Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?



Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Guest0291 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:14 am

DrexelScott wrote:I couldn't agree less that height and muscle are the core determinants of having a masculine presence. Attitude rules over everything else. That's the problem here--you aren't in touch enough with just how valuable a man is to a woman, WHEN HE MAKES HER FEEL THE RIGHT WAY. Everything is about the way she FEELS in your presence,


Just fuckin lol at this. Not sure if serious. Ken, you're welcome to PM me if you want advice, I'd just need to know a bit more about where you are at with women and your situation in general to give solid pointers. But first:

Image
Image



You were saying Drexel?

I don't even need to write about this at length. To any guy, just use your head: an unattractive girl (to you) grabs your dick in the club, but she's really confident about it, what goes through your head? Now Lindsey Pelas, Playboy model who was a bitch when you first said hi, comes up and grabs your dick at the club, what goes through your head?

Where do guys get this logic that they can just magically conjure up "confidence" or "instill feelings" to get laid or attractive girls? It doesn't work that way. This is as laughable as when some women say "He should like me for my personality, I make people feel good!" despite being unattractive for the guy she wants. Even funnier is that some guys around here make fun of these women while spouting off the same bullshit. Reverse the genders/situations of Drexel's statements and you'll see how ridiculous it gets:

Fat on her everywhere but she is extremely grounded and most importantly, KNOWS HER VALUE.

I couldn't agree less that weight and facial aesthetics are the core determinants of having a feminine presence. Attitude rules over everything else.


How's that $200 DVD set or Drexel's "The Sexualizer" looking now?


Also just lol again at propping Mystery up like he actually knew anything about girls. I'll just skip criticizing his useless advice and go right into looking at who he is stuck with now: http://oi42.tinypic.com/2rc23qd.jpg

Is that one of the "hottest women around" Drexel?

DrexelScott wrote:Mystery is 6'7" or something, thin as a rail and has been with some of the hottest women around.



Anyways, this "I can just make her feel the right way" to compensate for a lack of money, looks, or status is crap. Look, if a guy just invested his time into a gym membership instead of trying to find a million ways around it, he'd get 1000x better success. But if anyone needs even more proof of this, here:

Roosh V, PUA:
Image


Christian Guzman, bodybuilding entrepreneur:
Image

Christian and his ex girlfriend:
Image

Does anyone really think Roosh can compete with Christian on any level with women?



But nice sponsored link there Drexel. Guys need yet another near $200 product just to get a girl? Really? Your entire post was written to market your products brah. I usually just criticize someone's points while refraining from going after the person talking, but this crosses a line. I get it, we all gotta make that green, but giving advice that can really fuck with someone's life just so you can make some money? Tsk tsk. Trying to con a guy just wanting answers into shelling out some serious cash for bullshit is not cool.

And to any guy considering buying into Drexel's "The Release Technique" program, Google around. People have said the "The Release Technique" and its affiliates have placed fraudulent charges on their credit cards amongst other shit. If you're not finding complaints, you're finding this program popping up on cult and New Age spiritual scam sites giving it fake positive reviews.

Drexel, you mad bro?

Also if anyone, maybe Chase or Franco, could aware me, I thought the rules were:
"1. Do not spam, sell, hawk wares, or push your products or services here. These boards are for discussion, not marketing or advertising. If you are caught violating this rule, you will be warned, suspended, or banned."


That's a mighty curious quote.
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Why Isn't Any Of This Working?

Postby Franco » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:40 pm

Gentlemen,

As far as looks go, the topic has already been addressed multiple times on this website here, here, and here. No need to beat the dead horse here; if you want to improve your looks, it's certainly going to up your success rate with women. Looks give you passive value, and the better you look, the more often women are going to give you good receptions. That being said, no one should tell you "don't worry about your looks at all" just like no one should tell you, "don't work on 'game' at all" -- both have value, and both will increase your success rate should you choose to work on either one or both of them.

King Bert wrote:Also if anyone, maybe Chase or Franco, could aware me, I thought the rules were:

"1. Do not spam, sell, hawk wares, or push your products or services here. These boards are for discussion, not marketing or advertising. If you are caught violating this rule, you will be warned, suspended, or banned."


That's a mighty curious quote.


Drexel is a GirlsChase contributor and has been around for awhile; if he has his own styles/techniques he wants to market, that's up to him. He's been approved by Chase.

- Franco
Franco

User avatar

Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:25 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Why Isn't Any Of This Working?

Postby ProblemSolving » Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:02 pm

Franco wrote:Gentlemen,

As far as looks go, the topic has already been addressed multiple times on this website here, here, and here. No need to beat the dead horse here; if you want to improve your looks, it's certainly going to up your success rate with women. Looks give you passive value, and the better you look, the more often women are going to give you good receptions. That being said, no one should tell you "don't worry about your looks at all" just like no one should tell you, "don't work on 'game' at all" -- both have value, and both will increase your success rate should you choose to work on either one or both of them.


Solid response.

Look, Ken has been at this for 2 years and has approached countless girls at this point and has not received a date yet. It is very unlikely that he has Approach Anxiety or is very nervous when he approaches. Furthermore, after reading his posts, he doesn't sound like he has a weird or off-putting personality. At this point, I would bet money that his ability to approach is fine, he just needs to improve his appearance.

For example, say you're a business man that's selling a new product. You've spent 2 years peddling your product to countless prospects and no one has bought it. At some point, you can't keep blaming failure on the sales pitch. At some point, you have to look at the product itself. In Ken's case, I'm betting his sales pitch is fine, but the product needs improvement.
ProblemSolving


Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Why Isn't Any Of This Working?

Postby Franco » Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:34 pm

PS,

Look, Ken has been at this for 2 years and has approached countless girls at this point and has not received a date yet. It is very unlikely that he has Approach Anxiety or is very nervous when he approaches. Furthermore, after reading his posts, he doesn't sound like he has a weird or off-putting personality. At this point, I would bet money that his ability to approach is fine, he just needs to improve his appearance.


My post was mostly about the general conversation going on in the follow-up posts to Ken's original post. Didn't mean to make it sound like it was directed toward Ken -- my apologies if it came across that way!

I'd bet that Ken likely has room for improvement in both areas. I will never tell a guy to not hit the gym or not hit the mall and improve his fundamentals; whatever you can afford to do to increase your looks is a plus for seduction. If you can afford a gym membership and can slot in regular times to go on a weekly basis, then it will help both your self-confidence and your positive initial reception rate from women. Likewise, if you can afford to spend time approaching women regularly and practice your approach, your conversations, and your ability to grab phone numbers, then you'll also be working toward more success as well.

Seduction is one of the ultimate paradigms when it comes to "you get out of it what you put into it." So if you work on your fundamentals AND your game, you will have tons of success in the future. =)

- Franco
Franco

User avatar

Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:25 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Why Isn't Any Of This Working?

Postby Bboy100 » Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:12 pm

Ken,

I can understand the frustration you're feeling. I didn't lose my virginity until I was 20 years old. Now, I'm 23 and I've been with more than 20 women, am in relationships with two different girls and I'm worlds away from the guy I used to be. So don't lose faith. Know that your situation can change.

Having said that, I have two things of note to say:
1. You're either not working as hard on this as you say you are. Because even if you're unattractive, if you've been doing this for two years, you should've been able to get some dates via sheer numbers alone.
2. You're SUUPER uncalibrated. Like, you're the weird guy at school. Not just a little weird. Straight up, people don't want to be seen around you. I'm not saying this to be mean. I'm saying this to let you know where you're at so we can fix it.

If this is the case, understand that this isn't even a matter of improving your game yet. It's a matter of developing basic social skills. I read through your past posts, and while its clear to me that you're inexperienced, I can't say for sure exactly what puts people off. So my advice to you is...try to get some honest feedback. Do you have any socially perceptive friends, family members, co-workers...anyone who will be brutally honest with you if you ask them? Go to him/her. Ask them what kind of impression you give off and why. Let them know why you're asking and that you're looking for constructive criticism. If they're honest with you, they'll probably be able to tell you one or two things you're doing which are super weird to other people (sometimes, these things are really easy to fix!). Whatever they tell you, work on them.

Also, tell me more about your situation & I'll be able to give you better feedback. Here are a few questions I have for you:
1. Women aside, can you make platonic friends relatively easily?
2. How do people usually react to you in social situations? Do they usually want to talk to you? Or do they avoid you?
3. What specifically do you do to meet women?
4. Do you have any platonic friends which are women?
5. Where do you go to socialize? Generally speaking, how do you meet people (men and women alike)? Is it just cold approaching women, or do you have a circle of friends?
6. Do you suffer from social anxiety, depression, or anything else which would make socializing and being yourself difficult?

I understand that some of these questions are pretty personal. So if you don't want to answer them in this thread, feel free to PM me :)

P.S.

As for the gym discussion everyone else is having...Franco is on point. Going to the gym will definitely help. A lot. Saying that looks and physique don't matter at all is ludacris. No matter how good your game, your results will be better if you get those things handled. Having said that, they're also not a magic bullet. Everything matters. There's no one thing you can do which will take you from 0 to 100.

So basically, you want to get to a point where fitness doesn't count against you (i.e. thin enough that you don't look fat & out of shape and muscular enough that she has some level of trust in your physical capabilities). Any further efforts to buff up/get in better shape will yield in less return on investment than doing other things to improve your attractiveness. So no, you definitely don't have to look anything like the guys in the pics linked above. But it would probably be best that you try to put on at least a little more muscle than you have now. 2-3 months of eating right and being in the gym would probably get you where you need to be.
Character is Destiny. - Heraclitus
Bboy100

User avatar

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:23 pm
Location: The Milky Way Galaxy

Re: Why Isn't Any Of This Working?

Postby Rain » Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:39 pm

If world war 3 happened tomorrow and food became scarce, surely the bigger guys would win most of the time by pure force, as they would be able to fight for food and be better protectors?

