The End of the Road

As the "PUA" era of Good Looking Loser slowly comes to an end (don't worry, we still have a ton of GET LAID advice) - Scotty and I have wanted to transition away from "seduction" criticism/lingo for quite some time in order to attract more cool/normal guys than less "geek squad".

I suppose we've done a decent job - the guys in our community really have their shit together, getting pussy or are seriously in the process of getting there (rather than just analyzing it).

I wanted to point out the single biggest problem with PUA or mainstream "Seduction Community" theory.

This is not going to be a super long discussion, just one that can serve as a bookmark to refer those who are still unsure on the matter.

"Creating Attraction"

The vast majority of PUA theory relies on the shaky premise that there is a skill that any guy can use to "create attraction" or produce a powerful emotional response in any women that will make her sexually attracted to him and willing to sleep with him - even if she is not physically attracted to him in any way.

The process is called "seduction".

The skill is called "game".

This theory, while having some credence - is largely untrue.

While "game" can elicit an emotional response and a degree of sexual tension - the amount is actually quite limited.

In the case of popular attractive girls who have most options for same day/night sex - this "skill" is almost completely useless if there is no initial degree of physical attraction (looks threshold).

Arguably, ONLY the confidence element of "game" has ANY validity whatsoever.

The actual "skill" composed of routines, techniques, timed conversational strategies, deliberate body language, while perhaps helping a guy's confidence - are otherwise largely useless at "creating attraction" or "getting women to "like you".

While this "skill" can produce laughter and temporary excitement (as PUA's highlight in their workshops as evidence of sexual attraction) - the female will have absolutely no sexual intent if the guy does not at least meet her bare minimum physical standard (or looks threshold).

In short, "game" is not the foolproof substitution or equalizer and it cannot compensate for a significant lack of sex appeal (looks, style) and swag factor (social skills, social status) if those elements falls below the girl's standard.

"Game" cannot produce a significant amount of physical (sexual) attraction.

"Game" cannot compensate for a significant lack physical attractiveness.

Confidence, too, only goes so far to encourage sexual attraction.

This is especially true when considering GETTING LAID or sleeping with girls on the SAME NIGHT - where attractive DTF girls value sex appeal as their primary [if not sole] criteria.

Over a decade ago (I think?), David Deangelo famously said -

"Attraction is Not a Choice!"

 

Deangelo was right.

He just had the wrong factor.

PHYSICAL ATTRACTION  is not a choice - for both genders.
(he was talking about 'personality' or "game")

This is not to suggest, as some argue, that all "game" outside of confidence has no impact whatsoever on sexual tension.

It has a small effect.

And It won't have any effect if the guy is not considered a sexual option.

But "game" is not the GREAT EQUALIZER that determines 100% of the outcome, as the mainstream suggests.

At best, it can propel a guy that barely meets a girl's physical standards - to a "possible - but not particularly serious" option after a significant amount of doubt, resistance and overall lack of attention.

While that seems promising, the odds are really quite low if the guy sits barely on the looks threshold bubble (-3 levels below).

Sexual Availability

The other half of this fundamental problem concerns sexual availability or "rejection" (to those who fail to meet the looks threshold).

Surprisingly, Good Looking Loser was the first place Sexual Availability was ever discussed.

PUA enthusiasts, forever committed to the notion that the outcome of every interaction is primarily or solely determined by "game" (or lack thereof) - misinterpret rejection and disinterest.

Rejection (or disinterest) occurs for 1 or 2 of 2 reasons-

• The girl is not sexually available.
• The guy falls below her looks threshold.

Mindlessly believing that "game" can compensate for these supposed lesser significant/understood factors - the PUA believes that every "failed" approach, "flaked" text/phone interaction or any disinterest whatsoever is an indication that he has not yet developed his "game" or he did something wrong.
(even though, slowly, part of him tells himself that a lack of physical attraction might be to blame)

That's not the case.

The primary catalyst for SEXUAL ATTRACTION IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE PHYSICAL ATTRACTION.

The obvious PUA retort is -

"So explain how THAT UGLY GUY GOT THAT HOT GIRL?"

 

There's a number of factors that determine committed (and uncommitted) relationships to which physical attraction is a lesser factor.

For strictly GETTING LAID (SAME DAY/NIGHT) - physical attraction, only short of logistics (where your bedroom is), is the most important factor - for which ONLY social status can compensate.

Not "game".

PUA's want inexperienced guys to assume that "THAT UGLY GUY" picked up (or courageously cold approached) "THAT HOT GIRL" in a book store, mall or bar.

Chances are - they met through a friend (or shared commonality such as work or school), just like ~90% of NORMAL PEOPLE MEET.

Better chances are - they aren't even having sex. He's her friend.

The last resort argument that PUA believers raise is -

"So explain how [insert favorite PUA] FUCKS HOT GIRLS?"

 

Chances are - he doesn't.

At least not in significant quantity given the amount of girls he hits on.

I spent about 18 months around the PUA scene in Los Angeles and met, observed and interacted with a lot of the mainstream characters.

At my gym alone, Equinox Fitness in West Hollywood, I'd see about 5 or 6 familiar faces on a daily basis. During a weekend night, there could be double this amount at the usual spots.

Pickup artists mainly do one thing - Pick up girls or "game" them.

They have learned how to harmlessly get girls to laugh - pass this laughter off an "attraction" and teach expensive workshops where they show this "skill" several times.

They also incorporate these techniques to reinforce "laughter = creating sexual attraction" as well.
(some pick up artists do have a better than average sex life and get girls on or above their level - most do not however.)

q: Does "game" matter?

a: Outside of confidence (~social freedom) - not significantly.

Girls (and Guys) want to sleep with those whom they are most sexually (physically) attracted to. Obviously.

So that's it folks.

From time-to-time I'll cite certain PUA terms as a frame of reference but the days of talking about the "community" are basically over.

The days of mainstream community itself... are basically over.

I encourage guys to not participate in "seduction community" discussions in our forum.

Just reference this thread to whomever is still on the fence.

I haven't, won't and will not personally criticize any specific PUAs.

It doesn't really matter to us and isn't productive. Guys that want to gossip about that stuff generally have no interest in having a sex life.

Overall, believe it or not, Scotty and I have a favorable opinion of our experience within the community.

We talked about it before our last podcast.

If not for PUA - there is not GLL.

Chris is just a lawyer/personal trainer and Scotty is the bodybuilder.

Red pill guys, trapped in a blue pill world.

Arguably, the seduction community was the thing that ever happened to us.

We learned how and why it worked - and it had very little to do with "game".

We recognize, however, that the vast majority of guys were not so lucky and some of them are still searching for answers, pussy and meaning in their life.

That is why we started GLL in the first place.

The meaning behind our community, however, has completely changed and evolved in something WAY MORE SIGNIFICANT, exciting and useful - we're just making it official.

"It's About.... BUILDING.A.LIFE!"

... now who said that?