Female Mind

When a woman’s exclusive to you but you aren’t to her, you see sides of female behavior most men never will. Acceptance, exuberance, and societal convergence are just some of what you discover.

Over the years I've had a variety of relationships where the woman was sexually/romantically exclusive to me, but not I to her.

I learned the techniques to set up and manage relationships like this from an old instructor of mine, who'd often maintain 5-7 girlfriends at once, with 2-3 of them as serious relationships.

This was a lot more common in the early days of the seduction community. Men called them 'mLTRs' then (short for 'multiple long-term relationships'). Many of the guys running mLTRs didn't ask for (or weren't able to get) exclusivity from their girls. But some of them did.

Because pretty much all my romantic experience came post-discovering the seduction community, I dove right in, and went into setting up mLTRs from my very first relationships. I was a young dumb kid, dating women who were a lot more experienced than he was, and I figured it wouldn't work and I'd get laughed out of these girls' apartments and lives... but to my surprise, it did.

I've tended to call this setup 'one-sided monogamy' when I've mentioned it on this site. But since I'm talking about it here, I've realized this term, while descriptive, doesn't sound great, and doesn't really do the relationship justice. (while only one party is monogamous, the relationship itself is not 'one-sided')

So for this piece, we'll just call these women you have in a relationship like this 'consorts' or 'mistresses'.

There are many different kinds of women to meet. Most guys meet the same 1-2 types of girls again and again without realizing. But are you meeting the best one(s) for you?

I thought I'd draw up a fun article on different 'classes' of women and where they can be found. Somewhat similar to a 'monster compendium' of Dungeons & Dragons fame.

Since we're doing this day game focus (with Hector's day game course Meet Girls Everywhere about ready to launch), I was thinking about the girls you most often meet via day game vs. those you meet via night game vs. those you meet via dating apps.

I thought this'd be a neat little piece to do; one that differentiates between these different types, whom you will most often meet in different ways/venues/times/places.

Our 8 types of women are:

1. Plain Jane
2. Wendy Workaholic
3. Betty Bonkers
4. The Wild Freak
5. Goldie Gold Digger
6. The Chillaxer
7. Maureen Morality
8. Single Mom Sally

Without further ado, let's explore each...

She has her own internal frame, and you would do well to reframe it, if it is in your interest to do so.

Hey guys, Welcome back!

Last week we looked at what a frame is and its importance in pick-up and seduction.

A frame is basically the same as a perspective - a lens through which you see and perceive the world. It stems from our own social constructions (i.e., internal frames – our sense of reality) and is deeply linked to our social identity.

Frames can be projected, becoming externalized. This happens when our internal frames are projected into the social space.

Since frames are socially constructed by default, they can also be deconstructed and reconstructed. This is key because it is the anvil upon which proper game is forged.

The interaction you have with someone has a frame – both you and the girl “convey” or “display” your own internal frames and contribute this way to the interaction. When your frames mesh, a new frame emerges.

Good pick-up skills involve being aware of your frames, her frames, and how to convey yours in a smooth way, reframing hers as negative (those that work against you at any rate) and so influence the new frame that emerges in the interaction between you and your interlocutors (for example the girl you're chatting with).

Does it seem like sexually experienced women are more likely to reject you if you’re less aggressive or don’t go for things right now? Expectations + experience are the reasons why.

We're going to talk about some fairly advanced attraction psychology in this article. However, if you stick with it, the responses you see from different types of women will start to make a lot more sense. It will also make even clearer to you the importance of moving faster and refining your calibration with women.

Commenting on my article about myths about women novice seducers often believe, a reader named Marco asked the following:

But in your experience so far, have you ever came across a girls ( "sluts") who will perceive you as too "soft" and sexually inexperienced if you asked them out on a date? Maybe its all in my head but i think there are some type of girls who reacts much better to sexually aggressive guys, might even say uncalibrated guys, who immediately suggest casual hook ups oppose to guys who want to take them out for a drinks?

Well, for one, I have, but, for two, it's not quite so black-and-white as one might think.

