Not bad. This is a great way to get over initial AA and learning that women don't bite! Good coaching and instruction, but it's continuing to do it by yourself that leads to drastic improvements.
@SeductionMyth I read your website. You prove nothing. Just by saying you PROVED something, I was already skeptical; you do not PROVE anything in behavioral sciences -- only make theories more likely. Tool.
@PhilosopherHero Good... sure you can say that Helen Fisher's studies are not 100% accurate, but on one side you have (for example) Fisher's studies that included thousands of real couples, and on the other PUA side of the ring ;) you have .... "field-testing" yeeeeeah! Those two evidently contradict each other, but people around the world still think you can somehow "create attraction". Moreover read Piotr's posts on my website this guy explains that the human brain.. ah see it
@SeductionMyth The standards for PUA's for confirming a theory is dubious, but that isn't to say creating attraction isn't real. Here's a counter example to what you believe. Birds have matting patterns similar to humans, in a study done by zoologists, if you put a fake bird next to a male grouse, females are more likely to mate with it (it is made more attractive). Similarly, in psychology studies, females are more attracted to males when they're surrounded by females.
@PhilosopherHero WHY do you need analogies in the first place?? There is like thousands of studies about mating of HUMANS not birds! And not even one confirmed PUA crap. Or you want me to prove the negative?? Read ending of section "BS Created So Far" where I explain what jaded conclusions you can come to when you stick to analogies instead of evidence. We are not birds, inspects, or monkeys, but even those species CONTRADICT seduction cause genes matter most, not skills
@SeductionMyth You're very selective in your argumentation. I also did mention the psychological study which you failed to account for -- males are perceived MORE attractive when they are with women. Moreover zoologists, biologists and psychologists use these analogies to demonstrate the evolution of mating patterns to show why mate-selection is beneficial. If you were ACTUALLY knowledgeable, I think you would realize this, I wasn't using analogy to "prove" anything in itself.
@PhilosopherHero IF you were knowledgeable, you would find evolutionary psychology (almost each and every study) shows hows strongly genes, prenatal hormones etc stuff you ARE BORN with affect mate choice. And then you read some PUA crap saying "all that matters are skills"?!
@SeductionMyth You're getting a bit presumptive. I read "PUA Crap" but gave no indication to what extent I believed in it. I proved you wrong because you said "not a single PUA crap is proven" and yet there's already psychological support for preselection theory in PUA. "Just a tendency" -- yeah, a tendency to increase attractiveness. I never said that it can get you Megan Fox or any super hot girl (presumptive again), but it will make you more attractive (which is on a scale).
@PhilosopherHero U didn't but PUAs imply it all the time! So it's not presumptive. YOu really think PUA crap = preselection theories ?? Sorry, but you just committed a HUGE mistake, that in logic is called "non sequitur" section "Logical fallacies" on SeductionMyth
@SeductionMyth Nope, you misconstrued. I never even implied that PUA equals preselection. AGAIN, for the second time, I only referenced the fact that You said "not a single PUA Crap is proven", by showing ONE PUA thing is proven. The erroneous argumentation comes from you.
@PhilosopherHero I created a hole new section "Alpha-Excuses" just to address your arguments (under "alpha-Lames"). "You said "not a single PUA Crap is proven", by showing ONE PUA thing is proven." - OMG! "one PUA thing"?? I don't have enough space to respond here in detail why this reasoning is irrational so just read "Alpha-Excuses"
@SeductionMyth Obviously, there other tactics used in PUA, by me referencing that ONE PUA crap was to show JUST THAT, that ONE PUA crap is proven. I'm not trying to use it to prove a whole theory, I was just using it to demonstrate ONE technique. I don't understand how that one reference is such a big deal to your argument -- and seemingly continues to be (by creating a "hole" section on your site). I apologize if you misunderstood its importance in my reference.
@PhilosopherHero Dude, PUAs claim their bullshit relates to all psychology. But when asked to prove their PARTICULAR claims (no psychologists promise what they do) they point at mainstream psychological studies, which no one is denying! DO you see the trick? No wonder mystery is a former magician, distract the attention of the audience. The trick is on you, not on the "manipulated" women
@PhilosopherHero PS2: To make my point as clear as possible: preselection theory does NOT contradict genes theories. It's like I told you 2+2=4, and you replied that I am wrong coz 3+3=6 LOL There is no contradiction! Also, you cannot say that preselection theory prove PUA stuff! PUAs claim a lot more than any scientist who dealt with preselection! This is absurd since almost every evo-psych paper mentions genes, and PUAs tell you ONLY skills matters DUH!
@SeductionMyth "Why do you use analogies" haha. Your theory says it's all about your genes, preselection theory (yeah females have it in their genotype); it's also known as social proof to demonstrate that you are preselected. My point was you can demonstrate value, by inserting social proof, to improve attractiveness, and THIS has nothing to do with the MALE'S genotype. It is a trick that is used that is proven useful. And for the millionth time, it was an EXAMPLE.
@SeductionMyth To continue, I don't use it to prove PUA stuff, it's ONE EXAMPLE because you said "not a single PUA crap is proven" I don't know how many times I have to say this. SO TO BE CLEAR, by the male using preslection theory OR social proof, it is a TACTIC used to be more attractive. "PUA's tell you ONLY skills matter'' -- blatantly wrong, maybe SOME do, but even Mystery grants that looks count too. I think most PUA's agree, it's that looks don't matter too much.
@PhilosopherHero What's your point then?? You ended with the statement "I think most PUA's agree, it's that looks don't matter too much." I know what you said but I am proving that using this tactic is irrational if you have thousands of other variables, and some of them are decisive. Don't you get it?
@SeductionMyth "This tactic is irrational if you have thousands of other variables, and some are decisive." If you're talking about social-proofing, and saying this tactic is useless because there are "thousands of other factors", but it does INDEED enhance attractiveness, so why not take use it (even if there are other factors). I see your point, perhaps all the other factors are OVERWHELMING, I'm not saying this is the only tactic you use or social ALONE will get you someone.
@PhilosopherHero I am saying this tactic is irrational coz like you said other factors are overwhelming to the point that it is really difficult to ever measure what influence some psychological trick had on your success or failure. If it's like 1% is it worth learning seduction routines by heart? Loosing time on DVDs or some dudes even pay for seminars...
@SeductionMyth You still haven't addressed Fetishes -- attraction to inanimate object, maybe even animals (not in anyone's genotype). And you still haven't addressed how someone can be initially rejected and then, through learning the game, gets the girl to have sex. Also, if it's purely genotypes, people's attraction to another should be more consistent: like I asked before, haven't you had situations where you had NO attraction, then suddenly one day you WERE. I have.
@PhilosopherHero Again, read "Alpha-Excuses" on SeductionMyth. I answer you for the 100th time there are secondary factors that matter after you have a "match" in terms of genetics, prenatal hormones etc. Do you think a woman who has a fetish falls for EVERY man that matches her fetish??
@SeductionMyth Well I never disagreed with the fact that there ARE "secondary" factors along with the supposed main factor of looks, scent and tone of voice, no disagreement . "Do you think woman who has a fetish falls for EVERY man that matches her fetish" -- I never even implied anything even resembling this response. I'm saying that if your genotype or hormones had these preferences, it would be very hard to explain why people have attraction to inanimate objects.
@PhilosopherHero No it's not "very hard to explain why people have attraction to inanimate objects" IF you understand secondary factors... there is no contradiction!
