Seduction

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.

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.

How available can you make yourself with women? When do you become too available… vs. too unavailable? Use the 4 availability questions to balance your availability.

In seduction and in relationships, there are times it's more helpful to be available to a woman, and times it's more helpful to be unavailable.

Most guys err too far toward one side or the other.

You have for instance the typical nice guy, who makes himself as available as possible to women. Because he is so absolutely available, women don't respect his time, or him, for that matter. He ends up in the "he's nice but he's just not my type" category.

Then you have the guy who understands the game a little better but is too absolute in making himself unavailable. He gives women only slivers of availability and shuts off the availability tap on a moment's notice. This guy gets called 'dick', 'asshole', 'jerk'... though he does get the girl more often than the overly available nice guy. However he still misses out on a lot of women too annoyed at him or who have already quickly moved on when he made himself unavailable.

So what you want is not to be too available, nor too unavailable.

You want to be in the Goldiocks zone of availability: just available enough, while still being scarce.

What's that look like though?

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.

What end must you aim for in a seduction? Is it attraction? Is it stimulation? Is it to impress her so much she chases? In fact, it’s none of these… not if you want the girl, that is.

Hey guys.

I hope you are all doing well.

Let’s get ready for some advanced stuff.

Today, I would like to reflect on how the typical “ends” in pickup and seduction are not what one should strive for (aside from shagging her, of course).

By ends, I am referring to what you want to accomplish, so you get her into bed:

• Do you impress her?

• Do you stimulate her?

• Do you make her attracted? (I prefer the word “compliance”)

Are these ends the correct ones? That’s what we will discuss. I will cover the typical concepts of ends and why they are not real ends or simply just a means to an end.

Then I will cover what the real ends are.

This post should not be confused with “the end game” of seduction and whether your end goal with a woman is a relationship or casual sex. Only you can provide the answer to that question.

So we will discuss which ends to focus on to have the most results. This is a more objective approach than trying to answer the subjective question of what type of relationships you’d like to have with women.

I will start with basic concepts and get into complex stuff later. Let’s dive in.