> Caveat: This is an important article I only want to share with this
> community because I think it’s a key aspect to PUA and is only touched
> upon by MM and other literature. Basically this article will guide you
> at every stage of your PU – from the approach to sex – however it’s
> theoretical and incorporates some ideas I researched in a graduate
> class on gender identity. I’ll try to write it as clearly as possible
> but if something’s unclear, PLEASE POST A COMMENT. The worst thing you
> can do is misunderstand this article – it will actually hurt you;
> however, by understanding this “secret” I’ve been noticing/FTing,
> you’ll improve your game exponentially…
>
> Women want to enjoy their sexuality like guys. It’s simple. It’s true.
> It’s almost cliché. While I always half-heartedly believed this, I
> couldn’t completely accept it because I never witnessed it
> consistently. I’ve never seen any desirable girl clawing at a guy
> (like a creepy dude) or talking as bluntly about sex like us guys.
> I’ve observed female behavior that came close, but never anything that
> approached the antics of even an AVERAGE dude. Why?
>
> Social conditioning.
>
> If you want to understand a society, examine its language. What are
> the first words that come to mind if you're insulting a girl: slut,
> whore, bitch, skank, cunt, dyke, etc. Notice almost all those words
> are pejorative terms for a woman’s sexuality. How many words in our
> language regulate a man’s sexuality? Man-whore (I have a friend who
> flaunts that title), pimp (a compliment), player (again, awesome),
> gigolo (still, pretty awesome), and then about a zillion words to call
> a guy gay: homo, fag, queer, fairy (all encouraging guys to FUCK
> women). While women are exploited by the media FOR their sexuality
> (think about advertising), they’re simultaneously regulated by society
> not to ACT on that sexuality.
>
> Hence the invention of the cock-tease, the Anti-Slut Defense, the
> Bitch Shield, among all the other defenses women have derived either
> consciously or unconsciously, as a group or as an individual, to
> thwart any attempt to denigrate their image – even if they’re the only
> one who knows.
>
> Most men never consider this paradox. Most men decide all women are
> either “sluts” or “prudes” and then act accordingly. However, us PUAs
> – for better or worse – need to consider this problem and solve it.
>
> And I think I have.
>
> The first step is acknowledging the reality of this paradox: don’t
> view women as sluts, don’t view women as prudes. They’re constantly
> fighting an internal struggle between wanting to act on their
> sexuality, while fearing society’s condemnation. Respect this,
> understand this…in fact, empathize with this. Let’s go in-field and
> demonstrate this with an opener.
>
> If you open direct and make your intentions explicit (i.e. “Hey,
> you’re cute. Lets talk”), even if the set opens, in the back of the
> girl’s mind she’s haunted by how she looks/will look to her friends/
> herself. You’re a stranger at a bar who’s used an obvious pick up line
> to pick her up. She can’t rationalize that. Any girl knows getting
> “picked up” at a bar is cheesy (girls I’ve picked up at bars will tell
> me how pathetic girls who respond to pick up lines are!). Using a
> “pick up” line, whether everyone knows or just the girl knows, has
> established a sexual relationship: You’re the “picker” and she’s the
> “picked”.
>
> HOWEVER, if you indirect open and simply seem social (i.e. “Yo, I need
> to your help for a second…”), in the back of the girl’s mind you’re
> just having a conversation. She may know damn well what your
> intentions are (in fact, I believe most girls consciously know what
> the deal is), although she can still rationalize to herself and to her
> friends, ‘This guy is only looking for an opinion/a conversation’.
> You’re still a stranger, but you’re not blatantly picking her up. The
> relationship shifts from “picker” and “picked” to more neutral terms:
> Two people talking about an issue.
>
> Note: As I mentioned before, girls WANT to get picked up (or else why
> else would they be out at a bar), but they DON’T want to FEEL, THINK,
> or LOOK like they’re getting picked up. By understanding this and
> going indirect, you win her respect because either unconsciously, or,
> in more cases, consciously, she realizes that you understand this,
> respect this, and are finding a way to sidestep the traditional “pick
> up” routine almost every other guy tries.
>
> I know this isn’t shockingly new to anyone unless you really consider
> what I’m saying. Apply this to every stage of a pickup. Every sexual
> escalation should be cloaked with this theory. Let’s hit the field for
> another example: after the opener, you want to escalate some kino.
>
> I’ve gotten resistance – even when the girl is IOIing me – when I say
> to a girl, “Here, give me your hands.” At the very least, the girl
> will sheepishly hold her hands in front of herself and say, “Why?”
