I want to hear a womans opinion

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Joshe said:

Luckily for us, women actually do care more about deep connection with an ordinary dude more than they do about shallow connection with Chad, even if Chad gets them easier and they're willing to put up with shallow connection for a time because he's attractive.

It's an interesting idea that pickup is an attempt to be an antidote not just for getting pussy, but to deal with the emotions of not being wanted the way Chad is wanted.

The funny thing is... the right average Joe with "emotional fermentation" time is WAY more intensely attractive than randomly sleeping with an attractive Chad fuck-boy type who's a natural with getting women to bed.

The former type of attraction has layers and layers of deeply beautiful heart-centered erotic feelings toward the specific guy. And the latter is just one-note excitement and stimulation.

And the former type of attraction is like a very complex, expensive, bitter-sweet dessert that you can only find in one very specific and very unique place (literally just that one person, and no one else). And like good wine, it has both pleasing and acquired tastes that evoke both pleasure and disgust in a very specific configuration.

In contrast, the latter isn't complex... It's just pure sugar sweetness, like cotton candy. And you can find the same brand of cotton candy everywhere... as it's popular, cheap, and easier to sell to a wider array of customers.

What I wish is that a man could just once experience what it feels like to be a woman and lust after and long for a very specific average Joe and to feel how amazing the feelings feel. 

Honestly, if you could turn that feeling into a drug... SOO many people would be addicted to it.

Then, compare that hyper-intense, complexly-erotic, intoxicating feeling-state to the very lukewarm and one-note feeling states of hooking up with Chad on a whim because the exciting mood struck and it was party time.

Those two levels of erotic feelings are nowhere near the same universe.

And that's why many women just aren't interested in hook-ups at all. The juice honestly isn't worth the squeeze. (In this case, the juice is the feeling state that hooking up with Chad evokes) 

Now, a nuance here is that the Chad guy is slept with because he has a cotton-candy exterior that women who are easily pleased by "sugar" might find exciting to sleep with. 

But even Chad isn't made of cotton candy deep down. 

So, I'm not saying there are men that exist who are too naturally attractive for women to feel those complex erotic feelings towards him.

What I'm saying is that the typical 'Fuck-boy Chad", 'sleep with him immediately' dynamic itself is lukewarm.

[LordFall]

@Emerald I hope you understand why men are drawn to becoming Chad. What you said is basically the cause of the dating industry in a nutshell. A dude wondering why his dating life is not working and then women around him saying "you're perfect the way you are, don't change a thing. I wouldn't date you though but some girl will!"

What's great about game and pickup is they produce expected results. Perhaps, to use your analogy, it teaches a regular man how to turn his outer shell into cotton candy instead of being the average boring or complaining Joe. 

Some dudes take it too far and become entirely unrelatable in the process but for most men, it simply makes them more dynamic and attractive.

Edited 6 hours ago by LordFall

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, LordFall said:

@Emerald I hope you understand why men are drawn to becoming Chad. What you said is basically the cause of the dating industry in a nutshell. A dude wondering why his dating life is not working and then women around him saying "you're perfect the way you are don't change a thing. I don't wanna date you though but some girl will!"

What's great about game and pickup is they produces expected results. Perhaps to use your analogy it teaches a regular man how to turn his outer shell into cotton candy instead of being the average boring or complaining Joe. 

Some dudes take it too far and become entirely unrelatable in the process but for most it just makes us more attractive. 

This is all fantasy unless it is confirmed.  

[LordFall]

Just now, Joseph Maynor said:

This is all fantasy unless it is confirmed.  

What is confirmed? That pickup gets you laid? I've confirmed it bro, don't worry. 

[Emerald]

5 minutes ago, LordFall said:

@Emerald I hope you understand why men are drawn to becoming Chad. What you said is basically the cause of the dating industry in a nutshell. A dude wondering why his dating life is not working and then women around him saying "you're perfect the way you are, don't change a thing. I wouldn't date you though but some girl will!"