@SeductionMyth "It's not hard to explain...people have attraction to inanimate objects if you understand secondary factors... no contradiction", so these secondary factors account for fetishes? If that's the case, then it also isn't inconsistent for those secondary factors to supersede the "main factors" because some people are more attracted to their fetishes than the "types" their DNA tells them. But your argument is that the main factors have ultimate say in attraction.
@SeductionMyth The point of your argument is that you genetically have "matches", but certainly a fetish to an animal or inanimate object is certainly NOT in that realm. It is NOT in your DNA or it was not there because of your hormones, so there is something other than these two that account for people's being attracted to something or someone. Get it? Another point, how do you explain how someone initially doesn't get attraction from a girl, but through the game, does?
@PhilosopherHero "Another point, how do you explain how someone initially doesn't get attraction from a girl, but through the game, does?" OMG!! again an again you ASSUMED that it happened "through game" - maybe it happened "through Harry Potter love spell"?? There is no evidence in both cases! Again, do you understand the concept of secondary factors?? I never said fetishes are about genes. When she has 2 "matching" males she picks the one according to her fetish. Plain n simpl
@SeductionMyth Of course I'm assuming it's through game -- isn't that the point of my argument. It's a logical fallacy to say that since there is no evidence for something that is NOT the case. Yes, it's assumed, but again, I agree there should be a study. I'm not asking you to prove the negative. But your argument is fallacious because YOU ARE saying you PROVED it wrong. You definitely misconstrued my fetish argument, plain and simple.
@SeductionMyth I never said you said fetishes are about genes. I'm pointing to the fact that people can be attracted to OBJECTS and this is not in anyone's DNA to be attracted to these objects, but you're saying it's in your genes to be attracted to certain people, and this propensity to be attracted towards certain types have been created AT BIRTH. We are not born with fetishes which means you can be attracted to things (or people) against what your DNA tells you.
@SeductionMyth Also, I actually took the time to look up the "types". You say that attraction is based only on looks, scent and even tone, and yet the person you advocate talks about love on a basis of personality types. You cannot deduce personality types from someone's looks, scent, or vocal tone alone. Again, Helen Fisher's studies are about love, and the brain scans she does has no relevance to initial attraction or seduction, but your site heavily relies on that.
@PhilosopherHero Fisher's studies are NOT only about love! Fisher said there is a connection between prenatal hormones and personality types, nothing more, so I don't get your post.. Moreover, Fisher's studies are confirmed by the choices of users of Chemistry dating website - do you think ALL those users are looking for love? She studied long term relationship for practical reasons solely - how would you analyze people who had a "one night stand"?
@SeductionMyth I'm a little confused about your rebuttal about Fisher. "There's a connection between prenatal hormones and personality types, nothing more" -- Granted this were true (I don't disagree), how does it refer to sexual attraction from initial encounters: scent, voice and looks (maybe not, IDK why you reference this correlation). "Fisher's studies are confirmed", yeah, for compatible personalities, not things you mentioned for sexual attraction (scent, looks, voice).
@PhilosopherHero The connection between Fisher studies and the Self Seeking Like theory (Dr Alvarez) is simple: Fisher's studies were about prenatal hormone levels and personality types. BUT it is common knowledge that those prenatal hormones shape your facial features. Therefore, there is a connection not only between personality types but also facial features.
@SeductionMyth "There is a connection not only between personality types but also facial features." Okay, these hormones have a connection to facial features -- I accept this. But that goes back to the look-matter argument, which I also agree with, but still gives an indication to what extent looks matter. Again, personality types have no relevance to this specific argument UNLESS people can reliably predict personality types from facial features -- which isn't proven.
@SeductionMyth "Do you think ALL those users are looking for love?" You assume that some people use it for sexual reasons. To what extent do her studies confirm? NOT 100%. Perhaps ONLY the relationship based ones work and not the ppl trying to use sexual attraction. The onus is on you to demonstrate for WHICH type of relationship it is successful, but I don't think you have that statistic. If for the long term, it's irrelevant; we talk about sexual attraction, not long-term.
@PhilosopherHero Like I said she studied long term relationship only because of practical difficulties. But there are TONS of studies that confirm that when it comes to casual sex women's decisions are guided principally by physical attractiveness, and there you have a community teaching men how to get laid which repeats the "looks don't matter mantra" WTF??
@SeductionMyth "she studied long term relationship only because of practical difficulties" well like I said, you can't use Helen Fisher because they are irrelevant to this discussion. "Tons of studies to confirm that when it comes to casual sex women...guided...by physical attraction." I already said looks matter, this study proves it, I'm just saying, But to what extent. Again, not all PUAs believe looks don't matter. Your argument is towards those guys that believe this, not me.
@PhilosopherHero Yes, almost every PUA claims that looks don't matter. Mystery when discussing "looks" has clothing in mind! He obviously never mentions facial features or body build! Fisher's studies show genetic similarities in LTR, now every study revealed psychology is even LESS important when casual relationships spark up. Again read ending of "Alpha-Excuses" on SeductionMyth
@SeductionMyth "Almost every PUA claims that looks don't matter" You must know a lot of PUAs to make this claim. I guess I'm in no position to defend what PUA's, as a whole, say about looks since I don't know too many. But I do believe looks matter.
@SeductionMyth Also, this study linking casual sex to physical attractiveness. How was this study done? Not in a lab or observing people during a one-night stand. If it was based on qualitative studies using anecdotal evidence, you're not 100% sure whether it was 100% looks because you weren't there to perceive the interaction. There are "thousands of factors" you weren't there to witness.
@PhilosopherHero Read ending of section "Alpha-Excuses" where I addressed this particular argument. Also, just google "casual relationships + women's preferences" or anything similar and you WILL find tons of studies confirming that looks play the leading role when casual relationships spark up. I showed genetic similarities in long term r. Imagine what happens in casual hook ups!!
@SeductionMyth "She studied long term relationships" -- If it's long term, it's not about sexual attraction only; it's even possible to be in a relationship to someone you're not sexually attracted to. It's not relevant for PUA stuff. Her studies don't deal with one night stands and so give no indication to what extent it works or doesn't work. "How would you analyze people who had a one night stand" -- I looked at your proposal to do a study, that should work.
@PhilosopherHero Ask yourself the question why no PUA company has never conducted such simple study?? This should double their conversions overnight - provided their stuff works!
@SeductionMyth Presumptive again, I never said you contradicted, but I do think you downplay psychology in attraction (it's not just genes); people's levels of attraction do fluctuate due to psychological factors (i.e. jealousy). You're giving a whole lot of credence to genes in mate-selection, but again, you never addressed, how do genetically identical twins have different preference -- one gay, one straight. There must be something beyond genes that are a powerful indicator.
@PhilosopherHero I replied to your twin question. Same looks does NOT mean that in each and every case there will be same genotypes (there can be discrepancies). But what is the probability that all those couples chose by accident people who remind them so much - studies in "Her Type". I am just showing a strong correlation, and you are reversing it! (I never said some face will tell you that persons sexual orientation!) A strong correlation that proves PUA crap wrong.
@SeductionMyth Misconstrued again, I NEVER said just looks. Twins have the EXACT SAME GENOME. It's the EPIGENOME that differs. You're wording is a bit confusing. I'm not reversing anything (and I never said you said "some face will tell you the person's sexual orientation" -- where'd that come from?). I apologize if you misunderstood, but you still haven't answered my question, if twins had the EXACT SAME GENOME, they should be attracted to the same thing, yet they don't.
@PhilosopherHero You are still not listening, if twins have different sexual orientations it means they genotype or other things you are born with (SSL theory is not only about genes but also prenatal hormone concentrations) were not the exact same. But when you see couples that look alike and you note it on statisitcally significant sample - whats the rational conclusion??