> This response is her baiting me to give her a REASON so she can
> justify holding hands with a complete stranger. However, it should
> never come to this. I should give her a reason up front why she’s
> “allowed” to give her hands to me. For example, “Here, give me your
> hands. I want to give you a test.” I’ve never had a girl say no to
> this. Even though it’s against social norms for a girl to hold hands
> with a guy she’s known for 2 minutes, she can justify it to herself or
> anyone else because it was a “test”.
>
> Of course, this is complete bullshit. And she knows it. And she knows
> you know it. And this will excite her because you’re hinting that you
> can allow her to explore her sexuality freely – without judgment or
> condemnation – by providing “logical” reasons for her to escalate.
>
> Now that I’ve demonstrated a few points, I want to pause for a moment
> to explain why women don’t act like unrestrained men when they know
> there will be no social repercussions (for example, if you meet a
> stranger on vacation, why can’t you just say ‘Lets have sex and then
> never see each other again’).

> According to social logic, that PU line
> should work almost 100 percent of the time (presupposing you're fairly
> attractive); however, I’ve NEVER heard of any first-hand stories if
> this EVER happening. Why? Because the “social superego” is so
> ingrained in women’s psyches, they’ll know they’ll have to live with
> themselves afterwards and feel like a “slut”. While I think girls on
> vacation ARE easier to game since they know there aren’t any direct
> social repercussions, a PUA still understands a women’s superego needs
> to rationalize ANY form of escalation.
>
> That’s a shortcoming of MM.
>
> In MM, Mystery advocates the “freeze out”. While it seems to make
> sense, I’ve never had a freeze out work for me. (If you guys have,
> tell me what you’re doing. Maybe I’m just not applying it correctly…)
> In fact, I find it counter-intuitive, because a freeze out throws a
> girl out of state and allows her rationalization to flood her system:
> i.e. “Oh my God! What am I doing?! I just met this guy!!”
>
> After a few failed freeze out attempts, I came up with this theory and
> have been applying it with solid results (keep in mind though, it’s
> fairly new so I haven’t had a chance to tweak every angle). To return
> to one final FT’d example, let’s look at how this applies to getting a
> girl into the bedroom…
>
> Last Wednesday, I called a girl for a D3 (during our D2 we fooled
> around but no sex). My phone game has been getting consistently better
> and I talked to this girl for about 20 minutes, pumped her state, made
> her laugh, etc. When it came time to make plans, I suggested she come
> to my place so I can cook her dinner (thanks David D.) and she happily
> agreed.
>
> However, a few days later, she called me and said she still wanted to
> hang out, but thought maybe we should go out to dinner (she gave me
> some bullshit reason). I could’ve pressed the issue or tried to freeze
> her out…instead I agreed, but with this theory in the back of my mind…
>
> So now I’m on this D3 and over dinner I’m pumping her state, telling
> her stories, joking around, busting on her. Half way though dinner she
> blurts out, “So can we go back to your place so you can play me a song
> on your guitar??”
>
> What happened here? Well, aside from demonstrating all my former
> points about needing reasons to rationalize sexual escalation, this
> little FR sets up my final point: this shit only works if a girl’s in
> state and you have value. When I invited her to my place on the phone
> she agreed because I had enough value FOR sexual escalation, her state
> was pumped making her WANT sexual escalation, and I gave her a reason
> to RATIONALIZE sexual escalation. However, since we couldn’t have our
> D3 that moment, she had plenty of time in between our phone
> conversation and coming to my apartment to fall out of state and allow
> her superego to step in, convincing her that her reputation – even if
> it’s just in her own head – will be tarnished if she came over.
>
> Although, once we were on our D3, I reaffirmed my value, pumped her
> state, and then SHE gave a reason to come back to my place.
>
> If it’s helpful I can dissect every aspect of every approach and gives
> examples of this. I believe this a HUGE component of PUA and the
> reason great PUs – even when you’re getting IOIs and pumping a girl’s
> state – go bad.
>
> Here’s a “road map” for sexual escalation applying this theory:
>
> Get value (DHV with humor, storytelling, etc.) + Pump state (Laughing,
> playful flirting) + Cloak escalating with reasons (“testing”, “need to
> show you something”) = Sexual escalation
>
> By repeating this cycle, you’ll plow through bitch shields, ASD, and
> any other bullshit women will throw at you to protect their
> “reputations” (oh, from an ethical perspective, you’re doing a woman a
> favor by employing this ...
>
> read more »