<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Attainability &#8212; Real Life Examples of How it Works</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sexgodmethod.com/blog/foreplay/207/attainability-real-life-examples-of-how-it-works/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sexgodmethod.com/blog/foreplay/207/attainability-real-life-examples-of-how-it-works/</link>
	<description>Sex and dating advice for men by the author of The Sex Revolution Handbook</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 21:53:17 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Brown</title>
		<link>http://sexgodmethod.com/blog/foreplay/207/attainability-real-life-examples-of-how-it-works/comment-page-1/#comment-6520</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2007 05:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sexrevolutionblog.com/?p=207#comment-6520</guid>
		<description>My bootcamp is done, I was with Sebastian. My mind has been cleaned and I understand Attainability now. You are damn right.
I liked using some of Seb's nonverbal/playful openers though. 

You can follow my progress on the the-approach forum (Miguel).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My bootcamp is done, I was with Sebastian. My mind has been cleaned and I understand Attainability now. You are damn right.<br />
I liked using some of Seb&#8217;s nonverbal/playful openers though. </p>
<p>You can follow my progress on the the-approach forum (Miguel).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nowhere</title>
		<link>http://sexgodmethod.com/blog/foreplay/207/attainability-real-life-examples-of-how-it-works/comment-page-1/#comment-5823</link>
		<dc:creator>Nowhere</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:30:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sexrevolutionblog.com/?p=207#comment-5823</guid>
		<description>hey

Nice exchange here. My MO has been primarily indirect, but without the opinion openers, I generally open situationally and say funny things and try to get them into me that way, but for whatever reason I can't get girls to chase me consistently and also have qualify/SOI-anxiety anyway so a lot of people have been suggesting to me to try direct game, and admittedly there's a lot of inner resistance, like a resistance to having her "win the frame" or whatever if I show interest and she blows me out. At the same time right now I just want a good sex life asap and if direct isn't more solid, it's certainly more efficient. I wonder as to your thoughts on this, Dan, I know you moved from more indirect game to what you do now and I'm curious as to how you handled the transition and whether you identify with that resistance.

As for the blog entry, damn at first sight that was fucking wierd to me. I mean, it's obvious that he's into her. But I'm slowly realizing, though still think it's wierd, that girls hint (give AIs to open, IOIs to show interest, and looking at your lips and giving you that dear in headlights look when they want a kiss) whereas guys act (open, SOI, and escalate) and girl gets all passive-aggressive inside if that's not what happens. I remember one PUA explained it to me as the difference between "between throwing darts in her general direction" versus "burning your bridges and stepping up to what needs to be done" as the feminine vs. masculine ways of gaming

Some technical questions: If you in a sarge you haven't expressed sexual interest but she's not working for you either, which would you focus on? If you're not getting compliancce from requests, is that a problem of building more value or just make more requests?

I'm seriously considering taking T-A bootcamp or something sometime in the summer or fall, it depends on my financial situation. You guys definitely are producing some good, field-tested stuff these days. Loved the escalation ladder and the sex blitz.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hey</p>
<p>Nice exchange here. My MO has been primarily indirect, but without the opinion openers, I generally open situationally and say funny things and try to get them into me that way, but for whatever reason I can&#8217;t get girls to chase me consistently and also have qualify/SOI-anxiety anyway so a lot of people have been suggesting to me to try direct game, and admittedly there&#8217;s a lot of inner resistance, like a resistance to having her &#8220;win the frame&#8221; or whatever if I show interest and she blows me out. At the same time right now I just want a good sex life asap and if direct isn&#8217;t more solid, it&#8217;s certainly more efficient. I wonder as to your thoughts on this, Dan, I know you moved from more indirect game to what you do now and I&#8217;m curious as to how you handled the transition and whether you identify with that resistance.</p>
<p>As for the blog entry, damn at first sight that was fucking wierd to me. I mean, it&#8217;s obvious that he&#8217;s into her. But I&#8217;m slowly realizing, though still think it&#8217;s wierd, that girls hint (give AIs to open, IOIs to show interest, and looking at your lips and giving you that dear in headlights look when they want a kiss) whereas guys act (open, SOI, and escalate) and girl gets all passive-aggressive inside if that&#8217;s not what happens. I remember one PUA explained it to me as the difference between &#8220;between throwing darts in her general direction&#8221; versus &#8220;burning your bridges and stepping up to what needs to be done&#8221; as the feminine vs. masculine ways of gaming</p>
<p>Some technical questions: If you in a sarge you haven&#8217;t expressed sexual interest but she&#8217;s not working for you either, which would you focus on? If you&#8217;re not getting compliancce from requests, is that a problem of building more value or just make more requests?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m seriously considering taking T-A bootcamp or something sometime in the summer or fall, it depends on my financial situation. You guys definitely are producing some good, field-tested stuff these days. Loved the escalation ladder and the sex blitz.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spirit Fingers</title>
		<link>http://sexgodmethod.com/blog/foreplay/207/attainability-real-life-examples-of-how-it-works/comment-page-1/#comment-5806</link>
		<dc:creator>Spirit Fingers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:42:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sexrevolutionblog.com/?p=207#comment-5806</guid>
		<description>I have seen guys pull off indirect game well before. There are much more who do it badly, but there are some that do.