@SeductionMyth "If twins have different sexual orientations it means (their) genotype or other things you are born with" -- So you're saying someone is gay because of their genes or prenatal hormones -- a factual claim that requires proof; can you site a study? Twins are exposed to the same prenatal hormones because they're in the same womb, so I'm a bit confused about your claim. And again, twins have the SAME GENOTYPE, but differ in Epigenome. Your statements are incorrect.
@PhilosopherHero If there is different sexual orientation then their genes and prenatal can't be EXACTLY the same. Unless, you tell me that sexual orientation is shaped after you are born, but as far as I know all studies show sexual orientation is strongly connected with prenatal factors
@SeductionMyth "If there is different sexual orientation then their genes and prenatal can't be EXACTLY the same" Open any biology book and they will say identical twins have the SAME EXACT genotype/genes that's why they are so often studied. And identical twins don't necessarily always have the same sexual orientation. And again, if they are in the same womb, they were exposed to the same stuff. Unless you can site a study where they aren't exposed to the same prenatal hormones.
@SeductionMyth Moreover, even if I granted that each twin had different prenatal hormonal exposures, there is STILL NO CONCLUSIVE study that it results in change in sexual orientation. It's not just genes are things you were exposed to before you were born that result in what you are attracted to.
"If twins have different sexual orientations it means (their) genotype or other things YOU ARE BORN WITH were not the exact same" No scientist is sure whether you are born gay, I don't know how You, a non-scientist, would go insofar as to make this claim
@SeductionMyth "A strong correlation that proves PUA crap wrong" PUA's have differing theories, and there's a lot of them, but they all fundamentally believe that attraction can be created. If you go about with the "Her Type" argument, that still deals with personality in which case, AGAIN that can't be deduced from someone's scent, looks or smell which are your prerequisites for sexual attraction which is the only thing we're arguing here.
@SeductionMyth How do you explain when a guy initially gets rejected, and through learning the game, is able to lay the girl? Also, I'd like you to address fetishes -- attraction to inanimate object because I'm damn sure this isn't in anyone's DNA. I'm curious, do you have a biology degree or what is it? Haven't you had encounters where you're initially not attracted, and then suddenly attracted. Theoretically you should know from the beginning you're attracted, right?
@PhilosopherHero Again, it's all explained on SeductionMyth. In brief the answer is simple: secondary factors that I mention dozens of times on my website. The fact that your are genetically "compatible" does NOT mean you will always get that girl. WHY? Cause there are other "compatible" dudes around. She could change her mind coz she found out I am... rich for instance :) and this beats the competition.
@SeductionMyth Again, "not even one confirmed PUA crap" -- again, like I said "men are perceived more attractive with more women" -- the concept of preselection in PUA. You have been "proven" wrong. And riddle me this, how do your genes go about doing this? You make an active genotype stance (that your genes actively do the work), you ignore psychology. And how do you explain fetishes? -- The attraction to inanimate objects; this shows a chink in the genes-matter-most argument.
@PhilosopherHero Dude, psychology can help you if you hit on a girl that is already attracted to you, but you have competition from other "matching" males - read "Her Type" section on my website. Genes theories do not contradict psychology. How does your quote prove me wrong?? It's just a tendency! It doesn't mean you can have Megan fox if you surround yourself with hot chicks! LOL Thousands of studies prove that for casual hook ups women DO consider physical attractiveness
@SeductionMyth Moreover, how do you explain twins (GENETICALLY) identical, one who is gay one who is straight. In your theory, they should be attracted to the very same thing -- their genes are telling them mate with this person. But one is straight and one is gay (not bisexual). There are HUMAN studies here. Anyways, I apologize for calling you a tool, I find your arguments interesting nonetheless.
@PhilosopherHero Science says there is a connection between genes and facial features. It doesn't say people who look the same have EXACTLY the same genes. Get it? But the mere fact that scientists found striking similarities between couples on STATISTICALLY significant samples (something PUA NEVER use) should ring the bell!
Again, read all sections under "Reality Check" on SeductionMyth
@PhilosopherHero Science says there is a connection between genes and facial features. It doesn't say people who look the same have EXACTLY the same genes. Get it? But the mere fact that scientists found striking similarities between couples on STATISTICALLY significant samples (something PUA NEVER use) should ring the bell!
Again, read all sections under "Reality Check" on SeductionMyth
@SeductionMyth Also, I've seen the Helen Fisher's videos you liked, although they are interesting, she doesn't really get at the heart of attraction. She even goes on to admit "nobody knows why we love one person and not the other", so I don't know why you would adduce her as evidence -- maybe you were just trying to use the leverage of an authority figure in your argument. Moreover, you reference to her was irrelevant because she talks about love an not attraction.
Put some bass in your voice and sound like real men. Relax your shoulders when opening. I say lose the jacket. I personally wouldnt add the "for cheap" part in your opener. Makes it look like you are broke. The last thing, i dont think running up in a females face asking all sort of questions is for everyone and is a great idea.
Read Amargi Hillier (you can find a free pdf), It works for me 100% and still surprise me every time. Use caution if you currently have a partner and are doing it to someone else, it could destroy the relationship before you see any results from your target. That's just the way it works, you really don't have much control, however it'll be the first sign that it's working. It could take up to 2 weeks to see the signs depending on different variables. No more embarrassing moments though
@PUAPrivateArchive Exactly, and I'm wondering why his coach didn't tell him that!
CHEAP JEANS?!?! No women want guys who can't spend money in jeans, imagine when he has to spend wich their children or her! Honestly, he should have choosen other oppener, one wich the reply isn't just: "Over there, ok? Bye...."
yeah but he's practicing man, it shouldnt have anything to do with hot women at this stage, i think its more that his confidence with white women is probably alot worse, he doesnt even look too comfortable trying to talk to asians.
One tip. Adding cheap into the question DLV's you in a womans eyes. "If he is cheap with that. THAT openly, he will be cheap with me as well." Drop the cheap as in every womans face you saw her reaction to you change slightly. :) Simply things will change the outcome.
1. Being genuine. If you act or look cheesy/fake, many people will pick up on it. The best guys come off charismatic and charming, while the lower level guys come off like a bad used car salesman.
2. Know your location. Different environments have different tendencies or can lead to different results. Chicks in a club,disco are going to be very suspicious & then very judgmental, while in other places women can be more relaxed, natural, or receptive
The Asian guy has a bunch of issues that caused his failure.
1. He seemed to lack confidence and be insecure, which reflected in his face and body language.
2. He kept an odd distance from the girls with a rigid (not relaxed) stance. This type of stance looks threatening or odd.
3. He was way too overly worried about what others might be thinking. This paranoia adds to the fear, which shows up in the eyes, face, and body language.
aaawww bullshit that jacks mic didn't have sound. all these pua guys do this. they give you little snipits of what they say. we never get to watch a complete convo from beginning to end by a master. bullshit
@PlaidSoxs reason she acted like that was probably because she's not use to getting approach therefore she lacks the social skills. I go out alot recently and realized that hotter girls are more receptive. It seems like it should be the other way but it usually isn't. So she wasn't doing it to be an ass but mostly because she blanked.
This is a somewhat good point. However, if the guy is confident and/or skillful enough then girls that are not used to getting approach will still be drawn into talking to the guy.
Hotter girls will be more confident, so more relaxed, but they can more easily turn down your offer.
Women not used to being approached can be more intrigued and interested in what the guy has to say, therefore it can workout a bit better on average.
