Formhandle is a member of the mASF forum, and is the man behind FastSeduction.com. Acronyms used in this article can be looked up on the acronyms page. To get involved in discussions like this, you can join the mASF discussion forum at fastseduction.com/discussion.
Original discussion thread: http://www.fastseduction.com/discussion/fs?action=9&boardid=2&read=81259&fid=173
Attraction Not Necessary, Part 2
A long time ago I posted something along the lines of attraction not being necessary in pickup, or just in general getting laid. Partly I did so to stir up all the attraction-centered game popping up everywhere -- usually in the form of workshop businesses -- and also to inspire intellectual discussion. To get to the neeety greeety....
http://www.fastseduction.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?action=retrieve&grp=6&mn=1076493175129525
It's time for part 2. This time I will fully elaborate, break some things down, and simplify the message (in 10,000 words or less). But I will do so PRAGMATICALLY, because the point of all this is to break things down for practical purpose.
A few weeks ago, a friend from out of town was staying with me and she talked me into going to the Dr Phil show. It was boring as fuck but later on it made me want to pay attention to Dr Phil and, ironically, the show with Ross & The MM guys was aired a couple weeks later, and more recently Paul Janka. That's the guy I called a while back would be looking to go commercial, and he has (I've yet to mis-call something like that).
Anyway, I was watching Janka on Dr Phil, and the guy was matter-of-fact about what he does, etc, which is great because he's sharing a lot of practical stuff. Sometimes even guys who teach this stuff for a living hold back on practical and pragmatic discussion, perhaps fearing that being blunt or in all contexts "hitting on a girl" is bad, when in many contexts it's not. That's not really what he talked about, but I discerned it a little bit. The other night grabbed dinner with Sinn, Zan, and The_One, and ironically this topic came up from Sinn, in regards to hitting on girls versus indirect game. I think that would also apply to direct game, as well, since even those who lean heavily in that direction will offer the advice to do so based on outward display of intention and statements of interest but still not seemingly in a way that comes across as "hitting on" the girl.
Let's put all that aside for a moment and get back to Janka. (why does his name remind me of a coffee brand?) Anyway, what percolated my interest (HAHA) was primarily that what he was talking about was imminently effective. His strategies are practical, efficient, with elements of directness and persistence. However, his persistence was only in the sense of his pattern of behavior and not to do with any particular conquest, presumably because if he doesn't land one he knows he'll land another.
HOWEVER, the guy is monstrously good-looking and he has absolutely NO ATTRACTION GAME. I don't mean he's not attracting women, I mean it's 100% fully not related to any skill whatsoever. His skill comes fro the gonads to cold approach and he hooks them on the fact he's monstrously good-looking. It's what he does from there that it becomes practical to listen to him (from a non-moralistic viewpoint -- some of his advice is morally questionable). For example, he has no qualms about working to ensure a girl is drinking alcohol while he doesn't (but making her believe he is). That's not a "pickup" strategy, that's pretty much from the ideology of Frat Boy 101.
Frat boys get girls drunk to get laid, too, it doesn't discount it as a cough "method" cough, it's just not something I would endorse. Rather, I would just endorse the "don't get drunk yourself - what the girl does is HER decision", not literally endorse purposefully getting her drunk. But, still, at least that is PRAGMATIC versus skipping over the attraction part which is the biggest hurdle for most guys. Literally, the biggest thing.
You can get a guy approaching, build up his balls. You can get a guy to remember words, routines, a structure. You can espouse direct game, indirect game, and all kinds of strategies & advice but if he's not hooking the girl with attraction lures (more on this in a bit), it's not going to go anywhere. I don't mean ATTRACTION, I mean the lure aspect of attraction currency (be patient, will get to this in a moment).
So if that's the case, why am I claiming that attraction isn't necessary? Well, partly it goes back to the earlier topic of "hitting on girls" and coming from the standpoint of why any particular female will sleep with any particular male depending on the circumstances. When I say attraction isn't necessary, I mean physical, desirous, lustful, sexual attraction – simply SEX. After a certain age and onward, a female will have everything within her which could potentially bring about a desire within her to have sex with a man. And, frankly, most men are adequate (physically), but the ones she chooses have certain characteristics which are related to any number of triggers.
They are the CURRENCY that allows the process to move forward. They are the things which allow her (or, better, trigger her) to bring out the desires that are already within her. That causes her to follow through and open herself up physically to a particular man, and this can happen without any attraction of the type usually discussed.
Attraction is a currency. That currency can be made up of any number of things: looks, wealth, power, access, intelligence, social proof, skills, etc. The weakest forms of attraction are based on something external, the best ones are based on: personality, skill, looks - because those are the ones that will keep a girl hooked the longest. But, as far as looks go, it can't be parlayed to other men as knowledge (maybe workout tips). Personality & skill can. It's also only an initial lure, just like anything else.