If indirect is your game and it gets you laid, then go for it all the way. My game is designed to take advantage of my main strength (sexual presence) and use that as value. But I recognize that other peoples' game can be different, and by all means use the game that takes advantage of your strengths the best.

I still feel that learning sexual skills and riding the tremendous passive value that gives you is the easiest and most effective way to get laid for a new guy. I know not everyone agrees with me, and that's fine.

Good luck with the bootcamp, bro. What company are you taking it with?

-Dan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have seen guys pull off indirect game well before. There are much more who do it badly, but there are some that do.</p>
<p>If indirect is your game and it gets you laid, then go for it all the way. My game is designed to take advantage of my main strength (sexual presence) and use that as value. But I recognize that other peoples&#8217; game can be different, and by all means use the game that takes advantage of your strengths the best.</p>
<p>I still feel that learning sexual skills and riding the tremendous passive value that gives you is the easiest and most effective way to get laid for a new guy. I know not everyone agrees with me, and that&#8217;s fine.</p>
<p>Good luck with the bootcamp, bro. What company are you taking it with?</p>
<p>-Dan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Brown</title>
		<link>http://sexgodmethod.com/blog/foreplay/207/attainability-real-life-examples-of-how-it-works/comment-page-1/#comment-5738</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:15:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sexrevolutionblog.com/?p=207#comment-5738</guid>
		<description>I'll be in Boston this weekend for my bootcamp with Khiem. 

I'll definitely try both styles. Your style for girls who give me AIs and a more Indirect style for girls who think 99 % of men live to lick their boots.

I hear you move smoother than butter and make girls melt. Youâ€™re probably completely unphazed by beauty too. Itâ€™s your way of showing higher value and indifference. I canâ€™t assume the sell on any girl like you do, yet. 

Indirect for me is not about negs, value dropping and routines. Itâ€™s just a game of cat strings and being chased. In everyday life, like in my salsa classes or parties, I get attraction and initiate kino by natural (unprepared) Indirect, not by walking to a girl, complimenting her and touching her, since that would be weird and playerish. So Indirect feels more natural to me. Donâ€™t get me wrong, I do compliment/qualify the girls, but only when theyâ€™re nice to me. In cold approaches, however, I must refine it to compensate the lack of social proof and excuses to talk.

When you approach blatantly, girls screen you like hell. Girls looking worse than my ex I dumped blow me off. You must get a lot of shit tests. But since youâ€™re the real deal, you pass the screening. Iâ€™m not the real deal. Iâ€™ve seen videos of naturals approaching that way, theyâ€™re incredibly beautiful, have superb game, and STILL get ASD and MUCHO cockblocking. Also, theyâ€™re hardly capable of stealing the frame of the women being the prize. Sometimes, I think they should do false takeaways, just to let the girl drop her automatic responses. Thereâ€™s not enough validation to gain from being approached by me to balance or outweigh the Slut Factor unless I happen to gain social proof or charge the venue or something, which is a form of Indirect anyway. 

