The network approach and the shotgun approach: why and when girls flake in dating

Consider two Hollywood screenwriters: one is fresh out of school and knows no one, or almost no one, in the business, but he’s written a couple of screenplays and, for the sake of this hypothetical, he’s got some talent. He gets to Hollywood and what’s he going to do? He’s got no connections anywhere in the business, although he’s read lots of those memoirs about how other guys made it, so he sends his screenplays to every single player out there. Writers, directors, agents. The vast majority don’t reply, and he doesn’t get even a rejection. Damien Chazelle, Chris Pratt, Chris Hemsworth, all the Hollywood “Chrises,” Ari Gold, they all say “no” by saying nothing. Somehow, though, someone bites, a little… Jonah Hill let’s say… and Hill or Hill’s people like the SF action pitch—reminds them a little bit of a modern Pitch Black, but could the writer make it funny, too? Maybe they’ll pay him a little bit for this, but, compared to the work he’s doing teaching spoiled brats the SAT and waiting tables, it’s a lot of money. He has no idea how to make it a comedy but he starts work, cause what else is he going to do? His other screenplays go nowhere. He starts a novel at the same time.

Then there’s our other screenwriter. He’s in the business… maybe he got in through family connections, a working writer in a school saw potential in him, he got lucky, whatever. He knows some people in the business, and he’s been working on a screenplay that he knows will be right for someone, let’s say Chazelle for purposes of this hypothetical. He’s already met Chazelle at industry functions, maybe done a little blow with him in a bathroom, whatever. Both of them think T.C. Boyle’s novel DROP CITY would make a great movie but neither has ever been able to get it made. Our screenwriter says, “You know, we could never do DROP CITY right, but I’ve got a kinda similar story, set in the ’80s though, against the AIDS crisis, we should do it.” Chazelle reads it, likes it, has some suggestions, they work on it together for a while. One or both of them know the right actors for it. Their agents like the project. In effect, our screenwriter #2 is never really rejected. He’s a known quantity to others in the business, working with other known quantities. Now, the project may fall apart… maybe Ryan Gosling hates Chazelle now for some reason… but screenwriter #2’s journey is nothing like screenwriter #1’s. If you ask each about the nature of being a screenwriter, they’ll have wildly divergent opinions.

The application of game to this metaphor ought to be obvious, but since this is the Internet let me spell it out: the raw cold approach guys are #1. They often have limited network/friend circles. They don’t do that much cool shit, or “cool shit” as hot chicks would define it. They’re guys I’m talking to in Parties, and Festivals, parties, etc. and the network’s power, and other things like that. I have some things in common with them because I’ve done some cold approach… but for the past ten or twelve years, it’s not really been my modality… I’ve focused more on sex clubs, which are themselves a kind of network. Sex clubs + non-monogamy are also fun cause I can slot new chicks into that network, if I meet the right chicks and such. I also like doing them.

The guys doing more social circle and warm approach are more like guy #2. Often, these guys have been building out their friend networks since high school or college. They often have good social skills, which explains why they’re not spending lots of time talking to rando strangers online. A lot of their dates and lays come from parties and friends of friends. Maybe they’ll talk to some new girls on the street or on mass transit occasionally, or at bars, but when they meet new girls/people, their goal is often to show those new girls/people the full extent of their world, and their world is really cool. For girls, sex is usually a social experience, and girls like to be able to evaluate a guy’s social world.

I’ve done both these models. The guys in world #1 open tons and tons of chicks. Almost none bite. They are often talking about the capricious and random nature of chicks. Their connections to chicks are often very tenuous, at first. Cold approach will generate more flakes. The girl knows nothing about you and has no context for you, or who you are, and there is no network blowback if you behave poorly. In a normal social relationship, if a guy behaves poorly, the girl will put out to her network that he sucks. If the network agrees that he sucks, his network will shrink. And the reverse is true too. If you say, “She’s a psycho lunatic who slashed my tires cause she misinterpreted a text from my sister as being romantic,” and it’s true, her friend circle will shrink, and she’ll hop online to Hinge to ensnare more guys into her psycho universe. Those are extreme examples that illustrate the principles.

The guys in world #2 probably sleep with fewer total chicks, but they also get many fewer flakes. By the time they move on a girl, the girl’s probably already interested. She’s seen him in social settings. She knows his friends and he knows hers. The guy might ask her to get a drink at a bar and she might say no, but she’s unlikely to say yes and then flake out. She probably also knows that the guy is cool and in demand, so if she says no, another girl will soon say yes.