Back to Paul Janka, since he can't parlay his looks onto other men, what he's left with are the elements of game which rely on the practical how-to stuff, which for him is mostly about logistics and not about personality or skill. In other words, I seriously doubt he would be able to teach an average-looking guy anything that guy wouldn't already be able to discern on his own in a vacuum other than giving him the balls to approach in the first place. Getting the guy laid is another matter. He can teach him all the logistical elements, but that guy will not have the same currency that Janka does. That means he will need another form of attraction currency, to initially lure and keep the carrot dangling.
What Janka has, on the attraction currency side, is one piece of the puzzle (he could have more, but so far I’m not convinced). Thankfully, women's internal desires can be lured out with other kinds of triggers. Women are pretty much built this way because even though they have the picture of an ideal man in their head, if they wait around for such an ideal man they will end up with none. So they allow themselves to be baited with all kinds of lures - so long as the lure is at least one part of what triggers her internal desires or needs, she will latch on. She will latch on BUT only for so long until either the follow-through fizzles or another (different) lure is cast.
Mystery, as another example, has elements of Janka about his game, but at least what he teaches does offer a practical follow-through approach for a guy to get results. But the results that Mystery gets for himself (at least the INITIAL lure) many times are not driven by the structure of what he teaches. What I mean to say, it's like a stock car driver teaching people how to drive a car. But driving the car is not what helps that particular guy win stock races, and the core of that is not really what's being parlayed to those he teaches. There is something else inherently different going on. Sure, Mystery can accomplish pickup goals in the way he teaches, but that structure does not make up the lures that trigger women to be interested in him in the first place. That, he can't teach. It's either inherent in someone or not. Or, some things inherent in other guys which help initially lure aren't inherent in Mystery. It doesn't matter, certain guys will have certain up-front lures that make the rest of the process for them matter-of-fact.
Or take a guy like Dave Wygant. Here's a guy who teaches really broad, basic, practically societally stamped-and-approved method of "game" (look good, dress well, be social, talk to many, ask them out, don’t expect sex right away) yet that is not what his own possible success is based on. He's tall and good-looking and well-built. That does not mean there is nothing else he would need to do, obviously that is meaningless if no action is taken or no practical sense of follow-through exists. However, he is working with an initial lure that makes the rest of what he does just matter-of-fact. He can get away with hitting on a girl once the lure triggers.
The initial lures can be an archetype. A cowboy. A firefighter. A boxer. A sports star. A musician. A model. The lures can be power or access to resources. The lures can be social proof, wealth, or purely just good looks or great body. Intelligence, humor, personality. It doesn't matter what they are, all that matters is the realization that any one of them can be attraction currency. Most men have SOMETHING of those which can be front-loaded and used as initial lures and that is NOT why most men can't pick up practically. It's because they are dependent on those things, and the rest of their follow-through fizzles. They bait, and can't follow through. What those front-loaded things provide is a means to garner more time to build the kind of core attraction which will keep the girl around based on things beyond her control (when real attraction actually triggers).
Ever wonder why you'll hear or read a report where a guy was in the field and built up "so much attraction" yet didn't land the girl? If he had generated real attraction, she would have done the work to land him, not the other way around. Ever see a good-looking guy bomb when initially he had a girl's interest? Or a rich guy? Or someone who clearly has some incredible front-loaded lure? That's what they got, but they need more than that. They don't need attraction, they need a means of follow-through that can continue to trigger the girl's internal desires to keep flowing, uninterrupted.
That's essentially what Mystery teaches, and Janka, and others who themselves have a huge front-load of lures, but also practical follow-through advice. It's the follow-through advice which is of greatest value to absorb from such guys, not necessarily the attraction creation game. Because by the time attraction is actually created, that's when the work is pretty much done. Everything else is a lure, a trigger, a means for the girl to continue latching on, because what she is seeking is the attraction. She pursues not because the attraction exists but because it is a carrot dangling in front of her.
If she is lured in then gets the carrot too easily, she will submit, and it may seem like success, but real attraction is never created and the only reason she'll stick around is for the lure that got here there in the first place. If the carrot is dropped (run out of lures) before real attraction is created, it will fizzle. Real attraction exists when the carrot is still dangling and reachable to her, but she bypasses it and goes straight to the man who's been dangling the carrot.
What I want to end with is - if you are learning from someone, or taking pickup advice from them, you absolutely need to figure out what that guy's initial lures are and SUBTRACT that from the elements you absorb from him. He will never admit it, and probably even deny it (to the point of even convincing himself otherwise for his ego's sake). Rather, learn how that guy handles his FOLLOW-THROUGH. How he handles keeping a girl hooked beyond the initial grab, all the way to the lay. If there is depth there, then he's got solid game that he can teach. If there is no depth and it seems that there's only minor logistics, then he may or may not have game, but he can't teach it because there's no "there" there.