This article is going to be something of an unofficial companion to Alek's piece on the easiness or not of sexually liberated vs. sexually reserved women yesterday (haven't run it by him so I don't want to call it 'official'... but it's right up that piece's alley).

You can absolutely take sexually open women out on dates while still maintaining the sexually aggressive playboy frame. Likewise, it is possible to have sexually reserved women so amped up hoping you'll make something happen with them now that they become disappointed when you do not.

So, while sometimes open or slutty girls will look down on you if you try to date them rather than pull them, they may not. And while many times reserved girls will be perfectly fine with dates, from time to time they won't be.

What determines whether a girl likes or dislikes your attempts to pull her or date her?

A big part of it is the interplay between you, and your response to her signals.

In-your-face sexually promiscuous girls are not what they seem. Neither are "conservative" girls...

Hey, all! Today we will debunk one of the biggest biases in the seduction community. Even as a skilled seducer, I’ve fallen for this in the past, and I still do it on bad days.

This post is to educate you and help me become more conscious of a bias I experience. Debunking this bias will give you success with women and hopefully make things seem less scary. There is light at the end of the tunnel!

What I’m about to discuss is something only skilled seducers seem to be aware of. Ironically, we haven’t discussed it here before.

Girls who seem less sexually liberated or “upfront” are not necessarily harder to lay than so-called “sluts” (I don’t like this word) or “easy” girls, who tend to be more sexually expressive and open.

It follows that these girls may be easier to smash (and easier to deal with in a relationship) than more “sexually liberated” or “expressive” chicks.

This doesn’t mean sexually liberated and expressive women are always harder to bed than more “stuck-up” girls. Nor does it mean “stuck-up” women are necessarily easy to get. The point is: assessing how easy a girl is to roll in the hay with based on how much she expresses sexual intent or how liberal her attitudes are can be a mistake.

We’ll start by looking at WHY sexually liberated girls may not be as “easy” as they seem before making the case for more sexually “restricted” girls.

Ever have a woman imply she wants something… then later change to say or act like she “never wanted that anyway?” Does it mean she actually didn’t want it… or is she auto-rejecting?

Here's a place I see guys get tripped up a lot.

A woman they're courting or in a relationship with suddenly starts acting like she isn't interested in moving things forward with them. So the guy concludes, "I guess she isn't all that interested after all," and moves on to the next girl.

Meanwhile what was actually happening was the woman had started to auto-reject.

But she actually did want the guy to move things forward with her.

She only started acting like she didn't when she thought he wouldn't.

Tragically, things fall apart due to a miscommunication between the two... yet this miscommunication is all too common.

You were just about to ask her out. You were just about to make a move. You were just about to make the relationship serious. But women don’t wait for you. Why must girls be so impatient?

There's a recurring theme you see when you're in this industry long enough.

Well, actually, you see a lot of recurring themes.

But one of them is guys complaining about how women don't wait for them.

Men complain that women don't wait for them across so many domains:

• "I wanted to ask her out, but it's like she lost interest and moved on. Why couldn't she wait for me?"

• "We were having such a great conversation, and I was getting ready to make a move, but the emotions changed and she left. Why didn't she wait just a little longer for me?"

• "I'd been talking to this girl for weeks and had some really great dates with her. Then she texted me she'd started seeing someone else. I thought we had a great thing. Why didn't she wait?"

• "This girl and I were dating for five months. She kept asking me how I felt about her, and I didn't really have an answer. Then eventually she began to pull away, and broke up with me. I just realized I'm crazy about her. I want to give her everything she wanted, but it's too late. I don't understand why she didn't wait for me?"

Long-time readers know the first part of my answer: attraction has an expiration date.

Just because she's into you now doesn't mean she will be four hours from now if you don't take advantage of it while it's there.

But what about for the guys who are in relationships?

Why do women ditch guys they've been dating for months, who were just about ready to offer that next step up in the relationship those women had sought?

Is there any relation between women not waiting in relationships, where they're already intimate with the man, and women not waiting for men they're not yet intimate with?