Seduction

Hollywood’s most prolific, charismatic womanizer of all time, Errol Flynn was a magnetic force unlike any other. Just what made Flynn so utterly irresistible?

Welcome to the third installment in this Charisma Breakdown series.

For the series, I've been breaking down the mannerisms and behaviors of wildly charismatic individuals, along the lines of the four Charismatic Archetypes we discuss in greater depth in my soon-to-be-rereleased course, Charisma in a Bottle.

You can see the previous two installments here:

1. Charisma Breakdown: John Wayne (King Archetype)

2. Charisma Breakdown: Russell Brand (Savior Archetype)

It was my intention to do the Father Archetype next, then the Hero, but it's been a bit of a challenge finding good Father Archetype charismatics who also fit a seductive role. I think I'll most likely do Sean Connery for that, who fits the Father Archetype, and for whom I've promised to do a charisma breakdown for a while.

Meantime though, I'm just too eager to get to Errol Flynn... so we're going to jump ahead here to do the Hero.

Today we cover cinema's most legendary swashbuckler and Hollywood's biggest ever real-life charismatic womanizer: the magnetic, the charming, the irresistible Errol Flynn.

If a girl is being snippy or you’ve hit a wall with her, make her chase you with a back turn… or just simply freeze her out.

There are a couple of old seduction community tactics I'd like to talk about today:

Back turns and freeze outs.

These are useful tactics when used correctly.

When used incorrectly they can make you look bitter at times, clownish at others.

The most key element of a successful back turn or freeze out thus is calibration: timing it right, using it correctly, and not doing it too short or too long.

How can a seducer view sleeping with women as morally correct… while knowing he likely wouldn’t want his daughter to sleep around? A deep dive into sexual morality.

On Alek's recent piece showcasing three new sex talk gambits, a reader posted the following provocative comment:

Hello Alek.

I've noticed something about Girls Chase and the seduction community at large.

There seems to be a lot of cognitive bias and intellectual dishonesty in this space Re: "Sluts".

See, in this space we teach that women are human beings just like men and should therefore be free to engage in sex freely w/o judgement.

Additionally, the concept of "high body count" is a non issue to us "lovers" unless seeking an LTR.

However, the facts show that "most" women are NOT in fact built for casual sex. Most high n count women either have personality disorders, histories of child abuse, poor impulse control or high sex drives.

For the most part women barter sex for relationships and constant hookups for the average chick without committment damages her psyche. That's why FWB chicks sometimes get jaded and tired of empty sex.

Here's a thought, if women like sex so much, why cant they hold down an FWB arrangemnt in perpetuity like men would prefer?

Chase has also countered the argument that older seducers do not corrupt younger girls by fucking them young 18/19yo) because women have agency and can think for themselves.

Yet we also go on to say that women are cute little smurfs who need guidance and direction. They aren't the best decision makers particularly when young.

In short all these axioms we have here seem to be rationalisations for "lovers" to be able to fuck girls without suffering from guilt.

And one way I can prove this is to request an article titled "A Letter to my 18yo Daughter" or sth along these lines giving her advice on how to manouver sexual relations as she goes off to start her first year in college.

Would you still tell your daughter that its okay to fuck a smooth talking guy on the first date if she feels the vibe?

Would you still tell her that body count is a social construct used by prudes and puritans? One nightstands are perfectly okay.

Would you still allow her to be fucked by older dudes (30s) while in her first year of college because older man + younger chick is a completely normal thing to do?

I find it hard hard to fully embody the lover archetype because it frequently clashes with the patriach archetype inside me who thinks he might have a daughter one day.

And I understand that this site does not give womens advice because it is a mens site for MEN but in this case saying that might be an easy cop out from addressing the disingenious nature of the things we teach here Re: Women and Sex

Is it possible to be a lover and a patriach without experiencing cognitive dissonance?

Trillion Dollar Question.

I love this question, and I'd love to answer it... so, while it may be addressed to Alek, I'd like to weigh in with my thoughts on it too.

You might see a playboy pull a beautiful girl or two. But is he advanced – or did he just get lucky? The trifecta of calibration, meet-to-lay, and consistency will tell you.

