Confidence

Many guys wish they could easily meet women as they go about their days without hesitation or fear. Well, you can, with the right strategy – however, it takes some short-term sacrifice.

The Holy Grail of game for a great many men is the ability to be 'always on'.

If you can reach that point, the thinking goes, then you can just meet women anytime, anyplace. You'll never freeze from approach anxiety or not know what to say.

The reality of course is that, excepting when you're on a 'run' with girls, you are pretty much always going to deal with at least a little approach anxiety.

However, it is absolutely possible to become a more social man, and integrate this into your day-to-day life... then mix in daytime approaches to women as a part of that.

If you can do it, you can turn yourself into that man who really truly does meet girls as he just goes about his day.

Frames are easier to set with the right meta-frame in place. Yet frames feed into the meta-frame to. So how do you set one conducive to success with the women you want?

Hey guys! Welcome back.

Last week we went over meta-frames – what they are and why they are essential. A successful seduction involves the meta-frame to some extent; no two ways around it unless you get lucky, which can also happen.

The meta-frame is “prizability,” the frame where you are the prize and women chase you, instead of the other way around. More importantly, it gives you full control over the frame of the interaction. By default, this will allow you to lead the interaction and come off as dominant (and no, dominance, in this case, is not being the big tough guy who chops wood. We’re talking about social dominance with frame control).

The lack of a meta-frame makes most seductions collapse.

Imagine you want to set a social frame by establishing rapport, and you do so from a frame of neediness (against the meta-frame). You will come off as “try-hard” – trying too hard to get to know her.

Imagine that you are trying to get her to invest in a needy way. That’s a paradox since you’re clearly investing in her and not the other way around.

Now imagine you are trying to set a sexual frame without respect for the meta-frame. You will come off as sexually desperate and perhaps creepy.

You need the meta-frame, or else it all falls apart.

But how is this frame set? That is what we will discuss today.

There’s an epidemic these days of men bitching, whining, and moaning about women. Yet a man’s attitudes toward women tell women a whole lot about him…

In influence, there is this phenomenon known as social proof.

When you run into a potentially awkward situation with a woman, you need to ask yourself: will she be the one who controls the frame, or will it be you who does?

How much of seduction is words, appearance, or actions... and how much of it is just frames?

If I walk up to a woman and she acts like she doesn't want me and I accept that frame, that was frames.

Likewise, if I walk up to a woman and she acts like she doesn't want me, then I persist with her in a charming way that conveys I know she really does want me, and she decides she finds me intriguing and starts to feel attraction, that was frames too.

If someone accuses me of something, and I accept the accusation and feel ashamed and bashfully apologize, that's frames.

Just the same, if someone accuses me of something, and I parry that accusation and making a convincing case that in fact I was in the right all along, and the other party backs down, well that too is frames.

Frames run as a constant undercurrent throughout all social interaction. If you've followed along with Alek Rolstad's latest series on frames, you know you can divide frames up into social and sexual, for instance. You know, from his series and our other pieces here on frame control, of various ways you can adjust, tweak, and impose your frames.

Good frame control consists of the expert interplay between known facts and offered explanations. If I saw someone grab my basketball and walk off the basketball court with it, and I believe he stole it and am about to alert the police officer standing nearby, you won't change my mind by insisting that I'm wrong and I didn't see it and that guy did not steal the basketball. However, you might change my mind by telling me he's a good guy and he only just took the basketball to reinflate it because it was low on air and getting flat, and that he'll be right back with it.

If you're telling the truth, you'll have saved a good Samaritan from a run-in with the police; if you're lying, you'll have allowed a thief to escape with my basketball. Either way, by pulling me into your frame, you have altered the course of events.

Frames won't always be as cut-and-dry as 'stealing or not stealing' either.

Many times what is being framed is something fuzzy:

• Are you the prize or is she?
• Is she interested in you or disinterested?
• Were you committing a faux pas or did she commit the faux pas (or no one did)?
• Whose views are more accurate: yours or hers? Or are both your views actually the same and she just did not realize it?

In the end, what determines how a great many things in your social life go is how good you are at framing: how expertly you frame, how well you tie the frames you establish to known facts and details, and how believably you convey your own belief in the frames you purport to hold.

At times you’ll meet women who get one over on you. They extract a free drink or meal, ditch you for another guy, use you for an ego boost, or more. How should you respond?

On our forum, there's a field report a member of ours shared where a beautiful girl he met in a nightclub tricked him into buying a drink, then strung him along after that.

