Did you know that as a male you have a greater than 50% chance of getting a positive response when asking a woman out directly?

A study done in the late 70s/early 80s(“Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers” Clark and Hatfield, 1978/82) to find changes in sexual gender differences between men and women in relation to AIDS gives us some interesting figures.

The test involved having both male and female students approach people with the same opener telling them that they’ve seen them around campus and think they’re “very attractive”. They then had to follow up with one of three questions:

“Would you go out with me tonight?”
“Would you come over to my apartment tonight?”
“Would you go to bed with me tonight?”

These questions were posed to 48 men and women in 2 different studies. The physical attractiveness of those asking the questions ranged from slightly unattractive to moderately attractive, it was found that their attractiveness rating had absolutely no effect on the overall results. It’s also important to note that they were all instructed to ONLY approach people that they thought were attractive enough that they would actually sleep with them, with the opportunity.

So, what were the overall results? The culturally obvious results obviously! The majority of men accepted apartment/sex while the majority of women rejected them.

What was particularly interesting however was that 50% of both men and women did accept a date. The same study that confirms the cultural belief that being direct is a bad thing confirms that being direct should get you a positive result 50% of the time! Remember – attractiveness rating had NO result on the data (incoming Phil rage), everyone got the same results. Women seeking purely promiscuous activities have an added bonus because more men were willing to have promiscuous sex than a date.

It’s important not to draw conclusions from these results that have no support, the results do not show us reasons for them. It could mean that women are interested in relationships and love while men are interested in sex. I however am of the firm belief that women LOVE sex too. It could also be due to personal safety – men are better equipped to fight off a personal assault than women. Or it could be due to social risks and the remnants of the double standard.

So, there you have it. Evidence that being direct(at least during the day) is the way to go. Not only that but that looks (from slightly unattractive to moderately attractive) has absolutely no effect on the overall results, anyone but those who are absolutely cursed can pull of being at the very least average looking, what’s more exciting is that this is showing difference in looks doesn’t affect the outcome so no excuses! Go out, see someone you like, be upfront about your intentions, compliment them, ask them out.

Forget the roundabout methods, forget trying to engage deep conversation with someone you don’t know that you’ve just bumped into out on the street – who’s probably busy. Be up front, smile, show your intentions and ask them out.

FUCK YEAH! Stats below:

Study 1 1978
Men asked:
Sex 75%
Apartment 69%
Date 50%

Women asked:
Sex 0%
Apartment 6%
Date 56%

Study 2 1982
Men asked:
Sex 69%
Apartment 69%
Date 50%

Women asked:
Sex 0%
Apartment 0%
Date 50%

So a 80’ chick thinks in exactly the same way as a girl in 2011 maybe thats why I see so many Debbie Gibson and Tiffany lookalikes.

Do you a think a woman would answer honesty, in that kind of survey, really? Yeh I told him to fuck off, which instantly makes her look bad? Yeh I’m very friendly is what she’ll say.

If you nervously approach a woman, with poor posture and staring at the floor a woman will 50% of the time give you her number or 99% politely tell you she has a boyfriend. Lets guess shall we?

Jay you love your stats and theory but I’ve yet to read about any practical experience you’ve had.

With your comment on the date of the study are you trying to imply that women now are somehow more difficult than they were then and that the results would be entirely different now? Given the cultural belief that standards have slipped, people are more promiscuous and that marriage fidelity is slipping I would beg to differ.

I think you misunderstand the nature of the testing, none of those asked are aware they're part of an experiment until afterwards, it was done outside in the real world.

There were no tangible differences between the results of any of the participants, I would presume that between those who are slightly unattractive and those that are attractive there would be at least some body language differences. Perhaps because they knew that they weren't doing it for real they showed somewhat more confident body language, that would only be speculation though.

Knave, I've said it before, I do not post field reports. I will never post reports. I may on occasion comment about a particular experience, out of any detailed context and only when directly relevant to helping someone else understand a problem of theirs. People do not expect you to post gritty details of your intimate dealings with others online. The one reason I will accept people posting such journals of their nights out is for their own self growth, so that others can give feedback on their failures. Reports on "successes" are generally merely for boasting purposes, the posting of these is contradictory to being a person who does not seek validation of his peers. Videos I am looking into creating as part of genuine testing will only be released on full disclosure agreements of those involved.

I find the fact that people are constantly asking coaches and teachers to prove themselves with infield bollocks ridiculous. The constant judging of their partners is even more shocking and demonstrates the hypocrisy inherent in the community. If you go to University to study business do you demand that your teacher be a millionaire and prove his immense knowledge of business? You do not.

