Post: #1

Roosh's recent article "How Many Notches Is Enough?" illustrates biased samples. Among other methods, Roosh has specialized in no-date nightgame, particularly in the U.S. and Iceland. The resulting sample of women is disproportionately populated by bar skanks. These women drink a lot, are impulsive, and flaky. They may go a long time between boyfriends, claiming to be "picky". But they are not sexual camels. Instead they have sex when drunk and horny. They offer no relationship value. They are unreliable and will forget you or flake on future dates. So Roosh's fast hit-and-run strategy is optimal for these women.

Roosh's nightgame sample excludes women who rarely hang out in bars (never alone!) and never have one-night-stands. I wonder whether a strong, aggressive approach might scare these women off, and whether a different or slower approach is ever warranted.

DC is a social circle town. There are lots of private parties where you are preselected. There are also semi-private events sponsored by embassies and art/cultural organizations where you need advance reservations to get on the list. The bar scene is small, so the women there are definitely not representative. Bars have a lot of these women:

Type 1: Has a bachelors or masters degree in humanities from a private school that gives all A's, or perhaps a law degree from a third-tier school. But she thinks she is educationally elite. Works for a nonprofit in economic development. Has strong liberal political beliefs. Likes to go to happy hours to meet up with friends.

But bars lack these women:

Type 2: Has a difficult degree and career. Was a virgin well past her teens. Due to work and school priorities, has not had much dating experience. Has conservative beliefs, but is not political.

I suspect you need to tinker with strategies for these two types. In D.C. and Iceland, Roosh heads for the bars. But in other countries he is stuck with little to do. So he approaches women with daygame. He even goes on multiple dates. I suspect this explains why he is meeting higher quality Type 2 women in Eastern Europe and South America.

By analogy, you can probably bang tons of ugly women off Craig's list on the first night. You will get slower results and higher quality off Eharmony or Christian singles. I'm not hating or recommending either approach; it depends on your objectives and target. But I would like discuss whether there is different game for different types of women.

Post: #2

Nope. I used to date Type 2 girls in grad school. They were as slutty as bar girls-if not more so, just on the sly. Plenty of SNLs and first date lays. A few were even virgins into their 20s but as soon as they hopped on the carousal they couldn't get enough. Over all very little game was required to get with these girls.

It was getting into a horrible LTR with a 23 yd who lost her virginity at 22 that lead me to this site in the first place. If I'd had the wisdom from Roosh and Roissy it likely would have gone down a lot differently.

Post: #3

You can very easily day game in North America, and all the countries Roosh mentioned have nightlife, too... Every country has "good girls," "sluts," and "goody two-shoes girls who are actually sluts." Some places just have different proportions of these, or even the sluts are comparatively feminine and dependent on men (leading them to act sweet and have game -per Tuth's recent RoK piece.)

Post: #4

AWALT.

Post: #5

My bangs come from all over the place, day, night, bar, club, cafe, street. They are not all ONS. I go on quite a bit of dates.

The city I've been on the most amount of dates in my life is Washington DC.

Post: #6

(03-14-2013 06:08 PM)Divorco Wrote:  The resulting sample of women is disproportionately populated by bar skanks. These women drink a lot, are impulsive, and flaky.

You think the girls with harvard jds working at skadden aren't taking dick after partying in Hollywood clubs?

Post: #7

I think OP still suffers from some blue pill beliefs that there are "goodies that don't drink" basically that you can "filter" for good catches. Women are entirely random. His posts have become much more red lately, this seems like a small step back relative to his "These bitches created this environment" post.

Anyway with that said, the only critique I have of the bang books is it really is difficult to get to know a city in 3 months. No knock on Roosh he does a great job with those 90 days, but some places do take longer to get the full benefits. In particular, I'd be interested in seeing someone do a full year in Argentina, you'd be engraved in some sort of niche social circle by then.

End of the day though the analysis isn't flawed in terms of girls being better abroad. Guys who have spent more than 6 months out there know this.

Ha and yes at MikeCF's comment, for fun for you guys, My first ONS was a Stanford MBA student who worked for 3 years at BCG.

Post: #8

(03-14-2013 10:12 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  I think OP still suffers from some blue pill beliefs that there are "goodies that don't drink" basically that you can "filter" for good catches. Women are entirely random. His posts have become much more red lately, this seems like a small step back relative to his "These bitches created this environment" post.

Yeah.

OP thinks he's the only guy with a little pocket money and an education/association with "elite" crowds.