@Sojujinn It depends actually. If the guy is "too good" she'll suspect that hes only fucking with her. I would say it depends where you are. For instance bad looking chicks at a club might not necessarily be receptive to a smooth talker since theyll despise him. On the otherhand the hottie is their only to seek attention and since most guys are chodes, she doesn't have it as much as she liked to. Im not saying the solid 9/10 will be more recpetive than an ugly chick but the 7s will definetly be.
He only cuts the good parts, they are MPUAs who we call naturals who just do teir thing, and this "stud' is definetly not one.The asian guy sucks...alot. AFC, but its good training.
*King.(Names are only the starting point.) Member of Mystery and Styles MPUA league...MPuas advance to basically naturals. STOP READING AND START ACTING.
forget American women, go for Brazilian and Colombian, they're wayyyyyyy better in ALL aspects and you don't need to learn "special PUA techniques", just be yourself and treat them with respect. Search Youtube for Brazilian Women Chasing Foreign Men in Brazil and you'll see what I mean.
I think the last 2 girls he could have kept them longer if he asked them to take him personally. He wouldve scored since they looked like they wanted to help him more.
im thinking he should have said im from out of town and i dont know this town very well and then asked where he could get some nice jeans.......saying he has to go in a sec doesnt really make them stay and talk for a little bit
I thought this a good point. His plan was off. He could have said that he was out of town, do you know this area, and could you take me/come with me to a place that has nice clothes.
Saying that you have to go, right off, turns the conversation awkward. The woman has no reason to invest more time into you, as you will go in a second.
You also have to know or ask if the woman has time. Some women are in a rush/going to work, while others have free time/off/are shopping.
even in 2010 when you think racism would be on its way out, as an asian man you're going to get much better responses from asian women. this dude's mall opener is horrible, you don't want to ask for help or look useless. also it goes nowhere.
Excuse me I have to go in a sec but i wanted to ask you where i can find the cheapest pair of pants in this mall, preferably some that make my crotch area look bigger because i have a small dick and i am beyond cheap two qualities that make me the ultimate P.u.a ! Btw how is he in a hurry where he has to leave and then asking where he can go shopping? seriously a hurry? what does he need to go pee?
3:40 He was like a poster boy, he didn't get up close and personal. He should've been like a sales assistant with his hands out. I hate the whole ''OMG STRANGER DANGER'' of some girls, it's usually the Ugly Friends Bitchshielding and Linebacking. Shit, 85% of the time we'd PU if we didn't have to reciprocate and cater for the Ugly Friends aswell! The way through a Hotbabe is through here UGLY FRIEND/S!
"Blank?! You're not sending me to a women's store are you? hahaha I'd be lost like a deer in a parking garage. Actually, I also want to buy a gift for my sister in law because she's always buying me gifts. So maybe I can get you opinion on this. Do you think I should buy her a scarf or a pair of shoes? What kind of scarf would you buy?
I think I can see a problem with this guy in the video. Hi does not seem to enjoin it.
I mean its would be kinda boring to say the same opener again and again. But what a hell, everyone have to start somewhere. Good start anyway, its boosting a self-confidence a bit. But it would be better if he learned in how to be a confident without a script and manual, Its more fun.tip:: Dont think just do it, and maby think afterwards.
im surprised that even though all he used was an opinion opener he didn't follow up with like "wow you're really friendly! oh by the way im (whatever)"
painfullll
nickmanning4prez 2 weeks ago
Not bad. This is a great way to get over initial AA and learning that women don't bite! Good coaching and instruction, but it's continuing to do it by yourself that leads to drastic improvements.
PhiskerHangers 1 month ago
3:21 - 3:25 the mystery approach lol. I find it the worst approach ever cause your facing away from the girl.
TvBroadcasted 3 months ago
there is no such thing as seduction and I PROVE it on my website seductionmyth
SeductionMyth 5 months ago
@SeductionMyth I read your website. You prove nothing. Just by saying you PROVED something, I was already skeptical; you do not PROVE anything in behavioral sciences -- only make theories more likely. Tool.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero Good... sure you can say that Helen Fisher's studies are not 100% accurate, but on one side you have (for example) Fisher's studies that included thousands of real couples, and on the other PUA side of the ring ;) you have .... "field-testing" yeeeeeah! Those two evidently contradict each other, but people around the world still think you can somehow "create attraction". Moreover read Piotr's posts on my website this guy explains that the human brain.. ah see it
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth The standards for PUA's for confirming a theory is dubious, but that isn't to say creating attraction isn't real. Here's a counter example to what you believe. Birds have matting patterns similar to humans, in a study done by zoologists, if you put a fake bird next to a male grouse, females are more likely to mate with it (it is made more attractive). Similarly, in psychology studies, females are more attracted to males when they're surrounded by females.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero WHY do you need analogies in the first place?? There is like thousands of studies about mating of HUMANS not birds! And not even one confirmed PUA crap. Or you want me to prove the negative?? Read ending of section "BS Created So Far" where I explain what jaded conclusions you can come to when you stick to analogies instead of evidence. We are not birds, inspects, or monkeys, but even those species CONTRADICT seduction cause genes matter most, not skills
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth You're very selective in your argumentation. I also did mention the psychological study which you failed to account for -- males are perceived MORE attractive when they are with women. Moreover zoologists, biologists and psychologists use these analogies to demonstrate the evolution of mating patterns to show why mate-selection is beneficial. If you were ACTUALLY knowledgeable, I think you would realize this, I wasn't using analogy to "prove" anything in itself.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero IF you were knowledgeable, you would find evolutionary psychology (almost each and every study) shows hows strongly genes, prenatal hormones etc stuff you ARE BORN with affect mate choice. And then you read some PUA crap saying "all that matters are skills"?!
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth You're getting a bit presumptive. I read "PUA Crap" but gave no indication to what extent I believed in it. I proved you wrong because you said "not a single PUA crap is proven" and yet there's already psychological support for preselection theory in PUA. "Just a tendency" -- yeah, a tendency to increase attractiveness. I never said that it can get you Megan Fox or any super hot girl (presumptive again), but it will make you more attractive (which is on a scale).
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero U didn't but PUAs imply it all the time! So it's not presumptive. YOu really think PUA crap = preselection theories ?? Sorry, but you just committed a HUGE mistake, that in logic is called "non sequitur" section "Logical fallacies" on SeductionMyth
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth Nope, you misconstrued. I never even implied that PUA equals preselection. AGAIN, for the second time, I only referenced the fact that You said "not a single PUA Crap is proven", by showing ONE PUA thing is proven. The erroneous argumentation comes from you.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero I created a hole new section "Alpha-Excuses" just to address your arguments (under "alpha-Lames"). "You said "not a single PUA Crap is proven", by showing ONE PUA thing is proven." - OMG! "one PUA thing"?? I don't have enough space to respond here in detail why this reasoning is irrational so just read "Alpha-Excuses"
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth Obviously, there other tactics used in PUA, by me referencing that ONE PUA crap was to show JUST THAT, that ONE PUA crap is proven. I'm not trying to use it to prove a whole theory, I was just using it to demonstrate ONE technique. I don't understand how that one reference is such a big deal to your argument -- and seemingly continues to be (by creating a "hole" section on your site). I apologize if you misunderstood its importance in my reference.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero Dude, PUAs claim their bullshit relates to all psychology. But when asked to prove their PARTICULAR claims (no psychologists promise what they do) they point at mainstream psychological studies, which no one is denying! DO you see the trick? No wonder mystery is a former magician, distract the attention of the audience. The trick is on you, not on the "manipulated" women
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth "PUAs claim their bullshit relates to ALL psychology" again, a study should be done. No disagreement from me.
