Warning: in_array() expects parameter 2 to be array, null given in /home1/modeone/public_html/wp-content/plugins/quick-adsense-reloaded/includes/post_types.php on line 46
Warning: in_array() expects parameter 2 to be array, null given in /home1/modeone/public_html/wp-content/plugins/quick-adsense-reloaded/includes/post_types.php on line 46
As mentioned many times, when I was younger, I mistakenly assumed that the vast majority of women were ‘WYSIWYG’ types (‘What You See is What You Get’). I believed if a woman presented herself as ‘prudish’ and ‘monogamy-oriented,’ that she genuinely was this way. I believed if a woman presented herself as non-materialistic and anything but shallow and superficial, that she genuinely was this way.
Boy, was I wrong.
The first clue that my way of thinking was invalid was when I watched a porn film entitled Talk Dirty to Me starring a male adult film legend by the name of John Leslie as a slacker womanizer named ‘Jack.’ In the opening scene of that film, Leslie is at the beach with his good friend Lenny (Adult Film Actor Richard Pacheco), and Lenny ends up suffering a twisted ankle sprain. Jack takes him to a local physician, and the female physician is this attractive, sexy blonde (Adult Film Actress Cris Cassidy).
When the good doctor comes back into the lobby to give Jack a status report on Lenny, Jack wastes no time letting the good doctor know that he wants to get in her pants. Jack starts off with, “You’re a damn good looking woman …” As Jack continues with his verbal sexual advances, the good doctor responds to just about everything he says with an adverse, prudish type response. Initially, it looks as though Jack is going to ‘crash and burn’ in his attempt to seduce this lovely physician into having sex with him in the near future. But then … things slowly but surely start to slide in Jack’s favor.
Needless to say, minutes later, the good doctor is on her knees giving Jack a blowjob.
How could this happen?
For those men who are naive and/or inexperienced with women, that opening scene in Talk Dirty to Me might seem like more ‘fantasy’ than reality. For the next two-to-three years, even I thought that scene was not 100% representative of reality. Then, I had an experience with a woman that is detailed in the eBook version, paperback version, and audiobook version of Oooooh . . . Say it Again: Mastering the Fine Art of Verbal Seduction and Aural Sex. If you do not have one of those three versions, please purchase one today and examine ‘Verbal Seduction Story #1.’ That story chronicles the very first time I exhibited behavior toward a woman that was very, very similar to Jack’s behavior in the movie Talk Dirty to Me.
What goes through a woman’s mind from the time you meet them?
Many people in society always want to concentrate on what is DIFFERENT in the behavior of men versus women. Surely, both genders have their differences. The reality is, men and women are also very similar to one another as well when it comes to the process known as ‘sizing a person up.’
Sizing each other up
Whether men and women are honest with themselves or not, members of both genders all ‘size each other up’ when they first make each other’s acquaintance. Here is how the vast majority of women size up a man right after they first make his acquaintance:
- Is this a man who I would engage in short-term, non-monogamous sex with FOR FREE? From the moment you approach a woman, and initiate a conversation with a woman, a woman is asking herself, “Is this the type of man who I would engage in sexual relations with a) without him spending any money on me or offering me any sort of financial support and assistance, and b) without him offering me any guarantee or promise of long-term, indefinite monogamy?” If the answer in her mind is ‘Yes, I would,” then you would fall into the category that I frequently refer to as a Total Alpha Male (this term is discussed in Chapter 7 of the audiobook version of Mode One). If the answer in her mind is “I have absolutely no interest in engaging in short-term non-monogamous sex with this man, but I am possibly interested in engaging in some other form of long-term and/or monogamous sex with him,” then her next question to herself is . . .
- Is this a man who I would engage in short-term, monogamous sex with and/or long-term, non-monogamous sex with FOR FREE? Some women immediately throw out the possibility of them engaging in a one-night stand, weekend fling, or other variation of short-term non-monogamous sex … but they are generally open to the idea of possibly engaging in long-term non-monogamous sex with a man of choice, or even short-term sex (e.g., 2 years or less) that is monogamous. If a woman’s first preference is to engage in long-term monogamous sex with a man, but she is willing to ‘settle’ for either a) short-term, monogamous sex or b) long-term, non-monogamous sex, this would represent that this woman views you as an Alpha Male with a small percentage of ‘Beta’ male traits (this is also discussed in Chapter 7 of the audiobook version of Mode One; Get the journal notes here). If your looks, personality, and general disposition do not motivate a woman to place you in the ‘Total Alpha Male’ category or the ‘Alpha Male with a few Beta Traits’ category, then the next thing women ask themselves is . . .
