I will attend night clubs when my other options are shot for the night, or because my friends have found themselves attracted to these particular venues for the night, but as a gentleman who does enjoy banging women, I would say that I have probably picked up two women in all my time going to night clubs. The pick up culture has this over-exaggerated view of how powerful it is to learn their tricks and then go into night clubs and use said tricks. I believe most worthwhile men who have built interesting lifestyles usually avoid nightclubs if they are looking to get laid simply because all your life experiences cannot be conveyed in an environment too loud and dark to display them.
As much as a girl might get vagina tingles at your push and pull techniques, those techniques do not work when the music is so loud she is blankly nodding in hopes you’ll fuck off. In addition, a lot of women automatically engage in deflecting anyone who approaches them no matter who they are in a night club; I assume this to be some ego thing for them. At this stage in my life, I do not care any-more to dedicate energy in trying to overcome women’s deflections, and simply disengage all together by keeping my approaches at a minimal in night clubs. I would prefer to talk to women in an environment where they are receptive to stimulation beyond EDM and party favours.
Simply, unless you are high energy as fuck and willing to be over-persistent, night clubs are a poor venue to get dates/bangs from. The issue with pick up is that many guys who go into it are not at their core these superfluous party animals, and those who act this way going into pick up material probably do so to over compensate for their lack of self worth (no research on this, just anecdotal observation). That is not to say that you cannot get laid at a night club, but unless you’re willing to put in an insane amount of energy (that is often hampered by alcohol consumption), your chances of getting laid are slim.
Now, there are gentlemen who excel at club game. As I said above, being high energy and over persistent works quite well in the club arena, and a slew of respect goes out to gentlemen who can pull doing this. My argument however is that clubs make poor venues for the gentlemen who do not want to follow this over-the-top narrative. Keep in mind the principle of contrast, and how standing out equates to status. Clubs assume a lot, it is assumed that men will generally go to these places to pick up women, and women and men come to expect this narrative as being normal. Unless you are playing the numbers game quite closely, chances are most women will assume you are like every other single male going the club, and thus you do not stand out from any other male there; poor contrast. However, when you approach women with more direct appraisals in more casual contexts, even laid back bars or house parties, women are less expecting of this and in turn look at you as standing out from most men; high contrast. You lose a lot of contrast going to night clubs.
My counter-venue to clubs are simple: house parties. House parties are the best venues for getting laid. You can talk, you can effectively work the room, and women are not naturally expecting men to approach them sexually (like they often are at a night club), and If all else fails, you can lay back and have interesting discussions with others on an array of topics. Night clubs lack all of these variables.
The second alternative to house parties are lounge bars. While they do carry some of the preconceived notions that clubs do (you’re just there to get laid), you must keep in mind that the women who stick around at these places are often looking for some level of stimulating conversation, so even if their guard is up about your sexual intentions, you can still prove yourself by conveying your interesting persona.
This was originally a post of mine on another gentleman’s blog, but I thought this was a worthwhile topic to discuss since I see a large portion of the manosphere still dedicated to club game. In addition, I have edited and added to this post as I see fit.
I like feminine women. I like women who enjoy doing feminine things like taking care of the home, women who laugh with a girly energy, and women who get excited about children. Something about that, to me as a man, excites me. While most of my reports will have you believe that I fuck a lot of women who aren’t the feminine definition that this write up is about, I do spend a considerable amount of time with feminine women, and any level of time I invest in a woman beyond sex is with the feminine ones. Don’t get me wrong, women who challenge the feminine roles fulfil a certain sexual niche for me in that they are usually good one night lays, but unlike feminine women, my time spent courting them beyond sex feels wasted. With the feminine vs. non-feminine dynamic however, comes where most people assume sexual enjoyment is most different. However there is one thing as a budding young gentleman of game that shocked me: women love to fuck. I, like most men, assumed the more feminine the woman the less sexual the woman, which is true on it’s surface, but not at it’s core; women are just as sexual as men are in many ways, but different forces compel them to act a certain way to the outside world.