What's great about game and pickup is they produce expected results. Perhaps, to use your analogy, it teaches a regular man how to turn his outer shell into cotton candy instead of being the average boring or complaining Joe. 

Some dudes take it too far and become entirely unrelatable in the process but for most men, it simply makes them more dynamic and attractive.

What I'm saying is that turning your outer shell into cotton candy will get you clearer quantifiable results... but it comes at a price.

And it's similar to what @Joshe said in his post... you will know deep down that the women are only attracted to the cotton candy layer and not the guy underneath it.

So, as a woman who is only attracted to the guy underneath the cotton candy layer, I'm saying...

Stop coating a rare and expensive complex dessert in cheap cotton candy. 

[LordFall]

@Emerald That's where I'm gonna have to draw the line and where your analogy falls apart. Learning social skills is not cheapening your character. It just helps you sell your character. 

Some dudes use being a smooth talker to distract others and themselves from the fact that they have nothing to offer. That does not equate to recommending people not to learn smooth talking. 

A woman generally does not want a man to become drastically more attractive, that makes him harder to keep. It's hard for women to give unbiased advice in that regard, especially without lived experience of having to attract women. 

Edited 5 hours ago by LordFall

[Emerald]

36 minutes ago, LordFall said:

@Emerald That's where I'm gonna have to draw the line and where your analogy falls apart. Learning social skills is not cheapening your character. It just helps you sell your character. 

Some dudes use being a smooth talker to distract others and themselves from the fact that they have nothing to offer. That does not equate to recommending people not to learn smooth talking. 

A woman generally does not want a man to become drastically more attractive, that makes him harder to keep. It's hard for women to give unbiased advice in that regard.

Learning social skills in one thing, as long as you're not masking your actual personality.

Another thing entirely is to try to turn yourself into Chad... or to Chadify your personality in order to get more quantifiable results.

It always seems like men tend to get into pick-up because they don't like themselves very much. And they try to hollow themselves out to become whoever they think women will be attracted to and that other men will respect.

And that tends to make men who do that feel a lot blander to me.

 

Edit: Another point I forgot to mention is that I'm specifically talking about what makes a man more attractive in my experience. And the vibes that make a man attractive don't really have anything to do with what pick-up teaches.

These vibes come from his natural personality and the level of inner and outer work he's done to develop himself... not for women, but simply because it was important and meaningful to him. 

So, I am saying, "Stop coating an expensive dessert with cotton candy"... because I think the expensive dessert is more attractive than the cotton candy.

So, my whole point is that I want men to stop making themselves less attractive with gimmicky stuff... and to put their focus on real personal development, where they can actually develop themselves into the greatest version of themselves (which is the most attractive version).

And the cotton candy coating doesn't cut it, as the cotton candy technique is usually used by men who feel like they're not good enough as they are trying to get women's validation.

But the tricky thing is... the most highly developed guy probably won't get as much overt female attention as a guy using pick-up tactics in the same way that fewer people will buy an expensive dessert and many people will buy cheap cotton candy from the gas station.

So, it's really a matter of a man asking himself, "Would I rather become the greatest and most polarizingly attractive version of myself.. or would I rather larp as the kind of man who gives off a signal that a sizable minority of girls like enough to sleep with on a lonely or wild night?"

And I tend to find that, when men answer this in the direction of "I want to be whatever women like"... he caps his potential significantly and doesn't grow into the highest, best, and most attractive version of himself.

Edited 5 hours ago by Emerald

[LordFall]

32 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Learning social skills in one thing, as long as you're not masking your actual personality.

Another thing entirely is to try to turn yourself into Chad... or to Chadify your personality in order to get more quantifiable results.

It always seems like men tend to get into pick-up because they don't like themselves very much. And they try to hollow themselves out to become whoever they think women will be attracted to and that other men will respect.

And that tends to make men who do that feel a lot blander to me.

