i couldnt agree more mate !!!

I find with both styles the most important thing is kino done well. I usually start off super subtle, with the odd touch on the shoulder or the elbow, with the finger tips, that she might not even consciously notice. If we are sitting it will be on the knee. Last night there was a doll standing as I was sitting, so I knee kinoed her in the pussy.

Whenever we bounce I first do an arm-link with her. If she accepts (which they always do, it's only an arm-link for feck's sakes) I then take her hand. If I sense hesitation I gently throw the hand and back up a gear. Then I re-escalate.

Today I was more direct with my kino. I went to the house of a Romanian girl. She is an 8 some days and a 10 on others (when she puts on make-up). She is a runner so I asked to feel the muscles in her calves. Then I just grabbed her butt and squeezed it. She laughed and we got snug on the bed for a while. Didn't end in an f-close though. However we have a date for tomorrow night. Don't know if I'll bother though, if she's not going to get her vagina out.

A joke that I might throw in when I'm going direct is, "You got any Irish in you? No? Would you like some?"

The Austrian chick calls me saying she wants to hang out, while I am working. I tell her, "Hey I will call you back as soon as I'm done." She texts me an hour later to say, "Hey, I'm sorry for how I've been a lately I want to see you tonight can we have dinner?" At the time I am teaching another lesson, but I text back to say, "Yes, I will call you in half an hour." It gets late by the time I am done and I want to go running and get my shit together, so at 21.00 I call her and say, "Maybe it's a bit late for dinner but we can meet anyway, you go eat and I'll call you when I'm done."

I get back from running and say, "Meet me in the centre at 23.00." She says, "I'm tired and I don't want to got to bed late." I decide she has jumped through enough (unintentional) hoops and I say, "Okay, I will come and get you in half and hour, from your house." She says, "Great, that is perfect."

I turn up at her house and the guy that she lives with (not "official" boyfriend, don't break my balls, comes storming out and walks right past me without saying anything).

She comes out after two minutes. She has a bad cough. She has been sick all week. She tells me, "Hey, I'm a little bit tired, I would like to go somewhere quiet and maybe watch a ROMANTIC movie together." I tell her, "Okay, let's go to my house." She says, "Good idea."

As luck would have it, my fucking scooter would not start. I say, "Let's go have a beer first and get a bottle of wine to take with us.My scooter will start,after it has had a break."

She agrees. We go. We come back with drinks in a bag and "praise the lord" this time my scooter starts. We go back to mine to watch a movie. I always choose a movie that I have seen before, because I know exactly what emotional state I want her to be in.

I tell her to light incense, while I'm doing something else (to get her to invest in the seduction process).

During the movie there is a lot of heavy petting, foot and shoulder massaging (going both ways) etc.

I tell her she has something on her lips and she asks me, "What?" I go in to kiss her and say, "Me." She laughs and we make out. My hand wanders up her skirt and on her boobs. She tells me, "Wait until the movie is over." I do. After the movie (which finishes with the protagonist having sex) I tell her, "Now it's my turn. I am going to fuck you until you can't walk straight and I don't want to hear any arguments (Phil style)." She laughs and we make out more.

Then she says, "NO, I'M GOING TO FUCK YOU, when I decide!" At this point I am blocked. I am feel obliged to back up so as not to seem a "sex pest".

I do a Mystery style freeze out and start playing funny videos on Youtube. She keeps cuddling up to me, taking my hand etc. Then she starts to talk. She tells me, "I want you to know, I had a long talk with my flat mate last night and I told him that nothing can happen between me and him again... BUT... it's got nothing to do with you." I say, "Sure, I know that (yeah right), he seems like a lovely guy. I have nothing against him and I don't want to hurt anyone."

Yet again she tells me that I am ambiguous. I say, "I know, but it's better than being one dimensional right? At least I'm fun." (Obviously, I can't tell her that I am in turmoil between two opposing styles of PUA.)

She tells me, "You told me that you would take me home." I say, "Yeah, but I did not say WHEN. I'm going to take you home in the morning(taken from AFC Adam Lyons). She laughs, but she clearly feels the need to go home. I stop acting an arrogant cunt, kiss and cuddle her and then take her home. Obviously, she wants to see me again. Watch this space....

mate please refer to the main thread where i told u EXACTLY what i thought of this shambles

That tactic can work. But the reason it's not advisable is it puts you in the provider category. Which means they with-hold sex. As opposed to being totally into your cock. also they may have affairs with bad-boys when you're looking after the kids.

