Valach

Just sparking good emotions in people is a ton of social value but not much materialistic value. Some funny, charismatic guy who has not much else going on for him is just more appealing to woman than someone who may have money and cool lifestyle but is a bore. Seen it too many times.

You can go fulfill your survival needs without being manipulative or exploiting others.

What I find interesting is that your framework seems to evaluate the quality of a man's relationship with women primarily by how successful or efficient he is with them. To me, that actually hints at a subtle form of objectification. If the health of your relationship with women is measured mainly by how much attraction, sex or cooperation you get from them, then women are still being evaluated largely in terms of what they provide for you. That's still making your internal state dependent on them fulfilling your emotional or physical needs. I'd almost argue the opposite: the healthier your relationship with women becomes, the less your well-being depends on how successful you are with them. To me, genuine empathy starts when you see someone as a human being first and a woman second. Their value isn't determined by how attracted they are to you, how much validation they give you, or how efficiently the interaction goes. Those things may improve naturally, but they're no longer the metric by which you evaluate the relationship.

While some of what you say has some validity, there are definitely many many men who dislike woman and have not much of empathy for them whilst being succesfull with them.

I just want to say that, regardless of whether I agree with every opinions of yours, I really appreciate how elegantly and constructively you present your opinions. Been noticing it for some time

What do you feel would be productive?

Sorry bro but that is just such a cringe thing to say

That is fair. I was just pointing that out You could easily say a woman is manipulating by putting on a makeup or nice fit if we get down to it.

Most of what we consider "normal social skills" is essentially manipulation though. Average guy who doesn't do pickup and goes on a date say from tinder is still gonna be very manipulative.

But the men are just as immature and shallow as woman so I do not understand why we highlight it in woman?

It is a nice step, but none of this implies the people attending will be secure. That stuff just is way more complicated.

Of course, I understand that. It is frustrating a little bit nonetheless. That probably just means I have more healing to do

I think I understand your framework now, and I actually agree that your approach may well be more effective on average. I guess the question I'm left with is whether maximizing attraction should always be the objective. Imagine that expressing straightforward interest feels like the most authentic thing for someone in that moment. Even if it's slightly less effective than a more playful indirect approach, wouldn't there still be value in expressing themselves honestly rather than optimizing the interaction? At what point does authenticity become more important than optimization? This reminds me of a discussion I once had with my coach friend. We asked ourselves: Which is actually the better outcome? Going into an interaction with the goal of getting the outcome I want. Expressing myself as honestly and fully as I can, while being completely okay with whatever outcome follows—even if that means rejection. It feels like those are two fundamentally different paradigms. In the first, success is measured by whether I create attraction. In the second, success is measured by whether I acted in alignment with myself. Ironically, I suspect the second mindset often ends up being attractive anyway—but that isn't its purpose.

I feel like you just hang around this forum to troll and not to stimulate any conversations.

I think we're actually getting closer in our views. I completely agree that approaching from a playful, expressive state is very different from approaching out of validation-seeking. The only thing I'm still not sure about is whether that playfulness has to take a particular form. Imagine two equally secure, equally abundant men. One naturally enjoys teasing and gradually building tension. The other naturally enjoys being very straightforward and saying, "I thought you looked beautiful, so I wanted to come say hi," without any attachment to the outcome. Would you really see the second man as lower value, or simply as expressing the same inner security through a different personality?

Okay, but that is just your personal experience. I do not think average person gets angry upon getting complimented.

No need to apologize my man, I didn't feel like your tone was harsh at all. I think I understand your point much better now. It sounds like you're saying indirect became authentic for you rather than something you consciously adopted. What I'm still wondering is this: If another man reached the same level of self-esteem and abundance as you, but his authentic personality was simply more expressive and straightforward, would you still consider him lower value because he sometimes tells a woman directly that he finds her attractive? In other words, do you think high value necessarily leads to one style of expression, or can it manifest differently depending on the person's temperament?

@Zenterus I actually think both this post and your previous one contain a lot of valuable insights from a game perspective. You clearly have a lot of experience and have put serious thought into this. But reading them made me wonder about something a bit more fundamental. Why do we strategize, optimize and perform so much around the opposite sex in the first place? What do you think that ultimately stems from? Another thing I'm wondering about is the whole idea of projecting abundance, confidence or "high value." Isn't there a paradox there? If I genuinely feel worthy and abundant, why would I be thinking about how to appear abundant at all? It almost seems like the more concerned I am with communicating high value, the more it suggests I don't fully believe it internally. One mindset is: "I feel valuable because I have a lot of dating options, so I reinforce that image by behaving in ways I know are attractive." The other is: "I feel valuable simply because of who I am." In that case, dating becomes less about getting the other person or being perceived as high value, and more about expressing genuine attraction and seeing whether we're actually compatible. From that perspective, confidence isn't something I'm trying to project—it's just a byproduct of how I already feel about myself. Curious how you see that.

Okay fair, but I do not understand how being direct is connected to the man not being non-high value or in scarcity to say so. Like if you truly feel worthy and on her level (or even above) why would you care on how you appear? I am not dissing the post, I like it but I am confused about this type of thinking. My coach (well, he is more my friend but he is a PUA coach in my city as well) does direct as well and has no issue with that. Like I doubt Leo DiCaprio would think about whether to go direct or non direct with a woman. He would just say what he feels like saying.

I mean you can be selective while being direct or giving a compliment no? Isn't the mindset "This person looks attractive and I am coming up to find out if we vibe as well"? Many times I've gone direct and then decided not to proceed based on her personality. Me saying I find het attractive is not me saying I want her to be my girlfriend or to even go on a date with me.

That really depends on the PUA circle. Many of the men wanted to just have "options" or sex. But deep down it all comes down to wanting to feel like you are valuable and attractive.

Funny enough, the more secure I am becoming the harder I find it to date

I agree that higher stages integrate the healthy aspects of lower stages rather than rejecting them. There's nothing inherently wrong with ambition, business, social media, or building systems—those are valuable Orange capacities. My point is that what you're describing is still primarily an Orange value system. Throughout the thread the emphasis is on optimization, leverage, scaling, status, access to higher-caliber women, and maximizing results. That's a perfectly legitimate perspective, but let's call it what it is. As I've developed, I've found that I care less about whether someone is successful in one domain and more about the values they embody as a whole. Teachers don't just transmit techniques—they also transmit the worldview and priorities behind those techniques. So yes, I can absolutely learn event hosting or social media from someone like Sartain. But if their underlying philosophy revolves around optimizing status, women, and external success, I'm going to be much more selective about how much I model myself after them. Effectiveness is important, but it's no longer the only metric I use.

Yea, which are all stage orange values. That's fine, but let's call it what it is.

Which is precisely a stage orange approach that you are describing. "The end justifies the means".