Taking The Red Pill above all exposes us to the darkness of the human condition.  Blue pilled by fantasy narratives about love, relationships and sexuality, we face an increasingly complex set of rules, concepts and principles on which to found our sexual strategy.

But reflecting on the foundational dimension of sexuality itself, I find it hard to believe any of this should be as complicated as its been made.  Sexual expression and competition is alive and well in all species.  It precedes modern society, civilization and even human intelligence.    

Paul Janka is a pickup artist popularized by his appearance on the Dr. Phil Show, where his frame was tested against accusations of misogyny and dark triadism (as if it were universally bad).  He had some advantages SMV-wise with a 6’ + lean body, a relatively handsome face and a stubble beard but as we know sexual strategy can prevail over physical limitations.  He was a NYC day gamer who kept a spreadsheet of his lays with contacts, some notes and other relevant content.  

As creepy as keeping a spreadsheet may sound, it sheds light on a dimension of game we hardly take to heart, which can help us tremendously.  We miss it due to assumptions we make about game taken from assumptions that hold true in other aspects of our lives. 

​

Simplicity

Above all Paul Janka made getting laid simple, exploiting many pressure points of the female psyche we’ve come to know.  His approach to women was outrageously systematic, short and low cognitive load.  He would walk around New York scouting potential sets, approach with eye contact, and conduct basic BASIC game: “Hi how are you”. “Where are you from, how long are you here, what do you do” some very light compliment of something they’re wearing, their looks, something interesting about them “I love your earrings, very cute”. “I love your hair very rich color” “You have an Eastern European look, very sexy”, “You’re cute nice sunglasses" etc, very light low tier kino like touching the shoulder, back of the hand on the stomach a playful nudge, maybe a little something about him no more than one detail and go right for a number close with the catch line "how about a drink sometime.”  His delivery was casual, open, relaxed, value adding, observational and simple.  The crux of the delivery was making everything seem (1) normal (2) friendly (3) relaxed and (4) optimistic.  In essence his strategy wasn’t about any complicated drawn out development of attraction, rapport, no manipulation, no negging, no qualifying, no validation stripping, no gimmicky indirect openings clearly disguising sexual intensions, just some plain old 30-60 second flirty networking and number closing.

After maybe 5-10 number closes which can happen pretty quickly with 30-60 second opens, he’d text them within 2 hours of meeting if they’d be down for drinks tonight, some less than intermediate game, invite home to escalate and boom.  

​

​

What’s the deal with Seduction anyway

If you’ve ever read Seduction by Robert Greene, in his first chapter he discusses how seduction evolved as a result of victorian era romantic narratives that made love and seduction a game to be played.  Remember guys, the concept of consensual seduction and non-arranged marriage are relatively new to the human condition.  Before this, women were arranged as property to be married off to men of similar social status in their little pre-modern communities.  For long before Victorian era, marriage and rape were the order of the day when it came to sexual strategy because neither were presided over by the court of law.  That’s not good, obviously.  Its immoral, forces bad bad relationships, causes trauma and violates basic human rights. But before the dawn of seduction and romance, men were focussed on their purpose, war, providing for their families and competing amongst themselves.

Seduction is not a male phenomena.  It's a practice of applied psychology designed around the female psyche in order to manipulate/persuade them into genuinely wanting to sleep with a man.  All the sophistry, showiness and theater of the seductive process is agonizing and deep down, and I hope you agree, you wish you didn’t have to do it.  Life would be easier if you didn’t have to psychopathically sell yourself as a proper suitor, bowing to the complexities of “understanding women”, their emotions, their insecurities, the fundamental sexual psychology that trigger women to become attracted. I'd rather just focus on building SMV and the women would just come and wink wink so would I.  To an extent with decent game and high SMV that’s true, and there's no complaining about what we have to do.  It can be fun. But above all else we wish it were simpler.  

​

This change represented a seismic shift in the sexual dynamic between men and women from phallocentric to gynocentric.  When all is said and done, seduction is all about how men should act, speak and play their cards strategically to make women like them. As a result, they make the rules, they keep the gate and they run the show while doing little to none of the boots on the ground work.  

​

Why Paul’s Strategy is Refreshing

What’s refreshing about Paul’s strategy? It was rudimentary and direct to what we’re after.  Sex.  No fluffy attraction triggering, insecurity digging, urgency developing, excitement inducing, emotional stimulating, drama inducing, emotional rollercoastering mind game bullshit that women need to get turned on.  Direct, administrative, efficient and by extension, masculine in its simplicity.  He came forward with a good initial SMV read, and exerted a refreshing, unemposing, low effort masculine frame. Paul operates from a phallocentric frame. Emotionally stable, confident, and not "entitled", but with dignity for what he wants from it all.  

​

Ok What Now

Try adopting a stripped down practical and mental approach to women.  Go about your life and game women only as long as your activity produces potential opportunity with them.  We can get out of our emotions, insecurities, ego attachment, neurotically complex understanding of game and sexual dynamics and rely on two truths:  

​

Women love a man who’s comfortable approaching, comfortable carrying a simple man to woman conversation, getting to the point and making no mistakes

Paul was clear that his intent was open to sexual development.  But most importantly by keeping it short he eliminated time to screw up.  Women are mentally wired to make you screw up, test you and set traps, because it's against their nature to facilitate and domineer the sexual process.  They don’t choose and seduce men, they’re passive and allow themselves to be seduced by the men who do the right things and don’t mess up.  But a strike against is far worse than a point in your favor.  Women will give any guy a chance who hasn’t fallen into her no category, so keep your head above water and tread water confidently.  If anything the less you do and the simpler you make it, you demonstrate that you don’t really need to put much effort into your obvious goal (sex).   A simple, optimistic and calm approach says women typically fall for this lounge act, I’m sure of it. A simple approach is less work for us.  A simple approach shows low neediness, high internal value and focus on your purpose.  You don’t have the neediness to game for too long, you don’t have the insecurity to try too hard, and you honestly just don’t have the time.  

​

Women love mystery

If you open and number close well, you’ll be in her yes category.  Assuming your SMV is at least above average and you made no mistakes, that puts you way above tons of guys.  Women hate unfinished business because they’re all about opportunity.  A potential high value male neither fucked nor rejected eats them alive because they always want validation to fill their esteem balloon full of hot air and it dissipates.  They want to rule you out or get it good.  But theres plenty of validation out there so move quickly and get to logistics. That's where the magic happens.

​

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmYT6qlyIws