Hmmm... read that in David D'Angelo's double your dating yesterday... (kind of sounds like pop science) I will ask my mate if he was made to wait.

Nothing wrong with being a provider but you certainly wouldn't want no hanky panky going on behind your back. He's quite an alpha guy though; he plays rugby, dominates social frames, but he's just a good guy and wants a family.

That's the problem with this pop science at times; they want to put us all into nice convenient boxes that fit in with their theories. They take a bit of fact and run with it. And they love talking about sex scandal because in today's sex and the city generation that's what sells. I'd say some of it is based on truth, although I'd tend to take it with a pinch of salt.

I don't wholly buy into the women marrying providers and getting impregnated by Alphas theory. I'm sure it can happen, but not as much as the authors of books like Sperm Wars would like us to think. My mum married my dad who was the typical bad boy and never provided a thing. Just think of the people you know.

It's good to be aware of these possibilities but at the same time I think they are making us paranoid. In some cases, when a woman has an affair, it is actually with a man who is LESS dominant than her husband, because she is feeling badly treated or starved for affection.

Sometimes, I think women hold back the sex to show their next potential bf/husband that they are able to exercise constraint and so can be trusted with pregnancy. Catholic girls hold back because they have been socially conditioned to do so. Personally, I like to have sex as soon as possible, but then again; a girl that has had sex with me 3 hours after meeting me: how much can I trust her?

I don't believe it is as simple as an easy reading pop science book that can be bought on the shelf in an airport shop. I take these things on-board (excuse the pun), but I am certainly not about to allow myself to become brainwashed by them.

Experience thaught me that if you want to 'control' your mood in any kind of way, you first have to embrace it and let go of inner talk injunctions such as : "now, get in a GOOD mood, RIGHT NOW!"

It doesn't work so well as we tend to resist these self-inflicted orders. It's like an external force (your boss, your parents, a cop or whatever)

For those of you who are versed into NLP: Resistance is due to lack of rapport. Rings a bell? Well, it applies to your inner-self as well.

Instead, having different way of doing things for different moods and circumstances is a good way to go about it.

Personnally, I get a kick out of doing direct game on the street. It somehow serendipitous and magic for girls when it flows naturally. They feel like they just walked into a real-life romantic comedy and they sure want to see the rest of the movie.

Indirect works just as well and gives you more time to calibrate. Some guys think it is easier but I'm not convince as it can get tricky for newbies to transition from asking the way to the next bus stop to inviting a girl out for cocktails. In this case, the trap is to think: 'I'm going to go under the radar, she won't even know I'm hitting on her.' Everytime you try to conceal your intentions or deliberately lie about them, then you're mostly lying to yourself and you end up giving off a rather creepy vibe.

Which is why direct game done by beginners is certainly more intrusive but less 'creepy' and yields better results.

It's refreshing to see a quality post and a critical mind on pua forums. The world is not black and white.

aha well interesting read, i'll keep all this in mind tbh

Here is a review of the book Sperm Wars upon, which much PU theory is based; in particular David D'Angelo and Sinn in Magic Bullets talk about dual mating THEORY which claims that women search for both a lover and a provider and that you do not want to fall into the provider category:

Sperm Wars

Baker certainly opened my eyes to many of the instinctive and difficult-to-understand reasons about why we have sex and with whom. There are some fascinating revelations here. But, as other readers have noted, not much is backed up by data. In fact, a lot of it seems like pure speculation, though Baker presents his theories as "conclusions." He basically holds that our conscious minds have nothing to do with our sexual behavior. Our bodies make all the decisions for us. Baker would have us believe that women are biologically programmed to be conniving sluts and men their unwitting, but horny victims. He notes that up to ten percent of babies are not the children of the husband or long-term partner of the mother, and then he dwells on all the cheating men and women. What about the vast majority of both women and men who remain monogamous during marriage? They really don't get mentioned in the book. In fact, almost all the examples of sexual behavior in the book focus on MINORITY behavior.
The book is not a waste; I would highly recommend it, but readers should be critical. There is no doubt a lot of truth here, but I felt like Baker did not provide enough evidence to back up his theories.