Post: #1

Hello, fellow newbs. Do you sometimes use online dating, like I do? Do you sometimes struggle with those girls who seem really into you on a date, but then nothing happens, and you text her later and don't hear from her again?

Do you wonder..."But XPQ22! We're about a half-hour in, and I'm not sure what to do. The conversation is going really well, and we're on our second drink...but I'm far away from home territory, with poor logistics. How do I know what to do? Should I kiss her? Should I ask her if she wants a ride home? Is she simply a serial-dater, here to have me entertain her, and waste my time?"

Are you feeling dismayed? Disappointed? Without self-confidence? Unsure of your value as a man? Willing to throw yourself around and run your tightest game on the next online hoe who deigns to give you a whiff of possible pussy?

Sadly, these are all at least secondary goals of the average serial-dating Internet hoe.

But never fear. I'm here to help with these all-important questions.

So here are some facts. There are two primary types of hoe you're gonna meet up with IRL after you exchange a few texts on Tinder:

A) hoes who are "with it"

B) hoes who are not "with it"

(Keep in mind that they are indeed all hoes, and are almost certainly letting at least one other guy choke her while he fucks her regularly and then kicks her out of his place while they're playing little miss sweet introvert "I feel uncomfortable meeting new people" like they're brand new on your date. Because I've been that guy. But I digress.)

Your mission, if you choose to accept it: give Category "A" the opportunity to experience the full might of your flow.

Ensure Category "B" will be left standing alone in the rain outside the bar after about 45 minutes, wondering why that handsome, charming young man they were just chatting with, who seemed like he was good for endless hours of orbiting and validation, never came back from the bathroom.

Now, I've been on a good amount of Internet dates, and what I know is that these serial-daters can be pretty crafty. The truth is it's very difficult to judge legitimate interest from text messages. Hoes who aren't with it, and are going on dates at 8 pm to enjoy a few hours of entertainment before they bounce to Chad Thundercock's place for their weekly rape-fantasy roleplay session are pretty good at giving impressions; they're like stealth bombers. They'll rapidly mold themselves to your flow via text and text you whatever they think you want to hear, be whatever you want them to be, and come in under your radar in their mission to obtain that validation.

You really can't tell shit about a chick from how enthusiastic or not enthusiastic she seems via text.

The solution is fairly simple, and has of course been mentioned by others on the forum before: you need to engage in physical escalation a soon as possible. I'm just giving my own spin on it here. Are you going for the bar makeout? Nah, don't do that. You'll turn off some "Category A" hoes who are with it, but aren't big into PDA. They might gladly suck your dick in your car in private, though.

Most "Category Bs" have a severe weakness in their armor, though: they absolutely cannot tolerate physical escalation of any type. They'll chat with you, they can tell you all sorts of nice things, they can give you interesting conversation, they can text you like they're really interested in your life, but the moment "push comes to shove" in the real world, they finally have no ability to fake around their true disinterest. It's a visceral, automatic reaction, like the doctor's hammer against the kneecap.

So at the end of the day, the process of ejecting the timewasters rapidly is very straightforward and requires only the barest minimum of "escalation." At about 30-45 minutes into the date (if she hasn't left immediately, of course), she's had one drink and she's still talking with you, laughing, and looking at you when you talk instead of her phone, at an appropriate juncture all you have to do is laugh at something she says, lean towards her personal space, and take her hands in yours. It doesn't actually matter if you don't feel the timing is quite right, or it feels a little "awkward." Just gather up your courage, do it, and don't ask.

As I said, her reaction will be immediate, visceral, unconscious, and unable to fake. It will pretty much go one of two ways: she'll lean in likewise and accept it, or she'll lean back and seem like she's pulling away. Just watch how she responds and trust your instincts on how you think it played out. They'll be right.

If it goes the second case, start thinking about how badly that beer made you have to pee, and planning your exit. You'll never bang her - I can guarantee it.

Update later on what to do in the first case. But the takeaway should be that if she likes your pictures and profile enough to take the time to meet up, and she likes your personality, look, and game during the IRL meet enough to stay for ~45 minutes, there is absolutely no good reason for her to draw away at that first minor step in physical escalation. None whatsoever. Cut your losses early, she's wasting your time.

