| This is a post from personal experience.
Since I'm not connoisseur of casual pick-ups, better yet, I don't find them appealing outside of some virtual fantasy, in real environment where I live for decades, I'll just refer to the relationship context. And by that I mean 'relationship' as in one and only one conventional definition, in order to remove artifical, redundant memes created by flams such as "FWB", "ONS", "open", "platonic", "dating", "long-term", "short-term", "before marriage", "marriage", MMORPG romances, and all kinds of, in my opinion, craps. In the worst case these are bad relationships, you don't even get everything "related", you get a form of mutual masturbation, yes, even when it involves sex, like in the case of open, "friends" with benefits scenario.
I am not making a critic attack on this casual perspective that PUA mostly encompasses, but remove it from mine is all I'm gonna do, because it tends to trivialize the problems which I want to address, by its very nature. For example, not everyone has this plural concept of "women", of chasing, or the rational need to do it, besides managing dialy urges by wanking. Then someone finds himself in the real game(not the PUA game, but the game of reality), and thinks playing will be like clicks through a bunch of pornography. Desires create a world of their own and project into the real world and vice versa, thats basically what pornography is. I'm not talking about movies produced by directors. He eventually finds a woman also willing to play, gets caught up and in the game all those conceptions, desires, projections will try to fit together. That's the basic premise of relationship - everything will tend to fit, consciously or not. When it doesn't, one will either partly agree and take the remains, or refuse to go any further. Some will think there is a magic formula to extend the half-functional trade, like "it depends how I game her". All kinds of expectations are at risk of disappointment, because there's simply not enough bonds for "mating", to close the deal. Yes, nature enforces crude instincts possible to be reduced to "genitalia", but that's incomplete pattern even for nature because it strives to close the deal, achieve certainty in the end. Meaning, race is over, we got the winner.
Average PUA is a hillbilly chewing tobacco simpleton, thinking that going around, bothering just every female stranger in sight is some kind of favourable behaviour. No pun intended. When he thinks: "Look, some poon over there! Gurls! I just have to game them good", it's clear that he is actually an average guy with little or no understanding of how this "economy" works. In this ignorance, he takes away the value from all women or yet to be women - as the rapist not getting approval - going into a crunch assuming he has the money to buy. But he begs. And his "game" is beggary, pity state of addiction. In the same way some other ignoramus was led to believe that "they all want money the most, so I'll play with money". Often, this 'player type' is only an idealist, romanticized version of a redneck. There certainly are women like this on the opposite side of spectrum, romanticized sluts, given more credit than they deserve for their function, so it works mutually in many regards, but that's the reason why I'll screen what she means by "having a past", reason why it DOES matter, at least to know HOW and WHY you want to "game"(if you have to) any woman. Not just in that sense, I mean everything, whole background and psychological behaviours must be more or less known to you in order to have enough time with one single woman, get the most out of it. That's statistical and mathematical luck for you to get a chance over and over again. Some will be more statistically privileged, like those from bourgeois countries and places, perhaps environments obsessed with "dating", polygamy, or a bit spoiled consumers, to judge a life-style valuable only if addictions can be made fun, without responsibility in the long run, to answer why on earth enter a relationship, to discard it later on as replacable.
Ignorance in mentality breeds phrases like: "next her", "meet as many women as possible", "there will be more" (yeah, for some that's just "great" to know), "chase, date, waste, repeat".
If you loose you won't feel great for a reason. Period. There is no one-itis. Its the cost, not even a "learning experience" because in next situation it just won't be the same equation. Even if you have bunch of options, as taught, it won't get you out of fully conscious experience created by crude nature which was distracted from its bonding work and was very close to success. (I'm talking about relevant relationships).
But enough of that.
Well, the point is: you don't go for next woman. You don't go for a woman, do not objectify her and then just put another price, another value to this object to invest in, and call the self-delusion "a game". She invites you. Then you play along. If she is in the pool of relationship material, and is after you, then the all-solution is to detect what attracted her. To back this up - in the real world experiences and events, often it doesn't hav to be "negs", or push-pull, or jerk attitude, or alpha impersonation that pulled her in. Often it can be, but that's just a shitload of permutations. So I don't deny it's time and place, you have to test them. But don't force them as they were constants.
Sometimes I tried to apply something 'alpha' for my current girl, subtly tested it, but it didn't work as "written by the book", I found out that opposite would do better. I always have these experiences where I think that my game, or however you want to call that, has been mastered, because it has gone through all possible trials and errors, but the next female which might remind me of previous one seems to require totally different approach, or to make it even better - is not approachable at all. But if latest is the case, then don't waste your efforts, it won't work, and similarly - you can't fuck things up doing something "wrong" by some system's universal standards, or even too wrong, if there is a "relationship" before the relationship. There's no point in changing yourself according to percieved standards. Sure, some behaviours just aren't a plus. Not being needy, dramatic, is almost universal, but suppose you try a routine on 10 girls and you get success with only one. I bet it was not a routine, maybe it only filled the blanks(keep in mind it won't for too long), but it was the girl coming to you by you finding her, a matter of chance.
There shouldn't be "am i allowed to call her the next day?", or "she's uninterested after second date, how to change my game". The first scenarios are everything. If relationship remains, they will hardly change. Also a reason not to expect getting her in one night in a bar won't work for someone else as well.
In the small numbers of my personal experiences with them, I cannot apply unique formula, because their psychological triggers differ, despite all of them being conditioned in similar or identical cultural backgrounds(probably those play a role but they could respond differently to same conditions). Its all actually a probability permutation play. Goal of relationship should be to test, hook-up, mark, fill with purpose, the woman, and not having to try too hard in beginning when you don't share bills, or until some material situation becomes energy draining, not play numbers in rows. If you're serious about her, and secure, let her make it or break it. But the goal is to mark her, open the wine later, then see how far it goes, hopefully all the way or significant amount.
|
CHAT