Guys in world #1 and world #2 may talk past each other, a theme elaborated in What do I mean by “levels” of game/seduction discussion?

If you read the anthropological literature and ignore the many anthropologists who are sadly Marxist idiots, you’ll find that, for the overwhelming majority of human history, we lived in relatively small bands and groups. Even cities of more than 10,000 are relatively rare in human history, until recently. We lived in a world of a dense social feedback: if A does something bad to B, B will tell a lot of A’s confederates. If A is sufficiently badly behaved, A will be punished, perhaps with death, or exile (exile being equivalent to death for most humans). If A is a man, A’s opportunities to get or retain a woman might be eliminated, too, which is effectively death for his lineage. Among women, punishment may differ somewhat: she may be starved of resources. Her children and family might suffer. If she behaves badly, her husband and/or family may discipline and punish her.

We’re exquisitely tuned to social censure because social censure is such a huge part of human evolutionary history. The modern world is weird because it engineers situations in which we encounter strangers all over the place, all the time, and we lack social feedback mechanisms against them, and they lack those feedback mechanisms against us. A lot of online organizations are trying to generate artificial versions of social feedback mechanisms… often quite clumsily or poorly, however, but that’s a topic for another time.

When you cold approach a chick, you’re implying to her that you’re most interested in no-strings attached sex. The right chick at the right time might be up for it, or might hope for more. Traveling tourist girls play a major role in many game guys’ stories for obvious reasons. No-strings attached sex for you, however, also means “no-good-social-behavior attached” for her. If she flakes or ghosts or whatever, who cares? You’re not in her social world. You primarily want sex from her, which she knows. She might want sex from you, but she might also want attention, options, entertainment, etc. If she’s in your social world, though, and you’ve been flirting with her, and then you ask her out, and she says yes, she’s not beholden to you, but she’s had time and space to evaluate you.

The better parts of the non-monogamy, sex-club world are highly reputationally based, a theme I’ve covered in the book and in many posts, and which I’m not going to repeat here. It’s somewhat closer to the “random lay” world, on average, but the regulars do get reputations, and guys/couples with good reputations will get many more opportunities than guys without them.

A lot of game guys are weird isolated loners, and their generalizations are consistent with them being weird isolated loners. Very few socially rich guys want to write stories about getting laid, it seems. I’m somewhere in between the “weird isolated loner” that is typical of pickup guys and the socially rich guys who are fraternity presidents and such. I’m pretty weird compared to normal people but very normal compared to guys writing about the game. They’re guys like screenwriter #1, who never grow into screenwriter #2.

Notice too that I have never said, “one way is better than another.” Cold approach can work. It will probably maximize lifetime lays more than guys working and growing their social circles. Learning social skills & sense for an older guy who lacks them is beyond the scope of this post. In some ways, “social skills” are like reading… kids who are 3 – 5 years old can learn “reading” in that they can read some picture books or whatever. But people keep working on “reading” as a skill throughout undergrad and PhD programs, in some sense… math is the same, a 5 year old can count and do basic arithmetic. But it takes decades of skill building to get really really good. You have to break the situation down to its most component-like parts while also building it up to the heights of abstraction. That’s hard. It’s why there are no shortcuts, a theme we’ll address later.

I think guys learn/imbibe from many Hollywood movies and TV shows that it’s common to meet a hot chick at a party or something, be awkward or whatever, and hook up with her 20 minutes later. A TV show like CALIFORNICATION is an extreme example of this. That happens and can happen, but realistically most hot chicks aren’t running around saying, “Boy, I hope I can have random hookups with dudes I know nothing about and who have very limited social worlds.” For most chicks, and most people, sex is a very social act, and if game, as described and practiced by anti-social guys online, short circuits many of those social behaviors, we get frustration. How things are depicted on TV and in movies is frequently not how they occur in real life. Maybe never. In movie fights, the guys hit each other in the head like 15 times… ha… try that in real life. You won’t last, the other guy won’t last. I have a book coming out called THE GOOD GIRL that is supposed to be much closer, IMO and IME, to a model that’s more common in the real world… even the book, though, doesn’t include the level of rejection and random behavior that real-world cold approach entails.