Post: #2

(09-24-2016 12:58 AM)XPQ22 Wrote:  If it goes the second case, start thinking about how badly that beer made you have to pee, and planning your exit. You'll never bang her - I can guarantee it.

Isn't that the truth.

If I had just read this one post years ago and took it to heart, I would've avoided the worst timewaster in my life ever. Take heed of this post boys. It will save your life.

Post: #3

If a chick online wants to chat/message/IM for ages but avoids a meet up, then they probably have a husband/boyfriend or are fat and ugly and not like the pics online.
There are a lot of validation seeking hoes out there using online dating as an interactive romance novel.

After a brief period of comfort building and messaging you should push for a date, if she wont go, then just say "contact me again when you are ready to meet up" and ghost

Also remember the three date Kate rule.

No bang by date three you are wasting your time.

Post: #4

(09-24-2016 12:58 AM)XPQ22 Wrote:  So at the end of the day, the process of ejecting the timewasters rapidly is very straightforward and requires only the barest minimum of "escalation." At about 30-45 minutes into the date (if she hasn't left immediately, of course), she's had one drink and she's still talking with you, laughing, and looking at you when you talk instead of her phone, at an appropriate juncture all you have to do is laugh at something she says, lean towards her personal space, and take her hands in yours. It doesn't actually matter if you don't feel the timing is quite right, or it feels a little "awkward." Just gather up your courage, do it, and don't ask.

This is the God's honest truth my friend. I'll do something similar early on before the first drink is finished. I crack a joke and take hold of her hand while feigning indignation at her response. If she's receptive Ill go for the second round and escalate with abandon, if not Ill usually call it.

Post: #5

(09-25-2016 12:16 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  If a chick online wants to chat/message/IM for ages but avoids a meet up, then they probably have a husband/boyfriend or are fat and ugly and not like the pics online.
There are a lot of validation seeking hoes out there using online dating as an interactive romance novel.

After a brief period of comfort building and messaging you should push for a date, if she wont go, then just say "contact me again when you are ready to meet up" and ghost

Also remember the three date Kate rule.

No bang by date three you are wasting your time.

If any guy on the forum has gone on three dates, over say a week or two, with an Internet girl where there was a steady progression towards sex that ended in getting the bang, I'd like to hear the story.

I've never gotten the bang with a girl I went on three dates with first. The funny thing was there was that one girl earlier this year I never got laid with from online who was a "three date Kate" in reverse: The first date she was really into me and gave me a BJ in her apartment but then extreme LMR, second date she invited me home again but told me she "felt a little bad" about what happened and not much went down (even though there was little reason to, as I thought my post first night "comfort" text game was pretty solid), third date she was sitting six feet away from me at the bar like she was a serial dater on the first time out, then gone.

It's all gone topsy-turvy! It's second date or (and?) bust!

One of the girls I saw regularly who was really introverted would joke with me: "Oh yeah I went on this date with this weird guy who took my hands in the bar and I was like 'Eek! People touching me, I'm not used to this...'"

Me: "But you didn't pull away."

Her: "Of course not! I liked you. I'm not really used to moving that fast, but I understand that attraction isn't always going to be comfortable..." (her words verbatim)

Exactly, exactly.

Post: #6

(09-25-2016 07:33 AM)XPQ22 Wrote:  If any guy on the forum has gone on three dates, over say a week or two, with an Internet girl where there was a steady progression towards sex that ended in getting the bang, I'd like to hear the story.

This is my M.O. and I've accomplished it a bunch of times. Frankly I've always thought the first date bang obsession here is a little silly as it can scare off girls who aren't complete sluts. The longer game can absolutely work.

Also, for what it's worth, my experience is totally opposite of what you describe in your original post. Girls always react positively when I go for physical escalation, but I still get ultimately rejected by plenty of girls who appeared to enjoy my advances. Though to be fair, I don't bother escalating if she acts cold and uninterested to begin with.

On the other hand, I've found that enthusiasm over text, which you say doesn't mean shit in your experience, is a near-perfect predictor of whether the girl is worthwhile.