Not to mention the fact that I'm in a relationship with a girl that I sincerely love, going on 2 years now.

Women today are different to women 20 years ago end of.

My only point and it is by no means a personal assault, it’s probably going to sound like it. You sell real life attraction, how do you’re clients know you didn’t just write this in your bedroom one afternoon?

Sure you may be cheap, but this does make it ok. I’m not suggesting for one minute you are a charlatan, but what gives you that ability to pass on your knowledge?

You really need an ‘about me’ on your site I’d say it is essential.

Why only online courses? You can’t learn shit sat in front of a PC. I spent months reading and watch stuff before I went out. I learnt nothing until I started doing it.

Look you seriously need to tell people what qualifies you because if you talk the talk but not walk the walk then I don’t know what you’re selling.

Emailing a course to someone is NOT the same as taking them out and showing them how you talk to girls. Look here is perfect opportunity for you to make me look like a cunt who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

to be fair jay,

if a guy walks up to a girl with a pen & paper & says

Hi, Would you

A
B or
C

the woman will answer knowing she doesnt have to follow throo....

ask the guys on here who have directly asked women out ALOT! and dont get 50% sucess

i get blow out all the time. real life experience as far as im concerned trumps ur geek experiment

also how many of these guys would approach an UBER fitty or would they still have the fear factor. there are a zillion flaws in experiments like this...

"hi excuse me a moment, if i wer to ask you the following which would you agree to" is not askin someone out, its a survey.

Wer asking 100 people would they date me! there u go new opener



also.... they asked them to approach women they think they woudl sleep with, people in this sutuation have a tendancy to hate rejection, therefore if its being logged, they would be inclined to hit on LESS attractive girls to save face, and ensure a positive response

if i was choosing who they approach, the results would differ.

i think these results are more of an indication on peoples own selves & how they choose to be perceived, than actual attraction

It's not end of. Explain why. Marketing, advertising and brand management would completely disagree with you. 20-30s haven't changed, 30-40s haven't changed, 40s+ haven't changed. How is selling yourself now any different to selling yourself then? Why are women different now?

I did write it in my bedroom one afternoon. Just like every single other thing written by every single other person in every other company posting on forums or writing blogs. You're highlighting something interesting though, perceived credibility. What makes anyone credible at all?

Nothing at all. I'm just another guy, just like every single guy out there. Just like Mystery. Brad. Sinn. Style. Tyler. Wygant. Juggler. Gambler. Just like anyone. What qualifies any of these? The majority were mentioned in a book that blew up because it was well written with a story that actually sucked people in, it was equally well marketed (it looks like a bible for a reason) and controversy kicked off a fever that blew it to number one. Being a name in a number one book by a guy who slates everyone else in it (he even rips into people he considers his best friends) while bigging himself up throughout (further selling himself). Does being in a book qualify any of them as quality teachers? No it does not. I won't even go into how Gambler just appeared one day, what qualified him? Slick marketing? He blew up as a known figure by giving 100% affiliate sales. Absolutely every company out there started pushing him because he was giving away 100% what they made from the sale. This made him a name and gave him "credibility" because he had been "endorsed" by all of these other companies. Bollocks, I don't want endorsement from any of these companies - they're all unethical fuckers using every trick in the book to deceive and market themselves as best as they can. RSD attempts to be better than the rest but fails to engage people and contradicts it's ethical talk of morality with it's sales spiel.. Something K thankfully pointed out in emails with me as I was also doing it at one point, which I was unaware of as it was copywritten for me. I very promptly fixed it.

I'll tell you what qualifies anyone as good. It's not marketing. It's not being the subject of a book. It's not being endorsed by any number of other "known" figures who only have their qualifications from either being subject of a book or being endorsed somewhere down the line by companies or figures mentioned in said book. What qualifies someone as good is the content they produce, the quality of what they write, whether the knowledge they try to impart unto others is bullshit or whether it has genuine truth. What matters is how they pass what they know on. What matters is whether they can pass any knowledge they have on in a way that others can apply to themselves. Someone should be judged, constantly, every single day, by what they put out, what they talk about, the advice they give, what they write, what they try to pass on to others and whether they pass it on in an understandable way.