Granted, this guy went from being skinny to buff and his results didn't seem to improve that much with women? He put photos up.
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=15833
Rain


Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:38 pm

Re: Why Isn't Any Of This Working?

Postby ProblemSolving » Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:31 am

Franco wrote:My post was mostly about the general conversation going on in the follow-up posts to Ken's original post. Didn't mean to make it sound like it was directed toward Ken -- my apologies if it came across that way!


No worries. My post was directed at the whole thread as well. I just quoted your response because I agreed with it :)

Rain wrote:Granted, this guy went from being skinny to buff and his results didn't seem to improve that much with women? He put photos up.
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=15833


But did you read the thread? The guy didn't even approach girls. You can't build a respectable physique and then expect girls to hop on your cock. That's not how it works unfortunately haha.
ProblemSolving


Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Why Isn't Any Of This Working?

Postby ProblemSolving » Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:16 am

DrexelScott wrote:They'll want to, but most of the time the guy screws it up and the girl walks away disappointed.


Agreed. Most guys get into bodybuilding because they think that once their body is good enough then they won't need to grow some balls and actually approach girls.

Guys struggling with girls tend to fall into one of two categories. Either they don't approach enough girls or they haven't made themselves attractive enough to the opposite sex. Both solutions are simple, but they do require some effort.
ProblemSolving


Tribal Elder
Tribal Elder
 
Posts: 456
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Why Isn't Any Of This Working?

Postby CaptainHenley » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:56 am

Rain wrote:If world war 3 happened tomorrow and food became scarce, surely the bigger guys would win most of the time by pure force, as they would be able to fight for food and be better protectors?

Granted, this guy went from being skinny to buff and his results didn't seem to improve that much with women? He put photos up.
https://boards.girlschase.com/viewt ... 46&t=15833


Stop throwing stupid shit like that out there, I see this way too often.

Supposedly "if things went south, tall/strong/blonde/black/(insert whatever shit you want in here) people would have it better.

Stalin and Churchill were short as fuck.

So was hitler.

So was Lawrence of Arabia.

So were the Greeks and the Romans compared to northern "barbarians".

Where is your theory now?

The thing is, if lets say 3 men are equally shitty, obviously the taller one will have the advantage, cause well, thats the only thing that differentiates him from the others in a good way.
But if another guy is shorter but overshines him in other aspects, he will win every time.

Frank Sinatra was 5'7, and everyone remembers him.

Boghart was 5' 8 i think (not sure, I have better things to do with my life), and he is considered the best actor in film Noire.

And of course, you got other people who were/are tall and still do good for themselves or bad.

Deduction?

Height doesnt matter in the end. Simple as that.

And dont give me that shit about research that says taller people are more succesful. That has the same reasoning behind it as the gender wage gap thing.

The research doesnt say "people over 6'", it says "taller". Now what does taller mean?

Simple, a person who is 5'7 is taller than a person who is 5'5. Thats what it means.

And I read the research, and it said that people who are around 5'10 and above are more likely to be succesful, CEOs etc. than men who are 5'5 or something along those lines.

Which if you know how averages work, makes total sense. Very few men are 5'5 (nothing wrong with it, the same way very few people are 6'5), so it only makes sense for them to be less likely to be CEOs, because the number of people who are 5'5 is less than those who are average height.

So please, stop that bullshit.

There are many tall people around, nothing is given to them for that reason only.

Sure, they might look better in the first few seconds, but not after that.

I myself am 6 feet tall, and no one ever said to me, here, take this and this and that, just because you are 3 inches above average height.
CaptainHenley


Tool-Bearing Hominid
Tool-Bearing Hominid
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 9:34 am

Re: Why Isn't Any Of This Working?

Postby Guest0291 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:02 pm

@Franco

Franco wrote:Drexel is a GirlsChase contributor and has been around for awhile; if he has his own styles/techniques he wants to market, that's up to him. He's been approved by Chase.


Oh wow, so if I'm friends with Chase or I'm a contributor, I get permission to hawk whatever I like, just because I want to? Sweet man. Hey Chase we should go out for drinks sometime. Oh, I also have a program that instantly grows a dick by an inch, hope you don't mind me posting about it. It really works (because I say it does), and only costs $197.

What's truly odd is I don't see this little disclaimer in the rules, looks like they need to be updated to "can spam or sell products if approved." Franco, do you see how dishonest this policy is? Contributors get free reign to hawk their products, really? Do you see how that calls into question the quality of this site?


@DrexelScott

Back to you man.

2. You wrote, "Where do guys get this logic that they can just magically conjure up "confidence" or "instill feelings" to get laid or attractive girls? It doesn't work that way." Actually, it does. The entire existence of PUA is a testament to the fact that learning confidence and how to instill the right feelings in women is what creates results. Otherwise, the only advice in this market would be "get ripped." Even Arnold Schwarzenegger said "If you want to get laid, there are much faster ways to do it than working out a lot."


Spoken like a true marketer. Let's ignore that you didn't source that Arnold quote. PUA is a testament to snake oil salesman selling dreams to guys, leading them on with promises they can get laid with any girl despite their shortcomings. You're either a shill or you legit bought into the bullshit. I can't tell.

Most PUAs look like this:

Image
Image


And claim to get girls like this:

Image


When those girls date guys like this:

Image


PUAs try to sell the idea that this is not the case. They sell false hope and hokey methods to turn a buck. Just like you, my friend.


But you're right. I'm just a troll or a virgin if I think Mystery couldn't get laid to save his life or that I think PUA is largely crap. Let's ask Aaron Sleazy, a friend of Chase's and contributor to Girlschase:

Aaron Sleazy Debunking the Seduction Community
Bogus Community Concepts
"But the community stuff works, dude, it really does!"
Regression in the "Dating" Community
Wait, you’re telling me I have to make an effort in order to be attractive to women?
[Mystery's] The Seven Hour Rule

Whoah, a friend of Chase's is also stating a virgin troll's point that Mystery is bullshit? W-what... How can this be? Not to mention, if Mystery is so good with women... why isn't he married to someone, you know, actually hot? I thought he could have any girl he wanted?

But let's get back to the main point. We're talking about you selling snake oil to a guy who clearly doesn't have answers and is still looking to solve a problem.


DrexelScott wrote:7. [...] I've been learning and teaching Game for longer than you've probably been aware of the Community's existence, and wouldn't recommend something that doesn't help. I DO use it every time I leave the house to go interact with people and it helps with much, much more than just Game.


Wow, you actually use a product that you're also selling? And it really works? I guess I should take your word for it and pay the $197 (marked at an incredible discount) so you can also get your commission. Because you said it works, it surely does, right? If you said you got laid with hot women, I should believe that too, correct?

DrexelScott wrote:8. You wrote, "Do not spam, sell, hawk wares, or push your products or services here." I haven't violated this rule, but recommended someone look at a free thing I offer people who need help, specifically with this area. Chase himself is one of my affiliates for the actual paid program I teach, and suggesting helpful things to people looking for exactly the answer you can provide is not "spamming."


You haven't violated the rule, only recommended something free? Wait, what's this then:

Drexel Scott wrote:I wouldn't meet with people WITHOUT using it, it solves 90% of what makes guys unattractive to women in the first place. Try to ignore the hokey marketing because the technique itself is great:

https://releasetechnique.isrefer.com/go ... exelScott/


That program doesn't look free to me. Oh you're talking about The Sexualizer, got it. Something that claims: "If you want to get women SOAKING wet...with just one simple sentence...then simply click the link below for your FREE download of "The Instant Female Arousal Phrase" now!" Wow, so Ken's problem is he doesn't have The Sexualizer, he just needs the one simple sentence that can make women SOAKING wet. This is truly the Holy Bible for virgins everywhere. Well damn, we need to get this to the masses!

And I'm the one lacking critical thinking? Ok.


Now for my concluding point:

DrexelScott wrote:Again, you're on a website to learn Game while dismissing Game.


No. Girlschase was never about learning game. It was supposed to be about providing non-hokey answers and actual proven solutions to help a guy have a healthy sex life. There is a lot of great advice on this site. But it's clouded by its own bullshit, just look at this article on a fake science (NLP) you wrote for the site: https://www.girlschase.com/content/funda ... lexibility

This site's quality is further questioned by you pushing a program, like "The Release Technique" that is riddled with fake reviews and pushed by a company that has been reported to scam people with false credit card charges (feel free to Google it everybody). Which is odd too, what's your stance on that Drexel? Why are you an affiliate for a company with poor business practices? And Chase, if you're reading, what does this say about Girlschase working with a questionable writer like this?

Finally, to anyone reading this: I'm not a troll. I'm actually one of the few guys honestly interested in helping you get laid and not wasting your fucking time. I may not be the nicest at expressing it, but I'm not here to insult or argue with people. I'm here to give reality so you can speed through the process easier and not make the same mistakes I did. If you're curious whether I can back up my talk that I actually get girls (quality at that), PM me, I can provide proof. But best yet, I'm not trying to take your money. Because I dislike liars and people that lead you on for their own means. It's not right.

This Drexel guy? He wants your money. Whether it's in seduction or in his $200 NLP/Hypnotism courses: https://www.udemy.com/user/drexelscott/

A guy like Ken asks for advice, gets a sales pitch. After years of struggling to lose his virginity, there's yet another product to buy. Oh and Drexel gets a slight commission. But it really works! But if game was so good at getting guys laid, why does Ken, let alone anybody, need to buy another product?
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Why Isn't Any Of This Working?

Postby Guest0291 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:25 pm

No problem my man, I'll be here for a long time. Is there any way I can sign up to shill your products too? I get real hard to the idea of feeding guys lies for cash.