In Hollywood, too, the top actors and directors and other guys (not screenwriters, though they have a well-developed fantasy life) probably _can_ get a lot of hookups with random hot chicks… fame can substitute for social life… but that sort of thing is relevant to like 1% of the population. The rest of us do our work.

Online dating by the way incorporates many of the dynamics from cold approach (CA): no social worlds in common. Evaluation is difficult and based on pics (=superficial). No social feedback mechanisms. Guys think there’s a cornucopia of hot willing chicks available on demand. And then much of it works poorly. There are no shortcuts. Or rather online dating seemed to me to work all right until ~2015 and then the market was flooded.

A lot of guys, pre-online-dating, barely got rejected at all, I think… because they took relatively few shots. But they also didn’t get laid too much.

To repeat, online and cold approach can, and do, work. The above does argue that there is no such thing as a free lunch and these mechanisms set up interactions that can default to anti-social behaviors. Armen Alchian, of the Alchian–Allen theorem fame, used to like to say, “You tell me the rules and I’ll tell you what outcomes to expect.” Well, you tell me the rules/principles of cold approach and online, versus warm approach and building social circle/networks, and I’ll tell you what outcomes to expect… they’re the outcomes we see. For most guys, including me, “There is no easy way: there is only the hard way.” What you see in TV shows is not like what you see, for the most part, in real life.

There is only one way, the hard way, but sometimes people get the causality backwards: if it’s hard it must be worthwhile. There is no easy way, but a lot of hard ways are stupid. Compounding is the only sustainable way to wealth in money and life. Get a little bit better with women every day, improve your fitness a little every day, your knowledge, your social world, your sexual acumen, and it might take ten years of consistent progress till you feel true wealth. The best time to seriously think about your social network is age 14, the next best time is right now. We forget sometimes, there are only so many hours in the day, and guys can’t master all things, all the time. Assuming you’re getting enough sleep, dieting properly, exercising, meditating, and pushing on a rewarding career (or, if you’re working a shitty dead end job to the pay bills, maybe your side hustle is the passion project, until you can make it your main hustle), then how you spend those remaining few hours every day, it’s tricky. You can’t have a family AND a ton of friends AND go out and party all the time AND day game for hours on end AND do all your online shit AND go to cool events AND keep up with movies, music, reading. Something has to go at some point, decisions have to be made. For me, the common time-wasters that go are TV and social media… or rather I do both sparingly. If there is a TV show or movie that I suspect will be awesome, I’ll watch it, but never out of idleness or “I don’t know what to do.” Same thing of social media. Maybe 10 minutes a day will yield whatever benefit it might yield.

If you’re gonna go the day game route, AND you have a full time job (for instance), you’re just not gonna have as much time to build out a proper full on social circle, which means your dating experience (from street pickup) is gonna be wildly different (like “different planets” different) from someone who doesn’t work a full time job, doesn’t do day game, and spends the bulk of their hours going to parties and events within their extremely large and diverse social circle (that they’ve been cultivating for years). The inputs are completely different, so the outputs are gonna be as well.

Most of the men’s development stuff online focuses on cold approach and such. Imagine a different perspective (which, again, I am not advocating for, I am talking about it): 75% social circle, 25% online, something like that. Chicks are met through friends, and then, as one Red Quest reader describes it,

after we’ve hung out a few hours (in big groups) and I know the vibe is on, I invite them out for a drink or a bite, or I just invite them over to my place (if I know it’s a done deal), flake rate is near zero. Online: I swipe right rarely, match VERY rarely, but when I do it’s like a few texts back and forth, break for a day or two, more texts, another break, hey let’s get off this app, over to straight up text messaging, phone call / FaceTime, THEN date plan. By the time the date is set the chick is pretty solidly “in” at that point, so again, flake rate zero. Not to say it can’t happen, it just hasn’t happened yet. But at the same time, hearing from guys who are shotgun approaching chicks on the street, and only have just a few min to get the chick invested, yeah I can see why the flake rate is NOT zero, given that set of inputs. You’re going after a lot more chicks, rolling the dice a lot more times, and so your results are gonna be a lot more random and less predictable for sure.

They’re both routes. And, to be clear, one can (and does) get rejected in social circle game as well… not as often, for guys who don’t squeeze the trigger until the crosshairs are firmly over the bullseye, but sometimes chicks are just full of shit (surprise), and the “vibe” she’s putting out (that you’ve been enjoying for a little while) is her plying you for attention, until the end of the night, when you go for the bounce, and she’s like “Oh no, I couldn’t, my boyfriend…” blah blah blah. But I get the sense that “rejection” differs from “flaking,” crucially.