With feminine women it is usually traditional morals that compel them to appear as wholesome. With non-feminine women, it is usually permissive parenting and feminist ideals that lead them to appear less wholesome. These dynamics serve their own purpose for the up and budding gentleman of game, and that is the more wholesome a woman, the more you will need to invest in having sex with her, and the less wholesome a woman, the less you will need to invest yourself in having sex with her; basic game reiterated. However, beyond investment of time, at their core, both spectrum’s of women share the same traits of what they enjoy sexuality, and that is being desired in a very selfish way.
Now when I say a “very selfish way,” automatically the evil woman narrative takes place in the minds of many gentlemen of game, but I do not believe women to be evil but hard-wired by their emotional compasses and with that compass they make their decisions; that’s why game blogs exist so you can navigate these compasses accordingly. No one (except feminists) call men evil for being hardwired to selfishly seek out certain sexual traits of women, and with that, I do not consider women evil for being controlled by their own selfish sexualities. I believe it was Baumeister who stated that women are the gatekeepers of sex, and therefore hold a lot of power over men in a sexual economy. Men provide women with certain traits (strength, charm, financial stability, etc.), and women respond in turn by giving them sex. I think the most potent of these traits that does not change radically over time for women, is masculinity. A lot of gentlemen of game point to the 50’s as being a time when women took men more seriously and thus “nice guys” could thrive, but I disagree. The men of the 50’s era were still men, and built a system that rewarded women for being good wives and mothers, and punished them for straying from that narrative; this was raw masculinity rewarding raw femininity. Things have obviously changed, and feminine women of today are echoes of their traditional parents, and non-feminine women are loud speakers for a new movement that attempts to redefine femininity (see: feminism). So, masculinity is the trait that women, feminine or not, desire most, and women want to be desired by masculine men.
When women read romantic novels you would be hard pressed to find a novel about a insecure skinny nerd who is the lead male in the novel. Normally these novels include a mysterious lead who displays some level of raw masculinity that she literally cannot resist. Shifting from the romantic novel we can look towards music. The popular songs amongst women is typically about a high status man (see: the rich ass singer singing the song) who desires a girl that he just MUST have. Even on the flipside of things, when a woman is making music, Taylor Swift for example, it is about that man who got away, or the man she loved dearly but is no longer going to speak to, etc. Women make up large demographics who enjoy those styles of music because it appeals to a very selfish part of them, and that is being desired romantically.
When you as a man can be reflective of that desire that a woman feels when she listens to shitty Taylor Swift songs, or when she reads romantic novels, you will unlock something very special in her, and that is her true sexual nature. When a woman is unlocked in this way, you learn something profound: women love to fuck. When I speak to some gentlemen about a wholesome girl I convinced to try anal or pushed to have a threesome, they seem dumbfounded. “She didn’t seem like that type of girl” is the typical response I get. The thing is, this “type of girl” ideology is silly, because I am convinced that once I make a girl feel that lust associated with desire, after a bit of time, sexually, she will be whatever “type of girl” I want her to be. The truth is women find all sorts of sexual fantasies and oddities just as exciting as you do, but the more wholesome the girl the less likely she is going readily express this to you or the outside world.
An old high school crush of mine and I started talking years after I got over my fear of speaking to women. After awhile I had finally bedded her. Sleeping with her was when I really started to understand the true sexual nature of women. She was one of the wildest sexual partners I ever had, and afterwards I asked myself, “who did I just fuck?” I could have never imagined that she was into sex like she was when I was in high school. I used to think that only the less-wholesome women could fuck the way she did. She certainly still seemed wholesome. Obviously I pushed for a lot of crazy shit with her, but I realized after this that no matter what woman you are having sex with, once you have unlocked, she will respond sexually in ways you never imagined. Some men initially respond to women having the same sexual desires as men as being proof that they are all whores; I think that is a brash way of putting it. Instead, this is the secret about women that for me, made them that much more exciting.
