(4) Advanced

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'.

In our series on Female State Control (FSC), we’ve learned how high value and social frame can bypass FSC, but can too much of it actually work against you?

Hey, guys. Today I will continue my discussion on social frame and female state control (FSC). However, I will take a different angle. We will discuss some other reasons why FSC is socially useful.

We’ve discussed FSC and social frame a lot lately, but if you are new to this, check out the previous articles.

• Female State Control (FSC): Theoretical Causes and Effects
• Female State Control (FSC): Preemptive Measures
• Female State Control (FSC): Social Frame and Comfort
• Female State Control Vaccines: Social Frame
• The Social Dynamics of Female State Control in Pickup
• Female State Control Vaccines: Rapport and Fractionation
• Female State Control Vaccines: Investment
• How to Take Women Home Without Having the Right Social Frame
• Social Acceptability and Sexual Acceptability in Dating

In a nutshell, FSC is the phenomenon that happens when women control their state while feeling stimulated or aroused and do not feel ready to allow themselves to be captivated by an attractive guy. If you’ve encountered a situation where everything seems to be going well, the vibe is good, and things are escalating fast... then out of the blue, the girl:

• Disappears
• Wants to go dance
• Turns cold
• Acts weird in general

...or any other action that communicates that she is actively trying to de-escalate the vibe. That's FSC.

It happens because she feels things are going too fast, she is losing control, or she is getting stimulated by a guy who she does not feel “allowed” to hook up with. By “allowed” we refer to social frame as defining whether a woman feels allowed on a social level to hook up with a guy. If you have a strong social frame, it will help overcome a lack of her feeling allowed to get carried away by you. It also makes it easier for her to backward-rationalize her attraction for you socially.

Today, let’s discuss other social reasons why women control their state when they are around you. We’ll focus on the social aspects like in my previous posts on social frame, but the reasons covered here are not due to a lack of social frame but something else, or the opposite. You might have too good of a social frame. Okay, this may seem counterintuitive, but everything in pickup can be a double-edged sword.

I will also try to suggest solutions for each of the causes.

Let’s get to it.

Having the right social frame is important for making girls feel allowed to hook up with you. But there are ways to overcome social mismatches with pure awesomeness.

Hey, guys. Today we will discuss how you can get women and score social points at a venue or social gathering where you do not fit in.

Before I get started, a word of caution: this is a seduction blog about getting women. This advice is not valid for professional lives or other situations. It may apply elsewhere, but I cannot say for sure.

Try this out in venues and situations where you have little to lose socially and economically.

We know how getting a girl to invest in you makes it easier to get her to do what you want. But can investment also overcome a lack of social frame?

Hey, guys! Welcome back to our final article on social frame (although I may write more about it in the future if something new comes up).

Social frame is a conceptual bundle covering the social part of seduction and whether she feels it's socially okay for her to hook up with you. It considers whether you are the type of guy she usually hooks up with and whether you match with her on a level that is socially acceptable to hook up with.

Our goal with establishing a social frame is to make her feel allowed to hook up with you.

Escalation and other forms of stimulation are about making her feel a desire to hook up with us. But if she does not feel allowed to hook up with us, she may pull the plug and control her state. We have labeled this “female state control” (FSC). If you want to find out more, read my previous posts on the subject.

(This is all closely related to Chase's post on floors and ceilings; the concept is VERY relatable to social frame and female state control.)

Having a proper social frame makes her feel allowed to hook up with you, reducing the chance of her controlling her state. Or at least it buffers the FSC mechanism.

Previously we discussed three dimensions of social frame:

• Social value
• Social dynamics
• Rapport

Today we will discuss the fourth dimension: investment. This is nothing new to the more advanced seducer, but its connection to social frame and FSC is what may be new to them. So read this. Beginners may learn the fundamentals or at least receive links to great in-depth posts.

The more acceptable a match a woman thinks you are for her, the better your odds with her are. Here's what you must do for her to mark you 'acceptable'.

Since I started this website, we've always stressed the importance of fundamentals. Fundamentals range from your posture, facial expressions, and voice, to how you walk and move, your hairstyle, your facial hair, your clothes, your fitness, and physique. Also included: social fundamentals like sprezzatura, and how well you stick to the Law of Least Effort. All are great, and you will do better with women the better you get on each. But why are they important?

Fundamentals help so much because they make you more attractive. Get your fundamentals good enough, and you can even overcome your disadvantages. Girl doesn't usually like men of your height, weight, race, job type? Get your fundamentals good enough, and it becomes "Wow, you're not like the other [whatever you are]!" Why would this be, though? How do fundamentals overcome deep-seated biases in partner choice?

The way fundamentals do this is by raising either (or both of) your social acceptability or your sexual acceptability. Acceptability is a topic Alek's been discussing in his "Female State Control" series, under the name of 'social frame'. I want to unpack this concept more here, and look at a few of the different ways 'acceptability' can go. Because not all sorts of acceptability are created equal.

The best way to deal with Female State Control (FSC) is to avoid it. Let’s talk about how combining rapport and fractionation creates a weapon of mass seduction.

Welcome back. The last few weeks, we've been exploring Female State Control (FSC). Let’s continue discussing the aspect of social frame, since it's closely tied with FSC. We want to give you all the ins and outs of the latest theories and tech. That’s why we're dedicating many posts to social frame.

Social frame is a key component to avoiding FSC, which is when women control their state whenever they get stimulated by a guy without feeling allowed to do so for some reason or another. If you want more info on this, check out my previous posts on this subject.

Today we will discuss how rapport affects social frame.

We will also discuss how to build rapport the right way, since rapport can be a double-edged sword (we will tap into why this is). You’ll learn how to avoid the pitfalls while keeping all the benefits.

But before we get into that, we need to ask ourselves an important question.