I’ve probably done more “network,” more of screenwriter #2, than cold approach. I also like chicks and, when I find one I really like, I want to keep her around for a while. That’s where the non-monogamy thing comes into play, because it’s a way of keeping a girl in my life and bed while also feeding the need for novelty. I’m not saying it’s the right route for everyone (far from it), but the lack of guys talking about it online tells me about what’s missing from the conversation. When I started writing on Reddit and then moved here, I thought I was going to unlock a ton of guys’ potential and hear a lot of feedback about how these strategies affected them. That has not been the result, and the lack of result has drawn me to conclusions like this one. The skills aren’t really out there, being built and developed. But I seem to have a pathological desire to tell the game story, so here I am, still doing so… as xbtusd observed, I seem to have a need to scream into the void at idiots. He is a man who understands paradox and, in doing so, he understands life & the game.

If you’ve liked this one, you should read The deep psychology that keeps men in the game, a relatively early essay from The Red Quest but a vital one.

Author: The Red Quest

How can we live and be in society?

9 thoughts on “The network approach and the shotgun approach: why and when girls flake in dating”

  1. Mr Redquest…

    > There is only one way, the hard way

    I am all in with you here, and we’re older, more serious, wiser men… so we’re not looking for “NLP” or some “hack” to make it easy. Game is a radical skillset. For the most basic things, basic skills can be learned quickly. For everything else… mastery takes time. I am trying to be a master.

    > sex is a very social act
    > sex is usually a social experience

    Here… I think you’re saying something that is very odd to my ears.

    I have a big attitude about “social proof” and “preselection.” I would assume you are more friendly to those concepts, and you may one of the only guys I know that puts those concepts to work.

    For me… I am 100% certain that sex is about a man and a women. That’s it. Period. And I think every time anyone adds another party… they are going well beyond the essence of it all. You have a particular lifestyle where the socialness of it all is relevant…

    But IN GENERAL… the ONLY essential parts are you, and her, and… isolation (in your case, maybe not even that).

    I will argue that for MOST MEN – even men that have big social groups – everything else is a DISTRACTION. For MOST MEN… if you focus on “penetrating her attention” and then getting her alone… you have the makings of sex. Anything that takes you away form that idea (having a social media presence, “preselection,” “knowing the bouncer,” “yacht parties,” “status” that doesn’t show in the quality of your eye contact…) is a misunderstand and goose hunt. None of that is Game.

    Game is what happens in an increasingly narrow space between you and her. That is where “the Game” is played. Third parties are irrelevant.

    > the raw cold approach guys are #1. They often have limited network/friend circles. They don’t do that much cool shit, or “cool shit” as hot chicks would define it.

    (SIDE NOTE: > or “cool shit” as hot chicks would define it… Pancake is into these girls that need “yacht parties” and “the best clubs” to get excited. I am calling those girls “Pancake Girls.” And that is a small minority of women. You might have some overlap there.

    I think you’re connecting two unconnected things here. Does he have friends/social circle? Does he like cold approach? Cold approach is choice, for many men. I find it remarkably effective choice (I am killing it with girls right now), and I enjoy almost all of the time “in field.” I feel ALIVE when I go out to talk to girls. It radically wakes me up… and I know that more now, that I often take a break (because I am dating too many girls).

    I have always had a social circle. I have friends. I have hobbies. I have a nice house, some resources, etc. I know a lot of people around town and staff at bars/restaurants like me, recognize me, treat me well, etc. I had (and have) a life to bring girls back to… but not a “big party life” (which is only relevant to some girls – “Pancake” Girls). I went to a lot of parties and festivals… but that wasn’t where I wanted to run Game. For me… cold approach was a choice.

    > When you cold approach a chick, you’re implying to her that you’re most interested in no-strings attached sex

    Huh? Why would that be? There is nothing about cold approach that means that. There is nothing causal there.

    I have 4 LTRs right now. 3 of those girls I have been dating for more than a year. I’m not monogamous… but I am never trying for no-strings sex. Maybe you mean “late night drunk bar pulls.” But there is nothing about daygame that doesn’t support a date model… if that is what the player is into. Most of us coaching daygame will say “SDL” is a way to burn girls… take the number, date her. I personal preach “sex happens on the 3rd date.” That is all normal, as I see it.