Iâ€™d really want to see you game a HB9 or 10 on a direct approach, to see how you pull it up.

And sorry to contradict, but girls ARE attracted to gais. But since gais have 0% Attainability, they move on. However, there are stories of gais who wanted to â€œtry itâ€ with their friend and the girl accepted.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll be in Boston this weekend for my bootcamp with Khiem. </p>
<p>I&#8217;ll definitely try both styles. Your style for girls who give me AIs and a more Indirect style for girls who think 99 % of men live to lick their boots.</p>
<p>I hear you move smoother than butter and make girls melt. Youâ€™re probably completely unphazed by beauty too. Itâ€™s your way of showing higher value and indifference. I canâ€™t assume the sell on any girl like you do, yet. </p>
<p>Indirect for me is not about negs, value dropping and routines. Itâ€™s just a game of cat strings and being chased. In everyday life, like in my salsa classes or parties, I get attraction and initiate kino by natural (unprepared) Indirect, not by walking to a girl, complimenting her and touching her, since that would be weird and playerish. So Indirect feels more natural to me. Donâ€™t get me wrong, I do compliment/qualify the girls, but only when theyâ€™re nice to me. In cold approaches, however, I must refine it to compensate the lack of social proof and excuses to talk.</p>
<p>When you approach blatantly, girls screen you like hell. Girls looking worse than my ex I dumped blow me off. You must get a lot of shit tests. But since youâ€™re the real deal, you pass the screening. Iâ€™m not the real deal. Iâ€™ve seen videos of naturals approaching that way, theyâ€™re incredibly beautiful, have superb game, and STILL get ASD and MUCHO cockblocking. Also, theyâ€™re hardly capable of stealing the frame of the women being the prize. Sometimes, I think they should do false takeaways, just to let the girl drop her automatic responses. Thereâ€™s not enough validation to gain from being approached by me to balance or outweigh the Slut Factor unless I happen to gain social proof or charge the venue or something, which is a form of Indirect anyway. </p>
<p>Iâ€™d really want to see you game a HB9 or 10 on a direct approach, to see how you pull it up.</p>
<p>And sorry to contradict, but girls ARE attracted to gais. But since gais have 0% Attainability, they move on. However, there are stories of gais who wanted to â€œtry itâ€ with their friend and the girl accepted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spirit Fingers</title>
		<link>http://sexgodmethod.com/blog/foreplay/207/attainability-real-life-examples-of-how-it-works/comment-page-1/#comment-5726</link>
		<dc:creator>Spirit Fingers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2007 19:45:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sexrevolutionblog.com/?p=207#comment-5726</guid>
		<description>Hey Charlie, here's my perspective on this:

Attraction isn't created by being unavailable. Gay guys are 100% unavailable to girls...but girls aren't attracted to them. 

And, telling and showing the girl that you want her isn't bad either. For example, with 75% of my daytime openers I convey a lot of interest in the girl right off the bat. Even at night, I'm always smiling, complimenting her, facing her, touching her, etc. within 5 minutes.

This isn't too much, because even with all these things the girl will STILL doubt that you are into her if you're a man of high value. You can see this in Dolly's post...Barman Ben showed lots of signs of interest in her, but she's still not 100% sure that he's into her.

Granted, to make this work you have to have a lot of passive value. But that is the game I play, to demonstrate value through my sexual presence and vibe. It works for me, and I find it much easier than going in with her having a negative impression of you, and having to expend a lot of energy to fight against that. Better to get her attracted to you immediately, and then only have to worry about attainability and compliance.

I appreciate the discussion a lot though -- you've been one of the best contributors to the comments and your perspective is always appreciated.

Dolly--

To take things to the next level, I think you have to get him away from his job. The relationship can never become very intimate as long as there's a bar between the two of you and other customers to distract him.

Drop hints of activities you'd like to do to give him a chance to ask you out. If he doesn't pick up on this, ask him to go someplace with you and your friends. Ease him away from the group, and work your magic.