The men who enjoyed sexual success in high school with an array of women did so because of their understanding of the true sexual nature of women. They knew that wholesome or not, any girl enjoyed the sexual exploration and perversions that they did. When I talk to my more conservative beta bitch boy friends about my sexual escapades, they respond in shock that a woman who they thought was “so nice” would partake in such a thing. These beta bitch boys have not unlocked their sexual partners, and will forever see women as something they deep down inside are not. Meanwhile guys like me who understand that women truly enjoy sexual experiences beyond missionary will continue to enjoy the sex life I want.
People who oppose affirmative consent are being categorized as patriarchal drones and/or closet rapists by many feminists, and I am aware that by trying to be critical of something the feminist movement is currently championing, I too will be potentially labelled as such. However, I am not writing this for feminism, or to even really challenge proprietors of feminism, but I am writing this for the critical minded gentleman who may or may not agree with the push for affirmative consent. For those who have not heard of the current push for affirmative consent, it is the concept that in order for partners to proceed towards sex, the person engaging in sex (the man presumably) must acquire an explicit yes before the passionate encounter can escalate towards sex. Opposer’s to the affirmative consent movement often cling to the grey area argument, and that is that sexual interactions are not cut and dry, and instances such as ‘heat of the moment’ interactions can lead partners to engaging in sex without much forethought, or mixed signals from both parties can lead to partners engaging in sex without fully verbalizing what is happening and lead to terrible implications (see: rape). Many opponents (see: feminism) of the grey area argument view it as a result of men not understanding women and what women want, and view the grey area argument as an ideology fuelled by rape culture. The issue with the affirmative consent argument is that there are flaws to both sides of the debate. Some men do misconstrue obvious signals when trying to obtain sex and this can lead to devastating consequences for both parties involved, but with that being said, many feminists have a large disconnect between sex and the biological realities that drive it. That is why I cannot support affirmative consent, but I can support some variation of cultural understanding between both parties in regards to sex.
EverydayFeminism.Com has a article entitled Debunking the “Gray Area” Myth, and while there are some valid points to be found within this article, there are also some silly ones that need to be addressed. There are three out of six points I agree with on Everyday Feminism’s write up; I agree with the argument that men should not rape because a woman is dressed a certain way; that is reasonable and certainly should considered rape if a man believes he is entitled to that woman’s sugar walls simply because she is dressed a certain way. In addition, if a woman flirts with you, you are also not entitled to sex based on this factor alone. Lastly, being owed sex simply because you are dating does not entitle you to use your girl’s sugar walls freely, and if done forcefully, it is rape. These three points brought up in Everyday Feminism’s article are all points I can side with. Forcing of sex is not right in any circumstance, and that is infact rape. So, this leaves three points that Everyday Feminism brings up that I do not agree with.
Everyday Feminism’s point that, “They kept saying ‘no’ but eventually said ‘yes'” make sense from a non-critical view of human nature because presumably this could be a product of force and the yes was acquired out of brute deception, but that would be removing ourselves from reality. You see, when I was a budding young gentleman of game I encountered a situation similar to this where the female kept resisting and eventually I stopped, and hoped that we could potentially make sticky at a later date. That date never came. I asked a friend who was closer to this female than I was on why she was no longer interested, and my friend responded, “because you weren’t persistent enough.” Now, we could conclude that this is a small fraction of women that do this and hand Everyday Feminism an award in human enlightenment, but in my experience, and the experience of other men, this is not a small fraction of women. Even more confusing is that these same women, when pushed to eventually have sex, will usually continue to have sex with the same person who pressured them the first time. Now of course, because you need to spell it out for feminists or automatically their minds jump to catastrophe (see: rape), if she is clearly uncomfortable by your advances, – moving away, disgusted when you touch her, pushing you away at the slightest motion towards her, and trying to leave but you won’t let her, etc. – but you still force your dick inside, then you are raping my friend. However, if she continues to stay, and accepts your continuing escalation (by physically responding by appearing aroused) despite verbalizing her disagreement with what is happening, then she is enjoying the escalation. Feminists will instantly pull out the, “you are saying women do not know what they want” card, and well, that is exactly what I am saying. This same scenario has happened to me more times than I can count, and approximately zero times was I accused of rape – the majority of these women actively liked me after.
