Pickup Tech

Some guys slowly circle, other guys charge in. But if you want the most consistent results with girls, you'll do neither such thing…

It'd be nice if you could approach a girl, do a few things, and she just goes right to being your girl right after that, right?

Most women you'll meet aren't ready to go the moment you meet them, however.

Instead, you have to take them through a process.

You have to get them comfortable with you. You have to get them to follow your lead. You have to awaken their lusts. You have to create situations where they are alone with you and can slip into a more intimate interaction. You have to invite, and you have to lead.

The approach an ordinary man takes with women typically falls to one of two extremes:

1. He takes baby steps, but too few and too slowly. These men are the hesitant men, who don't want to blow it with a girl, so they go slow and walk soft. They stay well within the bounds of acceptability, but end up so tentative girls don't realize they like them, or if they do realize it, they find the guys too tame and aren't interested.

2. The other type of guy takes big steps, but rushes. These men are the aggressive men, who don't want to waste time on uninterested women, so they go fast and make bold moves. They cross the bounds of acceptability with many women, since these bounds are different for every girl and if you're trying to move bold and move fast (and aren't using much finesse as you do it) you don't have time to figure out where each individual girl's boundaries are. The result is men like this succeed with the women who were open to what they wanted and whose bounds matched their moves (a minority of women), while they blow themselves out or scare off the women for whom they make too many bold moves, too fast, or go too far out of bounds (the majority of women they meet).

It's better to be Guy B than it is to be Guy A, generally. Guy B at least will get some decent success with girls, even if he blows it with most of them. But you have to be a bit of an asshole to pull off the Guy B approach.

Guy A spends too much of his time pining away after girls who may not even realize he likes them, or do realize it but don't feel anything for him (and never will, since he never really does anything with them).

Both men are extremes though.

One moves too slowly and softly, like a seduction sloth.

The other moves too brazenly and rushed, like a seduction rhinoceros.

The way the most adept seducers move is neither like the slow-moving, soft sloth, nor the brazen, rushed rhino.

The best seducers move like a cat: lots of little steps, made quickly, before they pounce.

Some pickup artists swear by direct game. Others prefer indirect game. Some guys mix it up. This article is meant to help you decide what is best for you.

Hey, guys. Since we are beating dead horses lately by discussing natural vs. technical game, and inner game vs. outer game, I decided to beat another dead horse, which ironically, I have not seen being discussed much on the blog.

It’s interesting that after almost seven years of writing, I’ve decided to cover the subject bloggers and coaches tend to write their first articles about.

Well, I guess it is never too late, and I am sure some are probably curious about my take on it.

We all want women to like us for who we are, but when it comes to picking up girls, there are times to be authentic and times to be technical.

In this final article in my series about debunking useless or counterintuitive schools of thought, we will discuss authenticity.

So far we have discussed the failings of:

• Inner Game
• Outcome Independence
• Natural Game

Today we will go over a newer phenomenon which I have seen mentioned often lately, even here on Girls Chase – and that is the obsession with “authenticity.”

Yes, it is very important for many guys to seduce girls in a way that is authentic. But it’s not unusual that those who seem to stress authenticity are usually beginners or lower intermediate players. I have never seen such a subject discussed by more advanced seducers. Never.

In this post, I will point out the value of authenticity, but also how it can be a waste of your time and effort.

How to get a girl to kiss you first?

Sounds like a dream.

A lot of guys out there are going to teach you gimmicks. Tricks and tips.

Some of them can work under the right circumstances, but if you really want a girl to kiss you first, you need to create an environment for her where she will WANT to do it.

That’s the secret to getting a girl to kissing you first.

Make her WANT to do it and make it EASY for her.

You’ll see. Watch the video.

Many seduction newbies get sold on “natural game” because it seems so appealing and, well, natural. But its shortcomings vastly outweigh its value for getting girls.

Since we have been discussing the trends of inner game and debunking certain misconceptions, I decided to write a follow-up on a closely related subject that took the seduction community by storm.

The subject we will discuss is natural game – the idea that pickup and seduction has to happen naturally, depending on who you are, your vibe, and your personality.

Sounds appealing right? It surely does to many, but there are some flaws to this system. I see pickup and seduction as a skillset, with tools to use. Sure, long term it will affect you and how you see women and the world, but initially, pickup and seduction is – a skill.

Natural game looks very appealing to many newer guys for some reason. But there is a reason for why most advanced or skilled guys laugh at it.

In this post, we will try to understand its limitations but also why it became popular in the first place, to truly understand its roots.

What’s more important, inner game or outer game? Both serve a purpose, but how and when you focus on each has a big impact on your understanding and success in pickup.

Hey guys.

Today I will share a reflection on the subject of “inner game.” I will be frank; I was not a big fan of the trend back in the late 2000s when the pickup industry moved away from technical seduction into a more “self-help” oriented approach, looking at how you think and feel, rather than what you should do.

In my opinion, the discussions on forums were better when there was a technical approach because people could more easily analyze what worked and what went wrong in particular situations, and individuals could fine-tune their approach and increase calibration.

With the focus on inner game, things got blurry. It became more difficult to discuss what worked and what didn’t. The concepts were vague and abstract, making them hard to prove and falsify. Theories became philosophical rather than scientific.

As a result, newbies grew more confused, and it was harder to help them because what these guys needed was specific advice on what to say and what to do when dealing with women – not telling them how they should think or feel about it.

The quality of posts went down, and it's amusing that many newbies were swearing to this new paradigm then. Yet most of them didn't really get results.

There is a reason for why technical game is making a comeback – because it works, and it tells you what to do. It allows people to share their tricks and to have others discuss and fine-tune them. It allows for innovation and new thinking.

I suspect that this inner game paradigm was, in a way, a response to the overly robotic aspect of the community’s early days. But just because these concepts became a bit too robotic doesn’t mean that going to another extreme is a good call. But that is what happened.

Nevertheless, the discussion today will be the good old debate of inner game (mindsets, realities, and understanding) versus outer game (hard pickup tech).

It’s a debate that is almost as old and tiresome as the “direct” versus “indirect” game argument. I have taken the liberty to write this piece because most people doing the debating have little experience (such discussions are keyboard jockey magnets), and I feel that many are still confused on the subject.

The points I will make are thoroughly subjective but built upon experience. Hopefully, you will find my arguments convincing, and I believe them to be strong – but they are just opinions at the end of the day.

You use force frames to make women (or other people) see things the way you see things. Each force frame consists of two parts: the pitch and the ditch.

Frame control is a crucial aspect of achieving your ends with other people.

He who controls the frame, controls how those within that frame perceive events.

Civilizations strive endlessly to control the frame through which the citizenry view the world. Every civilization exerts massive amounts of energy to ensure its population sees things the way it wants it to see things, and to label the way competitor civilizations see things as 'misguided', 'wrong', or even 'evil'. Every time you think another country does things the wrong way, and yours does them right, you think within the frame of your society.

Yet frame control extends to a far more granular level than that of civilizations.

Any time you interact with a group of people, frame control is at play.

Any time you interact with a single other person, frame control is at play.

When you talk to a girl, frame control is at play. Either you'll control the frame, or she will.

When women test, this is in part to see if you'll yield the frame. Women are not attracted to men who yield to their frames, but they will test (over and over) to see if you will. They must discover if you are a man strong of frame or weak of it.

There's a form of frame control you can use called 'force framing'.

Force frames are for when you want to frame something that isn't necessarily true, or the other party may not readily accept. However, you still want to impose the frame regardless.

The force frame is how you impose that frame despite the other party's 'opposition'.