This also applies to guys who are willing to be self-observant. To distinguish between the front-loaded lures and the follow-through. I don’t want to imply those front-loaded lures are any less important or practical than the follow-through, it’s just that those things are the delta of where the real game gets done. We ALL (every single one of us) should work to ensure we have at least one or two good initial “lures”, and once we have those things we use cast them out regularly but realize that’s not where the real game is (not where we learn from, nor where we expect to learn from others).
I personally prefer learning game from skilled guys which a typical person would look at and discount upon initial glance -- because those guys are pretty clearly front-loading initial lures that can be LEARNED. Beyond that, I see all other game "teachers" as equally valuable in what they have to offer for knowledge and know-how, unless their game has no depth after the initial currency has been spent. They might have good stories to tell, or an amazing "score" record, but that does not necessarily parlay for the benefit of others.
Finally, this whole topic brings up a distinction for me in terms of lays breaking down into 2 categories, conceptually: Lays that were obtained because the carrot was grabbed, and lays that were obtained because the man dangling the carrot became the object of desire.
Oh wait – I’m not done yet.
LMR only triggers in the latter type of lay. She desires the MAN, not the carrot, and therefore there is more at stake than just fulfilling internal desires (triggered by the progression of any number of lures). ASD kicks in the former type of lay because it’s more societally and peer-induced.
To recap, here’s what I had broken down in my old post on this:
1. FIND
Here is my revision, from start to finish (perspective of the guy):
+ = required
1. + HAVE A FRONT-LOADING LURE
ASD removal can be done all kinds of ways. In fact some guys have really clever ways to bypass ASD from the get-go so it never becomes an issue. It’s also an element of the context and, beyond that, variable based on whether there is capability enough to get her to truly desire what’s beyond the carrot (real attraction).
So for example, carrot game would be (perspective of the girl):
1. MEET / LURE
For real attraction game, it’s:
1. MEET / LURE
In the real attraction game, ATTRACT doesn’t need to come before or after FUCK, it will take care of itself if all else is done properly and usually come right before or right after FUCK.
I want to hear dissenting opinions on this. I understand that from the prevailing opinion of being out in the field and playing the game that any given interaction will only prevail if there is a constant awareness and calibration (and re-calibration) for whether attraction (as we have understood it to this point) is present and, if so, then able to follow on with the rest of the “stages”. The problem with that? Most guys, the vast majority in fact, then get STUCK on this loop of trying to create attraction and either stay stuck or make themselves believe they have it and then follow through improperly with the notion that no more lures need to be cast. IF they get the lay, then they lose it just as fast, and they are no more knowledgeable than before, but might start becoming conditioned to this “A1-A3” sub-model of M3 that just causes them to persist with the same behavior.
So why not break out of that loop? Realize that attraction, at least so far as getting sex is concerned, is actually bullshit, and you can make a list of any number of endless things that can be used as attraction “currency” to maintain a lure loop. Work on ensuring an initial front-loaded lure exists (that’s what peacocking had done for a lot of guys & why a lot of those guys fizzled their game when it came to follow-through), no matter what it is, so long as it casts the widest net possible for yourself based on your capabilities and reality, and then pursue without worrying about attraction. Yes, there may be some fumbles in there in the sense of missing IODs and not dealing with them properly, or mis-calibrating value, but in the long run as long as the front-load exists, and the lures keep coming, the girl is pretty much trapped in her own desire-reactions to the triggers. If you’re after just a ONS then you can go with the carrot ladder model, deal with ASD, isolate, feed her the carrot. If you want something more profound, modify it to the real attraction ladder model.
Based on observation, my guess is that girls who escalate into interest easier and faster based on the initial front-load will be more ready to match the carrot ladder (with you). If they are interested but still hesitant or require a bit of an effort to get past the front-load and follow-through, they’re more ready to match the real attraction ladder (with you). I add “(with you)” because with another guy with other kinds of aspects to what makes him up or what his game is like with her, it may be the reverse.
2. MEET
3. REMOVE ASD
4. ISOLATE
5. BYPASS LMR
6. FUCK
7. ATTRACT (OPTIONAL)
? = variable
x = optional
2. + FIND
3. + MEET / + LURE
4. ? REMOVE ASD
5. + LURE
6. ? REMOVE ASD
7. + LURE (repeat indefinite -ASD…LURE loops)
8. x COMFORT (only required for “solid” game)
9. + ISOLATE
10. ? REMOVE ASD
11. ? BYPASS LMR
12. x ATTRACT
…
12. FUCK
2. REMOVE ASD
3. LURE (repeat indefinite -ASD…LURE loops)
4. ISOLATE
5. REMOVE ASD
6. FUCK
2. LURE (repeat indefinite LURE loops)
3. x COMFORT (only required for “solid” game)
4. ISOLATE
5. BYPASS LMR
6. FUCK