I'm guessing a lot of this depends on the type of girl you go after. I tend toward smart and introverted girls. Maybe they're a bit affection-starved and like being touched even by a guy they're not super into. Also this personality type has difficulty feigning enthusiasm (or doesn't see any reason to), which would explain the text thing.

Post: #7

^ Interesting. It's possible that I live in a area with a larger population of "entertainment daters" than you do. Would you say the women in your area are more "traditional", or are you in the Northeast or Cali?

I should clarify about what I meant about "not meaning shit." Most of the girls I banged were enthusiastic via text. And there were just as many who had similar levels of enthusiasm, only to show up and sit six feet away from me and avoid any impression that our meet was anything vaguely resembling a romantic encounter.

I'm not arrogant enough to think that every girl I met with who I didn't bang was just a serial-dater; I'm sure some of them simply just didn't like me in person. But I did get the impression with most of those that they were simply killing time, and a second meet, much less a lay, was never on the table no matter what I said or did. I remember one occasion I could tell the girl wasn't into me, and I tried to bring the date to a close early. She suddenly got a look of panic on her face and said "No, no! Not yet. I promised myself that our date would last until at least 10!"

Another girl actually had a date-timer. I'm in the middle of a sentence exactly one hour in, and her phone's alarm starts beeping - she pulled it out and silenced it (I could see that it definitely was the clock/stopwatch app), then tried to continue on like this was the most normal thing in the world.

I think girls who don't like your look or personality, but are otherwise actually on the hunt for a guy to bang, will usually proactively eject themselves early. I had a couple of very short dates where she just excused herself after one drink. One wasn't more than about 10 minutes.

There were a few times where I never found a good opportunity to escalate, but for whatever reason I felt bad about ejecting early on particular girl. I noticed timewaster girls all seemed to have the same notion of how long a good "entertainment date" should last: about an hour and a half. You can nearly set your watch by it.

Quote:Frankly I've always thought the first date bang obsession here is a little silly as it can scare off girls who aren't complete sluts. The longer game can absolutely work.

I mean, if she's very cute I'm certainly OK with running a longer game on her. But at least around here I simply haven't found a reliable method that will keep a girl coming back multiple times without having had sex. Escalate, don't escalate, escalate a little bit and pull back, whatever, your Monday morning text simply isn't going to be returned.

Post: #8

(09-26-2016 12:03 AM)XPQ22 Wrote:  " only to show up and sit six feet away from me"

1) You shouldn't be sitting. You can be more dynamic standing. Best is if she is sitting in a high chair and you are standing. Best opportunity to escalate physically.

2) Monday morning text? I would never text so soon after a date. Maybe Thursday if I was bored.

3) you need to set up the second date while on the first. Find something she wants to do. "Hey girl. Let's go to that art expo friday." Sitting in a bar for a second date is boring.

Post: #9

(09-26-2016 12:03 AM)XPQ22 Wrote:  ^ Interesting. It's possible that I live in a area with a larger population of "entertainment daters" than you do. Would you say the women in your area are more "traditional", or are you in the Northeast or Cali?

I live in the northeast, but I'm far more selective with who I meet than most guys on here. I've met in the ballpark of 50 girls from online, and not a single one had a visible tattoo. And I avoid girls with thousand cock stare selfies even if they're hot. So the type of girl I believe I could get along with tends to be more traditional.

Quote:I think girls who don't like your look or personality, but are otherwise actually on the hunt for a guy to bang, will usually proactively eject themselves early. I had a couple of very short dates where she just excused herself after one drink. One wasn't more than about 10 minutes.

Another thing I've never experienced is early ejection. If someone suggests bouncing within an hour and a half, it's me 100% of the time. I can't tell you how many 2-4 hour dates I've had where the girl ended up not liking me enough for another round (before I started actively avoiding such marathon dates).

Quote:I mean, if she's very cute I'm certainly OK with running a longer game on her. But at least around here I simply haven't found a reliable method that will keep a girl coming back multiple times without having had sex. Escalate, don't escalate, escalate a little bit and pull back, whatever, your Monday morning text simply isn't going to be returned.

Nothing is ever reliable in this endeavor. The question is, would you rather err on the side of letting some impulsive sluts slip away, or putting off relationship-material girls?

I know some guys here believe you can never be too bold, but I disagree. You should absolutely be more aggressive than you're naturally inclined to be, but there does come a point when you just look pushy and thirsty to any girl you'd want to keep around.

Post: #10

(09-26-2016 06:01 PM)Delta Wrote:  I know some guys here believe you can never be too bold, but I disagree. You should absolutely be more aggressive than you're naturally inclined to be, but there does come a point when you just look pushy and thirsty to any girl you'd want to keep around.

At what point does not being thirsty manifest as indifference and asexuality? At what point does "wait for it" manifest as supplication and attempting to buy into her frame and "negotiate attraction", which can't really be negotiated?

I'm not trying to troll here, I think these are legitimate and important questions.

But what I'm getting at is that if you honestly can't take her hands in yours ~45 minutes into the first date without her recoiling, none of these questions matter. Whatever it is, it ain't there and never will be.

Quote:Another thing I've never experienced is early ejection. If someone suggests bouncing within an hour and a half, it's me 100% of the time. I can't tell you how many 2-4 hour dates I've had where the girl ended up not liking me enough for another round (before I started actively avoiding such marathon dates).

Why do you automatically believe it's "you"? That's what I'm trying to understand. I've banged "8s" from OKC so when I meet up with a "6" on a date that goes nowhere after 2 hours I'm usually not sitting around saying to myself "ah shit if only I'd run tighter game! if only I'd dressed nicer or were better looking she would've liked me"

Bitch there's nothing wrong with me, and a lot of hotter broads have liked me just fine and wanted to hit it. I understand that women can be fickle, but gee whiz.

It was never fucking on the table with a lot of 'em. They're meeting up with lotsa dudes from the Internets for psychological reasons that have little to do with getting laid or building a relationship.

Post: #11

(09-27-2016 12:13 AM)XPQ22 Wrote:  At what point does not being thirsty manifest as indifference and asexuality? At what point does "wait for it" manifest as supplication and attempting to buy into her frame and "negotiate attraction", which can't really be negotiated?

I'm not trying to troll here, I think these are legitimate and important questions.

But what I'm getting at is that if you honestly can't take her hands in yours ~45 minutes into the first date without her recoiling, none of these questions matter. Whatever it is, it ain't there and never will be.

I agree with this, but I'm talking about first date bangs specifically. Pushing to take her back to your place on day 1 could legitimately drive her away, that's all I'm saying. Of course some degree of escalation is needed to annihilate any platonic vibe.

Quote:Why do you automatically believe it's "you"? That's what I'm trying to understand. I've banged "8s" from OKC so when I meet up with a "6" on a date that goes nowhere after 2 hours I'm usually not sitting around saying to myself "ah shit if only I'd run tighter game! if only I'd dressed nicer or were better looking she would've liked me"

Bitch there's nothing wrong with me, and a lot of hotter broads have liked me just fine and wanted to hit it. I understand that women can be fickle, but gee whiz.

It was never fucking on the table with a lot of 'em. They're meeting up with lotsa dudes from the Internets for psychological reasons that have little to do with getting laid or building a relationship.

Looks like you misinterpreted; when I said "it's me 100% of the time," I meant I'm always the one who suggests an early end to the date. No girl has ever attempted to eject within an hour and a half of meeting me, which is odd given my fairly low bang rate. I'm guessing it's an indication that my conversational skills were perfectly fine, but my escalation was lacking (I use past tense because I'm out of the game currently).

Post: #12

(09-25-2016 07:33 AM)XPQ22 Wrote:  If any guy on the forum has gone on three dates, over say a week or two, with an Internet girl where there was a steady progression towards sex that ended in getting the bang, I'd like to hear the story.

Standard MO for a decent chick who isn't a "box of assorted creams" type of girl.

I got standards... Ain't gunna date a petrie dish that has been used and abused by XPS all over the place :-)

I am in the older marketplace too, I guess.

Post: #13

(09-27-2016 01:01 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Standard MO for a decent chick who isn't a "box of assorted creams" type of girl.

I got standards... Ain't gunna date a petrie dish that has been used and abused by XPS all over the place :-)

I am in the older marketplace too, I guess.