Can you share specific examples? It's hard to talk in generalities. 

What I will say is that there is a general sequence that pickup teaches you to sleep with women. If you deviate from this sequence you will get worse results. The obvious rebuttal to that is you don't want to sleep with random women that you don't care about, being yourself authentically will get you the right woman! 

I think it sort of maybe works like that but it's really not that simple. It's also not about hollowing yourself out more like presenting a socially appropriate front to meet people and then as you get to know people better you get less filtered. I had this exact conversation with the guy I used to throw events with as he ran into a similar issue.

There is a formula to get laid with women often and it's basically: don't talk about anything deep apart from in passing and just tease her, banter and make it more man to woman frame like talk more slowly, strong eye contact, etc.

When I talk to people naturally I like to talk about deep subjects, speculate about the future and be really nerdy. When I do that I don't get laid. I have interesting conversations and girls say wow you're cool and then idk not much happens. If I censor most of it and act funny and tease them and escalate then we fuck.

I am working to mix both but it's not easy that's for sure. Also it's not even really sure that that's a good strategy, I think attracting a wide variety of women then selecting the ones you like is the best strategy. The other strategy is basically saying don't have a strategy and hope for the best! 

Edited 5 hours ago by LordFall

[eos_nyxia]

On 2026-09-01 at 3:40 PM, Joshe said:

It actually would be interesting to figure out what is the difference in Natasha's perspective where she's receptive to being approached so long as it meets her standards, and the other girls who aren't interested in that approach at all. Like, try to answer this question.

I have intuitions about the difference, but not sure. I suspect Natasha is a bit on the wild side a little bit. Can't unpack what exactly that means at the moment, but it has to do with spontaneity and potentially a specific flavor of openness. Almost like she actually wants it happen or welcomes it because it's an opportunity to be excited/interested in something new. Just the first few things that popped into my head. 

See, this inquiry is gold because if you spend the time figuring this out, you enhance your models of women and therefore can see the patterns when you're out and about and you aren't stuck with a one-size-fits-all approach. Imagine being able to get a read on both and calibrating for what you think would work on them specifically. 

One thing I didn't add is that it depends on what your local environment is like. The area I'm from (Greater Vancouver, Canada) is notoriously standoffish to strangers, like a lot of people I've known over the years have the social group/ cliques they grew up with, and that's it. They're not really that open to meeting new people for the most part, let alone random people outside of a structured, familiar social context. I've actually been far more open to being approached by strangers in the past, just not at this phase in my life. 

Part of it is natural openness, part of it is being very open to other cultures (my parents were an international couple), and part of it was honestly trauma which made me very open in my willingness to go too deep, too quickly. (By this, I don't mean sexually, as in, not interested in going along with it regardless of if I'm attracted to them. But I mean emotionally as in being an open book for deep conversations, willing to give decent-seeming people the benefit of the doubt with my trust, willing to hang out and be in slightly more private places than public.)

It's this last thing which I'm calling a red flag, even without the sex. Maybe things are a bit different culturally now, but people then very much considered this to be unwise, unsafe behaviour. The most aggressive, victim-blaming version of this (which has been said to my face): if something bad happens to you, you deserve it. My own spin on this was that if I cannot trust my judgement in people or my discernment, I have NOTHING, because there is nothing in this world that will protect you from your own lack of discernment. (And judgement must be honed and tested, and not just be something you put faith in.) Ironically, it's the people you know the best who already have the most intimate, vulnerable access to you that are the most risk, statistically speaking. Friends and acquaintances, family, and others in positions of authority even if they are "trusted members of the community".  

Anyway, we also don't really have much of a bar/ club culture here, so special interests it is! Things like hiking and even winter sports are less niche here and more like, everyone does it or has done it, so the "pool" for the types of people you'd get is very wide. People are on average very athletic and fit here (I think the city recently ranked as like 2nd fittest city in North America, for whatever it's worth). 