The second point Everyday Feminism brings up is “They didn’t say ‘no’…” Here is a primer to prevent budding gentlemen from rapism: If you force your dick in without any sort of interaction, then it is rape. The issue with this point is that it does not root itself in reality. I have had several instances where the passion was so high after a night of courtship, and it lead the female and I to making out, and as they say “one thing lead to another,” and we ended up having sex. No where in that process did we communicate active consent, it was just assumed. I guess the intervals where the woman asked me “do you have a condom?” implied that I was a vicious rapist and she was asking me to stop, or maybe I am just socially retarded.
Lastly, Everyday Feminism asserts “We were both wasted, but we both really wanted it.” This is a muddy point because Everyday Feminism half implies that there is a normative process of people engaging in intercourse drunk, but again as my handy little primer states: if you force your dick in without any sort of interaction, then it is rape. If she is passed the fuck out, do not do some scumbag shit and rail her, but if she is drunk but coherent, and you also are drunk but coherent, and passion leads you to potential pussy, then go for it sir. However, the issue here is that feminists have a presumption that men are responsible for sex when drunk and even if equally drunk, he is always the victimizer. So I guess Everyday Feminism believes you can circumvent this issue by giving affirmative consent, but again, refer to points one and two, these ideas have no basis in reality in conjunction with female desire. The logic of making sure you are in the clear to engage in intercourse is sound, but it goes against female desire.
Women want to be desired, and there is a masculine component, that whether or not it is socially conditioned or biologically programmed, that states men lead and women follow. Men asking if they can proceed with the sex that both parties so dearly want is not masculine, that is putting the realm of sexual desire as a power women have control over, and thus this negates their interest in proceeding with sex. The only way I could say that Everyday Feminism is right in their support of affirmative consent is if you as a man are so socially retarded that you cannot decipher a woman being uncomfortable vs. a woman being primed and ready for sex. So, then of course, affirmative consent has a place for a small fraction of socially retarded men, but the majority have a different idea about sex, and the model of affirmative consent does not fit into that idea at all. Alternatively, I should ask Everyday Feminism why the onus is not for women to lead sexual interactions from now on? Why do they not gain male consent? By this logic, I could argue those times a woman pulled my cock out and started riding me, WITH ZERO CONSENT (brb, PTSD), raped me. Such arguments would sound silly, but they fit in line with the eqaulist ideology that affirmative consenters feel is gospel… or maybe feminism has been working towards making women immune to any sort of judgement or punishment when it comes to sexual choices… No, that cannot be it, I’m just crazy.
Safe gaming gentlemen.
I dropped out of graphic design in College to work as a labourer on a construction crew for a year and a half, and have continued working construction as a summer job. The rough job really changed me. Even though I was taking active steps towards overcoming my fears during my early college days, construction helped build character that I would not have gotten anywhere else. In some ways construction is the best thing that ever happened to my game.
I needed summer work and my friend was able to land me a job on a construction crew. My friend shared some encouraging words the day before work, “This is a hard fucking job. You’ll probably quit, but at least it’s something for now.” Nice. It was hot as fuck my first day of work, and I ran to meet the gentlemen I was going to work with. Winded and sweating I enter the work truck, and nervously shake these calloused gentlemen’s hands. They tell me what to expect on my first day, and I already feel anxious as fuck. I bust my ass the first day, confident that I did a terrible job; they keep me employed though, and so I kept coming back. I enjoyed the hard work, a lot. Being raised by an elitist grandmother, I always though construction was below me, but after my first week part of me realized that this line of work was exactly what my life was missing.
Truth be told, I was intimidated as fuck by these construction gentlemen. I never felt like I was good enough to be on their crew, and their whole way of speaking and working was tough. I would have been 18 or 19 when I started, and working with older gentlemen was foreign to me. When they made fun of me, as construction gentlemen do as a way of endearment to their fellow man, I actively defended myself and got angry even. The summer passed and I decided to drop out of school to continue work in construction. I ended up getting accustomed to the construction banter, I started to turn the brutally hard work into menial routine, and most important, I got over my anxieties through this process. Construction changed that for me most; situations that seemed scary or rugged, construction prepared me for. Working such a hard job with a lot of dangers really made me approach life differently. Construction hardened me in a way other experiences hadn’t, and while I can credit the raw dangers of the work environment for that, I also owe it to the guys I worked with. Having a bunch of grown men constantly throwing banter back and forth, or laughing at stupid shit on a day to day basis, really makes you look beyond the menial nature of other embarrassing situations or environments you face in your life outside of construction. If you do something truly embarrassing at work, you bet your ass everyone is going to laugh at you, but that’s how you become hardened, because you realize that certain situations are out of your control and you move on from them stronger; that’s what construction did for me.