- Is this a man who I would engage in short-term or long-term non-monogamous sex with as long as he spends a significant amount of money on me? Is this a man who I would engage in long-term monogamous sex with as long as he offers me some degree of financial support and assistance? Most men and women in society do not want to offer a product or service to others for FREE if they feel they can offer that same product or service for some degree of financial compensation. Generally speaking, this is how most women view their romantic and sexual companionship. Their first preference is to see what type of ‘social market value’ does their romantic and/or sexual companion generate among men who are attracted to them. Are men willing to pay them $250.00 – $1,000.00 per day for their sexual companionship? $1,500.00 – $10,000.00 per week? $5,000.00 – $50,000.00 per month? $25,000 – $100,000+ per year? If by the end of your first conversation with a woman, you give a woman the impression that you are willing to pay her money (either directly or indirectly) in exchange for her romantic and/or sexual companionship, this is when a woman is going to place you into the category of a Beta Male with a small percentage of ‘Alpha’ male traits. When a woman places you in this category, this means that a woman will only have sex with you if you a) offer to pay her for time and companionship, and usually also b) offer her some sort of guaranteed promise of long-term monogamy. Now, you would assume that these three categories of men would pretty much cover all of the bases, right? Wrong. There are some men … based on their looks, their personality, their conversation skills (or lack thereof), and their overall demeanor and disposition that even if they offer women both money and monogamy, women will still find themselves not interested in sharing these men’s company in a romantic and/or sexual manner. These type of men make women ask themselves . . .
- Is this a man who I can use my looks and sex appeal to motivate to flatter me indefinitely? Is this a man who I can motivate to provide me with entertaining social companionship that is of a purely platonic nature indefinitely? Is this a man who I can motivate to perform both financial and non-financial favors for me regularly, semi-regularly, or at least occasionally? If a woman places you in this fourth and final category, this means that she views you as what I refer to as a Total Beta Male. If a woman feels like you are severely lacking in “masculine (Alpha) energy” and also she feels like you have almost zero percent “raw sex appeal,” but at the same time, you present yourself to a woman as a combination of a) very flattering and entertaining and b) financially generous and extremely accommodating and helpful, then she is going to string you along for a number of weeks, months, and/or years by giving you the misleading impression that you have at least a small percentage chance of ‘getting lucky’ with her, and eventually being given the opportunity to have sex with her (99.999999% chance, you’re never, ever going to have sex with this woman, and in the .000001% chance that you luck up and have sex with her, you’re going to pay a heavy price for it in terms of time invested and money invested). Women who mislead and manipulate men who fall into this fourth category is covered in detail in my second audiobook entitled, The Possibility of Sex: How Naive and Lustful Men are Manipulated by Women Regularly.
Men are not much different than women
Before you remotely think about criticizing women for placing us men into these four different categories, be honest with yourself. THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN DO THE EXACT SAME THING. When most men first meet women, we too ‘size them up’ in four similar categories:
- Women who we believe we can have sex with without spending money on them and without offering them any promise of long-term monogamy. Many men refer to these types of women as ‘easy lays’ or ‘sluts’ (two terms that just about all women HATE);
- Women who we believe we can have sex with outside the context of marriage and outside the context of a long-term ‘boyfriend-girlfriend’ relationship, but we’ll probably have to ‘wine and dine’ them a bit and/or just give them money directly. Many men refer to these types as ‘prostitutes,’ ‘Professional Call Girls,’ ‘Upscale Erotic Escorts,’ or simply discreet or indiscreet ‘whores’ (many men look at a ‘whore’ as simply a ‘slut’ who charges men money for their free-spirited sexual companionship);
- Women who we believe that we can have sex with only if we offer them both a promise of long-term monogamy as well as some degree of financial support or assistance. Many men view these women as ‘long-term girlfriend’ material or ‘wife’ material. Other men refer to these women as ‘Classy Good Girl’ types. (in reality, there is nothing particularly ‘classy’ about a woman who demands monogamy and money from you in exchange for sex, but many men still refer to these types as the ‘classy’ and ‘respectable’ ones worthy of marriage or a long-term monogamous relationship);
- Women who we believe we will have to ‘get lucky’ with in order to have sex with … or in worst case scenario, we will have to get this woman drunk or drug her and then ‘take advantage of her’ (i.e., date-rape her without her consent). Hopefully, most men would avoid this last resort alternative, but all you have to do is read your local or national newspaper to know that many men use this type of heinous behavior as a desperate, misogynistic attempt to get laid. I have no respect for men who date-rape, rape, or sexually assault women.
The process of a man and a woman ‘sizing each other up’ is generally known as ‘gaming’
If a man wants to engage in short-term non-monogamous sex with a woman who much more prefers to engage in long-term monogamous sex, and he is able to persuade her to agree to his interests rather than him give in to her interests, this would be an example of a man ‘gaming’ a woman.
