In this podcast – the first of a two-parter – Varoon and I talk
relationships: starting them, setting expectations properly, converting
girls from new lays to regular partners, and the different relationship
structures you can set up with women.
A selection of topics Varoon and I discuss:
Last week, I
tackled the common pickup / manosphere belief that the ‘alpha provider’ is a myth:
both why men in these communities often think this way, as well as why
men who actually are alpha providers don’t usually find their ways into such communities to bother
providing themselves as counterexamples to the claims of their
non-existence.
Today we dive into the ‘how to’ side of things.
How do you avoid the gradual erosion of authority in a long-term relationship with a woman, and instead retain her attraction, respect, and deference?
How do you continue to be the lover, even when you assume the role of provider as well?
I’ve broken it down here into seven (7) rules: four of them external/behavior based, and three of them internal/mentality based.
We’ll start with behavior, and move to mentalities.
Here we go.
Sometimes you’re out and about and you meet a girl and take a number from her.
And for whatever reason, she isn’t all that attracted to you.
Yet for whatever reason, she still gives you her phone number.
And then for whatever reason, she agrees to meet up with you.
But you can sense this one is going through the motions.
It might not quite be the friend zone yet, but it’s pretty darn close. And she doesn’t even know you.
So what do you do... just meet up with her anyway and hope you can change her mind?
Well, you CAN do that... but if you don’t have a game plan for it, it’s like opting for a few games of Black Jack when you don’t really understand how to play Black Jack.
There’s some chance you walk away with winnings, but most of the time you’re only going to waste your time, probably going to waste your money, and if your ego’s wrapped up in it you may well take a self-esteem hit too.
So let’s set out some strategy for those “friend zone” dates, and talk:
I previously said (in this post) my next article would be “How to Be an Alpha Provider”... however, I’m going to switch things up today. Today’s article is about sex symbols: those of the past and those of today. And we’ll get back to the alpha providers again next week. Onwards, then.
Today’s article comes in response to a question from Byron on my article about self-cultivation regarding my preference for older male sex symbols over the more current ones Hollywood has to offer. Here’s what Byron had to say:
“Hey,
I’ve recently come across several comments where you reference Sean Connery and Harrison ford as the epitome of raw sexiness. I was wondering if you could elaborate on this and why not the plethora of modern sex symbols, ie what makes them so different? Or if you could write an article on their appeal or a series on famous seducers/ role models I think that would be very interesting and relevant. Again just suggestions, I realize you are very busy. Thank you for this site!”
That’s a fantastic question. Why do I recommend the older guys more than the newer guys? I had a few reasons, but part of me kind of wondered if maybe I just had some kind of nostalgia-bias when this subject’s come up in the past... maybe I’m simply guilty of thinking older is better.
Fortunately, this article’s forced me to really get down to nuts and
bolts, and in the process of writing it, I learned a lot. Let’s dive in.
Think about your old school, old fashioned male sex symbols. Men like:
Compare them to the sex symbols of modern cinema. Men like:
Do you notice anything?
I like all the guys in both of these lists. All are masters of their crafts, and there are buckets you can learn from watching the facial expressions, body language, and little nonverbal tics of each, as well as studying the way each man uses his voice and his overall demeanor.
However, there’s a clear difference between these two groups of men
(that span about two generations each)... a large enough difference
that while I personally suggest you take the time to study all of these
men, when it comes to my own preferences, the only ones I ever find
myself wanting to model outright are the ones from before.
And I sat down today and the one question on my mind was, “How do I best explain this difference?”
Why do you never hear from what the Internet’s dubbed ‘alpha providers’ – men who keep the pants on in their relationships, even over the long-term?
The morose tales of men who have become ‘beta providers’, who have gone through the ‘betaization process’... men who’ve lost the drive, strength, and ambition of their youths and become punching bags for their women... these men’s tales are all over the Internet.
Yet, you hear nary a peep from their opposites, those men in provider roles who remain the captains of their ships.
Is it because they’re quiet?
Or, because they do not exist?
A commenter named Insidious Sid, weighing in on Alek’s post on sexual economics, remarks:
“This “lover turned provider” idea is the biggest load of blue-pill nonsense ever to hit the internet. Once she “has you”, no matter how alpha you were, you now have provider status. She “conquered” you, and now she will be sexually attracted to OTHER alpha males who she has yet to conquer. Women like conquest just as much as men do. Men get bored after they conquer the trophy wife and cheat on amazing looking women – and most men think “Wow, I’d never do that.” Well, he’ll never get the chance. Conversely, the female will cheat on even a high value male and people will gasp “But he’s such a high value male, why would she cheat on / divorce / ruin a good man?” Same reason. Once a person, man or woman, has a member of the opposite sex in the “co-committed long-tern relationship (tm)” this is a whole new power dynamic. One part of “red pill theory” I think has it wrong is that you can “game your own wife” and alpha-up and keep the other alphas out the door. It’s a great theory, but my theory is once she gets the ring on your finger and you sign up for the house, mortgage, the full meal family deal, you also sign up for divorce, alimony and child support. Guys, let’s be real. Decent, handsome and successful lawyers, doctors and athletes are going through the divorce and family law meat grinder just like regular men are, albeit likely in smaller numbers. The point is the institution of marriage and being a provider is a sour deal for a man of ANY status. He’s got more to lose than gain regardless of his position in the mating arena.
*REAL* Alphas have nothing to DO with ANY of that crap. They bed the top females and move on. They’re not there to pay, they’re there to play.
There is no such thing as an Alpha Provider. He’s the mythical creature all women want, and they know he *does not exist* so they try to convert Mr. Alpha into Mr. Alpha/Beta hybrid and what happens? She will ultimately fail. She will be the subject of many a rom com – the Cinderella trying to turn the successful handsome worry free aloof guy into the exact same man, but also loyal, sweet, caring... think a shirtless Matthew McConaughey... rocking a swaddled infant in the baby room he just painted. This is the fantasy of every woman alive. Alpha looks, money and prowess with the servitude and commitment and *caring* of the beta provider. This is mother nature’s cruel joke on women – letting them think in their hamster-driven minds that such a feat is possible.
Alpha males can become beta providers. Beta providers can stop *CARING* and *PROVIDING* for women/children, get in shape, get fashionable, get a better crib, get some game... but perhaps they are just physiologically wired to provide. Perhaps they will never *naturally* exude the kind of confidence a real natural-born Alpha does.
Interesting and well written article, but I think it’s got some major blue-pill philosophy in there, stuff that’s already been disproved in the field, so to speak.”
Another way of putting what Sid’s weighed in here with is like so:
You only have two (2) options-
Sounds depressing. You’re either trapped perpetually in hedonism, which is fun until it gets stale a decade or so in (usually sooner), or... you’re somebody’s doormat.
Well, spoiler, I’m going to tell you that’s a whole lot of hooey...
but so are the mainstream ideology of “the man’s REALLY in charge, even
if the woman bosses him around a bit” and the pickup ideology of “you
have to game your wife”.
Instead, I’m going to tell you about something else. Namely, being a legitimate alpha provider.
What are the differences between how a beneficial, robust mental
model works, versus how robust-yet-harmful mental models (like victim
mentality) or non-robust mental models yet clung-to models work?
I’ve been analyzing mental models a lot recently. In particular, how people can have extremely different, yet robust or at least unyielding mental models, and how each different kind of mental model produces different kinds of results.
For instance:
Victim mentality is actually an extremely robust mental model. Individuals who view themselves as victims – and such individuals are extremely common across societies, of every sex, race, age, and creed – continually find reason to view themselves as the recipients of misfortune, find justification for their models, and receive feedback from the world that reinforces rather than disabuses them of their models
Conversely, what I’d call winner, or success-driven,
individuals also have extremely robust mental models. Individuals who
view themselves as successes tend to be quite good at finding ways to
pull victory out of defeat, at avoiding situations where they would
suffer setbacks, and don’t spend much time dwelling on setbacks, other
than from a problem-solving mentality. As a result, they spend little
time in defeat and quickly dust themselves off even after most
reasonably catastrophic failures
But it’s not just someone’s victim/winner orientation. It’s also the reliability of his predictions.
For instance, someone who sees himself as a victim has confidence in his mental model because his predictions are either correct, or he explains them away if they aren’t. He sees a pretty girl and says, “Well, she’ll reject me, of course,” and if he approaches and she does reject him, he says, “See? I knew it. Women always reject me.” If instead she’s friendly, he’ll be inclined to explain it away: “She must’ve been drunk” or “She doesn’t really like me... she was probably just being polite.”
Both victims and winners make predictions and their predictions
either come true, or they attempt to explain to themselves (and others)
why in this case the prediction failed, yet the failure does not
violate their mental model overall. This makes these models robust.
Obviously, if they receive enough feedback to crash the model, they’ll be forced to reassess. But most people adopt models that seem to justify their experiences, and avoid experiences that may invalidate their models.
However, prediction is only the surface here – largely because it doesn’t give us a way to qualify the differences between different mental models (like victim and winner mentalities). So we need to add two more pieces.
I propose any robust, success-oriented mental model is comprised of three (3) bits:
GirlsChase.com opened up for business in 2008. We pretty quickly revolutionized the digital dating advice scene by providing a place filled with condensed curated content where men could come and learn everything they needed to know about doing better with the opposite sex.
Over the years, we’ve covered things like how to text
girls, how to ask women out, how to reach intimacy on the first date,
and even how to make girls orgasm
(and pretty much half the lay reports I read on the forum now mention a
guy using adapted missionary and the girl cumming a few times, it seems
like).
However, at this point, most of the low-hanging fruit is gone. All the big subjects are covered, and there’s not much more the other authors or I can say that we haven’t already discussed. A lot of it at this point is covering nuances and basics and more niche subjects, with the occasional “Why didn’t we cover that years ago” topic popping up here and there.
There’s one major area we’ve had folks asking us about for years though, that we’ve never covered, and that’s this: dating advice for women.
So, us being the perpetual wanderers that we are, that’s where we’re going next.
I recently counseled one of our senior members from the discussion board on how to rapidly find out a woman’s logistics in the first few minutes of conversation.
In this member’s case, he meets women as he goes about his day in the city, making street stops or chatting up girls in coffee shops whenever one catches his eye.
His problem is he lives outside the city, and often faces resistance from women having them agree to come out where he lives. In fact, he’s usually only able to do this with women who are already sold on him – which means he ends up leaving lays on the table... lays with women he could get, if he had better (in-city) logistics.
My recommendation was for him to begin to screen women for logistics immediately on approach them; that way he can explore which women to set dates up with (or even go for the pull then and there) in ways that let him take her back to her place... instead of trying to have her commute to his.
To help him do this, I shared with him how I screen for logistics early on – and in this article, I’ll share that with you too.
If you’re reading a site like Girls Chase, there’s a fairly good chance you’re a rather defiant, rebellious, countercultural individual to some extent:
You’ve got the whole of mainstream dating advice telling you to ‘just be yourself’ and wish upon a star and the right girl will come along if you just wait long enough, and any girl who doesn’t like you, well, that’s her problem, because you’re perfect as-is.
You’ve got legions of nice guys out there swamping the radio with the tragic tales of the women who’ve cheated on them and broken their hearts, and drowning the theaters and television stations with romantic comedies that depict them losing women again and again to the bad boy until finally, one day, the girl realizes she’s tired of hooking up with sexy bad boys and wants someone who isn’t going to break her heart for the long-term, and there’s Mr. Nice Guy, ready to sweep up the pieces of her broken heart and try to heal and fix her with marriage.
You’ve got women themselves telling you they don’t even like all those sexy guys they have sex with, and you should just stay the way they are and don’t change one bit. Don’t worry, someday when she’s done with the bad boys, you may yet get your shot with her.
You’ve got the downers, who want you to know it’s impossible to get girls if you don’t have movie star looks, investment banker income, basketball player height, and the right racial background.
You’ve even got books like The Game telling you you just need to memorize a few tricks, learn a few routines, and then basically repeat this script with every girl, and the flood gates will open up.
Yet, somehow, you’ve ended up here, studying the nuances of various tactics, fundamentals, and abilities, and coming at doing better with women in a systematic, skill-based way, where you mix experimentation and good old fashioned elbow grease to achieve the results you desire with women (whatever those results may be).
It’s pretty obvious you’re a defiant personality type... or at the very least, you’ve stumbled in here and are feeling defiance toward many of those other people and sources of information telling you to do things this way or that.
That brings me to today’s cautionary tale: be careful whom you’re defying.
Because defiance, improperly aimed, can be as big a handicap as it can a helper.
It’s frustrating as all get-out when things are going swell with a gal, only for her to suddenly pull out a trick you haven’t seen before and BLAM! You’re blindsided, floundering, and she’s lost interest.
These are commonly referred to as ‘tests’, but, as mentioned in my latest newsletter (which you’ve either received already, or will soon, if you’re signed up for the Girls Chase newsletter), all tests really are is a woman inviting you to flirt.
Flirt well, and her comfort with you goes up. She relaxes... “Ah, okay. This guy really is as cute as I hoped he was.”
The ability to flirt successfully is THE most important part of attraction and seduction... men who can do it succeed regularly with women well above their looks, smarts, and income brackets. Men who can’t struggle to get women with a fraction of their paper credentials.
One component of flirting is the knowledge of how to respond to various themes and patterns you see again and again with girls. That largely comes from experience – you meet enough girls, flirt with enough of them, and you start to see and hear the same objections again and again, and gradually begin to build up a repertoire of responses you’ve cooked up to dismantle these objections.
Before we dive into this one, I recommend reading or rereading these articles, because the base understanding of what is going on is more important for your progress than a handful of memorized responses:
Also, these four, crucial for being able to respond to ‘tests’ in attractive ways:
That done, let’s arm you with some go-to responses for some of the most frequent objections you’re likely to encounter.
IMPORTANT NOTE: when we look
at responses below, keep in mind that the type of response depends upon how
the objection is delivered. The same words can be used in wholly
different ways. For instance, if a woman tells you, “I will never sleep with you,” and she says
it in a sexy voice while leaning in and grinning at you, that’s a
categorically different kind of objection than if she leans back with a
look of disgust on her face, crosses her arms, looks off into the
distance, and then says, “I will never
sleep with you.”