Not to mention, construction shifted me from a 160 pound pudgy beta (I did work out, but not to this extent) to a 190 pound foot ball player-sized gentleman. The pure athleticism this job required leaked into all facets in my life. I’m no longer content during my off season sitting around, I now feel that I am forever active; I have to work out on my days off, I have to go for long walks, I have to challenge myself physically at all costs since working construction. Being physically active all the time not only gave me a physical boost, but a mental one (I have to assume this is due in part to higher testosterone production), and knowing that I was able to shift myself into an athletic gentleman – a gentleman I would have never considered before construction – made me realize academics and other activities in my life could be improved by hard work.
Hanging off of a rope while carrying 200 pounds on your shoulder really makes situations like approaching women seem trivial. Facing bigger gentlemen who look like they have never worked a day in their lives seems trivial. Falling off a sky-high beam because you were doing something stupid makes getting laughed at because you tripped over a curb seem trivial. The more I worked construction, the more I realized that a lot of average fears anxious people such as my prior self had, were trivial. Having that edge in understanding your fears really pushed me to challenge life head on.
During a presentation in school I stood on the table to add extra emphasis to the anthropological study we were presenting. The table slide right from under me, I landed on my back in front of a class of one hundred. Some laughed, and some offered support. I got up, and without a word acknowledging the stupid tumble I took, I continued with my presentation.
If this was two years ago, before I started construction, I would have been a nervous mess.
I see it all the time. A beta-bitch-boy steps out of his comfort zone and does what he assumes is masculine. He does this in ways such as acting aggressive when entering a room usually by slamming the door, or even by trying to belittle other men around him, but not loud enough for those men to hear him. These actions of course are only done in front of a woman and It usually results in one of two responses:
1. The woman does not notice it out of awkwardness for the beta, or because she genuinely does not care.
2. The woman quickly puts the beta-bitch-boy in his place through asking why he is acting weird or by pointing out that his action was unjustified, or the woman will make a silent demand of the beta bitch boy to assert dominance over him.
Sadly, these beta-bitch-boys are fulfilling a script, one that they assume is the route to masculinity and the script that they look to when their girlfriends cheat on them or females friend-zone them. These beta-bitch-boys live in a state of false alpha hood.
Unlike the beta-bitch-boy nice guy, these betas do understand that women like some element of masculinity, but they are apologetic about that masculinity the second the girl they act in front of shows any level of discomfort. Essentially they are beta-bitch-boys with a slight edge, with an emphasis on the word edge. I have a male acquaintance that I see at friendly gatherings from time to time and he embodies this beta-bitch-boy with an edge model perfectly. For the sake of anonymity we will call this beta-bitch-boy, Bob. Bob has an overweight girlfriend named Helga. Hela always sits around at these gatherings, and she always seems dissatisfied with everything going on (probably because she is overweight) and silently makes judgements to Bob about everyone while Bob sits there and shakes his head like a dog wagging his tale after receiving a treat. Bob however tries to be one of the guys more often than not, and will agree when we gawk at an attractive female on the TV or will try to jokingly assert that he too dominates his relationship and will keep his “bitch in line.” This is met by Helga giving looks of disgust and Bob quickly, and silently, apologizing. I notice every time after Bob tries to imitate a real man, and I’m not even sure Helga is consciously aware that she is doing it, that Helga will ask a request of Bob. “Can you grab me a pop Bob?” “Can you go to the truck and grab my sweater?” “My back hurts, can you dig through the fat and massage my muscles?” Helga keeps her pimp hand strong, and Bob gladly wags his tail every time Helga opens it.