Good luck!

-Dan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Charlie, here&#8217;s my perspective on this:</p>
<p>Attraction isn&#8217;t created by being unavailable. Gay guys are 100% unavailable to girls&#8230;but girls aren&#8217;t attracted to them. </p>
<p>And, telling and showing the girl that you want her isn&#8217;t bad either. For example, with 75% of my daytime openers I convey a lot of interest in the girl right off the bat. Even at night, I&#8217;m always smiling, complimenting her, facing her, touching her, etc. within 5 minutes.</p>
<p>This isn&#8217;t too much, because even with all these things the girl will STILL doubt that you are into her if you&#8217;re a man of high value. You can see this in Dolly&#8217;s post&#8230;Barman Ben showed lots of signs of interest in her, but she&#8217;s still not 100% sure that he&#8217;s into her.</p>
<p>Granted, to make this work you have to have a lot of passive value. But that is the game I play, to demonstrate value through my sexual presence and vibe. It works for me, and I find it much easier than going in with her having a negative impression of you, and having to expend a lot of energy to fight against that. Better to get her attracted to you immediately, and then only have to worry about attainability and compliance.</p>
<p>I appreciate the discussion a lot though &#8212; you&#8217;ve been one of the best contributors to the comments and your perspective is always appreciated.</p>
<p>Dolly&#8211;</p>
<p>To take things to the next level, I think you have to get him away from his job. The relationship can never become very intimate as long as there&#8217;s a bar between the two of you and other customers to distract him.</p>
<p>Drop hints of activities you&#8217;d like to do to give him a chance to ask you out. If he doesn&#8217;t pick up on this, ask him to go someplace with you and your friends. Ease him away from the group, and work your magic.</p>
<p>Good luck!</p>
<p>-Dan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dolly D</title>
		<link>http://sexgodmethod.com/blog/foreplay/207/attainability-real-life-examples-of-how-it-works/comment-page-1/#comment-5710</link>
		<dc:creator>Dolly D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:49:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sexrevolutionblog.com/?p=207#comment-5710</guid>
		<description>Thanks for giving me hope!

The question is, how can I get to the next level with him?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for giving me hope!</p>
<p>The question is, how can I get to the next level with him?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charlie Brown</title>
		<link>http://sexgodmethod.com/blog/foreplay/207/attainability-real-life-examples-of-how-it-works/comment-page-1/#comment-5626</link>
		<dc:creator>Charlie Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:35:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sexrevolutionblog.com/?p=207#comment-5626</guid>
		<description>Some thoughts I have on Attainability after reading about other styles and field testing a little :
If you describe Attainability as entertaining a girlâ€™s fantasy that she can catch you and get you to be exclusive to her, then some girls need some Attainability and others require none, depending on their personality and emotional state. You have to calibrate and dose Attainability appropriately, like in the jealousy plotlines you explained in another post.
	
The guys you describe as too cocky like Magazine Mitch and Realtor Rick donâ€™t need to work on Attainability, itâ€™s not their real sticking point. Their flaw has been explained by Tyler Durden in a brilliant detailed post on How to Be Hard to Get. While their verbal skills are savvy and fun, their whole approach subcommunicates lower value. It doesnâ€™t matter what you say, if a girl sees you approach her upfront and work to get her attention, she WILL screen you out and wont feel attracted. She knows you want her : all potential attraction dies. 
	
Since Barman Ben is a natural with options whoâ€™s used to having chicks throwing themselves at him like Dolly does, heâ€™s congruent with a mindset that he doesnâ€™t really want to lay her. Heâ€™s dosing availability perfectly and giving much less Compliance than she does : a phone call, a song and a hug vs chasing and a story implying â€œI LOVE YOU!â€ Dolly doesnâ€™t KNOW if Barman Ben wants her : attraction is created.
	
But Attainability is UTTERLY USELESS unless the girl has been hooked and has decided that she wants you. In the early stages, too much Attainabilitywill KILL attraction. So, in a sense, Magazine Mitch and Realtor Rick have too much Attainability, they hit the â€œno-challenge switchâ€ and demonstrate lower value. The sole point of Attainability is to â€œreel her inâ€ AFTER she took the bait and hook.
	
Pick-up is an unnatural act. Youâ€™re getting out of your way to try to get booty. You may be cute and cool, but the moment you start picking up chicks without going under the radar, a blaring red alarm goes off , you subcommunicate low value to everyone in the venue, especially the girls youâ€™re talking to, and they engage auto-pilot ASD protocols. It doesnâ€™t matter if youâ€™re doing C&#38;F or trying to buy her drinks. She knows exactly what you want and you wonâ€™t convince her. I think the only way to make this work is to escalate FAST a la GWM or to have AIs, preferably both (or to have MASSIVE built-in value like a PUA aura, model looks or lots of social proof, in which case girls are almost throwing themselves at you from the start anyway).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some thoughts I have on Attainability after reading about other styles and field testing a little :<br />
If you describe Attainability as entertaining a girlâ€™s fantasy that she can catch you and get you to be exclusive to her, then some girls need some Attainability and others require none, depending on their personality and emotional state. You have to calibrate and dose Attainability appropriately, like in the jealousy plotlines you explained in another post.</p>
<p>The guys you describe as too cocky like Magazine Mitch and Realtor Rick donâ€™t need to work on Attainability, itâ€™s not their real sticking point. Their flaw has been explained by Tyler Durden in a brilliant detailed post on How to Be Hard to Get. While their verbal skills are savvy and fun, their whole approach subcommunicates lower value. It doesnâ€™t matter what you say, if a girl sees you approach her upfront and work to get her attention, she WILL screen you out and wont feel attracted. She knows you want her : all potential attraction dies. </p>
<p>Since Barman Ben is a natural with options whoâ€™s used to having chicks throwing themselves at him like Dolly does, heâ€™s congruent with a mindset that he doesnâ€™t really want to lay her. Heâ€™s dosing availability perfectly and giving much less Compliance than she does : a phone call, a song and a hug vs chasing and a story implying â€œI LOVE YOU!â€ Dolly doesnâ€™t KNOW if Barman Ben wants her : attraction is created.</p>
<p>But Attainability is UTTERLY USELESS unless the girl has been hooked and has decided that she wants you. In the early stages, too much Attainabilitywill KILL attraction. So, in a sense, Magazine Mitch and Realtor Rick have too much Attainability, they hit the â€œno-challenge switchâ€ and demonstrate lower value. The sole point of Attainability is to â€œreel her inâ€ AFTER she took the bait and hook.</p>
<p>Pick-up is an unnatural act. Youâ€™re getting out of your way to try to get booty. You may be cute and cool, but the moment you start picking up chicks without going under the radar, a blaring red alarm goes off , you subcommunicate low value to everyone in the venue, especially the girls youâ€™re talking to, and they engage auto-pilot ASD protocols. It doesnâ€™t matter if youâ€™re doing C&amp;F or trying to buy her drinks. She knows exactly what you want and you wonâ€™t convince her. I think the only way to make this work is to escalate FAST a la GWM or to have AIs, preferably both (or to have MASSIVE built-in value like a PUA aura, model looks or lots of social proof, in which case girls are almost throwing themselves at you from the start anyway).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spyre</title>
		<link>http://sexgodmethod.com/blog/foreplay/207/attainability-real-life-examples-of-how-it-works/comment-page-1/#comment-5622</link>
		<dc:creator>Spyre</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:13:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sexrevolutionblog.com/?p=207#comment-5622</guid>
		<description>Interesting analysis of Dolly's post.  Mitch is hardly 'cocky/funny' though, he's just a lame seducer-type.  "I think we should hook up" is just stupid, neither arrogant nor humorous.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting analysis of Dolly&#8217;s post.  Mitch is hardly &#8216;cocky/funny&#8217; though, he&#8217;s just a lame seducer-type.  &#8220;I think we should hook up&#8221; is just stupid, neither arrogant nor humorous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