But I love Dave Riker though, really. Google him guys, yet another $200 product you need. Oh wait, even crazier, he's connected to Ross Jefferies from Speed Seduction, another con artist in PUA. Tell me guys of Girlschase, does Ross Jefferies look like someone who lays 10s?

Image

Goddamn Drexel, you seem to have a lot of connections with scammers brah.
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Why Isn't Any Of This Working?

Postby Guest0291 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:54 pm

DrexelScott wrote:Are you going to accuse Chase of "feeding guys lies for cash" too, are do you at least have the spark of social intelligence required not to go into someone else's territory and make baseless accusations against them just because they understand how a business works?


Good, get mad bro. Get mad at me :)

Understand how a business works? You are an affiliate for a company that scams people. You support questionable people (Dave Riker, and thus Ross Jeffries) and have products on fake science. You write for Roosh over at Return of Kings, another PUA scammer. Good business sense there. As for Chase, whether he lies or not or his advice is effective or not, I think he honestly wants to help guys so it doesn't matter. I think he's coming from the right place. Thus my confusion of how you're a writer on this site. Girlschase.com likes the company of scammers? Not a good look.

You? You're a shill, and I wouldn't ever work with you. You clearly don't have the ability to pick your friends, why would I trust in your ability to make good decisions otherwise? Why would anybody trust your advice knowing all this?
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Why Isn't Any Of This Working?

Postby Guest0291 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:31 pm

As for the original topic, I'm with BBoy and ProblemSolving on the issue. I can say from my point of view, looks is one of the problems. You're tall and that's great. Your face isn't bad either. Changing your style is going to help the issue a lot and getting ripped even more so. I can help with both of those if you want. Both are not hard to change.

Curious how you've been trying to go about getting girls though as well, won't have time to look through your post history or anything to get the full story today.

Whoever's advice you choose to listen to though, I do wish you luck Ken brah and hope something works for ya.
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Why Isn't Any Of This Working?

Postby Guest0291 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:38 pm

@Slay

1. But your point about movie stars is just further proving my point. They are movie stars: they have money and status, if not looks. Most guys are not movie stars, most will not be able to lean on riches or status to supplement looks. Celebrity status let's you get away with a lot. And even knowing that bodybuilding was not a full-on mainstream thing in Gary Cooper's time, this does not negate my point of attractiveness. Those guys are attractive, old sex symbols were definitely attractive for their time and continue to be attractive, if not for looks, then for status or money.

2. I am saying those bodybuilding guys are attractive, just like the guys you mentioned. That's the bottom line, you have to be physically attractive. Do you think girls would go crazy for Harrison Ford if he looked terrible? Do you think Han Solo's "manly presence" would get him laid if he looked like an average guy?

This idea that Drexel is peddling, the idea that "No, I'm a guy, I can just have 'masculine presence'" without having anything tangible to offer is complete crap and just misleads guys into thinking that they should work on their "game" because "looks only gets you in through the door." This is just not the case.

Furthermore, does anyone think Drexel honestly has a "more masculine presence" than a guy like Christian Guzman, let alone anywhere close to someone like Gary Cooper? Drexel is nothing like Gary Cooper or Sean Connery, at all. I've seen the video you posted, and no. Drexel comes across as anything but sexy. Any guy who actually gets laid could tell that. No attractive guy on the planet wears a tribal pendant, poorly fitted black striped shirt, a bad haircut, and those glasses. They also don't sound or act anything like him.


This is Drexel everybody:

Image
Image


Does anyone honestly think he can compete with a guy like Marc Fitt, even if Fitt was acting like a nice guy? (PS. He is one.) Do you think Drexel's "social game" is in anyway going to overtake a guy like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEgr1ZpSyuw

Image


Drexel's a fraud, man. I'm not saying this to be mean or harsh, I'm saying this to be real. Not trying to yell at you, not trying to come across high and mighty. Just trying to cut through his crap and give advice that produces results, much faster than being a virgin for years before finally sitting down and asking "Why isn't all of this working?" and then getting the answer that he needs to buy some $200 program linked to a scam organization.
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Why Isn't Any Of This Working?

Postby Guest0291 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 3:31 am

Drexel buddy, come back when you can explain why you're shilling for frauds;)


@Slay

We don't disagree because of semantics. We disagree entirely.

Not going to go too in depth about your post because I can summarize why it's wrong in a paragraph. If all it takes is dominance and masculinity to get laid with quality girls, if a "masculine presence" and "intrinsic value" is really the core of it, then why don't celebrity women date and fuck military men, the most dominant/alpha type of guys on the planet? Riddle me why Katy Perry, who has had plenty of USO trips, decided to fuck Justin Bieber, one of the biggest pussies in pop culture, rather than a NAVY Seal. Why did she have a relationship with Russell Brand and Orlando Bloom instead of a Marine? Why do girls fawn over Zac Efron instead of Chris Kyle from American Sniper? Let me know dude.

Granted, you are correct in as far as relationships. Relationships are a different animal then getting laid regularly with hot babes though, factors like personality, personal compatibility, similar interests, finances, etc. play much more. As for you claiming I don't know what sexy is or what women want, ok. A core part of your argument is that I don't know what I'm talking about, let's go over it once and for all.

For one thing, you are nowhere near hot or built. I'm not saying this to be mean, I am just being honest. If you want any advice on how to change it, I'm more than happy to help, but you have to empty your cup first.


In this post from December (viewtopic.php?f=45&t=15286), you look like:

Image


And I look like this:

Image

And that's with some big muscle loss due to being busy.


Here is me at my biggest:

Image

So you're not on the same tier as far as looks and you're still the one asking questions about girls around here. I'm also curious what the quality of girl you are sleeping with is. If your taste is anything similar to Drexel's, then no thanks. So why do you think you are qualified to say that I'm wrong and you are right? It's that you're saying you're trying to prevent guys from getting misled, when you yourself are doing the fraudin.

It's as ridiculous as CaptainHenley up there raging on Rain when Henley is a virgin: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=15861&p=79442#p79442

It's as ridiculous as Drexel claiming he can compete with guys that look like me because of his "dominant presence." Even better, he suggests that looking like me isn't going to do to much for you anyways. It's funny too that it's always the guys that look average and have a product to sell you that say things like "looks don't really matter as much." Kinda like how fake rich guys make books on how to get rich.

I'm different, I'm not trying to sell you crap. I've been skinny, I've been big, and getting laid is a cakewalk when you're big. That's the truth. I want you to look even better than me. I want you to have bigger muscles than I do, get laid even more than I do, and find a girl you like even more. I have your best interest at heart. Even better, I'll tell you how to do all of this for free, because I'm not trying to sell anyone fake products for $200.
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Guest0291 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 5:26 am

Noting here, my replies had been moved from this thread if anyone wants to see the beginning: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15937

Did not have a say in the title of this thread. Curious who titled it for me.
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Chase » Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:37 am

First off, topic has been addressed repeatedly on this site:



In case you don't want to read, here's the summary: muscles boost attractiveness and are a fundamental. Are muscles THE most important thing? No. They are one of many things that can boost your attractiveness.

THAT SAID, before I get too far into this post, for the guys who are hardcore into the "muscles = laid" mentality, there is a subset of women for whom muscles are Attraction Factor #1 (or #2 or #3). Gym bunnies, a big chunk of the blonde bombshell population, and certain aspirational non-white girls in white countries have muscles as more or less a fetish, much in the way some guys only want to date blondes, or some guys only want to date girls with giant boobs, or some guys only want to date tall girls, or what have you.


ATTITUDE / GAME

Drexel posits the most important aspect to succeeding with women is attitude. This is technically correct. If you're the most ripped guy in the world but you're scared to talk to women, or you have a crap attitude toward them and about them, you will not get women. One of millions of examples:

Muscular, buff, handsome guy makes video about why he can't get a girlfriend.

I personally found this the strangest thing when I was young and inexperienced. I had a coworker who was by far the most muscular guy I knew (bigger than that Christian Guzman guy in King Bert's photos), and one of the biggest I've ever seen in my life - guy was an absolute hulk, and completely juiced up on steroids - break down in tears in a hotel room we shared at sales training, crying about how he could not find a girlfriend, women didn't want him, and he was going to be alone forever.

To be honest, it scared the crap out of me. I'm some weak, skinny 18-year-old kid at the time who completely sucks with girls and I'm having to sit there on the other bed and go, "Ah, it's okay man, you're in awesome shape and clearly worked hard to get there, I'm sure some girl out there can appreciate that," and he just continued to bawl his eyes out and say no, girls don't care at all. And I'm like, "Well, do you go talk to girls at bars? They love guys with muscles!" and he starts yelling about how no, they ALL reject him! All I could think was if this guy loses it and like decides he wants to snap my neck or butt rape me or something, I'm done for. I had to take him to a strip club to try and make him feel better (and they wouldn't even let me in, because it was Delaware and all the strip joints there are 21+).

That blew my "muscles = laid" belief more than anything back then. I'd watched a lot of movies and TV and had been hard into the "muscles = laid" mentality prior to that. Lots of TV shows of big muscular guys and girls drooling all over them.

When I went to university the next year, I started lifting hard as one of my ways to hopefully do better with girls. But I continually noted as I walked around campus how many huge guys there were with fat, ugly girlfriends. I'd see a super muscular guy with minimal body fat, walking around smiling and holding hands with some land whale. I'd shake my head and go, "Whoa. Doesn't that dude realize he can do better?" And then I'd pass another super muscular guy with minimal body fat, walking around smiling and holding hands with another land whale. This was at a campus with 57% women to 43% men, and loads of very slim, attractive girls. Eventually I stopped being surprised and started to just say, "Guess there are a lot of guys who've tried to substitute muscles for the ability to talk to and attract women."


