Pickup

This sex talk gambit lets you reframe sex (even casual sex) as healthy and natural… and abstinence from sex as something weird a woman must avoid.

Hey guys and welcome back.

It is time for a gambit—a sex talk gambit, that is. It has been a while since I have covered a gambit. This does not mean that I haven’t come up with materials. The ongoing pandemic makes it more difficult to test gambits in field. I will never share anything that I haven’t tested properly.

Today’s new gambit is the bomb. It will allow you to:

• Talk about sex

• Reframe sexual abstinence and sexual restrictions as bad

• Promote a frame of spontaneity, openness, and curiosity

All these factors can have a huge effect on your results. If your frame is to get sexual with a girl, it will become much easier to proceed, and you will not be too many steps away from bedding her.

I need to address what I always stress:

• Gambits, including this one, can be used as presented.

• You can make variations (more complex or shorter versions) using your own words. The results will be similar if you convey the essential gist and use key mechanics. So use this gambit as an inspiration for your personal gambits.

• Take the mechanics from this and previous gambits to create your own gambit from scratch.

My results with this gambit has led to:

• Multiple lays in a very smooth and efficient manner

• Great hooks if not lays (the lay did not happen due to other circumstances)

• No bad reactions or rejections so far

I have been using this gambit since the second half of 2021 and for part of the winter. I stopped due to lockdowns and not being able to head out (this will soon change, so I will be using it again). Other experienced seducers have also had success with it.

Let’s begin. First, we will discuss “perversion” and what it means.

What a girl says won’t tell you if she really likes you. So how to tell if a girl likes you (or not)? Read the subtext: her voice tone, body language, and compliance.

I see guys all the time talking about what a woman said and trying to decipher its meaning.

They seem to not understand this basic rule of telling how much a girl likes you: it's not what she says, it's how she says it... and what she does.

Women will say things to flirt with a guy, or comment on the environment, or for no reason at all. Then men will get in their heads trying to interpret some meaning from this.

"She said she doesn't date guys like me, does that mean I blew it?" the guy thinks.

Meanwhile she is laughing and smiling at him and has turned more of her body toward him.

Then he walks off, feeling like he shouldn't have walked off, but he can't explain to himself why not.

If you want to know how to tell if a girl likes you, that starts with tuning out most of what she is saying with words and tuning IN to what she is saying with actions, voice tone, and body language.

Hector’s irreverent, forward, crass style of direct seems to violate all the rules of ‘good game’. Yet take a closer look, and it’s obvious how this form of seduction succeeds.

All right gents, here's the clarifying article you've been waiting for!

Since Alek Rolstad came out swinging against the stupidly-simplified "just shoot your shot" style of 'game' we're now calling 'neo-direct', readers have been asking, "But what about Hector?"

Hector's 'sexual direct' approach to seduction appears to be everything both indirect and classic direct are not: bold, immediate, in the girl's face, relentless. It seems to show all the cards to the girl and removes any hint of intrigue.

A brief review of how his approach appears to work might make you think it's little more than neo-direct wrapped up with a bit of spunk ('force of personality', perhaps?).

Alek asked me to resolve the apparent conflict between what he teaches and what Hector does, not knowing enough about what Hector is doing and not wanting to be the one to critique a colleague.

So, I had a chat with Hector to clarify some of the points I needed clarification on.

It led me down a rather enlightening path toward understanding not just Hector's game, but a better understanding of a key difference between good game and bad game, as well.

I think you will enjoy this piece!

When you talk to girls, it must be pleasant. You need to make them smile. That doesn’t mean be a joker, but it DOES mean be someone it’s enjoyable to talk with.

When you go out to meet women, one thing you always ought to be doing is making women smile.

I don't mean being a clown or a comedian. I don't mean you have to load them up with hammy compliments or get them retelling all their happiest memories.

I just mean that women should be smiling as they're talking to you, because they like talking to you, because talking to you is a pleasure.

Real direct game has a lot of nuance and flavor that overly simplistic “neo-direct” lacks. What are the differences? All spelled out for you to see.

Hey guys, and welcome back.

Last week I shared the history behind direct game and how it came to fruition. I countered common issues beginners often faced with indirect game back in the day. Direct game developed to respond to these issues:

• Indirect game caused auto-rejections if done uncalibrated and incorrectly (by going too far or not showing interest when warranted). On the other hand, direct game solved this issue by being direct.

• Girls who do not have a minimum threshold of interest can show mixed signals from the get-go. This required the man to convey attractive traits to spike interest before they get her to chase. Direct game solved this issue by screening out those girls who did not have this small initial spark of interest.

• Many beginners back in the day suffered from being friend-zoned by women due to too much passivity and the fear of sexualizing the interaction since sexualizing was synonymous with escalation, which means showing interest. Due to the fear of showing too much interest (the dogmas of indirect game say to show interest sparingly/don’t show too much interest), many men ended up with escalation anxiety. Direct game took a shortcut to solve this issue since the contradiction between escalating (showing interest) and “don’t show any interest” disappeared as direct game vouches for showing interest.