PhilosopherHero 4 weeks ago
@PhilosopherHero PS2: To make my point as clear as possible: preselection theory does NOT contradict genes theories. It's like I told you 2+2=4, and you replied that I am wrong coz 3+3=6 LOL There is no contradiction! Also, you cannot say that preselection theory prove PUA stuff! PUAs claim a lot more than any scientist who dealt with preselection! This is absurd since almost every evo-psych paper mentions genes, and PUAs tell you ONLY skills matters DUH!
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth "Why do you use analogies" haha. Your theory says it's all about your genes, preselection theory (yeah females have it in their genotype); it's also known as social proof to demonstrate that you are preselected. My point was you can demonstrate value, by inserting social proof, to improve attractiveness, and THIS has nothing to do with the MALE'S genotype. It is a trick that is used that is proven useful. And for the millionth time, it was an EXAMPLE.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth To continue, I don't use it to prove PUA stuff, it's ONE EXAMPLE because you said "not a single PUA crap is proven" I don't know how many times I have to say this. SO TO BE CLEAR, by the male using preslection theory OR social proof, it is a TACTIC used to be more attractive. "PUA's tell you ONLY skills matter'' -- blatantly wrong, maybe SOME do, but even Mystery grants that looks count too. I think most PUA's agree, it's that looks don't matter too much.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero What's your point then?? You ended with the statement "I think most PUA's agree, it's that looks don't matter too much." I know what you said but I am proving that using this tactic is irrational if you have thousands of other variables, and some of them are decisive. Don't you get it?
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth "This tactic is irrational if you have thousands of other variables, and some are decisive." If you're talking about social-proofing, and saying this tactic is useless because there are "thousands of other factors", but it does INDEED enhance attractiveness, so why not take use it (even if there are other factors). I see your point, perhaps all the other factors are OVERWHELMING, I'm not saying this is the only tactic you use or social ALONE will get you someone.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero I am saying this tactic is irrational coz like you said other factors are overwhelming to the point that it is really difficult to ever measure what influence some psychological trick had on your success or failure. If it's like 1% is it worth learning seduction routines by heart? Loosing time on DVDs or some dudes even pay for seminars...
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth You still haven't addressed Fetishes -- attraction to inanimate object, maybe even animals (not in anyone's genotype). And you still haven't addressed how someone can be initially rejected and then, through learning the game, gets the girl to have sex. Also, if it's purely genotypes, people's attraction to another should be more consistent: like I asked before, haven't you had situations where you had NO attraction, then suddenly one day you WERE. I have.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero Again, read "Alpha-Excuses" on SeductionMyth. I answer you for the 100th time there are secondary factors that matter after you have a "match" in terms of genetics, prenatal hormones etc. Do you think a woman who has a fetish falls for EVERY man that matches her fetish??
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth Well I never disagreed with the fact that there ARE "secondary" factors along with the supposed main factor of looks, scent and tone of voice, no disagreement . "Do you think woman who has a fetish falls for EVERY man that matches her fetish" -- I never even implied anything even resembling this response. I'm saying that if your genotype or hormones had these preferences, it would be very hard to explain why people have attraction to inanimate objects.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero No it's not "very hard to explain why people have attraction to inanimate objects" IF you understand secondary factors... there is no contradiction!
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth "It's not hard to explain...people have attraction to inanimate objects if you understand secondary factors... no contradiction", so these secondary factors account for fetishes? If that's the case, then it also isn't inconsistent for those secondary factors to supersede the "main factors" because some people are more attracted to their fetishes than the "types" their DNA tells them. But your argument is that the main factors have ultimate say in attraction.
PhilosopherHero 4 weeks ago
@SeductionMyth The point of your argument is that you genetically have "matches", but certainly a fetish to an animal or inanimate object is certainly NOT in that realm. It is NOT in your DNA or it was not there because of your hormones, so there is something other than these two that account for people's being attracted to something or someone. Get it? Another point, how do you explain how someone initially doesn't get attraction from a girl, but through the game, does?
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero "Another point, how do you explain how someone initially doesn't get attraction from a girl, but through the game, does?" OMG!! again an again you ASSUMED that it happened "through game" - maybe it happened "through Harry Potter love spell"?? There is no evidence in both cases! Again, do you understand the concept of secondary factors?? I never said fetishes are about genes. When she has 2 "matching" males she picks the one according to her fetish. Plain n simpl
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth Of course I'm assuming it's through game -- isn't that the point of my argument. It's a logical fallacy to say that since there is no evidence for something that is NOT the case. Yes, it's assumed, but again, I agree there should be a study. I'm not asking you to prove the negative. But your argument is fallacious because YOU ARE saying you PROVED it wrong. You definitely misconstrued my fetish argument, plain and simple.
PhilosopherHero 4 weeks ago
@SeductionMyth I never said you said fetishes are about genes. I'm pointing to the fact that people can be attracted to OBJECTS and this is not in anyone's DNA to be attracted to these objects, but you're saying it's in your genes to be attracted to certain people, and this propensity to be attracted towards certain types have been created AT BIRTH. We are not born with fetishes which means you can be attracted to things (or people) against what your DNA tells you.
PhilosopherHero 4 weeks ago
@SeductionMyth BTW I guess I didn't see all your arguments, someone has been marking your stuff as spam. Just FYI. It might happen to me too.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth Also, I actually took the time to look up the "types". You say that attraction is based only on looks, scent and even tone, and yet the person you advocate talks about love on a basis of personality types. You cannot deduce personality types from someone's looks, scent, or vocal tone alone. Again, Helen Fisher's studies are about love, and the brain scans she does has no relevance to initial attraction or seduction, but your site heavily relies on that.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero Fisher's studies are NOT only about love! Fisher said there is a connection between prenatal hormones and personality types, nothing more, so I don't get your post.. Moreover, Fisher's studies are confirmed by the choices of users of Chemistry dating website - do you think ALL those users are looking for love? She studied long term relationship for practical reasons solely - how would you analyze people who had a "one night stand"?
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth I'm a little confused about your rebuttal about Fisher. "There's a connection between prenatal hormones and personality types, nothing more" -- Granted this were true (I don't disagree), how does it refer to sexual attraction from initial encounters: scent, voice and looks (maybe not, IDK why you reference this correlation). "Fisher's studies are confirmed", yeah, for compatible personalities, not things you mentioned for sexual attraction (scent, looks, voice).
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero The connection between Fisher studies and the Self Seeking Like theory (Dr Alvarez) is simple: Fisher's studies were about prenatal hormone levels and personality types. BUT it is common knowledge that those prenatal hormones shape your facial features. Therefore, there is a connection not only between personality types but also facial features.
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth "There is a connection not only between personality types but also facial features." Okay, these hormones have a connection to facial features -- I accept this. But that goes back to the look-matter argument, which I also agree with, but still gives an indication to what extent looks matter. Again, personality types have no relevance to this specific argument UNLESS people can reliably predict personality types from facial features -- which isn't proven.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth "Do you think ALL those users are looking for love?" You assume that some people use it for sexual reasons. To what extent do her studies confirm? NOT 100%. Perhaps ONLY the relationship based ones work and not the ppl trying to use sexual attraction. The onus is on you to demonstrate for WHICH type of relationship it is successful, but I don't think you have that statistic. If for the long term, it's irrelevant; we talk about sexual attraction, not long-term.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero Like I said she studied long term relationship only because of practical difficulties. But there are TONS of studies that confirm that when it comes to casual sex women's decisions are guided principally by physical attractiveness, and there you have a community teaching men how to get laid which repeats the "looks don't matter mantra" WTF??