The drink-buy then triggered the predictable possession/reciprocation instinct any guy who's been manipulated into buying things for women has experienced. That in turn led our forum member, who's usually a pretty solid guy, to make a bunch more mistakes and dig a much deeper hole than he normally would.

He was honest about how things went:

• He felt tricked
• He felt angry
• He wanted to 'win'

... and all those emotions caused him to continue to pursue this girl, digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole.

I went through many such situations early on in my seduction career.

Most guys will -- especially guys who do night game, and especially guys who do clubs.

When it happens, you will typically know you are doing something wrong -- as Beam did here -- but you will do it anyway, driven by emotions of wanting to get back your pride, balance things out with this woman who tooled you, and save face.

But this is almost never the right course of action: it won't get you the girl, and it won't improve your outing.

Instead, you must deal with embarrassing/humiliating situations with women in-field in a different way.

Playboys aren’t like ordinary men. Students must realize that while you can adopt the playboy’s material to have more success, his goals will tend to be different than theirs.

Yesterday I wrote an article on having healthier relationships by focusing on turning relationships mutual, rather than adversarial. Not 'compromise', not 'give and take', mind you; mutual.

When I wrote that article, I dove into the research on agreeableness. I thought agreeableness might play a big role in that article, but it ended up with a small part.

However, I did find it relevant for a different conversation I was in. It consisted of a few long-time players I know, both in their 40s, who are in the midst of their wife hunts. The discussion they had, which I joined in, was why do so few playboys and seduction coaches marry beautiful, wholesome wives from their home countries in conventional monogamous marriages?

Obviously there are men who marry beautiful, wholesome wives from their home countries in conventional monogamous marriages. But this is typically not seduction coaches or natural playboys. Instead these men normally do one of the following:

• Marry a (sometimes beautiful) girl from their home country but have a non-monogamous marriage (i.e., they're swingers or they have an open marriage)

• Marry a girl from their home country in a monogamous marriage, but the girl is very unattractive (even if the guy in question historically dated good-looking girls)

• Marry a beautiful, wholesome girl into a wholesome relationship, but the girl is not from their home country (even if the guy has dated more girls from his home country than any other point of origin)

Their concern was, "Maybe the guys who are teaching this stuff and the guys who are learning this stuff are not so perfectly aligned."

The friends I had this discussion with are fairly advanced playboys, who have been in the seduction community for 15+ years, have perfectly respectable notch counts, and have studied under many of the more notable pickup instructors over the years.

Both are in the midst of 'wife hunts' and, struggling with this (i.e., they lay hot girls, but then those girls don't stick around... or they get girls who want to stick around, but those girls aren't hot, or they have problems), have started to question some of their methods and teachers.

The question I'll pose for today is... what is the difference between advanced seducers and ordinary men?

And does this mean if you are like 98% of men, and you are just an ordinary guy searching for an ordinary wife, you should be doing something different than what these teachers tell you?

Do you learn seduction by following a teacher or method you trust? Or are you “piecing together” a patchwork style taken from bits and pieces adopted from here and there?

I've gotta be honest: I can be a little closed-minded, at least while in my learning phase.

When I first discovered the seduction community, I fished about looking for a method or teacher that really resonated with me. I rejected a lot of objectively good teachers and methods, because I didn't feel they gelled with me, until I found one that did.

Then I mostly just followed that one system for years, while also studying guys here and there whose stuff did not conflict with it.

At times I'd try to study other guys I thought aligned with it, found they didn't align, and ended up throwing out almost everything I got from them, even though it was objectively good. I went on bootcamps with guys whose methods were too different from the main one I studied, had some success on those bootcamps, then abandoned the things I'd learned on them after because they didn't gel.

Most of the guys I know who became very good with girls were like this. They were single-minded about following a certain instructor or method that gelled very well with them, or developed their own from scratch with a single-minded focus on what they were seeking to develop, and were and are without fault picky about whom they listened to or incorporated ideas from outside their sphere.

(I love exploring different skilled guys' methods. There's usually something you can learn from anyone. That said, there is a limited amount to what you can glean from someone with a sufficiently different approach to yours, if you are trying to keep things within your own approach consistent and functional)

Now... there is another learning style some guys employ. One that is the bane of seduction coaches everywhere. It is both very open-minded in some ways, and totally obstinate in others.

It is the teacher's bane, because it invariably leads to confused students who aren't getting their desired results, and don't know why they aren't getting those results, who try blaming the various teachers they have studied, the methods they have learned, even women themselves, despite not fully following those teachers' instruction or methods' approaches.

It is what we might call the patchwork style of learning.

We might also call the men who use it the patchwork seducers.