(2) Intermediate

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.

Men hold quite various views on women. Why do men’s views diverge so sharply? Much comes down to how they meet, with different avenues leading to differing views.

We just had another conversation on the forum where a guy who does 'sugar dating' (i.e., a type of prostitution previously known as 'girlfriend experience' or GFE) argued the same line I've heard a hundred times from men who frequent prostitutes of all stripes:

You pay for it one way or another, whether the meals you buy her on a date or the house you buy her once she's your wife. At least with prostitution the whole thing's [benefits of prostitution].

This isn't an article about whether you should or shouldn't do prostitution. I've already written that article.

Instead, I want to cover some of the more common ways men meet women, and how the way they meet women colors the interactions they have with them and shapes the way they think about them.

You can get a girl you like to follow your lead with a simple compliance ladder. Not only will she follow you smoother and more easily, but it often even speeds up the courtship.

Let's talk about a simple technique with tremendous ability to be ramped up: the compliance ladder.

A compliance ladder is a series of actions you cause someone to make that escalates her compliance with you.

The more she complies, the more she invests, and as she becomes more invested in her relationship with you, it becomes increasingly more difficult for her to pull away, less desirable for her to, and easier for her to continue complying with larger and larger asks.

You can use this simple psychological effect (which all humans have) to do all sorts of things with people... including lead women into bed.

Guys who try ‘gaming’ women with this new-style “neo-direct” game aren’t gaming girls. They’re simping IRL. Which explains the harsh rejections neo-direct gamers get.

Note: I will be criticizing super-direct (neo-direct) game in this post. However, I want to emphasize that I am not attacking direct game. I have previously been harsh about direct game, but those posts were mostly a criticism of super-neo direct game that I intend to criticize here. I will clarify further in my next two posts. I have a post on direct game coming out soon and will explain how to run it properly to get maximum efficiency and consistency. Stay tuned.

Hey guys.

Today I want to add my take on women and high standards in the era of social media and simping. I want to link this phenomenon with the surge of neo-direct game.

Direct game has become more popular lately.

However, the new form that has become more popular (which Chase calls “neo-direct game”) mostly teaches men to spam-approach on the street, show interest, and hope for the best.

These techniques have done nothing good for men, aside from giving them the balls to approach girls.

Girls with inflated egos from social media, plus the high amount of simping, only leads them to hunt for more validation. With this new form of direct game, you give her exactly what she wants. But now, you are not of much value to her—that is, unless she is looking for sex. Your odds are low since it is more likely that she would just call an F-buddy to satisfy her needs rather than going along with a stranger from the street.

Never have men obtained such bad results as they have using this approach to pick up. I have read reports on forums (some are from our own forum) of guys doing 100 approaches and only getting two lays. Those numbers don’t shock me, considering the style they apply.

What shocks me is that these results are considered normal. They are not. These men have been misled.

Such a ratio is not normal for someone who has made hundreds of approaches. The number of guys sharing these numbers may seem like outliers, but they are not; it is common. They do have one thing in common: they all used this super-direct approach.

Some guys are stubborn and stick to this bad routine because that’s how some of us are. (I have been guilty of this myself). Others just give up. The latter guys come to our forum or post in our comment section that women have too high standards. Chase wrote an amazing piece on the subject. I am not adding anything to his brilliant post.

It makes sense that many men think that women today have high standards. If you opt for super-direct game (neo-direct game), you will often get rejected. From there, it is easy to assume that you are not enough for her and that women’s standards have gone up drastically.

And in all honesty, in some ways, they have gone up. I will add a different perspective to Chase’s theory that doesn’t really conflict.

This “neo” super-direct game is no different than simping on the internet. Women indeed get plenty of attention from hungry, desperate men online. Just look at the surge of “sexual” services on OnlyFans.com, and all the attention-whoring on Instagram. Even Tinder is now used primarily as a tool to gain new followers on Instagram.

What we see coming out of neo-direct game is brutal. It is simping. Most beautiful women are used to such behavior. Even those who are not completely histrionic on social media will get some level of simping from different dating apps or elsewhere.

All this is because the internet facilitates two factors:

• Male simping

• Female attention-whoring

The internet motivates simping because this behavior in real life (especially night game) often results in a harsh rejection.

Why?

In real life, women have to reject to get rid of such men so they don’t annoy them or follow them around. There is also the danger of some men becoming sexual harassers.

Yet harsh rejections are not needed on the web because everyone is behind a screen. The men who follow a beautiful woman online either live far away or have no way of finding out where she lives. If an online fan goes too far, she block him, report him, and have him banned. So she does not need to reject harshly.

Men can stick around online since it does not pose any danger to her, and it can benefit her social status and validation. Instead of harsh rejections, women may give men a “like” to their comment as a pitiful reward, and if they are lucky, they even get an “Oh, you are so nice :D” comment.

However, once back to real life, women reject a stranger’s approach as a safety measure, especially when he is too pushy and forcing her into a corner. Remember that women have a risk-averse nature. (Read my theoretical post on female state control for more information.) A woman will usually choose the safe option, to reject, even if she considered you cute or interesting. She doesn’t know you and wants to play it safe. Smiling back and playing along will signify that she accepts your approach, which could potentially drag her into something she may later regret.

This fact has always been true. The club served as the main ground for attention-seeking behavior in the past,. (This still happens in clubs today, but the web now outcompetes it.) It’s why women have their shields up in clubs. Constantly dealing with frumpy and bitchy women, leading to plenty of harsh rejections, demotivates many men from using simping-like behavior in clubs. This is the reason why indirect game was revolutionary back in the 2000s. It was the opposite of simping behavior. It was a countermeasure to the harsh rejections men would face in clubs.

You won’t get together with a girl on the first date. Sometimes you’ll need several dates to get her. Plan the first and second date simultaneously and bolster your date success.

Ever since I grew comfortable going for first date hookups, that became my norm.

Yet there are times you fear you can't bed a new lover in only one date.

There are other times you may not have the time or inclination to yourself.

You can use date compression as one option to cram many dates into a short time.

Date compression constructs a 'whirlwind romance' that sweeps many women off their feet, into your arms.

There's another strategy you can use too, different from date compression or from going for it the first date.

This was the first date planning strategy I used, when I was too inexperienced to aim for intimacy in one date.

It's also one I've kept in my back pocket for scenarios where I expect to struggle to or lack the time to make it all happen in a date.

The approach is this:

Rather than plan out a first date in isolation, you plan for a first and second date simultaneously.

Rewarding good behavior during courtships and relationships is pivotal to your romantic success. But just how do you go about doing that?

On my article about teasing a girl to her friends, a reader named Warcode asks:

Hi chase could you do an article on ways to generally reward her? Whether verbally or physically etc and on the basis of how does this mechanism change from the beginning of knowledge to a type of relationship? The basic mechanism and then decline it to every situation. Then, for example, I do not understand well in a relationship if giving compliments of a various nature and how to do them maybe a you're beautiful is so anonymous and recurring? And if compliments should be made / convey interest how often and of what types ?. I had also read on the forum that in sex do not pay her physical compliments because she gives her too much

Sure, I'd be glad to oblige.

Today, let's talk about rewarding women: when to do it, how to do it, and the nature of rewarding women both during the initial courtship and in ongoing relationships.