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth "she studied long term relationship only because of practical difficulties" well like I said, you can't use Helen Fisher because they are irrelevant to this discussion. "Tons of studies to confirm that when it comes to casual sex women...guided...by physical attraction." I already said looks matter, this study proves it, I'm just saying, But to what extent. Again, not all PUAs believe looks don't matter. Your argument is towards those guys that believe this, not me.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero Yes, almost every PUA claims that looks don't matter. Mystery when discussing "looks" has clothing in mind! He obviously never mentions facial features or body build! Fisher's studies show genetic similarities in LTR, now every study revealed psychology is even LESS important when casual relationships spark up. Again read ending of "Alpha-Excuses" on SeductionMyth
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth "Almost every PUA claims that looks don't matter" You must know a lot of PUAs to make this claim. I guess I'm in no position to defend what PUA's, as a whole, say about looks since I don't know too many. But I do believe looks matter.
PhilosopherHero 4 weeks ago
@SeductionMyth Also, this study linking casual sex to physical attractiveness. How was this study done? Not in a lab or observing people during a one-night stand. If it was based on qualitative studies using anecdotal evidence, you're not 100% sure whether it was 100% looks because you weren't there to perceive the interaction. There are "thousands of factors" you weren't there to witness.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero Read ending of section "Alpha-Excuses" where I addressed this particular argument. Also, just google "casual relationships + women's preferences" or anything similar and you WILL find tons of studies confirming that looks play the leading role when casual relationships spark up. I showed genetic similarities in long term r. Imagine what happens in casual hook ups!!
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth "She studied long term relationships" -- If it's long term, it's not about sexual attraction only; it's even possible to be in a relationship to someone you're not sexually attracted to. It's not relevant for PUA stuff. Her studies don't deal with one night stands and so give no indication to what extent it works or doesn't work. "How would you analyze people who had a one night stand" -- I looked at your proposal to do a study, that should work.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero Ask yourself the question why no PUA company has never conducted such simple study?? This should double their conversions overnight - provided their stuff works!
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth"Why no PUA company has never conducted a such a simple study" Hey I agree with you, they do need a study. No arguments from me.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth Presumptive again, I never said you contradicted, but I do think you downplay psychology in attraction (it's not just genes); people's levels of attraction do fluctuate due to psychological factors (i.e. jealousy). You're giving a whole lot of credence to genes in mate-selection, but again, you never addressed, how do genetically identical twins have different preference -- one gay, one straight. There must be something beyond genes that are a powerful indicator.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero I replied to your twin question. Same looks does NOT mean that in each and every case there will be same genotypes (there can be discrepancies). But what is the probability that all those couples chose by accident people who remind them so much - studies in "Her Type". I am just showing a strong correlation, and you are reversing it! (I never said some face will tell you that persons sexual orientation!) A strong correlation that proves PUA crap wrong.
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth Misconstrued again, I NEVER said just looks. Twins have the EXACT SAME GENOME. It's the EPIGENOME that differs. You're wording is a bit confusing. I'm not reversing anything (and I never said you said "some face will tell you the person's sexual orientation" -- where'd that come from?). I apologize if you misunderstood, but you still haven't answered my question, if twins had the EXACT SAME GENOME, they should be attracted to the same thing, yet they don't.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero You are still not listening, if twins have different sexual orientations it means they genotype or other things you are born with (SSL theory is not only about genes but also prenatal hormone concentrations) were not the exact same. But when you see couples that look alike and you note it on statisitcally significant sample - whats the rational conclusion??
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth "If twins have different sexual orientations it means (their) genotype or other things you are born with" -- So you're saying someone is gay because of their genes or prenatal hormones -- a factual claim that requires proof; can you site a study? Twins are exposed to the same prenatal hormones because they're in the same womb, so I'm a bit confused about your claim. And again, twins have the SAME GENOTYPE, but differ in Epigenome. Your statements are incorrect.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero If there is different sexual orientation then their genes and prenatal can't be EXACTLY the same. Unless, you tell me that sexual orientation is shaped after you are born, but as far as I know all studies show sexual orientation is strongly connected with prenatal factors
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth From what I know and read, the studies on sexuality are inconclusive with evidence on both sides of the fence.
PhilosopherHero 4 weeks ago
@SeductionMyth "If there is different sexual orientation then their genes and prenatal can't be EXACTLY the same" Open any biology book and they will say identical twins have the SAME EXACT genotype/genes that's why they are so often studied. And identical twins don't necessarily always have the same sexual orientation. And again, if they are in the same womb, they were exposed to the same stuff. Unless you can site a study where they aren't exposed to the same prenatal hormones.
PhilosopherHero 4 weeks ago
@SeductionMyth Moreover, even if I granted that each twin had different prenatal hormonal exposures, there is STILL NO CONCLUSIVE study that it results in change in sexual orientation. It's not just genes are things you were exposed to before you were born that result in what you are attracted to.
PhilosopherHero 4 weeks ago
"If twins have different sexual orientations it means (their) genotype or other things YOU ARE BORN WITH were not the exact same" No scientist is sure whether you are born gay, I don't know how You, a non-scientist, would go insofar as to make this claim
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth "A strong correlation that proves PUA crap wrong" PUA's have differing theories, and there's a lot of them, but they all fundamentally believe that attraction can be created. If you go about with the "Her Type" argument, that still deals with personality in which case, AGAIN that can't be deduced from someone's scent, looks or smell which are your prerequisites for sexual attraction which is the only thing we're arguing here.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth How do you explain when a guy initially gets rejected, and through learning the game, is able to lay the girl? Also, I'd like you to address fetishes -- attraction to inanimate object because I'm damn sure this isn't in anyone's DNA. I'm curious, do you have a biology degree or what is it? Haven't you had encounters where you're initially not attracted, and then suddenly attracted. Theoretically you should know from the beginning you're attracted, right?
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
Comment removed
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PhilosopherHero Again, it's all explained on SeductionMyth. In brief the answer is simple: secondary factors that I mention dozens of times on my website. The fact that your are genetically "compatible" does NOT mean you will always get that girl. WHY? Cause there are other "compatible" dudes around. She could change her mind coz she found out I am... rich for instance :) and this beats the competition.
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth Again, "not even one confirmed PUA crap" -- again, like I said "men are perceived more attractive with more women" -- the concept of preselection in PUA. You have been "proven" wrong. And riddle me this, how do your genes go about doing this? You make an active genotype stance (that your genes actively do the work), you ignore psychology. And how do you explain fetishes? -- The attraction to inanimate objects; this shows a chink in the genes-matter-most argument.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero Dude, psychology can help you if you hit on a girl that is already attracted to you, but you have competition from other "matching" males - read "Her Type" section on my website. Genes theories do not contradict psychology. How does your quote prove me wrong?? It's just a tendency! It doesn't mean you can have Megan fox if you surround yourself with hot chicks! LOL Thousands of studies prove that for casual hook ups women DO consider physical attractiveness
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth Moreover, how do you explain twins (GENETICALLY) identical, one who is gay one who is straight. In your theory, they should be attracted to the very same thing -- their genes are telling them mate with this person. But one is straight and one is gay (not bisexual). There are HUMAN studies here. Anyways, I apologize for calling you a tool, I find your arguments interesting nonetheless.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
@PhilosopherHero Science says there is a connection between genes and facial features. It doesn't say people who look the same have EXACTLY the same genes. Get it? But the mere fact that scientists found striking similarities between couples on STATISTICALLY significant samples (something PUA NEVER use) should ring the bell!