It's not only online courses and you incorrectly categorise what I do as offering no practicality to it. People have tasks they have to complete, they have to keep a private journal of their tasks. This goes on for 10 weeks, with things escalating as they learn more and apply it. I don't teach in bootcamp format. 3 days of sitting in a stuffy room and a flipchart having your head jammed with routines and then nervously being forced to "go approach that girl over there" does not change who a person is at the end of it. It takes weeks for any real change to occur in someone. They are taught and they then have to apply things, practically, at a gradual pace. The majority of guys that take courses (with any company) are extremely nervous with little experience at all, low self esteems and just desperate to get a relationship of some sort. The first 3 to 4 weeks are usually just confidence building, escalated through routine work. Many people shoot down scripted routines but I beg to differ, I think it's an integral part of the journey almost everyone goes through to become truly proficient, well rounded and truly attractive men. I found that without the use of contrived routine work in the early stages it took much longer for people to progress. I personally believe this is because when they're giving something that they believe works they gain confidence from it. It speeds the process along before throwing out all the contrived nonsense that's really just wearing a mask and hiding the true self. In short, taking an online course doesn't mean said course does not require a person to gain practical experience.

On the point about offline courses, I do take offline clients, within a certain area. I am limited in that it is impossible for me to offer a 10 week course at just £200 to anyone outside a certain distance. Travel to and from a location, once a week, 10 times? It just doesn't add up. I refuse to take more than one person at a time for face to face and I refuse to charge more. 20/hr is quite enough and the online course is reduced to 100 to reflect the lack of needing to travel to people.

I'm not selling shit here Knave. I use these forums because the talk here is genuinely high quality (most of the time), members question the status quo and nobody here is an indoctrinated zealot loyal to x idol they think is some GOD or whatever. I learn things here. I get new ideas here. I like the people here, even if they don't like me or there are disagreements from time to time. The interest I get from members here is by far not worth the amount of time I put in here. In order to ensure that what I write remains quality it is necessary to remain on top of active discussion with others. The exchange of thoughts and beliefs constantly drills into us our thoughts. You could call it a kind of practice I suppose? Without constant discussion on a subject I find that the information starts to dwindle and doesn't remain at the forefront of the mind. I also participate in other communities, such as the subreddit I moderate(/r/relationships), where people don't even know I own a company, merely giving out advice on relationship questions. I'm also not selling anything there, just helping folks.

People don't need to be shown anything, in all my time doing that I never once found it to be a better method of teaching. It was particularly effective at making people feel awe for you while equally highlighting that they had severe issues, much of the time making them feel like they had even bigger mountains to climb. Compare it to learning guitar - many people feel like their guitar playing is inadequate when they look at someone who can shred.

What people need to do in order to get better is have their own interactions with others, they don't need to see something done, they need to do it for themselves and learn for themselves. No amount of being shown how to do a skateboard trick (is that a shit analogy?) can make you able to do it, you just have to go and do it. You can't watch a video of two people having sex and be fantastic your first time (or even know what the fuck you're doing at all - was anyone's first time NOT a clumsy mess?). You just have to go and do it.

Being shown something makes you mimic what works for someone else, by being guided you do what works for you.

Again. I'm just a man. As is every other person out there. The difference between us? I won't take part in the brand, I won't label myself a guru, I won't label myself a master. I'm a guy who's been on a long journey of change and learned and inordinate amount of stuff along the way who believes he can pass a few things onto people. I do this here. I do this through courses. I do this for free. I do this because I love doing it, because I was once (I know it's a fucking cliche shut up) a complete, total, utter, ridiculously epic, stupid reject who changed. I understand where people are coming from, I REALLY empathise with them too. (To see just how bad it is for some people check out /r/foreveralone over on reddit - depressing warning).

Phil, not all subjects are asked all three questions. ONE random question goes to each. It's a 2x3 format. The format is simply that of a person opening with the same line and then asking one of the three, not all three as you seem to have mistaken. It's not like some survey, no one knows it's a study until after they're told. I'd guess that the very specific use of "would" instead of "will" is to escape the ethical issue of deception, although that's a bit wishy washy.

I won't disagree with that. It is indeed a possible flaw. Given that there's really no negative outcome as they know full well that they're not really getting rejected because it's just a test I would argue otherwise though. The results might differ for someone of much higher standards, it depends on who you really would go to bed with and who you wouldn't though.

zzzzzz...wake me up when the argument is over.

PS

NERDDD FIGHTT!! lol jk.

Interesting experiement, where did you find it and who else conducted such research, I'd like to look into it. :]

I found it referenced in a recent journal on a study by some Frenchies who have basically replicated the study in France to prove that geographical and cultural differences don't affect the outcome.

Sadly those Frenchies weren't interested in the side of the study that interests me, they left out the dating question in their study.