Most of the people who I met who I felt the most comfortable talking to were compulsively extroverted and also came from much more extroverted cultures. Off the top of my head: Latin American, African, French Canadian, etc. 

If I lived in a different culture (let's just say Quebec), I would probably be much more open to strangers and honestly friendlier. Even speaking in French for extended periods of time makes me much more "animated" lol. ***hand gestures***

 

Edited 4 hours ago by eos_nyxia

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, LordFall said:

Can you share specific examples? It's hard to talk in generalities. 

What I will say is that there is a general sequence that pickup teaches you to sleep with women. If you deviate from this sequence you will get worse results. The obvious rebuttal to that is you don't want to sleep with random women that you don't care about, being yourself authentically will get you the right woman! 

I don't really think it's that simple at all. I think also we evolve over time and our desires change. The type of woman I desire now is vastly different than who I would've wanted at 18 years old. Back then I really wanted a chill gamer girl to play games and watch anime with me. I had a FWB like that in my mid 20s and it was really boring. 

I had this exact conversation with the guy I used to throw events with as he ran into a similar issue. There is a formula to get laid with women often and it's basically don't talk about anything deep apart from in passing and just tease her, banter and make it more man to woman frame like talk more slowly, strong eye contact, etc. When I talk to people naturally I like to talk about deep subjects and speculate about the future and be really nerdy. When I do that I don't get laid I have interesting conversations and girls say wow you're cool and then idk not much happens. If I censor most of it and act funny and tease them and escalate then we fuck. I am working to mix both but it's not easy that's for sure. Also it's not even really sure that that's a good strategy, I think attracting a wide variety of women then selecting the ones you like is the best strategy. 

I can speak of how I've tended to get attracted to men over the years.

I'm usually existing in a similar space with him over time and develop feelings for him. And then, I put myself in proximity to him and try to end up in situations where we can be alone without being direct about it. 

Then, usually things will escalate when he or I create physical contact with plausible deniability... which eventually escalates into intimacy.

And it's always been the guy's core personality that was attractive to me... not gimmicky stuff where he's doing techniques and tactics. 

But when I was younger (like a teenager), I was a lot shyer about getting closer to a guy I was interested in. So, there were times where a guy missed his chance because I took his lack of escalation as non-interest... and I didn't want to creep him out or for him to feel violated or disturbed by my romantic/sexual interest. I always felt like I'd be perceived as some weird stalker person.

Like, I was attracted to this guy in a couple of my classes in the 11th grade who was kind of nerdy and kind of shy. And after flirting with each other all semester, I told him how I felt about him in gym class one day and he confessed that he had mutual feelings towards me (around October/November). But then, Winter break happened... and we didn't exchange numbers or go on a date. And he never asked me to be his girlfriend.

And things change quickly when you're 16. So, over the course of 3-4 months of not interacting with him, I lost my feelings for him and I started seeing someone else right before Valentines Day, and I assumed he moved on too and that nothing came of it.

But then, he came into my class with a big bouquet of roses for me on Valentines Day literally a week after I started seeing someone else. And I felt so bad because I thought he just wasn't that interested, as he hadn't spoken to me in months and never asked me to be his girlfriend.

But I realized in that moment that he probably never lost feelings for me the entire time... and he waited too long.

So, I do see the importance of knowing how to pick up on signals and escalate things romantically and sexually. That takes some courage and some social skills. 

But a guy need not mold himself into an imitation of Mr. Cool to do that. And he doesn't need to hold onto these convoluted paradigms about female sexuality. that don't actually match the real thing.

But my experience has always been... "Exist in a social space with a guy over time... develop a crush... flirt and get closer without being too direct... indirectly create opportunities and alone time for him to escalate things or for mutual escalation to happen."

So, I'm not saying that it's not important to learn how to escalate. 

This issue is that men can learn these frameworks and try to do an imitation of the type of guy he thinks that women like. And there can be an illusion that women will always prefer that kind of guy... no matter that woman.