Again, read all sections under "Reality Check" on SeductionMyth
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PhilosopherHero Science says there is a connection between genes and facial features. It doesn't say people who look the same have EXACTLY the same genes. Get it? But the mere fact that scientists found striking similarities between couples on STATISTICALLY significant samples (something PUA NEVER use) should ring the bell!
Again, read all sections under "Reality Check" on SeductionMyth
SeductionMyth 1 month ago
@SeductionMyth Also, I've seen the Helen Fisher's videos you liked, although they are interesting, she doesn't really get at the heart of attraction. She even goes on to admit "nobody knows why we love one person and not the other", so I don't know why you would adduce her as evidence -- maybe you were just trying to use the leverage of an authority figure in your argument. Moreover, you reference to her was irrelevant because she talks about love an not attraction.
PhilosopherHero 1 month ago
"Excuse me"
that seems like the worst way you could possibly start, you're a burden before you even start annoying them.
MiJaEllis 6 months ago
@MiJaEllis but good effort, don't get me wrong
MiJaEllis 6 months ago
Asian women are just the most feminine looking! yeh i got that yello fever!
urbanistgame 7 months ago
The point of what hes doing in this video is to build confidence talking to girl, not to pick them up. Got to crawl before u can walk
bzashadows 8 months ago 2
Dont say "Excuse me" thats lower value.
MasterAlexNW 8 months ago
DONT SAY EXCUSE ME OMG
MasterAlexNW 8 months ago 6
what did you bought?
TheIrvanism 9 months ago
Comment removed
UltimateguyThe 9 months ago in playlist gard
it's his tone, his tone is wrong so its not working that well
Blitess 9 months ago
I think Blank is probably his best bet lol ;)
wizkeyzero 10 months ago
Asking where you can get cheap* jeans is not going to work.
It demonstrates lower value, you are implying that you're poor right off the bat..
foxytr900 10 months ago
3:10 Ohhhh asian girl with the school girl skirt! YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mansitopinta 11 months ago
Like he's really gonna pick up any girls by asking where the nearest cheap, but nice pants store is, Jesus Christ
Can't believe anyone actually follows this religiously, I mean it's literally just saying
"Stop a girl and ask her a question!" wtf, and this Asian guy is getting all excited about it, like it's the first time he's ever talked to a girl.
chouyanhejiu 11 months ago
Put some bass in your voice and sound like real men. Relax your shoulders when opening. I say lose the jacket. I personally wouldnt add the "for cheap" part in your opener. Makes it look like you are broke. The last thing, i dont think running up in a females face asking all sort of questions is for everyone and is a great idea.
gotflava1 11 months ago 3
ja pierdole jaki czester
frontiero247 1 year ago
hahahhahaha this is painful to watch! shaming the asian race goddammit
scsurf21 1 year ago 5
Got yourself a sound wingman there! lol
louea380 1 year ago
Comment removed
swarne13 1 year ago
Read Amargi Hillier (you can find a free pdf), It works for me 100% and still surprise me every time. Use caution if you currently have a partner and are doing it to someone else, it could destroy the relationship before you see any results from your target. That's just the way it works, you really don't have much control, however it'll be the first sign that it's working. It could take up to 2 weeks to see the signs depending on different variables. No more embarrassing moments though
yardiel13 1 year ago
lol, the girl actually closed him :)
01:36
darknogo 1 year ago
He is sending out massive DLVs. "EXCUSE Me", "CHEAP pair of jeans".
PUAPrivateArchive 1 year ago 4
@PUAPrivateArchive Exactly, and I'm wondering why his coach didn't tell him that!
CHEAP JEANS?!?! No women want guys who can't spend money in jeans, imagine when he has to spend wich their children or her! Honestly, he should have choosen other oppener, one wich the reply isn't just: "Over there, ok? Bye...."
CaioPUA 1 year ago 3
wow, blank must have some awesome jeans with all these people reccomending it
1337huntard 1 year ago
subatom101: Asian women are hot ;) Dude thats why xD
RenedoGomez 1 year ago
@RenedoGomez
yeah but he's practicing man, it shouldnt have anything to do with hot women at this stage, i think its more that his confidence with white women is probably alot worse, he doesnt even look too comfortable trying to talk to asians.
oscroll 1 year ago
THAT GUY COULDN'T GET LAID IN A MONKEY WHORE HOUSE WITH A BAG FULL OF BANANAS
x27Apex 1 year ago 2
One tip. Adding cheap into the question DLV's you in a womans eyes. "If he is cheap with that. THAT openly, he will be cheap with me as well." Drop the cheap as in every womans face you saw her reaction to you change slightly. :) Simply things will change the outcome.
akwolfsong 1 year ago
If you need to go to the toilet desperatly, i am pretty sure anyone can stop anyone to ask where the toilet is!
MrToblue 1 year ago
You brought up 2 more good points:
1. Being genuine. If you act or look cheesy/fake, many people will pick up on it. The best guys come off charismatic and charming, while the lower level guys come off like a bad used car salesman.
2. Know your location. Different environments have different tendencies or can lead to different results. Chicks in a club,disco are going to be very suspicious & then very judgmental, while in other places women can be more relaxed, natural, or receptive
Sojujinn 1 year ago
The Asian guy has a bunch of issues that caused his failure.
1. He seemed to lack confidence and be insecure, which reflected in his face and body language.
2. He kept an odd distance from the girls with a rigid (not relaxed) stance. This type of stance looks threatening or odd.
3. He was way too overly worried about what others might be thinking. This paranoia adds to the fear, which shows up in the eyes, face, and body language.
4. He lacked charisma & charm when talking.
Sojujinn 1 year ago
aaawww bullshit that jacks mic didn't have sound. all these pua guys do this. they give you little snipits of what they say. we never get to watch a complete convo from beginning to end by a master. bullshit
petetang1985 1 year ago
Yeaah... He only talks to asian ladies, i'm black and i only stop white girls. I love white pussy so tasty!
Boxeur69Thai 1 year ago
Man I'm loving the intro music. What's the name of it?
MalNaprej 1 year ago
at 3:40 that was fkup up LMAO
Salvy102 1 year ago
CCCCCCCCCCooooooooooool.... My friend on RentAFriend. com told me about this clip. Very nice really.
RandolphPerry 1 year ago
Great Asian dating tips
eEyeDating 1 year ago
3:40-3:44 BE GREATFUL BITCHHH u probably never get approached girls taht are fat actin like daaaayy all dat.
PlaidSoxs 1 year ago 27
@PlaidSoxs reason she acted like that was probably because she's not use to getting approach therefore she lacks the social skills. I go out alot recently and realized that hotter girls are more receptive. It seems like it should be the other way but it usually isn't. So she wasn't doing it to be an ass but mostly because she blanked.
mrbrowntown11 1 year ago
@mrbrowntown11
This is a somewhat good point. However, if the guy is confident and/or skillful enough then girls that are not used to getting approach will still be drawn into talking to the guy.
Hotter girls will be more confident, so more relaxed, but they can more easily turn down your offer.
Women not used to being approached can be more intrigued and interested in what the guy has to say, therefore it can workout a bit better on average.