As you can see, many issues were solved with the surge of direct game.

Today, we will see how the good old-school direct game is NOTHING like neo-direct game, now all over the internet. Neo-direct game says you should approach any girl out of the blue and hope for the best, with little or no pickup tech, frame control, or calibration. This is not direct game.

Let’s discuss what the old-school direct game really is. It is nothing like neo-direct game with its terrible ratios, over-simplistic, and inefficient tools. Direct game is a well-thought-out and complex method with many strengths.

FYI: Yes, I have experience with direct game. I have read plenty of material by direct gamers, and I have also known direct gamers who were good.

Both compliments and negs are part of a quadrant, but few men use them right. Most use the OTHER (far less effective) side of the quadrant: flattery and insults.

I want to talk about a dichotomy today I've not seen spelled out anywhere:

That is negging vs. complimenting.

Most guys in the community these days have largely abandoned both: they won't neg and they won't (or only poorly) compliment. Yet both tools can be quite powerful... when used correctly.

Much like many things in this space, both have fallen prey to misuse and recategorization as several waves of unskilled seducers have clumsily attempted to adopt these seduction tools, giving both bad names in the process.

This article isn't necessarily a re-taking of these; I have one coming on compliments soon that I think will give you a different perspective from both the neo-direct "simple direct flattery-based compliments" style and the more indirect "don't compliment her much/at all" style.

However, in the meantime, I wanted to make a quick piece detailing the 'quadrant' negs and compliments lie on... and give you a better idea about how and when to use each.

It seems like every guy runs direct game on the girls he meets these days. But how’d direct get to be so popular? It wasn’t always so…

Hey guys.

So today I wanted to share some clarifications on a subject I have discussed in-depth in 2021: namely the whole “direct versus indirect game” subject.

If you have been following my posts over the past year, you should know by now that I am a strong believer in indirect game – namely the type of seduction where you do not reveal your cards (your interest) until she has shown some interest first.

This entails that you must keep her knowledge of your interest in her ambiguous until you manage to build some compliance (or call it “build attraction”). Once you have managed to do exactly that, you will get signs of interest in return, at which point you can reciprocate and show interest back. The amount of interest you show in return depends on how much interest she shows you; you more or less calibrate accordingly at all times.

There are forms of indirect game that are more passive (indirect) than others… yet in strong opposition comes this new trend of neo-direct game, which is all about expressing your interest in her right away. The cat is out of the bag – she knows you want her, and you’ve just got to try to make it happen by convincing her that you are a great potential lover.

Already there we can see how the frame is totally off!

She is now in power… since you are clearly the one chasing her.

She has a higher perceived sexual market value and therefore she gets to dictate the terms. Here she can set very high expectations in terms of her standards. This is how you end up facing highly inflated standards – or rather, that is when you become a guy who gets to deal with those high standards, since men who did not give her all that power will not be facing those high expectations because they never allowed the other party (her) to set them in the first place.

This is exactly what I discussed in my previous post. There I discussed how this neo-direct game, where you constantly show interest from A to Z without ever keeping your level of interest in her ambiguous, without ever showing any mixed signals, and sometimes without ever using compliance-building techniques… or if those were used, they were only used sparingly.

It is easy to conclude from my previous post that indirect game is the solution to the problems that stem from simping and dealing with women’s inflated standards (which we saw only come fully into play when you allow her to express them by setting a frame that gives her the power to do so).

I wouldn’t rush to such a conclusion though. Now, I have in the past been very harsh towards direct game. This is due to two reasons:

1. The surge of poorly done direct game or this overly direct form of direct game (neo-direct game) leading to cringe interactions between men and women. These cringe results led me to wanting to debunk it fully.

2. I personally still believe indirect game is better – that is… (and I may be biased here) because it gives you a better meet-to-lay ratio, since you will have a chance to get some girls you wouldn’t get otherwise (that is, compared to using a non-indirect form of game: that is, direct game).

But this does not mean that direct game used the right way is necessarily bad. This may seem contradictory to things I have said about it in the past. But I need to do a mea culpa. Everything I said in those posts still holds true, in the sense that keeping your levels of interest in her ambiguous is the way to go because it gives you:

• More compliance
• Smoother interaction
• A more solid frame – thus more control

All this still stands.

But this does not mean all direct forms of game contradict all these aspects.

This post is meant to give you guys a clarification on this issue.

In this post, I intend to discuss how this trend of neo-direct game came to be, going through the history of the seduction community. I want to tell you why and how direct game came to life and why and how it eventually turned into neo-direct game.

In my next post, I will pay homage to the good old school direct game – the one that truly worked. If you are a fan of direct game, you will love my next post.