    > Traveling tourist girls play a major role in many game guys’ stories for obvious reasons

    The strange events of 2020-2022 have meant my city has almost no tourists… I have dated “90%” local girls, zero travelers. One girl is a transplant. That isn’t anything about daygame that doesn’t support a date model, with local girls. There is nothing stopping that… if the guys likes that. If he has a social circle, he can easily draw her into that.

    Beyond some of these other points… one of the best maps of human nature I have come across is INTROVERT vs EXTRAVERT. I think your break down here makes much more sense along those lines.

    I have tons of friends… but I almost never hang out in groups. I don’t like it. I want my friends one on one. I go to big events… usually by myself (so I can move around easier, come and go). I have lots of friends and date a LOT… almost always one on one. I’m not entirely introverted, but the part of me that likes that style of relating… does well one on one.

    When I bring girls into my life… I bring them into a one on one rel. We go out, on dates, just us. We come back to my place, just us. It’s about talking, and eating, and fucking, and sleeping… THAT is what rels are about.

    And while some girls want a “big social scene” – I think you’re talking about extraverts. In Pancake’s case, I think he specifically has a hard on for “attention whores.” For you, girls that want to fuck in spaces where other people can watch… also… probably extraverts. That is a special kind of girl.

    A lot of your nuances here I am more supportive of. I particularly like being anon. I have no urge at all to be well known… I don’t see the upside… because I DO have the social skills to connect, and connect deeply, anywhere I go. My Game is entirely portable… even if I am much more effective when I stay in one place, and go deep, with girls, with the community… even if I continue to date one and one (and often date introverts… which is the other part of this story for me).

    Viva daygame.


    1. You’re doing wholly 1:1 pickup, from what I understand, unless something changed. Which is great and recommended. A lot of guys who do it, don’t like it much, or want to think about how building a larger world / ecosystem might work. They aren’t like you, “(I am killing it with girls right now), and I enjoy almost all of the time ‘in field.’ I feel ALIVE when I go out to talk to girls. It radically wakes me up.” I personally don’t love CA to that degree, though it is very sweet when it works.

      Your boy Brad P speaks quite a bit about social proof in his memoir,, but that social proof is built from underlying cold approach skills. This is pretty close to how I’ve operated, with some cold approach, but also some work to have a bigger structure for girls to slot into. THE GOOD GIRL is about this story / process, I will add,

      1:1 cold-approach pickup is pretty far from being directly part of the network (or social network). But a lot of game winds up having group components… at night, knowing most girls go out with at least one friend/”friend.”

      A lot of girls, over more than the short term, are wondering if you can fit into their social worlds.

      So, yeah, “sex is usually a social experience…” that can be routed around to an extent, some of the time… online dating can route around it too, to an extent. But, if you want to retain the girl for a longer period of time, at some point she’s going to be wondering how you fit into her social world, and, if she has no or very little social world, that’s a separate problem.

      It’s called the network approach and shotgun approach… the latter works… I want to do both (and have done both)… some cold approach, and ideally slotting the girl into my network, networks realistically, too. Most normal guys seem to rely only on network and warm approach (which severely limits their game in many ways, and drives many into relationships they don’t really want to be in, with women who they should be able to do better than). Some game guys seem to do cold approach only (which can work), but which will often cause girls to leave, if they evaluate the guy’s wider social / family world and find it wanting. For a long time my network was also wrapped up with sex parties and non-monogamy, which dovetails with game nicely and in obvious ways.

      Somewhat obviously, I’m not opposed to cold approach, or solely cold approach… but among guys writing online, I see a deficit of writing about the longer term and about what else can exist… so I wrote that the post. “Guys in world #1 and world #2 may talk past each other…”

      For what it’s worth I don’t like the nightclub / yacht party type things either, although I’m sure they can be effective for the right guy.

      In 1:1, the girl is (probably) hiding you, to an extent, cause she doesn’t want her friends to know she’s fucking a guy. This is similar to the way girls will avoid posting guys they’re fucking to their social media, and smart guys do the same with girls they’re fucking (until things are “official” or moving towards “official”).

      There’s still a strong social component… in that the girl is keeping you separated from the rest of her friend/family network.

      >> When you cold approach a chick, you’re implying to her that you’re most interested in no-strings attached sex

      Okay, that is overstated.

      >>I have dated “90%” local girls, zero travelers.