Bob and Helga are a common example of beta-bitch-boy with an overweight girlfriend model, and a typical example of false alphahood. Examining the above story, Helga allows little Bob to joke with the guys, let’s him jokingly act dominant, but she never lets him dominate her. Bob can at-least rationalize to himself that he is acting the same way real men act with their girlfriends, and therefore he tells himself he is fine being dominated by Helga. Helga however, she lusts for a real man, and she hopes that the cookie crumbs she has laid out to manhood for Bob, will eventually fill Bob up and make him a grown man who takes charge. Helga will continuously test Bob’s manhood with one of her fine-tuned request-tests, and her fat pussy salivates at the idea that he might say no, but Bob is a bitch-boy of routine, a bitch-boy of feminine honour, and to Helga’s pussy’s disgust, Bob’s tail starts wagging and he happily says yes. As I found out later, and had already assumed, Helga cheated on Bob with one of her ex-boyfriends. Naturally, Bob got upset, but that upset was not directed at Helga. No, that upset was directed at the ex-boyfriend, after all, how dare he act like a man and attract Helga. As I learned later, Bob and Helga barely even had a fight about it, Bob swiftly got back with Helga. A month later I read that Helga was going to dinner with this ex-boyfriend and a couple of her other friends. Bob suffered in silence. What a good beta-bitch-boy. I saw Bob and Helga again the other night, and it was the same story: Bob jokes about being the man who “keeps his bitch in line” and Helga does her manhood aptitude test by hitting him with a juvenile request. Small trade off to kind of feel like the man. Right?
Beta bitch boys will adapt to whatever demands they perceive the group of females as having, but much as we see with Bob, beta bitch boys will try to leave this mould through actions that suggest masculinity, but ultimately this false alphahood is only a small thirst quencher of what being a man is like. Gentlemen like Bob (see: beta bitch boys) who try their hand at alphahood will be punished and condemned to beta-tude by their female leaders. Gentlemen like Bob are unfortunate cases, because they will always that there is a crack in their masculinity and they try to fill that crack with approval of a female only to find out in the end that it does not fit. Female approval might fit the crack at first, but this forced insertion into the cracks will eventually loosen it self and fall out, and sadly each time Bob picks female approval back up and forces it into the crack of his masculinity, the crack grows…
And that crack grows until Bob’s manhood is ultimately broken.
When I started learning game I was convinced that in order to do my first approach that I needed to know every aspect of the interaction, down to the girls hand movements, before I could succeed. After reading book upon book, I finally did my first approach… It sucked and I even I told myself, “but you know every aspect of game, what women want, why did this go so bad?” It later realized that it was because I tried to stuff every single element of game into one interaction without actually having practiced any one of those elements individually.
This is when I started to learn game naturally. I would approach women, almost ignoring my pick up teachings, and hope for the best. Then, if something did not work, I would look to pick up books to help me iron those issues out and would slowly add that element to my arsenal if I felt it worked. I no longer treated pick up books as bibles, but more like shared experiences that other gentlemen have had, and if I felt that an element (opener or behavior) I learned from the book fit my personality, then I would use it.
New gentleman to game often times glorify one pick up artists and feel as if they owe their livelihood to that method of game. There is some merit to this as some gentlemen do experience success, but that very success is hollow. The system is only a system, and they simply become a cog in making it work. They do not find fulfillment in the end because their true nature, whether that be a nerd who loves programming or a gentleman who obsesses over chess, is hidden behind a mask. They are only projecting a show for women, and not projecting the core of themselves.
True confidence will derive from you learning things on your own, taking risks on your own and ultimately not being afraid of who you are as a person. Some gentlemen will rag on you, some women will laugh at you, but the only thing that matters here is how you handle it. Do not hide your interests because a woman thinks that is lame, or because your man friend tells you it is not attractive, but embrace it and embrace it whole-heartedly and people will respect you for it. Now, the irony here is that you will gain some confidence from the new found knowledge you have gained in reading pick up articles/books, and I myself preach certain elements, but you should only take these elements if they fit the core of who you are as a person.
