man of Michael Douglas's status to restrict his search for a mate to his social circles, even if, due to being in showbiz, they are probably more extensive than most men's. So when he saw someone who took his breath away on TV, he picked up the phone and made stuff happen. Now when have you heard of a woman doing something similar? Look up the Wikipedia pages of all the hottest female celebrities, and almost without exception they end up with people who, for whatever reason, happened to be around them at one time or other. These are the most attractive, most sought-after females on the planet, and instead of calling up Brad Pitt or Elon Musk or whoever they think is the highest-status man alive, they end up with whoever fate deems fit to throw next to them for five or ten minutes. Most of them end up with co-stars they happened to meet on set, or directors or producers, or even lowly cameramen and generic production people (or, if they are models, photographers). Natalie Portman, who is not only a gorgeous and talented actress, but even has a degree from Harvard, married her ballet instructor from that swan movie for christsake. Eva Green married, not even the star of Kingdom of Heaven, but some other unknown guy playing a secondary role. I could go on listing examples until the cows come home, but I hope you get my point. Even in the animal kingdom the females typically have far narrower horizons than the males, e.g. tigresses ruling over less than half the radius of a male, and so on, but in massive and massively complex human societies this phenomenon is exacerbated leading to guys like Michael Douglas wifing up some of the hottest women ever while many of the hottest women themselves end up with lame lowly ballet dancers just simply because they happened to be in the right place at the right time (which by the way is what daygame and much of game are all about, more on which later).

So this is why, even if you're the top dog in your own circle, and even if your circle is bigger and cooler than her circle, she'll still reject you in the street even if you somehow manage to convey all this to her in a few minutes. Because status, to her, due to her "solipsism" (i.e. due to her extremely narrow horizons), means quite simply HER FRIENDS' OPINION OF YOU, because these friends are her entire world and the only people whose opinion she cares about. And since her friends don't know you, your status is ZERO in her eyes no matter what your objective status may be in the context of your own circles. And that's why celebrity game is the best kind of game, if you can play it, because EVERYONE knows celebrities, INCLUDING THEREFORE HER FRIENDS. They all know Brad Pitt and have discussed him countless times, so in a sense he is a part of their little social circle even if he himself has never heard of them and doesn't give a shit about them. Celebrities are part of EVERYONE'S social circle, and that's why they are the only kinds of people that could really clean up in daygame if they ever wised up and learned about it and grew the balls to practice it. If I was Brad Pitt I sure as hell wouldn't shack up with shriveled-up 40-year-old actresses who weren't that hot even in their prime anyway, I'd just take a flight to Stockholm and sweep the hottest girls from the street or from nightclubs every day of the week until my penis fell off. Hell, I'd even impregnate a few dozen of them (he can afford it). But now imagine Brad Pitt WITHOUT THE FAME, perhaps BEFORE THE FAME, going out and running daygame. He'd get exactly the same 5-10% (or 1-5% post-Tinder) that top daygamers like me and GLL are getting. (He's not better-looking than me, as far as I am concerned, and he's half GLL's size.)

It's extremely hard for men to understand any of this because status is not an attraction trigger to us at all, it can even be the opposite of that as Ian Fleming makes Bond explain in one of the novels where he says that he dislikes popular show-women that in a sense belong to everyone and prefers undiscovered beauties that in a sense bloom only for him. I made up the phrasing here, because I can't find the exact quote, but that's the sentiment he's trying to convey. I mean, is there a greater male fantasy than that of the Conan the barbarian type hero who defeats a monster in the wild and finds a pristine virgin beauty dressed in rags chained in some cage and frees her and takes her for himself? What difference does it make to the man whether other people know about her? The only thing that matters to him is his own opinion, because that's what it means to be a man. That's how you sometimes get the hero in literature falling in love for a prostitute and eloping with her despite the entire society's condemnation and so on. All I care is if the girl is hot, and if she has no friends so much the better, so I can have her all to myself and command her undivided attention (which is one of the reasons daygame is king for me, more on which later). Girls meanwhile are UTTERLY REPULSED by friendless guys, they are totally creeped out and disgusted by them because they have zero status. We may think that this is shallow, but masculine standards are even shallower since the only things we care about are utterly superficial things like boobs, asses, hair, and facial features. At least the girls care about status which requires far deeper qualities than mere looks to be attained. That's why GLL was a "Loser" in his younger years despite being "Good-Looking"—because he was a loner muscle-obsessed gym rat with no status—and that's how the decrepit Italian businessman Flavio Briatore managed to marry supermodel Heidi Klum in her prime, who even gave birth to his child. Klum was one of the hottest women on the planet in the early-2000s, and was surrounded by male models and could have chosen any one of them, and yet she chose a decrepit old man. Did she do it for money? But she was already a millionaire. Briatore simply happened to be the highest-status man around her when she was ready for a mate and for children, so he snagged her up, as he snagged several other supermodels before her and after her, while Klum's next husband was the musician Seal whose face looks like roadkill. So much for GLL's attraction threshold theory and the looksmaxxing ideology that despairing black-pillers and other complete losers developed from that. It's also worth noting at this point that there DO exist SOME men who are attracted to status in women, the men like Ashton Kutcher who wife-up 30- and 40-year-old used-up celebrities like Demi Moore. You can read about them in the news all the time, and if you are sufficiently male you'll be shaking your head at them with me in utter disbelief. How can a man of Kutcher's looks and status settle for a post-wall hag when he could be with any hot teenager he wanted? The answer is that sexuality is a spectrum, and the binary states of male and female with which theories like the above are built are crude simplifications that rarely exist in pure form in reality. Reality includes masculine women and also effeminate guys, and showbiz is flooded with the latter, and that's how you get a certain demographic of "guys" or semi-guys or whatever, who think somewhat like women and prefer status to youth and beauty. But you have to first understand the basic binary theory in order to be able, later on, to grasp all the infinitely complex gradations of the entire spectrum in between them (something which, by the way, though of limited importance today, will become more and more important in the future as the binary sexes continue dissolving and eventually completely disappear; but that's the subject of sci-fi game, which I'll leave for the very end of the theory section of the book, and which at its apex merges into philosophy anyway).


NEXT: THE ULTIMATE COLD APPROACH VS. SOCIAL CIRCLE ESSAY

Return to “Endgame: The End of PUA Theory”