      Which is great… you’re also exceptional at daygame… I approve of any guy who wants to be exceptional at anything. You love doing it and are really good at it. A lot of guys don’t love doing it and will do some of it to get to pussy, or a relationship.

      I’m in favor of learning, growing, controlling one’s destiny… all things that game does.

      So, I’d also say, strawman bad, steelman good.

      >>Viva daygame.


      I’ve told guys interested in daygame to hire Redpill Dad. Some have.


    2. After writing all of the stuff above I realized the short version: a guy who loves and gets everything he wants from pure cold approach 1:1 should do that.

      I think that’s a relatively small number of guys, though a large number of the guys writing online about game.

      I’ve done some cold approach, and thus want to talk some about how CA fits into the rest of the game and game-adjacent stuff I’ve done.


      1. > I think that’s a relatively small number of guys

        The guys that are successful… are a very small minority of guys. From any type of Game. So, I start there.

        I was pushing back on you saying that COLD APPROACH guys are less likely to have attractive lives (or social skills, or social connections) and that their offer is for “no strings attached sex.” That, I don’t believe is true.

        Your “Hollywood writer” metaphor doesn’t work, as I see it… as in the Hollywood you need tremendous buy-in from others to find success. Hollywood is essentially “group,” where as a player… you just need a pretty girl to say yes… and some place to take her. That is it. Social currency may help (assuming it translates to sexual currency), but it’s not necessary. A man can find a girl that will say “yes” through elaborate social maneuvering, or thru simple cold approach… and end up exactly in the same place.

        My main point is that SEX is about a man/woman. That is all you need. And guys that think the best route is build some “not necessarily sexual” social standing are going a very indirect route. It’s longer, harder, less portable, and has more “metoo” and other downside potential (some of which you’re saying in this post).

        Now… IF HE LIKES THAT route…

        (And he’s not being AVOIDENT – lots of guys go social circle, spend all this time on the IG status, on “networking,” etc, because they feel like they are doing something, and “getting some likes,” even though they are not actually dating any one… because that route is circuitous, and isn’t getting to the heart of it… which is… Go Talk to Girls (c))…

        IF HE LIKES IT… he should do as he pleases.

        If it’s not getting him anywhere… he should put a hard cap on that model… 6 months… and then take a look at this results. It’s a cope for most guys… I have seen it. “All the best parties,” “table service,” huge social networks, “lifestyle photos,” etc… no sexual penetration into women’s lives. Endless “orbiter” status. Seen… but never touched.

        Basic daygamers can get several dates a month (intermediate guys… several dates per week). I would argue basic social circle guys… not so much. They have a lot of “contacts,” but it’s all too indirect, too non sexual, too “social,” and not 1:1 enough… which is what counts.

        SOCIAL CIRCLE and proper ALPHA is, IMAO, maybe the highest potential model (for certain rare men, seeking certain elite girls, or very stubborn types that only date within the herd)… Braddock sold me on this… Yohami sold me on this. But… that is for top-top Alphas. For almost everyone else… cold approach is direct, puts the “sexual” back in “Sexual Marketplace,” and produces results, and a chance to practice (everyday, no party or event or “status” needed), incredibly fast.

        I blew up when I found daygame… because of the rate of practice it offered. Not “social” practice, but “sexual” practice (one on one with a women).

        > thus want to talk some about how CA fits into the rest of the game and game-adjacent stuff I’ve done

        I think you are an incredible example of that. I loved your “Sex Club Ecosystem” posts. I think you are one of the ONLY real, credible examples (I am increasingly convinced almost everyone is a pretender). You are clearly NOT avoiding the real work and “penetration.”

        I have a ton of respect for you, man. One of the most interesting men I have met in all this time in Game.

        And with that said, 9:10 guys that try to follow you will not only fail to build an eco system (very hard, not everyone is “alpha”) and will do that INSTEAD of penetrating women… which could be more easily done with cold approach (night game or daygame).

        For me this is like “most guys should aim for $100k annual income” vs “most guys should be CEO.” Yeah, the payoff for CEO is higher… but that scenario is entirely out of the range of possibility for most guys. And certainly at first.

        > Your boy Brad P speaks quite a bit about social proof in his memoir

        He does… and he is exactly what I mean. A natural coach, a performer, likely extraverted, very tall, friends with several rock banks… he cozied into some fetish groups, made friends with some promoters, went out every day, was incredibly fast sexually (loves “bathroom pulls”). I loved his book… I was inspired… but we both know most guys have very little aptitude for that lifestyle.