Sojujinn 1 year ago
@Sojujinn It depends actually. If the guy is "too good" she'll suspect that hes only fucking with her. I would say it depends where you are. For instance bad looking chicks at a club might not necessarily be receptive to a smooth talker since theyll despise him. On the otherhand the hottie is their only to seek attention and since most guys are chodes, she doesn't have it as much as she liked to. Im not saying the solid 9/10 will be more recpetive than an ugly chick but the 7s will definetly be.
mrbrowntown11 1 year ago
@PlaidSoxs she probably doesnt speak english.
daddyvic007 1 year ago
@PlaidSoxs she's not fat she's just obese
Abs9106 9 months ago
@Abs9106 haha
allensugar 8 months ago
use this shit to get laid and let your natural instincts take over
Starz12 1 year ago
Roid MONKEY
goldenwingk 1 year ago
@goldenwingk lol
EuropaBloke 1 year ago
He only cuts the good parts, they are MPUAs who we call naturals who just do teir thing, and this "stud' is definetly not one.The asian guy sucks...alot. AFC, but its good training.
*King.(Names are only the starting point.) Member of Mystery and Styles MPUA league...MPuas advance to basically naturals. STOP READING AND START ACTING.
Criptomaniaxxx 1 year ago
tip # 39: Never approach a target from behind.
r0cStar94 1 year ago
is that zac efron?
DrMrCesar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
forget American women, go for Brazilian and Colombian, they're wayyyyyyy better in ALL aspects and you don't need to learn "special PUA techniques", just be yourself and treat them with respect. Search Youtube for Brazilian Women Chasing Foreign Men in Brazil and you'll see what I mean.
museclips 1 year ago
3:40 was horrible
ben3580 1 year ago
any know the vid where this guy gets an asian tourist's phone number. The guy says to her "you're interesting" and she says "No. you're interesting."
it was funny but amazing pickup
ffs2012 2 years ago
@ffs2012
Just type in best pick up ever
channelin 1 year ago
I think the last 2 girls he could have kept them longer if he asked them to take him personally. He wouldve scored since they looked like they wanted to help him more.
lbrother88 2 years ago
I didn't there was a town called "I gotta go in a sec".....ha
hillmorgan 2 years ago
I picked up this girl at my gym the other day... and I started bench-pressing her.
fransack 2 years ago 4
lmao.
bingefeller 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why is this showing when I put SEX in the search bar? Well, if you want to watch REAL sex enter to my channel or enter to 1024gg(dot)com
xixilee01 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why is this showing when I put SEX in the search bar? Well, if you want to watch REAL sex enter to my channel or enter to 1024gg(dot)com
xixilee01 2 years ago
im thinking he should have said im from out of town and i dont know this town very well and then asked where he could get some nice jeans.......saying he has to go in a sec doesnt really make them stay and talk for a little bit
luke1785 2 years ago
I know the whole "i have to go in a sec" just sounds random and out of place.
bingefeller 2 years ago
@luke1785
I thought this a good point. His plan was off. He could have said that he was out of town, do you know this area, and could you take me/come with me to a place that has nice clothes.
Saying that you have to go, right off, turns the conversation awkward. The woman has no reason to invest more time into you, as you will go in a second.
You also have to know or ask if the woman has time. Some women are in a rush/going to work, while others have free time/off/are shopping.
Sojujinn 1 year ago
this guys got some decent confidence in terms of approaching and he doesn't come off as creepy at all so kudos to him
THeEraSerr 2 years ago
i would go for asian chicks too lol
Denmen248 2 years ago
sargesuits
aneelrrr 2 years ago
even in 2010 when you think racism would be on its way out, as an asian man you're going to get much better responses from asian women. this dude's mall opener is horrible, you don't want to ask for help or look useless. also it goes nowhere.
ezra242 2 years ago
hi im from out of town and i gotta go in a sec....dumb
larrydallas187 2 years ago 3
teach sensei
TheKyla1981 2 years ago
like a boss
TheKyla1981 2 years ago
@ 6:45 it looks like they both see some girls and get distracted LOL. (i kno they are looking at the camera guy)
pamirperdeci 2 years ago
Excuse me I have to go in a sec but i wanted to ask you where i can find the cheapest pair of pants in this mall, preferably some that make my crotch area look bigger because i have a small dick and i am beyond cheap two qualities that make me the ultimate P.u.a ! Btw how is he in a hurry where he has to leave and then asking where he can go shopping? seriously a hurry? what does he need to go pee?
webweweave11 2 years ago
horrible question...
what mall is this?
metrotown in burnaby bc?
LiimesLemoons 2 years ago
he sounds like a robot because he's just learning, not everyone is a natural remember ;)
mattisnotuncool 2 years ago 2
3:40 He was like a poster boy, he didn't get up close and personal. He should've been like a sales assistant with his hands out. I hate the whole ''OMG STRANGER DANGER'' of some girls, it's usually the Ugly Friends Bitchshielding and Linebacking. Shit, 85% of the time we'd PU if we didn't have to reciprocate and cater for the Ugly Friends aswell! The way through a Hotbabe is through here UGLY FRIEND/S!
SPYDER420NLR 2 years ago
Lmao "thanks a lot ... take care." It doesn't seem natural. He sounds like a robot memorizing lines. You gotta go with the flow man :)
HyoRiN89 2 years ago
LOL he only stops asian women
subatom101 2 years ago 43
i dont blame him... some are really cute man!
marianoh44 2 years ago
yeah dud Asian girls are fuckin HOT
subatom101 2 years ago 2
@subatom101 IS that because he is an Asian boy??
sintje 1 year ago
@subatom101
haha omg just noticed loled so hard =D
RyanHolden91 1 year ago
"Blank?! You're not sending me to a women's store are you? hahaha I'd be lost like a deer in a parking garage. Actually, I also want to buy a gift for my sister in law because she's always buying me gifts. So maybe I can get you opinion on this. Do you think I should buy her a scarf or a pair of shoes? What kind of scarf would you buy?
pgan003 2 years ago
Dude, you're good at this.
simpsons225 2 years ago
hes gotta stop using the ctf i got to go in a sec, makes no sence in a mall;) but no aproach anxiety thats a good start:D
VnX696 2 years ago 6
i'd be humiliated if i were in his shoes....
DragonZombie2000 2 years ago
Pretty Nice,he was on autopilot though, he kinda sounded like a robot,lol. But hey great start.
Daviniel 2 years ago 3
DUDE!!! the last set actually followed HIM!!!!
rocwiler0 2 years ago
It was good, just a terrible question to ask.
tedgills 2 years ago 2
if the girl in blue asked me 'do you know where blank is?' i would of replyed; can you not tell by the BLANK expression :D
anitawee 2 years ago
lol the girls arent saying "blank"...thats a terrible name for a store hahaa. Blank is just like a random store, it could be anything...
tubemaster6 2 years ago
I think I can see a problem with this guy in the video. Hi does not seem to enjoin it.
I mean its would be kinda boring to say the same opener again and again. But what a hell, everyone have to start somewhere. Good start anyway, its boosting a self-confidence a bit. But it would be better if he learned in how to be a confident without a script and manual, Its more fun.tip:: Dont think just do it, and maby think afterwards.
K0lsyr4 2 years ago
im surprised that even though all he used was an opinion opener he didn't follow up with like "wow you're really friendly! oh by the way im (whatever)"
but he did good
lucasiscoolish 2 years ago
I love how they all recommend Hollister, which is about as expensive as it gets.
DarkXacreD 2 years ago
not really, A&F is more
superbartman 2 years ago
so many asians! damn
stripes597 2 years ago
3:40 is painfullll
NateZen 2 years ago 4
I think they were lesbians
shiinkii 2 years ago 2