I've been around and girls are girls. The main difference is in discretion. The "classier" girls are bigger about keeping up appearances and may not grind with you when her friends are watching/will be careful about not seeing you get into a cab together.

But they are all the same. They want to party, have fun, and take good dick.

Post: #9

I fucked a Harvard Med student, same night lay, raw dog, in her apartment, with her bf's pictures looking over us. She was Asian, and now she's doing residency with my old doctor roommate...

Post: #10

bitches be scaaaaaaaandalous

Post: #11

(03-14-2013 10:09 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 06:08 PM)Divorco Wrote:  The resulting sample of women is disproportionately populated by bar skanks. These women drink a lot, are impulsive, and flaky.

You think the girls with harvard jds working at skadden aren't taking dick after partying in Hollywood clubs?

No, they're not. Harvard JDs working at Skadden aren't attractive enough to get in to Hollywood clubs. Change that to UVA girls working at Proskauer Rose and maybe we're closer to truth.

Post: #12

(03-15-2013 11:02 PM)lurker Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 10:09 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(03-14-2013 06:08 PM)Divorco Wrote:  The resulting sample of women is disproportionately populated by bar skanks. These women drink a lot, are impulsive, and flaky.

You think the girls with harvard jds working at skadden aren't taking dick after partying in Hollywood clubs?

No, they're not. Harvard JDs working at Skadden aren't attractive enough to get in to Hollywood clubs. Change that to UVA girls working at Proskauer Rose and maybe we're closer to truth.

Game tip. Adding "nuance" where none is required (since the underlying point stands) doesn't make you seem smart; it just makes you annoying and socially inept.

Post: #13

So now that we're at two Harvard examples, I'll throw Kennedy School of Government and the School of Education into the ring as well.

Agreed with all other points. The level of discretion changes with one's credentials; the underlying behavior does not.

(03-15-2013 12:29 PM)Samseau Wrote:  I fucked a Harvard Med student, same night lay, raw dog, in her apartment, with her bf's pictures looking over us. She was Asian, and now she's doing residency with my old doctor roommate...

Post: #14

The OP is kinda out there. Roosh's figures were obviously heavy estimates based on experience rather than exact data. They are there as a rough guide. To try and break it down is to miss the point.

Post: #15

(03-16-2013 01:23 PM)Vicious Wrote:  The OP is kinda out there. Roosh's figures were obviously heavy estimates based on experience rather than exact data. They are there as a rough guide. To try and break it down is to miss the point.

OP's first rep point is that he is not a troll.

He came in and looked like a troll to me and others, so el mech (who knows him) vouched for him.

He's just "blue pill" still, I guess, and is more concerned with uniting with feminists on the serious problem of rape in the U.S. and with debunking our view that far too many men are falsely accused of rape than in meeting women.

Not a troll, maybe, but definitely not a cool guy, either!

Post: #16

From: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2011/12/1...universal/

Quote:Equivalently, game, when executed with unforced grace and contextual refinement, arouses all kinds of women, from lawyers to nurses to teachers to SAHMs to foreigners to SWPLs to skanks to HR drones.

As this reader’s story demonstrates, not only is game effective on all types of women beyond the mythological bar slut, game is effective on family members! If you include sales and management (business or social circle) as a form of game, then you could argue that game is effective on men as well.

I don't know why this cliche about only meeting bar skanks by using game is so common. Does anyone honestly believe there are some precious "good girls" who never go out drinking, never use any drugs, stay virgins until marriage, and spend their nights at home knitting and cleaning? Clearly if you run game outside of bars and clubs you should be knee deep in them.

Does anyone believe these angelic creatures can sniff out a great guy and like him for who he is on the inside, rather than being attracted to traditional markers of status and success?

Get out of dreamland. All women are flawed and have a certain degree of that "bar skank" inside of them.

Post: #17

Aye. It's all a matter of how much they show it. The molly/weed/booze promiscuous party girl, the higher class doctor or lawyer chick, the small town church girl cashier, the college student, are all women, and all want to be fucked. The only difference is their level of discretion, which is tied to their social circle, place in life, and background. Consequently, one is obliged to calibrate one's game somewhat to the target so classier girls aren't scared off and more forward girls aren't bored.

Post: #18

(03-14-2013 06:08 PM)Divorco Wrote:  Roosh's recent article "How Many Notches Is Enough?" illustrates biased samples. Among other methods, Roosh has specialized in no-date nightgame, particularly in the U.S. and Iceland. The resulting sample of women is disproportionately populated by bar skanks. These women drink a lot, are impulsive, and flaky. They may go a long time between boyfriends, claiming to be "picky". But they are not sexual camels. Instead they have sex when drunk and horny. They offer no relationship value. They are unreliable and will forget you or flake on future dates. So Roosh's fast hit-and-run strategy is optimal for these women.

Roosh's nightgame sample excludes women who rarely hang out in bars (never alone!) and never have one-night-stands. I wonder whether a strong, aggressive approach might scare these women off, and whether a different or slower approach is ever warranted.

DC is a social circle town. There are lots of private parties where you are preselected. There are also semi-private events sponsored by embassies and art/cultural organizations where you need advance reservations to get on the list. The bar scene is small, so the women there are definitely not representative. Bars have a lot of these women:

Type 1: Has a bachelors or masters degree in humanities from a private school that gives all A's, or perhaps a law degree from a third-tier school. But she thinks she is educationally elite. Works for a nonprofit in economic development. Has strong liberal political beliefs. Likes to go to happy hours to meet up with friends.

But bars lack these women:

Type 2: Has a difficult degree and career. Was a virgin well past her teens. Due to work and school priorities, has not had much dating experience. Has conservative beliefs, but is not political.

I suspect you need to tinker with strategies for these two types. In D.C. and Iceland, Roosh heads for the bars. But in other countries he is stuck with little to do. So he approaches women with daygame. He even goes on multiple dates. I suspect this explains why he is meeting higher quality Type 2 women in Eastern Europe and South America.

By analogy, you can probably bang tons of ugly women off Craig's list on the first night. You will get slower results and higher quality off Eharmony or Christian singles. I'm not hating or recommending either approach; it depends on your objectives and target. But I would like discuss whether there is different game for different types of women.

Look, you can keep telling yourself Roosh hasn't done this, or Roosh didn't do it that way, and that's why he gets the results he gets, but that's lame.

Even though Roosh's method of game is not for me, his ideas are inspiring, and because of that, I am inspired to keep concepts he shares, and others on this forum share, in mind when conducting my own approaches and adventures with women. What I'm trying to say is, you can tell yourself "WELL ROOSH IS BIASED" but that's going to hold you back, and as far as I'm concerned, that's going to be the variable you'll cling to when you fail with higher-tier or lower-tier women.

Even if Roosh does have a bias or not, that's besides the point, the point is that Roosh inspires me, and other gentlemen to go out on our own and do our own approaches and see for ourselves.

Do you think scientists refused to explore evolution further because Darwin had some holes in his theories, or bias in his ideas? No, they said "That's interesting, I'd like to understand more" and they would conduct their own methods to build upon or refute evolution. You can cling to a bias and try to get people to reinforce your belief by asking if said bias exists, but until you have conducted extensive fieldwork on your own, sitting on the sidelines preaching "there's a bias so I refuse to explore further!" just makes you lame.

Post: #19

The op suffers from an inability to disengage his logical mind from interactions with women. In addition he's in a tough spot, sounds like he is older so he has to take advice from younger guys and in addition swallow the red pill knowing the past 30+ years were wrong.

That's a tough pill to swallow.

I'm more optimistic than most and believe this is doable, but you're going to see him flip back and forth between blue posts like this and red posts like a few other ones. Hopefully he gets it sooner than later as time is your worst enemy. You can't get it back.

The older you are, the harder it is to disengage your previous belief system, stay watery my friends. That's the only way to stay at this long-term.

The media has done a great job making a community like this seem like a bunch of losers, the truth is that is nonsense. There is no bias. Women are the same. Make her feel good, her legs will open, we're all apes.

If you don't change a major part of your belief system annually, you will struggle

You're dead at that point.

Post: #20

Divorco, have to agree with westcoast at this point. We've talked about this many times.

Another recurring theme is your obsession with girls that have degrees from prestigious colleges. I'm starting to see similarities with these chicks that have an 115 point check list when they have hit the wall. Not saying you hit the wall but it's just not realistic. A girl in her 30s who isn't promiscuous (never had a "slut" phase) and has the educational pedigree you desire doesn't exist. Even if you separated one or the other that person would be rare indeed. This obsession with labels reminds me of guys that want to date a girl with a beauty queen title even though it was 20 yrs ago or a girl that wants to date a guy that drives a certain type of car. It's just silly IMO. Why limit yourself and your happiness because some bitch didn't graduate magna cum laude?

Post: #21

^ I don't know why that's so important either. If some girl told me she was going for a doctorate blah blah at school blah blah I would cringe. I couldn't imagine them being any fun or spontaneous. No worries because you wont be meeting any where I live.

I say go the opposite. I need some food and head not a law degree to stimulate my intellect. Also am a firm believer in dating polar opposites if you're in for the long haul. You, highly educated, great job, house..Her, works at taco bell, highschool diploma, broken english, cooks like a champ.

Post: #22

Divorco, you're an older guy?

Go here, immediately:

http://www.drlife.com

There is no point having cash but having low testosterone, saggy skin, and bad overall health.

Your posts reek of beta, so you're probably giving off a "low testosterone vibe" in real life, too.

Once a doc starts shooting 250 mgs of test into your shoulder every week, you'll be a new man in 8 weeks. Women will even start noticing you after a few weeks, as your phermones will have changed.

Money can't buy you time but it can mitigate some of the worse effects of growing older and can help you make the best of your remaining time.

I realize you're a conventional guy and wont listen to me.

Ask around. Your peers are doing it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...-edge.html

Post: #23

(03-16-2013 05:49 PM)Fisto Wrote:  A girl in her 30s who isn't promiscuous (never had a "slut" phase) and has the educational pedigree you desire doesn't exist.

I agree with your main point.

But my last two gf's were extremely well-educated and chaste. In general, I have a better chance with hot women if they are educated. But maybe it's just my attitude. I think "you need me more than I need you". Anyway, my companion when we last had lunch did not attend college. I've worked on broadening my market.

I think my original point has validity. Slutty, vapid women are overrepresented in bars and one-night-stands. But on reflection, I don't think there is a big difference in gaming women. The same attitude and logistics are universally effective.

Fisto Wrote:obsession with girls that have degrees from prestigious colleges.

For this secondary point, I see a lot of criticism of 29-year-old bartender/students with no accomplishments. And I agree that a 30-something woman with fading looks, student loans, and no career is a potential albatross around your neck. So yes, I respect a woman with more degrees than sexual partners.

Post: #24

(03-17-2013 04:47 PM)Divorco Wrote:  For this secondary point, I see a lot of criticism of 29-year-old bartender/students with no accomplishments. And I agree that a 30-something woman with fading looks, student loans, and no career is a potential albatross around your neck. So yes, I respect a woman with more degrees than sexual partners.

I don't. Fancy degrees can mean that someone is smart, worked hard and overcame obstacles or it can mean that someone was born to the right parents, had the proper guidance in negotiating the education and managed to get into the right networks. Having known plenty of people with elite degrees, I will say that most are smart, but so what? Lots of people are smart. Show me someone who started lower on the ladder than they started and that's what I respect.

Post: #25

(03-17-2013 04:47 PM)Divorco Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 05:49 PM)Fisto Wrote:  A girl in her 30s who isn't promiscuous (never had a "slut" phase) and has the educational pedigree you desire doesn't exist.

I agree with your main point.

But my last two gf's were extremely well-educated and chaste. In general, I have a better chance with hot women if they are educated. But maybe it's just my attitude. I think "you need me more than I need you". Anyway, my companion when we last had lunch did not attend college. I've worked on broadening my market.

I think my original point has validity. Slutty, vapid women are overrepresented in bars and one-night-stands. But on reflection, I don't think there is a big difference in gaming women. The same attitude and logistics are universally effective.

Fisto Wrote:obsession with girls that have degrees from prestigious colleges.

For this secondary point, I see a lot of criticism of 29-year-old bartender/students with no accomplishments. And I agree that a 30-something woman with fading looks, student loans, and no career is a potential albatross around your neck. So yes, I respect a woman with more degrees than sexual partners.

The saga continues.

There is nothing anyone is going to type on here that will change this, Divorco will have to learn on his own.

We are asking a man whose entire life, the successful parts, have been rank file logical conclusions and they have all led him to financial success and somehow we're supposed to tell him his logical assumptions are in fact wrong? How can you free a man whose mind is what is holding him back? You can't.

We're asking him to take advice from people whom he has already been taught to believe are "lower" than him and this is what he has learned and has had massive success from the blue life. Disengaging his mind will take FIVE + YEARS if i were to wager money on it.

The main takeaway from this entire thread is what part of your belief system is actually false?

It is not what we don't know that hurts us. It is what we hold dear to our hearts that actually isn't so.

His typing style is like reading an algorithm, you're going to tell him his algorithm is wrong. He has to see it himself.