When I meet a girl I do not focus on displaying higher value, I do not focus on if she is sending me indicators of interest, but I focus on stimulating conversation and reflect on how I would have displayed higher value or gotten her to be more interested later. If you saw my game in action you would think it is pretty straight forward, and I have been accused of only getting successes with women because of my looks. That is far from the truth. All I do is project myself in a confident manner, and women like that. When you do not adhere to a script, you learn game organically and naturally, and to some degree you are forced to put your personality into it, because your personality is all you have to fall back on; not canned scripts. That honesty helps you build not only confidence, but game.
This is not a write-up to take away from great gentlemen of game, because there are certainly excellent methods out there to getting successes with women, but when you turn those pick up teachings into an all-you-have ideology, then you are losing sight of yourself and your game will only fulfill a script, and not who you are as a person.
Try this, approach without a goal in mind, just try approaching without using canned materials or systems you have seen on YouTube, and say whatever comes to mind. What’s up is even a suitable opener in this case. You will be on your own for this approach, and you might say things you are not used to, but here you will find honesty and through honesty you will feel a sense of fulfillment that is beyond the core of masking your true self.
There are two people both enrolled in a psychology program. Both end up with degrees in said psychology program, but only the second person pursues a job in the field. Both have similar academic achievement, and both retained a vast knowledge of the program’s teachings. Equally speaking they are both very close in their knowledge and academics, but again, only one person pursued a job in the field. In post secondary education, and self learning in general, I see it all the time… people who are book smart but do not apply what they learn to their lives, and that disconnect leaves little in the way of passion.
Those who teach are usually the ones who are passionate to some level about what they have learned prior to educating you. That concept is not limited to schools either, but it spans to places such as construction sites to social interactions amongst friends. Learning is a beautiful way to build yourself as a man, but that learning means nothing if you do not apply that learning to yourself in some way. Whether that means forming your own opinion, reinforcing an old opinion or completely demolishing a current one. When we learn only to build grades we do not form an opinion based off of the knowledge and we become placeholders for that knowledge, and ultimately we do not become the builders of civilization and culture that the men before us had become.
When a child sings a radio song it is not because they have interpreted the words of the song and understand them, but because they are mimicking what they hear to gain social favor from other adults and children. Those children are placeholders of that knowledge. Similarly there was a brief documentary looking at the autistic gentleman the the film Rain Man was based on. The autistic gentleman could recite, in detail, even the smallest of details regarding human history, and it was all accurate. If the autistic gentleman would be tested on human history, he would have incredible scores, ones that would imply he is a genius in that field. However, after your initial shock of a man having such incredible memory, you realize that he is only reflecting what he has read, and not interpreting it an any meaningful way. He is no different than the child singing a popular radio song with no knowledge of the lyrics.
Learning, no matter what you are doing it for, should be approached critically and interpretively. Otherwise you are simply becoming a reflection of what you are learning and ignore why the knowledge was being taught in the first place. I write this blog because I am passionate about what I have learned on my own and am currently learning. To some degree it becomes an element of teaching and educating others on my own experiences and hopefully they can apply it to their own lives.
I meet a lot of gentlemen who learn game and do not actually understand why the theorization works, but only regurgitate what they have read and spout the same openers over and over again. The field of pick up feels more like a social-psychological experiment and advancement in human interactions than it does a juvenile attempt at getting “laid.” With that being said, the people who turned the field into more of a social-psychological experiment, were also the ones who were passionate about the relations between humans. Those gentlemen who regurgitate game concepts only because they know that having that knowledge has lead some men to getting laid, usually end up unfulfilled and with poorer results than the gentleman like myself who write and joyfully encourage other men into wanting to learn and educate themselves on the sexes.
The point I am trying to get across is not simply about how learning game will benefit you only if you take game teachings in interpretively, but how your lifestyle and learning will flourish if you can apply what you learn, no matter what it is, to yourself and become passionate about it.
The reason the second person pursued a career in that field is not because they are better than person one, but because they are passionate about that field and applied the knowledge they learned to themselves in a personal way that becomes meaningful enough for them to want to become apart of something.