(4) Advanced

I call this one the Narrative Gambit. It comes with a great transition into sex talk and uses pacing and NLP to get her thinking about having sex with you. Enjoy!

Welcome back. Today I will share another sex talk gambit, which I use a lot lately.

The gambit is easy to pull off and intuitive to understand. I will share the gambit, and like always share the mechanisms behind it; how, why, and what makes it work. This will help you not only gain new knowledge around useful concepts for pickup and seduction but also give you tools to create your own gambit.

This post is shorter than my others, since the gambit itself does not contain many over-advanced concepts. The transition (which I will cover because I know many like to read about transitions into sex talk) does contain quite advanced concepts which I will not discuss here. Look for this in a future post (which will have a link back to this post so you can reread it with a different eye).

But in practice, this should be easy to pull off.

This post is suited for any seducer who:

• Has the ability to calibrate
• Can maintain and manage conversations
• Has their fundamentals in check (key!)

When should you use this gambit?

I have only used this one in night game, but this works great on a date, and perhaps on the street, once you have hooked her in and have managed to keep a conversation going.

In night game, you can use this gambit anytime post-hook.

KEY NOTE: You can also use this gambit in groups, although it requires more smoothness and calibration. It works great.

This seduction gambit stimulates her mind and frames you as a good lover. It also employs social proof and preselection to imply you can give her amazing orgasms.

Today I am going to share another sex-talk gambit that is well suited for night game.

Some of you may adjust it or create variations to make it fit day game. This gambit is far less abstract and more playful than some of my previous ones.

It also is on the easier side in terms of pulling off successfully.

You’ll find fewer advanced theoretical concepts in this one, and more basic ideas than many other gambits. So, if you find my previous gambits too complex, with overly advanced concepts, this one is for you.

This post is suited for anyone with:

• Decent fundamentals

• Good conversation skills

I’ll make this “gambit” post a bit shorter than usual. Let’s get straight to it.

All this stuff about Female State Control and Social Frame is great and very useful. But how much do you really need to focus on it in your seductions?

After many posts on female state control (FSC) and social frame, it may seem like we are getting a bit too far down the rabbit hole. Some of you may be asking yourselves, “Do I need all this?”

Here are the articles written on the subject so far:

1. Spell Broken: Big Mistakes That Shred Conversation (by Chase from 2011)
2. Female State Control (FSC): Theoretical Causes and Effects
3. Female State Control (FSC): Preemptive Measures
4. How to Get Somewhere with a Girl: The Floors and Ceilings Method (by Chase)  
5. Female State Control (FSC): Social Frame and Comfort
6. Female State Control Vaccines: Social Frame
7. The Social Dynamics of Female State Control in Pickup
8. Female State Control Vaccines: Rapport and Fractionation
9. Female State Control Vaccines: Investment
10. How to Take Women Home Without Having the Right Social Frame
11. Social Acceptability and Sexual Acceptability in Dating (by Chase)
12. How Too Much High Value Can Trigger Female State Control
13. Female State Control: More Causes and Solutions
14. Female State Management and Social Frame: The Big Picture

Do you really need this complex info, all these fine-tuned techniques?

The quick answer is: some of it, sure. We’re covering a broad arsenal. Sometimes you need a few elements; sometimes you need everything.

Remember there is always another woman nearby who is easier. She may be equally nice and equally hot.

But sometimes you end up going all pickup nerdy; you want perfection. You want to have a high meet-to-lay ratio.

To some, this discussion about FSC and social frame may seem overly complicated. If it’s so important, is this another area you must spend tons of time to learn about, practicing the techniques to prevent and counter FSC? It could seem a bit demotivating to some, and it may make pickup and seduction seem even harder than it already is.

This is the question I would like to answer in this post. Do you need all this, and if so, when? I will also mention when you shouldn’t focus on this.

Lastly, I will offer a simplified guide for intermediates, newbies, and for those times when you have low momentum and are not performing as well as you usually do.

It's easier to get a girl to agree to a date or to go to your place if what you suggest feels familiar to her. But how do you trigger that feeling of familiarity? By seeding your suggestion first.

Recently I spoke with a friend who's back in the field after some time off, trying to shake off the rust. He's gone on a lot of dates but had trouble closing the deal with girls. And he mentioned his usual process for getting alone with a woman right now.

What he's doing, typically, is taking girls on a date, then later going for a walk with them, only to 'just happen' to end up right outside his building. He'll then invite them up.

Except most of the time they balk. Other times they'll go up with him, but resist kissing, and leave soon after he kisses them or tries to. He started to wonder if he might not be asking women to make too big a decision ("Go into this guy's place and get intimate, yes or no?") on the spot.

So I reminded him about seeding.

Seeding is a tool you can use to make it easier to get women onto dates and back to your place (or you to theirs).

It works by making women feel 'familiar' with the thing you want to propose, by introducing it earlier, before the decision point. Seeding a request or invite before you make it removes the 'on the spot' feeling when you do propose something, so a woman does not feel as if she suddenly must decide whether or not to do something then and there.

If you know how to seed dates and pulls with women, and you seed often, you'll discover let-downs like my friend has, where you bring a woman by your place and invite her up, only to run into a 'no', largely evaporate. Instead you get girls to agree before you even start on your way, and find they're bought-in by the time you arrive.

In our ongoing exploration of Female State Control (FSC), we’ve identified several causes and solutions. But wait, there’s more! Let’s fill in those missing pieces.

Welcome back! This is a continuation of our discussion on Female State Control (FSC). If you'd like to catch up, here are the articles to date:

1. Female State Control (FSC): Theoretical Causes and Effects
2. Female State Control (FSC): Preemptive Measures
3. Female State Control (FSC): Social Frame and Comfort
4. Female State Control Vaccines: Social Frame
5. The Social Dynamics of Female State Control in Pickup
6. Female State Control Vaccines: Rapport and Fractionation
7. Female State Control Vaccines: Investment
8. How to Take Women Home Without Having the Right Social Frame
9. Social Acceptability and Sexual Acceptability in Dating
10. How Too Much High Value Can Trigger Female State Control

Last week, we mentioned other social factors that can trigger Female State Control that are not related to a lack of social frame. Today we will discuss other reasons why women may hold themselves back and control their state when they are getting aroused by you.

If you’ve been tagging along up until now, you probably know that FSC and social frame are subjects I’ve discussed a lot lately. But for those of you who are new to our discussion, FSC is the phenomenon of women controlling their state: holding back, turning cold, and ejecting when they get stimulated/aroused by a guy. It can happen with a guy she doesn't consider socially acceptable to hook up with (if her friends are likely to find out, for example).

You can view this post as an overview covering everything I haven’t had a chance to mention in my earlier posts on FSC. Many points listed here may be small; however, they are still significant. I will not discuss rare and uncommon situations but instead will look at common interactions that I believe many of you will face or have faced before.

As I cover these points, I’ll do my best to present reliable solutions to the problems. As we will see, not every issue covered will have an answer (and you may not always want to fix it, especially if the problem is significant). However, I will try to compensate with some discussion and analysis.

You want to spend quality time together, but she'd rather do things for you she thinks you'll like? Different love languages can cause more issues than you'd think... until you realize they exist.

One of the most controversial articles on Girls Chase is my piece "Should You Pay for a Date?" My conclusion of that article was "No, you shouldn't pay. Not based on my experience. Not if you sleep with or date a gal." Many men and some women agreed with me. Many other women flipped out that I'd suggest not paying for women. Some men also said they found it odd or counterproductive. You can go read the comments on that article to see how hotly contested the issue was (and those comments kept coming for years).

For years after I wrote that piece I assumed the outraged women were outraged at the threat the article posed to the free rides they enjoyed. Who wouldn't be upset at the prospect of losing a quite literal meal ticket? That last thing a gal needs is a lot of guys reading that article, then cheapening up their dates and splitting the bills!

And while some female commentators clearly had that as their rationale, not all did. Some professed to genuinely see a paid-for date as an expression of how the man values them. I was aware there are women like this, but always considered them outliers. I assumed most women who fought for paid-dates were simply girls who'd been pampered and didn't like the threat they might lose that pampering.

Yet, there's a psychometric theory called 'love languages' that might also explain the controversy.

According to Gary Chapman's theory of love languages, wanting gifts isn't just that someone is or isn't spoiled.

Rather, different people actually primarily gauge how other people value them in very different ways. And just as some people like quality time most, and some people prefer touch, there are people for whom the primary way they feel valued is through gifts.

Do you make a woman worse as a future girlfriend, wife, or mother when you go to bed with her? Many people think you do.

On my article about player guilt, Ben asked:

Could  you address the final issue that you bring- that sleeping with women  damages their ability to have long term relationships?

You made a fairly convincing case that emotionally, assuming you are  going to flirt and go out and attract women, not sleeping with them  isn't doing them any favors.

Maybe we really shouldn't be going out and flirting with most girls  (excluding the ones who need an emotional escape or similar i guess)  from an emotional standpoint?

More importantly though, how do you justify flirting with girls then  sleeping with them, knowing it damages their ability to have long term  relationships? This bothers me more than the emotional aspect.

-ben

The issue he's talking about was where I paraphrased some 'web wisdom' thrown about about women. Some of it says sex is liberating to women. Some says sex is violent, oppressive, and patriarchal. Some say sex is empowering. Some say it ruins women for the long-term. Those aren't my opinions; they are however common tropes you will run into on the Internet.

Ben's question, though, is one worth exploring... particularly as it ties into the concept of player guilt (which that article Ben commented on was about). If you sleep with a woman, are you damaging her future potential as a girlfriend, wife, and mother?

A growing movement online seems to have arrived at the conclusion "yes, sex damages women's futures."

The men who arrive at this conclusion though follow a chain of logic that proceeds thus:

1. Women with higher numbers of sex partners are, on average, worse partners and mothers

2. Therefore, when men have sex with women, they degrade women's abilities to be competent partners and mothers

While we do have plenty of evidence that women are less faithful the more partners they have, and we've all heard anecdotes of irresponsible man-crazy single mothers ditching their kids to chase the homme du jour, there's a big causal jump between those two points. This casual leap of faith is where guys trip themselves up.

That is to say, women with high partner counts are (on average) worse as mothers and partners. This is true.

Yet their partner counts are a symptom of what makes them worse in these roles -- partner count is not the cause.

And when you take a woman to bed, you are also not 'the cause'.