CHERRY PICKING EXAMPLES

"Most PUAs look like Owen Cook or Ross Jeffires" - I mean, come on. Two of the craziest-looking guys in the PUA space are now "most PUAs". That's like saying most bodybuilders look like Richard Simmons.

Image

RooshV is not a super PUA, nor has he ever pretended to be. He's a regular guy who self-taught himself a certain degree of game. Using his conquests as your benchmark for the looks that men who study and practice game get is disingenuous at absolute best. At best.

There are a number of public 'game' figures who post pictures of themselves with the girls they get whose taste in women are analogousto the bodybuilders in Bert's pictures. Do a Google Image search for "Mystery PUA" as just one example of a guy who goes for the hot/sexy bottle blonde chicks:

Image

Image

Image

We used to have pictures of some of Hector Castillo's conquests on his phone coaching page, and they look like these girls, minus the bottle blonde hair. Or here's Joe Ducard, another Girls Chase contributor (who's in good shape, but physique with a shirt on not visibly much different from Drexel's):

Image

Game + fundamentals = results.

It's possible to do exclusively one and be shit in the rest. Like, you could be super muscular guy who's also very rich and dresses really well and has an incredible haircut, great body language, facial expressions, walk, etc. (through-the-roof on fundamentals) but has no idea how to talk to girls (game), and still get pretty good results so long as you had some basic game down (i.e., ability to ask women out, basic flirting, ability to lead a woman through a progression of steps that ends with your penis in her vagina).

Likewise, there are men out there with mostly terrible fundamentals - no muscles, short, ugly - but who nevertheless have remarkable game, and they get equivalent results. First guy I knew with game was a short, fat, balding Puerto Rican salesman with incredible frame control, presence, and humor who dated blonde bombshells of equal looks to the ones in King Bert's photos (well, minus the ripped abs / thighs. If you want to date gym bunnies with any consistency you need to be a gym rat yourself).

Focusing on just one aspect of one side of the equation to the exclusion of all else never works. e.g., the guy who does nothing but go to the gym and lift (i.e., works on just one single fundamental), and improves himself in no other way, dates land whales. The guy who goes out and does 5000 approaches and works on nothing but openers (i.e., works on just one single aspect of game) also does terrible and sleeps with only a handful of girls, none of them cute. The key is improvement across multiple dimensions - both fundamentals (one of which is muscles) and game.

[for the guys who dislike the word 'game' - yeah, I don't like the word either. When you come up with a better word for 'the ability to talk to women, handle tests, maintain frame control, and plan and guide a process from finding, to meeting, to flirting with, asking out, inviting home, and eventually sleeping with women', let me know and if I agree it's a better word, I'll be happy to use that word instead of 'game', and all its funny connotations and culture baggage]

Anyway. Girls Chase exists, in part, to combat entrenched mindsets of "I have the one single key to sex and anyone who lacks it lives in a sexual desert." Whether you think that one magic key is the Cube routine or October Man sequence, or it's that you've got to be 6'5" or taller, or that you've got to be super rich, or you need 18" biceps, or you have to be in the NHL, or whatever. That is the purpose of this site - to highlight the myriad paths to success for anyone who wants them, and allow them to choose the best one for them.

If you think muscles are the absolute key to hot girls and the trump card over all else, I invite you to take your time machine back to 2001 and come save me in that hotel room with that super jacked guy bawling his eyes out over how women don't want him. I'm sure he would love to know the rejections he faced didn't happen and that girls were all over his cock, he just didn't realize it. 18-year-old Chase would certainly appreciate you showing up to save him from having to console this big, scary guy in the middle of a hotel room meltdown.

If, instead, you are ready for a more balanced approach, here's the gist: muscles help (with some girls more than others). But they are an ingredient in the recipe, not the recipe itself:



Also... I can't help myself, but...

Those bombshell chicks in the 'ideal' pictures have some pretty busted faces.

Well, except the first one in the gray sweatshirt. She's pretty cute. The rest though...

You're Passing Up the Hottest, Coolest Girls

Chase
Chase

User avatar

Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3092
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:46 am
Location: America, Asia, Europe, and Beyond

Re: Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Chase » Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:47 am

Bert-

King Bert wrote:Did not have a say in the title of this thread. Curious who titled it for me.


Needs to be its own topic, since it's the ol' "muscles vs. game" debate, and we don't want that hijacking Ken's thread where he's asking for help.

Title seemed appropriate - your point seems to be guys who teach/study game date ugly girls while presenting themselves as dating hot girls (thus, fake), and muscles are the way to hot girls in your bed (i.e., a trump card). Your thread though; if you want titled differently, I'm open to suggestions.

EDIT: also, no flame wars. Fine/healthy to question sacred cows, but if you're going to go about it by piling up ad hominems, this is not the place for that. There are plenty of ways to make points in civil fashion. The moment you stop treating your opponent with respect is the moment you cede the debate to him.

-C
Chase

User avatar

Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3092
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:46 am
Location: America, Asia, Europe, and Beyond

Re: Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Guest0291 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:58 am

@Slay

Yes you did claim as much.
Slay wrote:I'm tall, got muscles, and get complimented on my face often.



Also, do you really think that I'm 20% body fat? You want to see my definition more, ok. It's called lighting brah.

Image
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Guest0291 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:21 am

@Chase

Thank you for your posts, I'll reply consecutively. Glad we can finally talk.

I've already read those articles when they first came out, and trust me, I'm a longtime reader. For this, I'm going to ignore any and all of your anecdotal evidence. You ignore mine. We'll just look at the facts as we have them. I think that's perfectly fair.


On Drexel Scott


Chase wrote:Drexel posits the most important aspect to succeeding with women is attitude. This is technically correct. If you're the most ripped guy in the world but you're scared to talk to women, or you have a crap attitude toward them and about them, you will not get women.


You're not wrong, an attitude can be limiting. That is not what the problem with Drexel's advice is. This is:

DrexelScott wrote:That's the problem here--you aren't in touch enough with just how valuable a man is to a woman, WHEN HE MAKES HER FEEL THE RIGHT WAY. Everything is about the way she FEELS in your presence, and given the way you've written this post, I'm assuming that some of your "neediness" is leaking through and that is a complete repellant to women.


He is stating in the original post that you don't need looks, height, etc. All you need is to "MAKE HER FEEL THE RIGHT WAY." This is Drexel's claim when we get down to it, and you see it across his many posts: how you socially approach things and the mindset you have inside is what determines whether you get the girl. But need I remind you that your pal Aaron Sleazy has debunked this numerous times (also, wait, looks and height don't make her feel the right way? What?)

http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2012/06 ... -game.html
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2014/12 ... -some.html
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2010/03 ... de-it.html
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2012/12 ... nt-by.html

I'll quote from the last article in case anyone doesn't want to read in full. The quote is from Sleazy's friend Alek Novy in the article "What Game Is and Isn't"

Alek Novy wrote:You can become a more attractive person (scientifically validated to making a significant difference, go lose 50 pounds and tell me how many more dates you get, same with getting an expensive car).

You cannot, however however merely speak or stand or ask for the date in a "different way" and suddenly get drastically different results. You will still get roughly the same amount of yes responses per 100 chicks. No game believer has ever shown to get a yes per 100 chicks asked more often than a control subject (the control would be average beta-guy game by your terminology).


While we're speaking of Drexel, I'm assuming you've read the thread. How do you feel about Drexel Scott's connections to scammers and companies that are said to place fraudulent credit card charges? How do you feel about him hawking a near $200 product that is riddled with fake reviews across the web?

And if Franco is indeed correct that Drexel gets approval to do this because he is a contributor, please change your rules to reflect this little caveat. If anything I'd like a response on this since Drexel seems to want to avoid this issue.


Average PUA

Yes, Roosh does consider himself a super PUA, he has an entire site where he's pretending to be some decider of what is masculine and what isn't, aka Return of Kings. Why else would he be getting so much criticism from mainstream media, let alone Sleazy if he wasn't pretty out there or bought into his hype?

But are the guys that study game really so different than guys with looks like Roosh and Tyler? Let's see, RSD posts footage of guys that go to their seminars:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0MLIzyEm00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESX0A1eNQV0

Surprise, surprise, they're as awkward as I expected. I've also seen pictures of guys around here, and no, I'm not shocked that they aren't good looking but claim such things don't matter. This is not ego talking. I think a guy can do so much to improve his looks, just like your friend Joe. But so many guys here instead think like Drexel that they can replace looks for game, or somehow make it a 50-50 split across. It doesn't work that way, not if you're wanting to get girls of any quality.

Also Mystery lied, he paid girls to pose with him, he paid women to appear with him, he barely got laid (just like Neil Strauss) and he would use his pics in the club to convince guys he actually got with the when that's far from the case. He had a business to run, this isn't a mystery (get the pun?). Not sure if you are serious/10. Consult Sleazy's blogs or books if you want a trusted source.


Joe Ducard

You cannot be serious. Drexel looks nothing like Joe. At all. Even if Joe didn't have abs for shit or had loose skin in his ab area, his arms are clearly fucking impressive and much better than average, let alone Drexel's. If you're going to state that those girls have busted up faces, you can't suddenly choose to be blind to Drexel's clearly out of shape body. It really crushes your credibility.

Joe's got muscular arms, great facial hair, an aesthetic face, a good hairstyle, white teeth, and is taller than the girls in his pictures. And yes, I know he used to be fat. So... how was that supposed to prove me wrong? You just proved me right. That guy Joe, I'm curious, did he get laid at all when he was fat, like your short, fat, bald friend? What kind of girls with? Why bother to change his looks at all if game was the real core of the equation?

Fundamentals is the very reason those results are possible. The reason hot guys don't get laid is because of a limitation on themselves: they don't meet girls, they think girls don't want sex, etc. But overcoming these limitations doesn't make up for looks, not at all. A guy cannot and will not bed a girl who is is not physically attracted to uhim, not without compensating for it somehow, like with money or status or her having a shady motive. You cannot compensate with "game" or talk your way into a girl's pants. Changing how you asked out a girl or approached her is not going to change things. Period.

If I suddenly open up my mind that "Wow girls like sex!" and "Wow I can meet girls at the gym!" this doesn't get me success all of the sudden. I have to be good looking enough for a girl in order for her to want to fuck me. There is no two ways about it. You wouldn't fuck a girl you're not physically attracted to.

Again, here's a post from your friend Sleazy's blog if you think I'm just spouting off: http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2012/12 ... nt-by.html

What's hilarious is that plenty of guys here go "Oh should have persisted" or "Damn, I didn't chase frame and she got away." They think they have more control over the outcome in the moment than they really do, and it's because of PUA bullshit. That's what it's there for: The illusion of control, the idea that you as a guy can be the reason you got laid, it has nothing to do with her at all. But that's crap. If a girl doesn't want to fuck you, your goal is dead in the water. Period. Yes, her wanting to fuck you can be fleeting but I find this rare. If a girl wanted to fuck me last week, she has always had sex with me the next.

Just look at the recent field report posted on some guy trying to fuck a virgin. She did everything but have sex or blow him. Why? Should he have persisted? Perhaps he didn't escalate things in a way that curtails resistance

Or, oh wait, she's a virgin who is apprehensive about sex. Apprehensive about sex = does not want to fuck. He didn't get laid. Not rocket science.

Where the Lies Begin

So here we are, the crux of it.

Chase wrote:It's possible to do exclusively one and be shit in the rest. Like, you could be super muscular guy who's also very rich and dresses really well and has an incredible haircut, great body language, facial expressions, walk, etc. (through-the-roof on fundamentals) but has no idea how to talk to girls (game), and still get pretty good results so long as you had some basic game down (i.e., ability to ask women out, basic flirting, ability to lead a woman through a progression of steps that ends with your penis in her vagina).

Likewise, there are men out there with mostly terrible fundamentals - no muscles, short, ugly - but who nevertheless have remarkable game, and they get equivalent results. First guy I knew with game was a short, fat, balding Puerto Rican salesman with incredible frame control, presence, and humor who dated blonde bombshells of equal looks to the ones in King Bert's photos (well, minus the ripped abs / thighs. If you want to date gym bunnies with any consistency you need to be a gym rat yourself).



Absolutely not on that last part. Let's ignore all the anecdotal evidence. Every guy seems to know some fat balding guy who gets laid super often with women. I'd like to see this guy and what he gets with. Nobody ever has a picture.

You only have anecdotal evidence to back up that last part Chase. Curious though... If I can be an ugly guy with game, than why would I bother getting good looking? You even state, yeah good looks help and hell yeah, you can be looking and have no game and get girls. But then you negate it with "But you can also be ugly and have great game!"

So tell me then... Why recommend at all that you should take care of your looks if you can just make up for bad looks with game? And why are you going back and forth on the issue:

Chase wrote:In case you don't want to read, here's the summary: muscles boost attractiveness and are a fundamental.

Chase wrote:Likewise, there are men out there with mostly terrible fundamentals - no muscles, short, ugly - but who nevertheless have remarkable game, and they get equivalent results.

Chase wrote: First guy I knew with game was a short, fat, balding Puerto Rican salesman with incredible frame control, presence, and humor who dated blonde bombshells of equal looks to the ones in King Bert's photos

Chase wrote:If you want to date gym bunnies with any consistency you need to be a gym rat yourself).


Which is it bud?


Chase wrote:Focusing on just one aspect of one side of the equation to the exclusion of all else never works. e.g., the guy who does nothing but go to the gym and lift (i.e., works on just one single fundamental), and improves himself in no other way, dates land whales. The guy who goes out and does 5000 approaches and works on nothing but openers (i.e., works on just one single aspect of game) also does terrible and sleeps with only a handful of girls, none of them cute. The key is improvement across multiple dimensions - both fundamentals (one of which is muscles) and game.


I agree on a slight point. No just going to the gym won't net you girls. Yes, you need to place yourself in situations to talk to them. But the idea that a guy who just spends his time in the gym dates land whales? Strong anecdotal evidence/10.

I can't even really reply to your post Chase, but I'm doing my best. Your post is all anecdotal. The only evidence you supplied just proved my point. Joe was fat before. He got fit and healthy and worked on his looks. Gets laid like crazy now. Yes, going out and meeting girls is a key. It's hardly fucking rocket science, and no, just meeting girls is not able to make up for looks. My ability to meet Megan Fox doesn't just suddenly open up the possibility of dating her if she isn't physically attracted to me.



Where I see the problem with your site Chase


I think there's some good quality stuff here that helps: Get sexy. Move fast with girls. Girls actually want to have sex. It's awesome advice.

The other stuff? It's bullshit, plain and simple: http://anti-pua-johnny.blogspot.com/201 ... -much.html

To get a girl, according to your site and your writers, I need to: pre-open, move her, pass shit tests, behave alpha, be sporadic with my texts, keep texts shorter than hers, send an icebreaker text than wait, only tell stories where girls were chasing me, chase frame, have an abundance mentality, pay attention to the 3 body position phases as things progress, fear the closing of an escalation window, get compliance, compliance stack, have to get social proof, etc., etc.

This is where the poor advice descends and just ends up making a guy spin his wheels. Just like I did when I followed it. But when I found out the answer is 1000x simpler I then realized a guy doesn't need any of that. All he needs to do is look good, be personable, and meet hot girls. Him "changing how he asks a girl out" isn't going to change anything: if she's attracted to him and wants to go out with him or fuck him or whatever, she'll say yes. If she's not, she'll say no. That's it. Personality will not increase his chances or be the basis for his chances: it's only a disqualifier. Better looking you are though, the more you get away with. Hard to market that though.

It took me years of cold approaching, getting rejected, practicing my chase frames, and all the other such nonsense to realize this fact. Now I get laid regularly, quicker, with consistently good looking women, and spend absolutely no time on "mastering my game." But if I could go back and tell myself "No brah, this 'you can just practice game and get laid' stuff is bullshit'" I would.

It's funny though. You have readers and forum members reporting depression over your methods, failure to achieve the results they wanted, failures to get laid consistently, etc. Just look at Ken.

Think I'm cherry picking again? Count off to me how many of your members are of "Tribal elder" status compared to all other members' statuses.

Oh but isn't it obvious that those other guys aren't getting success just because they're not trying hard enough? It's a real interesting caveat I've seen around here: if you're depressed at your lack of results, you're not wanting it bad enough. If you're just not getting results, you're just not working hard enough. If you're getting results, my advice worked. See everyone, it works!

All the burden of failure has nothing to do with any part of your advice... that's a curious thing. Maybe just maybe Chase, and fellow board members... certain aspects of this website are incorrect? And thus following an incorrect conclusion leads to poor results. Just like believing NLP will do anything for your chances of fucking your dream girl #fakesciencebruh


Back to the looks vs "presence" stuff though. Fun version of proof of what I'm saying:

https://archive.is/Wga5I/ebc886c6dcc753 ... d3bb03.jpg
https://archive.is/Wga5I/6698eafc5c8e9a ... bff41e.png
https://archive.is/Wga5I/0510a52a8aee0b ... f71814.png
https://archive.is/Wga5I/1f6908d92cd189 ... 1eaad7.png

Of course that's just Tinder. Anecdotally, disregard it as you want, my experience anecdotally syncs up with it. The better looking I got, the more forgiving girls became for how much I could get away with. I could like a complete asshole to a girl and still get her number because she liked my arms. In the end, I choose to just act like, oh no, a nice guy! All I do is ask if a girl wants to hangout, not tell. I say please and thank you and you're welcome. I hold the door, pay for dinner (I couldn't give a fuck who pays). I do all that beta male shit and find it hilarious when guys out there say you can just act dominant and get laid. No, you better be good looking enough for quality of girl you want, period.

Again, if you think I'm bullshitting, consult your friend:
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2012/09 ... story.html
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2012/03 ... weird.html
http://anti-pua-johnny.blogspot.com/201 ... -much.html
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2012/03 ... -cool.html
http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2011/12 ... eight.html


Conclusion of post Height matters, muscles matter, looks matter, more than mostly everything in getting laid regularly with hot quality girls, except status or money. The better these are, the more forgiving girls are. Personality/"game" is a disqualifier for getting laid, not the basis: you cannot game your way into a girl's pants, only fuck it up by doing something stupid. You will not get laid consistently or with quality women without good looks and you cannot use game to make up for looks. You can certainly compensate aspects of your looks for each other: short but buff, ugly face but good body, good face and hairstyle but not as fit, etc. But game will not compensate. You cannot "social skill" or "chase frame" your way into pussy. Just like a fat chick can't "chase frame" her way onto your cock.

Relationships are a different animal we won't go into here (hint: personality and long term compatibility comes more into play), we are talking about getting laid regularly and with hot girls at that. In that pursuit, "game" as Drexel describes doesn't matter at all. Looks, status, and money are king. Unless you think that a guy like Dan Bilzerian needs to study game.

Which is another curious thing on this site... why do normal guys have to study getting girls to be like these other guys, yet those other girls didn't read dating advice at all, let alone anything PUA. Why is it a requirement for the masses, and not for them? Maybe being a sports star, billionaire, etc. gets you laid more. No, not because "Girls are valuing the hard work it took to get all the moneyz." It's because the guy is rich and they want money. Look at http://tagthesponsor.com/
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Guest0291 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 8:22 am

As for a title change, I think "Do looks matter more than game?" is a more fair title and far more representative of the argument. Muscles aren't everything. A handsome face, a good height, a good set of teeth, etc. matter.