So anytime a male friend describes a man as ‘having game,’ this usually means that this man knows how to get women to give in to his desires, interests, and intentions rather than him give in to a woman’s desires, interests, and intentions.
I have found there are two types of ‘gaming’ that go on. One type is honest, upfront, and straightforward … and a second type is dishonest, misleading and manipulative.
Brian wants to engage in short-term non-monogamous sex with Brenda, and he tells her that upfront, specifically, and straightforwardly. Brenda only wants to engage in long-term monogamous sex with Brian, otherwise, she does not want to engage in sex with Brian at all. If over a period of hours, days, or weeks, Brian is able to use his confident sense of seductive charm to persuade Brenda to change her mind and engage in a few weeks of short-term non-monogamous ‘casual’ sex instead of indulging in a long-term ‘boyfriend-girlfriend’ relationship, this is what I refer to as ETHICAL ‘gaming.’ Brian never lied to Brenda or misled her about his desires, interests, and intentions. He just remained patient, persistent, and persuasive.
I refer to ‘ethical gaming’ as Direct Approach Dating.
Now, let’s say another guy – Richard a.k.a. ‘Dick’ – meets Michelle. Dick just wants a weekend fling with Michelle, but Michelle makes it clear to Dick that she is looking for her next long-term boyfriend or even her future husband. Instead of Dick leaving her alone, or attempting to be persuasive like Brian, what Dick decides to do is spend a number of weeks hanging out with Michelle socially … he puts forth a great effort to establish an ’emotional bond’ with Michelle … he ‘wines and dines’ her and performs a few minor financial favors for Michelle … and then finally, Dick tells Michelle, “I think I have fallen in love with you Michelle.” Michelle (a bit naive) falls for Dick’s disingenuous and manipulative behavior hook, line, and sinker.
Michelle finally agrees to have sex with Dick. Sadly, after Dick has sex with Michelle approximately ten times, he all of the sudden just goes ‘AWOL.’ Dick does not respond to Michelle’s text messages, phone calls, or Email messages. Finally, when Michelle is able to reach Dick, he tells her without hesitation, “What we had was nice while it lasted, but I decided to move on. I don’t think we have enough in common. Besides, I was never really looking for anything too serious or too long-term.” Michelle is crushed. She feels bitter and heartbroken, and understandably so. In the long-run, Richard proved himself to be a true ‘Dick.’
This second example is what I categorize as UNETHICAL ‘gaming.’ I would not go as far as to say all forms of ‘indirect approaches’ with women are representative of ‘unethical gaming,’ but I would say that all forms of ‘unethical gaming’ fall under the ‘indirect approach’ umbrella.
** I never, ever teach men how to leave women mentally and/or emotionally ‘damaged’ after their episodes of sex with a woman **
John Leslie’s fictional character of ‘Jack’ in Talk Dirty to Me and Talk Dirty to Me, Part II was the first one to show me that ETHICAL gaming is much more effective and time efficient than UNETHICAL gaming
John Leslie’s character of the womanizing ‘Jack’ was arguably my very first “role model” for direct approach dating and ethical gaming. Neither Talk Dirty to Me or Talk Dirty to Me, Part II ever showed Jack lying to women, misleading them, and/or manipulating their emotions to get his female targets in bed. Jack was just bold, seductive, and straightforward as well as confident, persistent, and persuasive.
Blonde Female Physician (writing a bill for the doctor’s visit): “That will be $45.00 please . . .”
Jack (relaxed and smooth): “I bet you’re worth a lot more than that . . . (rises from the couch where he was seated, and moves toward the lovely doctor) … good enough for me . . . (leans to her left ear) . . . I wouldn’t pay you shit. (leans closer to her) But I bet some heavy dude (i.e., a man loaded with cash) would pay you big bucks to get in your pants. Am I right? (pause) Big bucks.”
Blonde Female Physician (feigning as if she is ‘offended’): “Do you want me to call the police?”
Jack (mocks her lightheartedly): “Nooo! (pauses and smirks) Let them wait their turn . . .”
My favorite line during this particular exchange is when Jack says, “I wouldn’t pay you shit (to fuck you).” RIGHT THERE … he establishes himself to the female physician as an Alpha male. You see, only Beta male types are quick to offer to spend money on women in exchange for their time and sexual companionship. Alpha males only offer to spend money on women in exchange for sex as an absolute last resort. Most Alpha male types never, ever offer to exchange money for sex (because they usually have so many women throwing pussy at them, that they don’t feel that they ever need to ‘pay for sex.’).