Hey guys.

We often talk about skilled seducers. But what defines a skilled seducer? Many people post videos of famous movies scenes on forums where the protagonist is acting sexy (like James Bond) to show what perception they have of “sexiness” or “tight game.” Some tell me about their “supernatural” friend (a “natural” is someone who is naturally skilled with women) to show me what tight game is. Sometimes they share a story of themselves in field or post a lay report on the forums and comment about the amazing job they did.

The truth is, I rarely am impressed. Don’t get me wrong. I am not claiming that the James Bond smirk is not sexy or that your natural friend has no skill. Nor do I want to discredit you in your success.

If you post a cool report on the forums and I happen to read it, you will hear nothing but praise from me.

But what really constitutes an advanced-level seducer goes far beyond that. Trust me; it is not what you’d expect.

That’s why today, I’ll share what I consider advanced-level play. Many veterans feel the same way. I know because I’ve talked to them. These are just opinions, and you are welcome to disagree.

We all have different goals, and true mastery depends on what we seek to achieve. What defines success is individual. That being said, I think there are ways to become more objective with success. I will discuss that here.

I will be setting the bar quite high for what I consider advanced level. The requirements presented in this article are reachable goals.

By creating a vortex of value, you can suck girls into chasing you. Yet you need two (2) key elements to NOT become the dancing monkey / friend zone guy…

Here's a little technique I like to call the 'value vortex'.

I didn't invent it, but I haven't seen it named before (or if I have I don't remember what others have called it).

It's a suspiciously-simple sounding strategy that's very easy to get wrong. Therefore I do not recommend it to beginners. Beginners will see this and want to use it, but it will backfire for them. I'll explain why below.

The basics of this strategy are that you run a seduction in such a way that you only provide value to the girl's life -- heaps of it -- while sharing next to nothing about yourself. You must also be initiating touch and getting compliance as you do it, but only in the context of providing more value to her.

The effect, if executed well and on a girl who is not immune*, is that the girl you use it with will start to chase. She will at first be intrigued by you, then she will start to chase you harder, then harder.

If not used the way I lay out in this post, however, the strategy will backfire, and you will quickly friend zone yourself.

Disclaimers out of the way, let's open up the hood on this vortex and talk using it to seduce.

You’ve taken a girl to bed. It went fine. But now you’re texting and she won’t come back over to your place. What gives, and how do you turn it around?

On the forum, member DoWhatWorks had slept with a new girl who was enthusiastic their first night together. Yet, when it came time for their next meet, she didn't want to go to his place. He says:

A girl I slept with on the 1st date is avoiding a 2nd meet up at my or her place. Instead counter-offering bars & walking dates. She’s the one pushing for the meet, not me. Why do you think that is?

Today we'll have a look at why girls do things like this, what it means, and how to get a girl you've bedded once back into your bed for another round.

Women often claim dates and hookups “just happen!” to them. But do they? And if you’re a man, is there a way to tap into things “just happening” yourself?

We have a member on the forum named Beam who recently committed to an exclusive, monogamous relationship. He has a girl he really liked, but he was also at a breakthrough moment in his game. True to the trend I identified in my article on guys taking girlfriends just as they're hitting game breakthroughs, his girlfriend sensed it and pushed hard for exclusivity, and Beam, figuring she's a great girl, granted her request.

Anyway, we chatted a bit about how he could best maintain his woman skills despite being monogamous. He tried telling his girlfriend he would still approach (whoops), but as you might expect she shot that down fast.

What I said was "you'll be able to flirt in natural settings, but if you try to push yourself to approach, your motivation for that will wane, and you'll probably feel conflicted about it, too."

He replied that that was already the case, and he felt conflicted already doing street approaches... but that flirting naturally with cashiers and checkout clerks or chatting up cute girls at a bar he was out to with buddies felt fine.

He volunteered that maybe because day game was what he was best at, that was why he felt conflicted, since those were the approaches most likely to lead to indiscretions.

That's not the reason though, I said -- it's because a day game approach is a conscious, deliberate one... whereas a flirtation with a cashier or a girl you chatted with while at a bar you were at anyway with friends is not; that, rather, is simply something that just happened.