Oddly enough you seem to think the same thing: those girls have busted up faces, as you say. Looks mattered to you. Who would have thought? If that fat bald friend of yours can lay dime pieces, surely these girls with busted faces as you say have a good shot with you?
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Bboy100 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:45 am

Bert,

You dismiss all of Chase's evidence on the basis of the fact that its anecdotal. And that's fine. I feel the same way. I like science or gtfo. Having said that, all of YOUR evidence is also anecdotal (either your personal experience, or the experience of public figures you know). So by these standards, we have no more reason to believe what you say than we have to believe Chase. And don't get me wrong, I agree that not all of Chase's advice is solid. In fact, I had a super long ass post which resulted in an article and a very long discussion between me and a few other board members a while back about how I think a lot of GirlsChase's material isn't exactly on point.

Having said that, in regards to this particular discussion, Chase is completely right. Muscles will only get you so far. I could use my own personal experience to support that, but it sounds like for this discussion, my experiences don't count as credible evidence. Instead, I'll link you to a podcast which uses nothing but science based evidence to support their claims. Specifically scroll down and, note the "How to be attractive to women series". Each one of those links is a one hour long podcast on specific traits which women find valuable in men. Only one of said podcasts is related to physique. Check it out if you're interested: http://thematinggrounds.com/topics-cove ... g-grounds/

Want citations for said research? Scroll over "resources" and click on "mate references".

And remember, if you're going to write a response, you better have some sort of proof that either the research I linked is false, or something other than your experiences to prove that you're right. Cause anecdotal evidence isn't acceptable in this conversation.
Character is Destiny. - Heraclitus
Bboy100

User avatar

Cro-Magnon Man
Cro-Magnon Man
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:23 pm
Location: The Milky Way Galaxy

Re: Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Guest0291 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:54 am

@Bboy100

I said feel free to disregard my anecdotal evidence. You are mostly correct in your assertion. Use your head to determine what to believe. I stated this at the very beginning dude, this is not some new revelation. But question Bboy: what do you look like? How much do you weigh?

If you're on the tiny side, try this: get big, and I mean maxed out in your muscles. Now try to get into the dating game again and see what happens. Also, you didn't cite any studies at all, post is anecdotal/10. Some podcast isn't exactly a research study dude, let alone their selectively posted studies in a subject area that studies are terrible for quality in. Do you see why I mentioned the whole anecdotal thing at the beginning? A lot of shit in PUA is anecdotal. A lot of studies in certain areas are bullshit too. That is why bullshit gets through in the first place: so many anecdotes and "scientific proof" for everyone's point.

And that's why I clipped Chase for the anecdotal conundrum: his entire post is anecdotal and will continue to be. He can't prove his point in any solid regard then. Neither can I. It's the same reason I always ignored the scientific studies mentioned in his articles: they're not conclusive enough. In the end, it's going to come down to who does the reader believe or who they are going to listen to for the time being. Hence our long discussion.

You see the same thing in bodybuilding dude. New studies everyday about how one food kills testosterone, coffee is good (or wait, no it's abd), chocolate is key to muscle growth (wait, it actually kills it, don't eat that), etc. You must eat in the anabolic window to gain muscle, rest exactly 30 sec between sets,etc. Google it. Most studies aren't reliable in this sphere or the dating sphere from what I've seen, which is why I didn't bother to cite any in the first place. If you read my past posts, you can see I'm quite good about citing sources when necessary. So calm down dude, we're on the same page on that. The problem is studies for things like this are questionable, so what's the point of citing them.

So to determine who is correct, the option left is to try a way. I'd like to invite guys to try my way. Do what I suggest. If it doesn't work at all, then you know who is correct and who to say is bullshitting. That is really the only way someone is going to come to a conclusion. The problem with this is you have guys here that claim looks don't matter and look nothing close to good looking, let alone muscular. Let alone look anything like Joe mentioned above. So how the fuck are they going to know how things could change if they were good looking or buff? That's my point.

Funny enough, most guys would rather argue with me about how I'm wrong. If I am so wrong, give it a shot. Make me look like a moron. Prove it. Don't just claim you're good looking or looks don't matter when you are not good looking. Remember, I actually really want guys to get laid regularly, I'm not here to stroke my ego. This is what I am saying.

And for some hilarious reason, this frustrates the fuck out of several guys here, save for ones that PM me to ask what I'm talking about. So I'm getting really tired of guys trying to go "Oh I got you, you slipped up on this right here, you're wrong!!" when they should actually be taking the time to really delve into reading what is being posted. They are so focused on trying to "get me" they're ignoring what I'm actually saying.

To determine who is right, try it yourself. That's the only way you're going to know for real. But if guys just want to explain 1000 ways why I'm wrong or wait to clip me on something, I'd say they are missing the point.

This entire debate is just a spectacle, people are going to believe who they want. I am here on this board to get guys questioning things, although I'm also here to expose bullshit like Drexel's shilling of questionable products.

I am here to knock guys out of what is blind dedication and have guys sit down and re-examine. Upon their re-examining of their beliefs, if they still want to choose Chase's way, that's perfectly fine. What I see is guys blindly following a path because of various authors claiming it works, yet they don't see nearly as good results. Guys that look bad but say they get with hotties. Authors that are poor but write books on how to get rich. Not a smart way to live life.

And so you get guys like Ken. Ken has been on the board for years and is now asking "Why isn't this stuff working?" It took me years before I finally did that. It's healthy to re-examine what belief systems you inhabit. I am not here to force guys into my beliefs. If a guy wants to do something, cool, it's a free country. I'm here to offer help. That is all. You can take it or leave it.

You could say "Well King Bert, I don't see you re-examining shit to check out our point of view?" That's because I lived your point of view already. I did the cold approaching, the NLP, the chase framing, the abundance mentality, the practicing openers, all of it for years on end. My results never got anywhere close to good. Then I got buff, scrapped all of that crap, and just went with "hi" and having a normal conversation with girls I liked. Suddenly I was getting laid 3 times a month with various girls I could never get with before. I have already had your point of view. My conclusion: it doesn't work.

But do what you like man.
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Chase » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:13 pm

Okay. If it's "looks vs. game", debunk the science I've cited here:

How Much Do Looks Matter for Romantic Success?

If you can argue around these results, I will, I promise, make a dedicated "humor/confidence/frame control/uncertainty/flirting vs. height/muscles/looks" post (i.e., game vs. fundamentals), make it an orgy of scientific references (let's say 50+... I have a spreadsheet full of these puppies we used in my upcoming course), and lay out exactly what ALL the science says on how big an impact game has on your results with women versus how big an impact fundamentals have.

Which, I mean, I really shouldn't have to do, since I stress all the time, everywhere, constantly, that both are crucial.

I mean, you're even quoting me in your response to me, Bert (i.e. "you can't talk your way into a woman's pants", which is one of my mantras). Which makes this entire thread somewhat bizarre to me.

(also, as an aside: I wish there was a way to avoid the idealization/devaluation guys do with seduction-related materials and just have them approach them as various tools you can use or not use, some of which fit you better and some of which don't fit as well, rather than "gospel or heresy". The devaluation guys are usually guys who idealized the material or the teacher at first, then had a falling out of love and now have all this resentment built up toward what they previously idealized. It's a really funny process - I've never gone through it myself... every teacher I've had or course I've studied I've viewed as worthwhile, yet limited, and still think highly of everyone/everything I've learned from, probably because I never over-idealized any of it - but it seems like for some guys there's just no way around it, and nothing you can say or do will stop them from idealizing you, then later, inevitably, when they run into problems or realize you're just a man, devaluing you)

(secondary aside: critiquing girls' looks when those girls' looks are being used to make an argument is not hypocrisy. It's counterargument. Just had to get that off my chest)

(third aside: Joe Ducard - confirmation bias. Joe attributes his success to improved fundamentals + improved game. You look at Joe and say "Joe's game doesn't matter; his fundamentals are everything!", and totally ignore the half of Joe's message he puts out there. That's confirmation bias in action, where you take a chunk of data, use the parts of it that support your premise, and disregard the parts that don't. That's a normal human logic flaw [it's part of the software we all come with] but if the aim is convincing arguments, you need to be able to spot biases like this and root them out before you craft points around them)

But yeah. If you can refute, I'll do a monster post on this. Though you've got to refute first. I'm not going to do the work of making a massive science dump on game vs. fundamentals unless you can tell me why the science I've already covered in "Do Looks Matter" is irrelevant or wrong or my interpretation of it is off or the studies are methodologically flawed or what have you. If you can refute that, I'll do a mega science post on this.

If you can't refute it, you'll just have to wait for One Date. 900+ studies in there at the moment. Will probably be closer to 1200 once I'm finally done obsessing over it.


DREXEL

Claims against Drexel - links? Sources? Post 'em here or send 'em via the contact form if you want me to have a look. If there's something funny I'll ask him what the deal is. So far the only stuff I've heard is good, and he's always been a straight shooter so far as I've known him (if a little polarizing at times - something the two of you seem to have in common. Wonder what a conversation between the two of you over tea would look like), but send things over if you've heard otherwise.

-C
Chase

User avatar

Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3092
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:46 am
Location: America, Asia, Europe, and Beyond

Re: Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Guest0291 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 12:13 am

Slim Shady's back boys.

Didn't crop your photo Drex. Dude, it takes five minutes to find the link you posted, put it in an IMG tag while writing, and discover it's too big to fit the page. It's not my fault you posted a big picture or that the way the forum is set up, your picture crops automatically.

See for yourself. Also fun, trying zooming out on your web browser. Whoah, the other half of the picture magically appears!


Image


Here is the original link so you can test it yourself: http://i.imgur.com/DF8rLZx.jpg

Put it in an IMG tag and see how it comes up.

So wait... how was I dishonest? Uh oh brah, that conclusion that I'm dishonest is well... not conclusive.