        And… I find myself dating almost as much as him (I have 4 LTRs now, after shaking off 2 other LTRs already this year)… with none of his “midnight to 6 AM” drunk, coked up party girls lifestyle (Brad is sober, but that was his ecosystem).

        I think Brad and I are maybe in the same league (with me “in the league,” and him on the leaderboard of that league). I can learn a lot from him. Many of us could…

        But if I take 100 guys… 50 to that style of Game (to Fat RSD Luke “cocaine roof parties” Game) vs 50 to basic bread and butter Daygame… I know which team gets laid more. I’m certain of it. Easy money.

        > A lot of girls, over more than the short term, are wondering if you can fit into their social worlds.

        I am going to say that since sex is NOT SOCIAL (says me), that since a lot of “hard to recognize sex” is happening in the SECRET SOCIETY (where you don’t know it’s happening if you’re not the guy/girl in question)… a lot of girls aren’t trying to get you out with their friends. I know this from my personal exp. I never meet friends. Never meet family. Even after months of dating. Super rare. I am not aiming to be a BF… even as I am getting that request from the girls side, even from extensive 1:1 Game. I am not a “fuckboi.” I am not “hookup” guy.

        I am a “lover” to these girls… but it’s just not “social.” I want them alone. They are happy to be alone with me. It is a very good experience to have active lives, but the dates are private, intimate, sexual, romantic… but not social.

        I am all in for Social Circle and “ecosystem” Game. I think it’s harder, but I don’t question it. I just think it’s heavy investment, and very, very low results for most guys. You have to be high value, high energy, and sexual to make it work. Whereas 1:1 Game can require less “social value,” much less energy… as it relies more on what matters… being sexual. Penetrating. Getting her alone. Escalating.

        This ^ is what I would push guys to focus on… if they want results. Even if they think Social Circle is more their thing.

        Good discussion here. Less exp’d guys would be smart to consider both of our POVs.


      2. >>The guys that are successful… are a very small minority of guys. From any type of Game. So, I start there.

        That seems true. Very true in real life. The number of guys I’ve met who do really well with women is small. Some did well by being super good looking and/or athletic in high school or college, but that success didn’t translate or endure. I’ve run into some guys who have figured out how to make sex clubs + non-monogamy work for them too, although they work much better if the guy can meet women on his own (most can’t).

        Re: Hollywood metaphor, it is a metaphor, not the thing itself, so there is an overlap between the two things being compared, and still areas of distinction.

        >>(And he’s not being AVOIDENT – lots of guys go social circle, spend all this time on the IG status, on “networking,” etc, because they feel like they are doing something, and “getting some likes,” even though they are not actually dating any one…

        I’ve not been into social media,, and that’s worked for me.

        Re: the orbiter/simp thing, Brad P is fun on that as well… he observes the same thing about some of these club guys… I’ve never spent time doing that stuff. Lots of guys are posturing being a baller, and lots of chicks are absorbing male attention. Going to things like music festivals and/or raves seems like it’d be more effective, for someone who likes the music and atmosphere.

        >>I have a ton of respect for you, man. One of the most interesting men I have met in all this time in Game.

        You’re also a very interesting person and have more game experience than just about anyone.

        I don’t like the cocaine party scene either… but I think you tend to caricature “social networks” or “the network.” The club scene, I suspect is something like

        What I’ve done is closer to what’s described in … you’ll notice the story starts w/ a cold approach on the street.

        >>I am all in for Social Circle and “ecosystem” Game. I think it’s harder, but I don’t question it. I just think it’s heavy investment, and very, very low results for most guys

        Which is why I’m of the “Why not both?” view. I think most guys find both pretty hard. I find them synergistic. The number of guys who love cold approach like you do, practice the skill as you do, become inured to rejection as you do, and have the successes you do… is small. Which isn’t to say guys shouldn’t learn the skill. They (we) should. I don’t think most guys want to do mass cold approach, even the ones who do like the results (including me). So a lot of what I’ve written about is in the “why not both?” and “how to do both” attitude.

        The first lines of the non-monogamy book are:

        >>There’s little reason to read this book if you’re not 1. already getting laid regularly and 2. confident in your ability to to meet and sleep with new women, or unusually intellectually curious. This book builds on a man’s existing game; it isn’t designed to teach the basics of game, since many other books already attempt to do just that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: