strictlyincreasing said:
I'm wondering the same thing. At the moment, it seems like daygame is a big myth. Well, you may find women on vacation in a particular city but if you're looking for an ambitious, independent, hardworking woman then she's obviously going to be at work during the day. On the weekends, she'll be relaxing alone or with friends.
Maybe it's just me, but I've never got the obsession with professional, hard working women I came across around Girls Chase (by no means around Roosh's circles). To translate, these are women who essentially want to be men, right? (On the other hand,
who isn't into college girls?) Some important background I've picked up from David Deida's book and
Jordan Peterson. There are men with more masculine or feminine traits and similarly, women with more feminine or masculine traits. Masculine traits people attract feminine traits people, and vice versa. Most men by nature are of masculine traits, most women by nature are of feminine traits. Men with more feminine traits, I hear you. If that's what your genetic lottery gave you, then go after what appeals you. Because of the pill(?), it's usually Western (UK, US) girls in greater numbers who, according to the consensus, becoming more and more masculine.
Besides independent, hard working types of women, women on the pill tend to show more masculine traits. I recognize
British and American tourists from their deep voices probably in higher proportions on the pill than most girls of other nations I come across (I don't comment on their looks and outfit), I usually skip them. Or why else these girls have such deep pitched voices in such significant amounts?
On the other hand, how about
wife-material girls? OK, I get it. They are hard to come by and if your goal isn't to find the mother of your child, then probably a little more hassle or investment than your typical bar girl for most guys' purposes here. But hey! Even if she doesn't tick 7 out of 7 traits on the list, at least it's not a bad start if she ticks a few of the traits, is it? You can skip the skin tone for sure. Religious girls can be very hot. For the right men.
strictlyincreasing said:
The classic daygame model (see Youtube) is to approach a woman on the street alone. But, in practice, any time you see the kind of woman that I'm describing, she'd be with a group, and typically just in a group of two, which is the most difficult.
Sub-Zero said:
Chase always said if you wanna meet professional women to be in their circle as a professional yourself, I'm guessing you could go on a meet up website or something.
Solo girls are obviously the easiest, followed by sets of two and three. As advised by Roosh. I believed this to him so I'm not so nervous about these situations anymore. I've found some
actionable advice on approaching sets of two to three girls by watching someone playing Super Seducer on YouTube.
On the other hand, groups of four or more seems next to impossible. My bad, that I also believed this shit to Roosh. I'd appreciate if someone cured me out of this limiting belief! In the meantime, I guess, I treat groups of four or more similarly to social circles. And Meetup groups. On which I've found no actionable advice in reading
Chase's original article, let alone
anyone coming up with any good advice in the forum topic either.
Fuck This said:
People bond over sports teams in the US. If you want to strike up a conversation with another guy at the bar, commenting on the game/team/players is usually a safe conversation topic.
I've also read there's a biological background for male bonding over sports teams. That women socially go along men more in the US this way... it's possible. Maybe, but not necessarily, it's just because, as I lamented about it in the beginning, they more like becoming men?
Sorry to be a perfectionist, but what about your sports bar strategy in off season?