But you're right, and I agree, people who are dishonest usually project that others are in fact dishonest. Let's check that here. For this post let's stick to Drexel. Let's go over links and sources for Drexel's companies, affiliates, and practices then if I'm such a liar.



"The Release Technique"

First, let's start with the least credible problems: credit card scamming.

https://www.complaintsboard.com/complai ... 93676.html
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/sem ... ane-670566

The reason I say least credible is because RipOffReports and ComplaintsBoards have a history of being paid off to take bad reviews away amongst other stuff. Take the info there for what you will.

Moving on to the crazy shit. It's about to get good:)

"The Release Technique" Drexel posted is by a guy called Larry Crane. In the link Drexel posted to his program, you see the name Lester Levenson.

Larry Crane states in the link:

"The Release Technique is an original system discovered in 1952 by physicist, Lester Levenson."


That name Lester Levenson... wait that sounds familiar to me...

He was the guy behind the Sedona Method: http://www.sedona.com/Lesters-Story.asp

(Note: to save you money on Drexel's program then, feel free to check out Levenson's work at Stillness Speaks.com, Google it with Lester's name, and you'll find a free PDF you can just read. Personally, I recommend you don't take it seriously, but that's just me.)

Sedona Method has some odd relationships with Scientology as well.

For one thing they certainly knew about each other's organizations. Levenson was placed on the enemies list against Scientology in 1992: http://www.xenu.net/archive/enemy_names/enemy_list.html

Even more odd, why does Levenson's advice come so close to Scientology? His PACMAN model mimics Hubbard's Tone Scale, or it's the other way around: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.p ... ale-origin

And just like Scientology, Levenson and Larry Crane are selling "belief" or "enlightenment." To be free of negative feelings (just like Scientology, http://www.scientology.org/faq/backgrou ... etics.html).

But enlightenment costs a pretty penny, $200. You also need to go on retreats. And for some reason there are so many teachers and so many price tags and programs to go through. I can go through Drexel's Release program or if I want to go vintage I can just go through the old one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaYGNt8Z4sU

Another name that pops up on these cult/New Age forums, especially in relation to the Release technique, is Hale Dwoskin, the CEO and Director of Training of Sedona Training and Associates. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/hale-dwoskin

He was another student of Lester Levenson, just like Larry Crane (https://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Free-E ... 0971933405)

Crazy how these guys splinter off to sell their own product isn't it? If you read that HuffPost link you can see that Hale Dwoskin was featured in the world famous book, "The Secret." That book The Secret? It's bullshit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_(book)#Criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_(2006_film)#Criticism
http://www.news.com.au/opinion/making-b ... 8dedc456ff


Oh and funny enough, The Secret was all about the "Law of Attraction." Guess what I found in the Sedona Method? The Law of Attraction: http://www.sedona.com/the_secret_behind_the_secret.asp

Guess what I found in The Release Technique? The Law of Attraction: http://www.releasetechnique.com/lester- ... ttraction/


And remember, Drexel's The Release Technique is just the Sedona Method repackaged (http://mindtoolsreview.com/the-release- ... ue-review/). And the Sedona Method and all this crap is The Secret repacked, and vice versa. You see this pattern everywhere, repackaging and repackaging. They even hired marketer Christopher Payne to repackage their bullshit:

http://www.christopherjohnpayne.com/201 ... od-course/
http://www.christopherjohnpayne.com/201 ... epackaged/


Some questionable shit in there. Payne states: "I was always looking for new products to promote to my list of 50,000 buyers, so I spoke with Hale and proposed a new product: a set of 6 books each containing one sixth of The Keys book, with the same introduction in each one, and the same conclusion."

Wow strong business practice there. Let's take an old product, cut it into pieces, and sell those pieces. Furthermore, let's sell the idea that enlightenment is free and comes from within, but charge up the ass for it. You can't just get enlightenment from one product, you need retreats, books, programs, DVD sets, and more. Oh and those retreats? Yeah they cost $2400: http://www.releasetechnique.com/retreat ... llionaire/


Enlightenment ain't cheap boyos. But most curious is this: If all I need is the one product to get enlightenment then why are there so many other things I need to buy? And I thought happiness was free Lester Levenson? https://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Free-E ... 0971933405

So what is the Sedona Method/The Release Technique? It's an affiliate bullshit program where students become teachers, teachers become salesman, and changing your mindset is a hundred to thousand dollar endeavor. Want to become a millionaire? We'll teach you the "mindset" of a millionaire in just 7 days! Only $2180: http://www.releasetechnique.com/retreat ... llionaire/

But wait, shouldn't the Sedona Method or The Release Technique be good enough on its own?

And let's ask: if The Release Technique was so fucking successful, then why the fuck is it a repacked version of the Sedona Method or The Secret? Why the fuck is this bullshit rebranding itself under so many salesmen? http://www.rashanasoundessences.com/the ... -compared/

Suddenly those claims of credit card fraud aren't so cooky sounding. Scientology and these spiritual bullshit groups are known for poor practices. It doesn't shock me at all that they are fraudin in other ways, repackaging their bullshit, chopping up books for resale, etc.


So how does this carry over to NLP, Dave Riker, Ross Jeffries, and PUA?






PUA is a Scam Too. And Who Was Dave Riker?

Let's see if we can find parallels based on common sense.

New Age Spiritual programs: has expensive retreats/bootcamps, sells new programs constantly, the program is good but now we have a new one that you need to buy, you're not reaching enlightenment, products are expensive, and there are several offshoots of the same teachings repacked and rebranded to sell the exact same thing.

PUA companies: has expensive retreats/bootcamps, sells new programs constantly, the program is great but now we have a new one that you need to buy, you're not reaching mastery, the products are expensive, and there are several offshoots of the same teachings repacked and rebranded to sell the exact same thing.


In the New Age Spiritual section, we have Freedom Now that became The Sedona Method/The Secret that became The Release Technique. Of course the order is all over the map depending on where you look. Links for this are in those Christopher Payne links mentioned above.

Oh wait, that kind of parallels Mystery and the various offshoots from PUA, like from The Game, or Ross Jeffries' Speed Seduction or RSDTyler's RSDNation or Vince Kelvin's Casanova Crew. Who off-shooted from these? David Riker came from Speed Seduction and surprise, Kong from SimplePickup who came from the Casanova Crew (http://forum.casanovacrew.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=18304)

All continuing to sell bullshit:) Do you that pattern of rebranding and repackaging bullshit, students become teachers to continue selling, whether it's in their own company or part of the same one?

The parallels is fucking outstanding. Too anecdotal though, yes.

Let's get concrete. Although in the meantime check into this Ross Jeffries guy for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT4yzVOXY8E

First, Speed Seduction (Ross Jeffries) paid for fake testimonials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... ZFwm3gghlU

He then created a fake anti-PUA blog (PUAfraud.com) to capitalize on the trend while using his own profile to bash other PUA companies except hit own: http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2010/11 ... loves.html

Sound like a good businessman?

Next, he had a book How to Get the Women You Desire Into Bed that has a chapter with the title, “How to fake like you are warm and friendly.” Good teachings there.

It gets worse with his "Speed Seduction" course http://www.seduction.com/ross-jeffries- ... g-courses/

"Get All Of The Amazingly Wonderful, Smoking Hot Women You Could Ever Desire, No Matter What Your Looks, Age, Social/Economic Status Or Previous Experience"


Wow, well someone on the Internet said it so then it must be true. How on Earth is this possible? Oh, the "Blowjob" NLP pattern, that's going to be the key:

http://www.seduction.com/media/pdf/Sedu ... tterns.pdf

Get real Ross.



So this brings us to NLP, and Dave Riker who worked with Ross Jeffries: http://www.daveriker.com/

Dave Riker now teaches NLP, just like Ross Jeffries did.


If anyone wants to just write everything off before as "anecdotal evidence" and wants hard science, I will now start citing dem scientific studies for the fun of it.


https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/ppb.20 ... 0008-0.xml

"The article presents the concept of NLP in the light of empirical research in the Neuro-Linguistic Programming Research Data Base. From among 315 articles the author selected 63 studies published in journals from the Master Journal List of ISI. Out of 33 studies, 18.2% show results supporting the tenets of NLP, 54.5% - results non-supportive of the NLP tenets and 27.3% brings uncertain results. The qualitative analysis indicates the greater weight of the non-supportive studies and their greater methodological worth against the ones supporting the tenets. Results contradict the claim of an empirical basis of NLP."



http://web.archive.org/web/201209050751 ... p57-63.pdf

Today, NLP is big business with large numbers of training
courses,personal development programmes,therapeutic and educational interventions purporting to be
based on the principles of NLP.This paper explores what NLP is,the evidence for it, and issues related to
its use.It concludes that after three decades,there is still no credible theoretical basis for NLP,researchers
having failed to establish any evidence for its efficacy that is not anecdotal.


https://books.google.com/books?id=nE9FC ... &q&f=false

Page 166:

(Heap, 1988; Sharpley, 1987) [...] Sharpley's response was:

"The basic tenets of NLP have failed to be reliably verified in almost 86% of the controlled studies"


And

"In the more than 20 years that elapsed since the aforementioned article, to date there is no convincing empirical evidence on the efficacy of NLP."



So Drexel supports a fake science and Dave Riker, who worked with scammers like Ross Jeffries. Perfect.



Conclusion


So, The Release Technique is just a repackaged Sedona Method/The Secret, the founder of the Sedona Method being Lester Levonson. Larry Crane from Drexel's program is a student of that guy and one of many students who continue to sell the New Age spiritual program that it is (Hale Dwoskin, David Hawkins, etc.). The program also has parallels to Scientology and was placed on the enemies list for Scientology, probably due to competition.

With these programs, you have to pay for enlightenment, there's always another DVD set or program, students become affiliates and teachers become salesmen, the brand gets sold by another guy, etc. at a pretty steep price might I add.

