Yes they do. Tbh PUA material was created to appeal to people so socially inept that they're oblivious to that fact.

Precisely. Most of my friends are naturals and I was the one who got no pussy. They've never heard of "the cube routine" or "boyfriend destroyers" lol. Everybody has lines that they use regularly, openers maybe, responses to shit tests or whatever you like. Nobody half decent has routines as their default setting though.

this is what was said:

this is what I said:

At what point did I say that sex was invented by an American in the 1960's. And before his shocking discovery, human beings would reproduce the species by banging rocks against a tree?

Millions of men & women have courted each other & had sex for thousands upon thousands of years without PUA. I have 2 friends who have slept with maybe 80 + women between them - they've never even heard of PUA. Millions of guys the world over who have had multiple relationships/onie night stands have managed fine, they've never heard of PUA either.

It's not a paradox at all. The answer is simple: you don't need PUA routines or openers. If you do need them, there's a more underlying problem that needs to be addressed.

Is it me, or is there a underlying problem going on. I need to know if you read my posts or you just jumped in half way though?

I don't understand how you can rewrite my personal experiences; with using PUA openers and routines. I don't understand how you think it's possible to rewrite history.

Please do not reply until you have read this:


Telling some one to go out and be confident with women does not work. Telling someone to go out and say "I'm having a argument with a friend, and I was wondering on your take on this. Do you think phone sex is cheating?"

AND BANG, the ice is broken.
AND BANG, your confidence is increasing
AND BANG, approach anxiety disappears
AND BANG, the limescale is gone.
The Cillit bang method!!!!!

Yes, and welcome to PUA community. I've meet with lots of wings over the years. And what I can tell you is that telling a wing "talk to her". Will not work. Telling them, use this opener, does work.

Also PUA openers and routines are meant to be more interesting and entertaining then the normal crap men say.

-"hi, how are you doing?"
-"where do you come from?"
-"do you have a job?"
-"Do you pay your Taxes?"

And agin I will repeat my self:

if you're winging with guys who can't even open a girl without lying, and you encourage it, I see the problem. I will say though, half of the guys that discredit routines are walking over and saying "I thought you were cute and had to come over" like that's not a pre written opener. At least its direct though.

Work on your confidence and try to primarily be direct and 75% natural at least, as your default setting.

Routines are good, but it's like wearing a mask that is a lot better looking than you are. Eventually the mask comes off and you look like a smacked arse. Why not go for congruency and naturalism (lol, not nudity, unless you got lucky) right from the get go? Things improve. I won't force direct on you because indirect also can be very good.

Palm reading is where the real pussy is at...

TL;DR Everything I’ve been saying for years.

Yep.

I think this points to a possibly shallow interpretation of what 'you' are and what makes you attractive.



Being a singer is one of those cut and paste social roles that are, as a trope, percieved as attractive. Have you stopped and thought about how that came about? Singer as a group embody certain qualities that are attractive: creativity, social status, confidence, the ability to hold people's attention and so on.

Let's stress here that it is these root attributes that are attractive, and in popular culture this is post rationalised under the simplified banner 'singers are attractive'.

This means you can briefly be appealing to a degree just by saying 'I'm a singer', and briefly keep people's interest, but for someone to genuinely be into you due to that you have to authentically and consistently embody the characteristics that make that role attractive.

These two are clearly largely independent of one another too. You can be a singer without having those attractive characteristics and you can have those attractive characteristics without being a singer.

So how does this point link to routines?
In the same way that being a singer can imply certain root characteristics about you (provided you’re congruent with it), think about what doing pre rehearsed material when talking to people implies about you. It implies you feel the need to do so. It implies you feel the need to be entertain people in order to talk to them, it implies that you lack confidence to the point where your worried that your general reactions to them aren’t valid, and that you’re thirsty enough to put big amounts of thought into provoking positive reactions from strangers.

But no one’s aware of that right? Well, on a level, a lot of people actually can. Most people with a bit of social acuity can detect fakeness really well. If you look past the surface level of what words you’re saying to things like subtle changes in your movements, tone and reactions that are beyond you conscious control, you’ll realise you’re always conveying the reality of how you feel and are to some degree. People may not be aware of this on a conscious level, but there’s a feeling of being sold something that’s highly uncomfortable.

I see this shit all the time when I’m hanging out with girls. I go out in central London a lot which is a bit of a PUA hive. I’ll meet some girls and hang with them for the evening, and guys come up and kick all the standard game shit. The reactions might even initially be friendly and they might have all the routines and shit down, but on some level it just comes across a fucking weird.

It’s a social acuity thing though. Back when I was less experienced and socially aware, like most beginner PUAs, I was never aware of it, but now it’s just nails on a chalkboard kind of cringe.


I think there’s a short sightedness pervasive in PUA thinking. Barely any thought goes past the immediate. Giving someone a fancy yet unintrusive, non-commital opener like a standard opinion opener is helpful for a nervous beginner because he feels like he’s better armed with stuff he can work with, and it can provoke an initial reaction more easily than ‘Hey’. But the issue isn’t in the immediate. It’s like training wheels designed to briefly and very temporarily mask the fundamental underlying problem. The problem is getting laid for the most part at least takes a few hours, and the more time you spent using can shit and shoehorning square pegs into round holes the more apparent those unattractive qualities become.

This is why practically everyone starts to suffer from the ‘I can open a lot but I don’t get anywhere problem’. Because all you’ve been practising is using a routing to start a fake ass conversation, instead of addressing the underlying root problems that prevent you from getting somewhere.

Not being funny, but how often do you get laid doing this? How often do you go out with people who do this and get laid consistently? I’ve been going out for a long time and I’ve seen a lot of people doing this, and I’d bet that aside from occasional incident of girls who are straight up out to fuck and are willing to overlook that shit, that it’s pretty much slim to nil.


Again, your primary focus here is on what will help beginners talk to a girl; training wheels. This doesn’t take into account addressing the issues that actually prevent you from getting anywhere.

As I got better, I found that I’m normally starting my conversations with ‘Hey’, ‘Alright?’, Hey, how’s your night going?’, or something like that. You know, like real human beings. People might not always respond at first, but I definitely got laid a lot more that way. In fact, I wish I’d just done that from the start, would have saved a lot of time and energy in the long run.

At about 3:43 in the video.

I do define myself by the actions I take. "I am what I do"

That's not the point I was making. The point I was making is that music is one of my passions. The point of the original post, was that women are not attracted to routines, but attracted to me. The fact that I'm living a life and having fun. Which is something you can't buy from a dating coach.


Most girls I date are also singers. We share a common ground, a common interest. I didn't mean all girls want to date me because I can sing a song. Because that would never be true.

When I was joined to the style life academy and getting my money stolen from me; Neil Strass said (in so many words) "How you live your life outside the night club, will always be more attractive than what you do inside the club"

Forget the singing thing, I was using it your example as an analogy to a larger point about game in general, which you seem to now be completely ignoring. I made this clear. Either you didn't read what I said properly or you're being deliberately obtuse.