In most of the 1980s and beyond, I used to actually ‘borrow’ that line from Jack. In many of my conversations with women, my way of separating myself from Beta males would be to say something along the lines of, “I bet you have so many men offering to ‘wine and dine’ you in an attempt to get into your pants. And I bet you exploit them for every financial favor and free meal they offer you. As for me? I wouldn’t pay you shit. I can’t wait to see my dick sliding in and out of your mouth … and your pussy.” What’s the worst thing they can do … reject me? So what. At least I let those women know that I had a big pair of balls.
The THREE CHARACTERISTICS that very quickly place you in the ‘Beta’ categories
There are at least three types of behavior that will tip a woman off that you are more of a ‘Beta’ male than an ‘Alpha’ male:
- In your very first conversation with a woman, you allow yourself to engage in a lengthy degree of flattering and entertaining ‘small talk’ and ‘fluff’ talk with a woman. Alpha males always keep their ‘trivial chit chat’ to a bare minimum while in conversation with women.
- You’re quick to offer a woman a free meal, a free movie, a free concert, or some other type of ‘financial favor’ before you even know for sure if this woman is even interested in sharing your company in a romantic and/or sexual manner. Alpha males rarely if ever offer to spend money on a woman before having sex with them for the first time.
- You’re quick to offer a woman a promise or guarantee of long-term monogamy and fidelity without any hesitation, resistance or reluctance. Total Alpha males never offer women long-term monogamy, and Alpha Males with a few Beta traits will even be very slow to agree to enter into any type of long-term monogamous sexual relationship with a woman (usually, their female companion has to damn near beg them to).
Is it always better for men to be Alpha rather than Beta? Not necessarily. It depends on what your objective is. If your main objective is short-term non-monogamous ‘casual’ sex with women, being Alpha means EVERYTHING. Women have no interest in engaging in casual sex with Beta males unless they are getting paid to do so (such as a Professional Call Girl). If your main objective is to find a long-term girlfriend or future wife, then it is okay to have a ‘blend’ of Alpha qualities and Beta attributes (preferably more Alpha than Beta). You never want to allow yourself to become a Total Beta male. You will be masturbating to Internet Porn and having sex with street prostitutes for the rest of your life.
Coaching and Consultations with Alan Roger Currie
When I engage in a Skype consultation and/or Telephone consultation with a new male client … or I engage in a One-on-One / Face-to-Face Dating Coaching Session with a new male client … here is my general process of what I emphasize:
Priority #1: Helping men overcome their fear of rejection, their fear of being criticized by women, their fear of being insulted by women, and their fear of being ‘disliked’ and/or indefinitely ignored by women.
End result: My male client will be able to approach women with a higher degree of confidence and initiate a conversation with a woman with no profound fears and/or egotistical insecurities
Priority #2: Helping men overcome their invalid beliefs about women and dating, and weed out all of their ‘faulty social programming’ that causes them to engage in way too much unproductive ‘trivial small talk’ with women.
End result: My male client will feel more comfortable expressing his true romantic and/or sexual desires, interests, and intentions to women in an upfront, unapologetic, highly self-assured, specific, and straightforwardly honest manner.
Priority #3: Helping men prepare for some of the common ‘objections’ and ‘justifications for resistance’ that many women will throw at them when they exhibit Mode One Behavior.
End result: My male client will be able to feel prepared for any type of ‘resistance’ and any type of ‘ball busting and/or shit tests’ that women will throw his way during a first conversation.
Priority #4: Helping men distinguish between a ‘Reciprocator’ and a ‘Manipulative Timewaster,’ distinguish between a ‘Rejecter’ and a ‘Wholesome Pretender,’ and differentiate between a ‘Wholesome Pretender’ and a ‘Manipulative Timewaster.’
End result: My male client will be able to quickly and effectively identify a Reciprocator, a Rejecter, a Wholesome Pretender, and a Manipulative Timewaster based on their verbal reactions, their facial expressions and overall body language, and the woman’s attempts to ‘size them up’ as being either an ‘Alpha’ male or a ‘Beta’ male.
Priority #5: Helping men transform from being a ‘Total Beta Male’ and a ‘Beta Male with a small percentage of Alpha traits’ into becoming more of either a ‘Total Alpha Male’ or an ‘Alpha Male with a small percentage of Beta traits.’
End result: My male client will be able to engage in sexual relations with women without spending a significant amount of money on women, or without necessarily feeling obligated to offer a woman a promise or guarantee of long-term monogamy.
Anyone who is interested in engaging in a Skype consultation (U.S. or international), a Telephone consultation (U.S. only), or a One-on-One / Face-to-Face Dating Coaching Session with me can CLICK HERE.
Want to comment on today’s blog? CLICK HERE