And the Sedona Method and The Release Technique have fake reviews errywhere boys:

http://www.personal-development.info/re ... ue-review/
http://www.menshealthcures.com/release-technique/
http://www.rashanasoundessences.com/the ... ue-review/
http://mindtoolsreview.com/the-release- ... ue-review/
https://tomstine.com/the-sedona-method-review/
http://www.begin2dig.com/2009/08/sedona ... -what.html
http://www.positivehealth.com/review/th ... e-you-want


Drexel is an affiliate of that program. He also claims to be a practitioner of NLP and supports fellow practitioner Dave Riker. Not only is NLP not based on any actual science/results (nor will it ever be), but Dave Riker is connected to PUA coach Ross Jeffries, who sells multiple programs and events at heavy price points with the line: ""Get All Of The Amazingly Wonderful, Smoking Hot Women You Could Ever Desire, No Matter What Your Looks, Age, Social/Economic Status Or Previous Experience"

Ross also believes in NLP and teaches it. Ross Jeffries is a scammer and fraud.

(PS. Does anyone honestly believe Ross Jeffries' Blowjob pattern shit where you: 1. Ask her about anything she really, really loves to eat 2. Describe the sensation of eating that food and amplify with gustatory gusto 3. Link it to your dick using a "dick point".)


So tell me boyos of Girlschase, who's seeming more trustworthy at this point. I don't even have a program to sell you by the way.



Fun links:

Want to be more aware of bullshit in PUA and Internet marketing?

Just found this video, and it seems interesting. Can't say for the quality as I haven't watched it all, merely skimmed and found some interesting parts. Even if it's shitty as far as proof, it's funny to hear Internet marketers say one thing and then go back on what they said later:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYc1-wxRx0Y
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Guest0291 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:41 am

Chase: "Where is your proof?"

King Bert: "Here ya go."

Drexel: "Pssh lunatic."

This is why we can't have nice things Drexel.


And Drex, have you read Chase's policy here:

Chase wrote:EDIT: also, no flame wars. Fine/healthy to question sacred cows, but if you're going to go about it by piling up ad hominems, this is not the place for that. There are plenty of ways to make points in civil fashion. The moment you stop treating your opponent with respect is the moment you cede the debate to him.
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Chase » Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:54 am

No.

That is not what I asked for.

Every argument you laid out in earlier posts I addressed. Every argument I made you dodged, feinted, or moved the goal posts on. I'm not going to continue deconstructing your arguments while you ignore mine.

Refute the science IN THE ARTICLE I LINKED TO. You may come at it from any angle. You may debate the methodology of the studies, you may debate my interpretation of these studies in the article linked to, you may debate the study authors' conclusions. Any of that is fine.

This whole bad faith thing of "anything Chase says I will just ignore unless it helps my argument" nonsense doesn't fly. If you want a further response from me, address my points.

I'll be waiting.

Chase
Chase

User avatar

Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3092
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:46 am
Location: America, Asia, Europe, and Beyond

Re: Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Guest0291 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:22 pm

Chase,

Not what you asked for?

Chase wrote:Claims against Drexel - links? Sources? Post 'em here or send 'em via the contact form if you want me to have a look.



Before you criticize my ability to provide answers, you might want to remember what you actually asked for.

I provided an answer to your question. I'm not dodging or ignoring. I'm not avoiding. I'm answering. It takes time and I don't have time to answer everything at once. I will get to all the questions and points.

On the topic of dodging though, I provided info for my case against Drexel. And both of you have actually dodged and ignored it.


Chase: "Evidence against Drexel?"
King Bert: "Here ya go."
Chase: "No, this is not what I asked for! Quit dodging me!"

Chase: "Evidence against Drexel?"
King Bert: "Here ya go."
Drexel: "He took the time to gather evidence? Lunatic."

Are you guys serious? I answer a question and get criticized for just answering it by both of you?

What's next, I reply to your point and you ban me? That'll really show me. Will just add credibility to the fact that I was onto something here that you both didn't like, so I don't recommend it.

So what are you going to do Chase: finally address my argument that a writer you hired is selling bogus products, fake science (NLP), and supports scammers while waiting for me to address your other point, or go full ban? Or just accuse me of dodging again?

I know what you'll do: defend your author. Because no amount of him supporting scammers or bogus products (NLP, The Release Technique, The Sexualizer) will ever make you admit anything wrong. And your defense will just be "I know him, he's a swell guy, he's been on here a longtime. I don't know you at all, I'm going to trust my friend!"

Tell me guys of Girlschase, does an author on a site selling expensive bogus products (NLP, The Release Technique) to you while supporting scammers sound like a trustworthy guy?

To any new guys reading, use your heads. If I give advice for years and then start trying to sell you dick growth pills, does that not make you do a double take? Similarly if I try to sell you the near $200 Release Technique, a bogus Diet-Scientology course where there's always more money to spend, does that not make you double take?
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Guest0291 » Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:58 pm

Have time before I have to go meet my girl. I can refute your own article using your own cited research Chase. Better yet, I can do it quickly.


Looks

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10. ... 7210395604

For both sexes, attractiveness predicted desirability for a one-night stand, whereas attractiveness and agreeableness were predictors of desirability for a serious relationship.


Attractiveness matters, who knew?



Money

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy ... -22527-001

Furthermore, conspicuous purchasing enhanced men's desirability as a short-term (but not as a long-term) mate.


Money matters for getting laid, shocker.


(Note: the first study link you cited is broken: "Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms.")




Just lol at your article's conclusion though. You yourself state these two things:

Chase wrote:In this case, dominance plays a very large role. That is to say, perceived physical dominance impacts attractiveness, which predicts desirability for a one-night stand.

The more physically dominant you appear, the more one-night stand worthy you become. Just what constitutes "perceived physical dominance," you might ask?

This:

Muscles
Movement speed (slowness)
Effort levels (obeying the Law of Least Effort and using sprezzatura)
Powerful body language that takes up space
A powerful, sexy walk that exudes confidence
A deep, resonant voice



Chase wrote:The researchers here found that throwing money around actually does work in making you a more attractive one-night stand candidate.

Which I've seen from experience - I've watched guys in VIP with bottle service outcompete better-looking men with equivalent levels of game for women in nightclubs.




But then refute it with an anecdote we're supposed to take at face value:

For my money though, dominance is what rules the coop.

Of course, that last is anecdotal... my experience has been that, the more dominant I've appeared and the more dominant I've behaved, the greater my success with women has become, and the higher the caliber of women I've been able to get has gotten.



And even in this thread, you contradict your article with:

Chase wrote:Likewise, there are men out there with mostly terrible fundamentals - no muscles, short, ugly - but who nevertheless have remarkable game, and they get equivalent results.


So wait...the research that you yourself cited states that money and looks matter. And the conclusion you draw from that is "Well I can just appear and behave dominantly to get the same effect. But of course this is just anecdotal!" Oh and even better, I can be short, out of shape, and ugly, and get equivalent results to someone with money or good looks as long as I have "game." Or if a guy is ugly and short like your friend, he can just "walk slow" and utilize "powerful body language" that'll somehow magically convince women that he's attractive despite his obvious shortcomings.

This is just too easy for me, I'm not even trying at this point. I can just quote your own stuff to disprove your own points.


You want to beat my posts? You want to shuffle off ol' King Bert's point here? Find me a research paper or study where a billionaire or bodybuilder compete with a completely average out of shape guy to lay hot women (slender, above average face, etc.). Even better, find me one where the average guys "use game" to beat the guys with muscles or money in getting laid with hot women. And no, studies that are just talking about what is "perceived as attractive" don't count. I want to see actual results. Good luck.
Guest0291

User avatar

Space Monkey
Space Monkey
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue May 21, 2013 9:11 pm

Re: Is Game Fake, and Are Muscles the Trump Card?

Postby Chase » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:22 pm

Attractiveness does not mean looks, as used in the study. It means 'attractiveness' (e.g., confidence is attractive).

Me saying "here are two studies, one which finds X has an influence, and another which finds Y has an influence. We don't have any studies to compare the influence of X and Y, but I'll tell you anecdotally, X seems to have the bigger impact" is not me saying "Y has no impact." It is me saying we don't have a study for whether X or Y has the bigger impact, but experience tells me X.

You get an A for effort, but an F for reading comprehension and ability to argue.

The stuff on Drexel I didn't even look at before because you completely ignored the rest of my post. I just looked at it now. It looks completely nutty. So it's like there's some scammer, and Ross Jeffries talked to this guy or coached him or something, and Drexel promotes a Ross Jeffries product, and Girls Chase promotes Drexel, therefore Girls Chase is a scammer unless we sever ties immediately with Drexel, that right? Crazy.

Last thing I'll say is you know man, I do feel for you. I've been saying on here from Day 1 that if you want a specific type of girl (like bottle blonde gym bunnies), you MUST conform to their type, or you've got to excel at what you do and go BEYOND type. You did what some guys do, and totally ignored that part, probably because you listened to other teachers who were telling you "words are all you need" or something. That's a shame. But then you come back here and pick a fight with one of the few guys who was telling you if you want girls who hit the gym, you'd better go hit the gym. It's insensible.

Anyway, for rudeness, incivility, the weird crazy police poster board with yarn connecting some web of people that goes back to like the 1990s or something, failure to actually refute me on the one thing you had to refute me on, and just general blockheadedness, you are forthwith banned from the Girls Chase boards.

Go forth to bodybuilding.com and be happy.

Thread is now locked. May it rest in peace.

Chase
Chase

User avatar

Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3092
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:46 am
Location: America, Asia, Europe, and Beyond


Return to Beginners

AVAILABLE PROGRAMS

girls chase programs eBook Video Mastery Package Phone Coaching w/ Cody Lyans Email Coaching w/ Cody Lyans

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest