The Top Pickup Artist Forum On The Internet: Fast Seduction 101

Home | 

“He‘s Just Not That Into You”

mASF post by Epsilon

<< Home ... < Relevance Matches ... "paris hilton"

“He‘s Just Not That Into You”
You can search for more articles and discussions like this on the rest of this web site.

Acronyms used in this article can be looked up on the acronyms page.  To get involved in discussions like this, you can join the mASF discussion forum at [posts in this section may be edited, but only for spelling corrections and readability]

mASF post by "Epsilon"
posted on: mASF forum: Playettes Discussion, March 3, 2005

There still seems to be some confusion around here, and a certain amount of bad
feeling too... I'm not going to get involved with the latter, but I do want to
clarify a few things.

On 3/22/05 12:40:00 PM, quitesomebody wrote:
>"be exceptionally pretty" is
>absolutely USELESS advice.

Yes, I suppose it is, in most cases. But that particular advice was never
given. The basic message was 'Be hot enough to fuck - that's the minimum we
require'. Big difference. There's a fair bit of leeway between 'has big
thighs' and 'exceptionally pretty'.

>that's the kind of SHITTY ASS
>ADVICE that ladies' magazines
>pump us full of, making us
>self-conscious and
>self-absorbed little
>self-loathing shits. AFC
>bitch girls, in other words.

I've had more exposure to women's magazines than I really would wish, and I
have to say that I'm a little confused by what you've written above. There is
certainly pressure to look like the models, wear the beauty products etc etc.
But as far as advice on getting guys goes - they generally seem to play down
looks, often to a negligible role. Or maybe they're assuming that the 50 pages
of lipstick and lingerie ads have already taken you as far as you can go
looks-wise, I don't know.

>that shit DON'T WORK. chicks
>don't actually dig it. and it
>makes the guy feel like an
>absolute wuzz in the process,
>and unless he snaps out of it
>HARD, he'll turn himself into
>a wuzz by doing it! same
>thing for chicks trying to
>'look exceptionally pretty'
>for guys.

Are you seriously suggesting that a guy who acts like a wuss has the same PU
problems as a girl who makes herself exceptionally pretty? Doesn't matter
where their advice came from, I know who is going to be getting laid more.

A better analogy would be to liken a wussy AFC guy to a fat girl who listens to
people when they say 'Some guys like big girls'. They are using bad advice as
an excuse not to change the thing which really matters (or else they are so
clueless that they genuinely believe what they are being told).

>the truth is that men want to
>think that they want physical
>perfection supermodels that
>waiters chase down the

I for one would not say no to physical perfection, provided she met my other
criteria. But no one is claiming that perfection is required.

>what they actually
>want, as demonstrated by who
>ACTUALLY gets lavished with
>the most male attention, is
>not pure absolute beauty but a
>COMBINATION of attractive
>physical traits with
>attractive body language, eye
>action, facial expression,
>attitude, and social status.
>and a couple of other factors.

Yes, fair comment. I think I speak for finalD and most other guys when I say
that would be entirely acceptable.

What wouldn't be acceptable, is attractive body language, eye action, facial
expression, attitude, and social status, but with fat thighs and a face only
her mother could love.

So, we're all agreed on that bit.

>consider, for example, the
>case of jennifer aniston.
>super hot babe, right?

Wrong. She's a hot babe, who meets the criteria for me to try and lay her.
I've gone out with girls who looked hotter than her, and I've never understood
what all the fuss was about.

>was oohed and awed over in
>friends, married brad pitt,
>constantly gets listed on or
>near the top of the hottest
>women. and yet, if you simply
>LOOK at her, divorced of all
>the details of who she is and
>who her character was on
>friends and how she carries
>herself, the girl ain't much.
>she's not ugly. far from it.
>but both her face and her body
>have definite flaws. if she
>stood around acting gawky,
>she'd be socially invisible.
>but she doesn't. jennifer
>aniston is super hot because

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say MY GIRL'S GOT FAME. For all we know,
my female housemate might have more game than ol' Jen, but you wouldn't know
it, because she doesn't have her own sitcom or film career.

In fact, I think I would prefer my housemate - they're about equal in looks,
but I've always preferred brunettes.

>same thing with paris hilton.
>my girl's a skank, but MAN
>does she have game. she was a
>heiress, living the jetset
>life and getting around with
>the jetsetters in new york,
>miami, la... she was hot, and
>did some modeling, and got a
>tv show... but outside her
>social circle, MOST people had
>NO IDEA that 'paris hilton'
>was something other than a
>hotel in france.

You've now picked the two girls that I've been saying 'What's all the fuss
about?' for years!

>and then her sex tape leaked.
>and suddenly, she's THE name.
>THE babe. the skanky babe, to
>be sure, but the babe all the

And that's game is it? If you're trying to take the attitude that we should
look at how girls can improve their game, I'm not sure that that this case
study is actually going to help much. In fact, I think that 'look
exceptionally pretty' might be more useful advice.

>she's hot, don't get me wrong.
>i'd do her. (and then sell
>the video tape to the highest
>bidder, hehe...) but she's not
>THAT hot. she's not THAT
>pretty. her eyes are too
>small for her face, she's got
>bony hips and chest, there's
>something wrong looking about
>her nose. but she's HOT.
>because she projects fucking
>sexuality like nobody's
>business, and she's created an
>IMAGE for herself that has
>lanuched her career and her
>fame in a way that nothign but
>a good scandal could do. she
>was fucking B list before,
>she's fucking A list now. in
>both senses. there are tons
>of celebs who are MUCH
>prettier than her but who are
>far less well known. think of
>all the super hot models you
>see in victoria's secret
>catalogues, for example. drop
>dead gorgeous, but who are
>they? celebrity is about
>sarging the WORLD. and my
>girl paris got GAME.

This is all very well, but where does it get us? Most of us aren't trying to
be celebs, or sleep with celebs. I've never been one to get very excited about
the lives and scandals of famous people, and the idea that a leaked sex tape is
going to make me more attracted to someone seems rather nonsensical.

If you put Paris, Jennifer, and one of those Vitoria's secret models in my
local nightclub, and all three were equally accessible, I would go for the
model first, because she is more attractive.

But this is all getting away from the original point. The women you've
mentioned would probably qualify for at least a ONS with most guys, purely on
the basis of their looks and figure. Forget the fame, the celebrity gossip,
the scandals. These girls are overall above average in looks. A guy who had
never heard of Jennifer Aniston is probably not going to feel too ashamed if he
wakes up next to her. She is already past the 'looks threshold'.

See what I'm trying to get at here? Even if you're right, even if a hot babe
can become a super hot babe through the correct application of game, it doesn't
follow that a mediocre babe can become hot by doing the same thing. It might
improve her chances slightly, but a lot of guys are still not going to want to
have sex with her, or at least feel ashamed of themselves when they do.

But then, who ever said that girls are attracted to guys that have a good inner
game. An inner game», after all, is not the same thing as a strong frame. The
world can be a fucked up place, and what you project is often what you get


Unless otherwise noted, this article is Copyright©2005 by "Epsilon" with implicit permission provided to for reproduction. Any other use is prohibited without the explicit permission of the original author.


 Learn The Skills StoreStore