Unfortunately the fact is that the number of girls you'll meet from OKC or Tinder who ain't "box of assorted creams" girls is vanishigly small. The dating app market doesn't cater to the guy who wants a good girl who wants to settle down and be the LTR of a guy with standards demographic very well, because any girl in that demographic is going to pop on the site, rapidly find a guy she likes and pop off again. So statistically speaking these aren't the girls you're going to be meeting with.

So by saying that online hoes generally fall into the two categories I mentioned, to put it crassly what I'm saying is that there will be girls you'll meet from online who are looking for fast sex, and girls who aren't really looking for sex at all. In my experience there's very little in-between - so I'm suggesting ways to screen the latter category.

If you are looking for "decent chicks" frankly the sites are the wrong place to find them. At the moment, I'm not really looking for "decent chicks."

Post: #14

(09-27-2016 02:03 AM)XPQ22 Wrote:  

(09-27-2016 01:01 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Standard MO for a decent chick who isn't a "box of assorted creams" type of girl.

I got standards... Ain't gunna date a petrie dish that has been used and abused by XPS all over the place :-)

I am in the older marketplace too, I guess.

Unfortunately the fact is that the number of girls you'll meet from OKC or Tinder who ain't "box of assorted creams" girls is vanishigly small. The dating app market doesn't cater to the guy who wants a good girl who wants to settle down and be the LTR of a guy with standards demographic very well, because any girl in that demographic is going to pop on the site, rapidly find a guy she likes and pop off again. So statistically speaking these aren't the girls you're going to be meeting with.

So by saying that online hoes generally fall into the two categories I mentioned, to put it crassly what I'm saying is that there will be girls you'll meet from online who are looking for fast sex, and girls who aren't really looking for sex at all. In my experience there's very little in-between - so I'm suggesting ways to screen the latter category.

If you are looking for "decent chicks" frankly the sites are the wrong place to find them. At the moment, I'm not really looking for "decent chicks."

I completely agree that the online dating apps/sites are probably the worst places to find decent chicks. Like you said, if they do ever get on these apps, they basically pop in and out within a week or two. One of my close friends got a decent chick - she was on this app for less than a week, they matched, talked and now are dating.

For time ROI, social circle game is probably significantly better. However if you can't run social circle game, online dating can work well. Just means you have to go through a lot of girls before you find the one decent chick. I've met 3-4 decent chicks on these apps - legit quality relationship girls (two were virgins). Shit didn't work out because I live in the middle of nowhere and they lived far away That's from a pool of over 400 matches though.

Also, from what I can tell there's a huge difference between the older and younger market. I'm aiming for girls between 18 and 24. I've matched with girls between 25 and 30. HUGE difference in their behavior and mentality.

Post: #15

(10-24-2016 09:05 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  I completely agree that the online dating apps/sites are probably the worst places to find decent chicks. Like you said, if they do ever get on these apps, they basically pop in and out within a week or two. One of my close friends got a decent chick - she was on this app for less than a week, they matched, talked and now are dating.

For time ROI, social circle game is probably significantly better. However if you can't run social circle game, online dating can work well. Just means you have to go through a lot of girls before you find the one decent chick. I've met 3-4 decent chicks on these apps - legit quality relationship girls (two were virgins). Shit didn't work out because I live in the middle of nowhere and they lived far away That's from a pool of over 400 matches though.

Also, from what I can tell there's a huge difference between the older and younger market. I'm aiming for girls between 18 and 24. I've matched with girls between 25 and 30. HUGE difference in their behavior and mentality.

Yep. To give you an idea of the sitch, over the past year I met just three girls from online who I clicked with well enough and I thought were worthwhile enough girls to see regularly for months at a time. Ages 29, 32, and 36. Out of around fifty dates, there were six others that were just SNLs and I never saw regularly. How many openers did I have to send for that result? I don't keep exact statistics, but I know it's at least a couple thousand. And one of the three opened me first.

Most online women in my prime demographic, 26-36, are simply impossible.The truth is that even the two girls 30+ I was in mini-relationships with - yeah they were physically attractive enough, but they were 30+ and never married and in the West that means damaged in some way. I got along with those two simply because they were smarter than the average bear and had learned at least partially to come to terms with the damage.