Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Truth About Qualification

The fundamental flaw of the seduction community is that it's all about pleasing women.

In this regard, your mentality is the same as it was when you were a 'nice guy' or AFC (Average Frustrated Chump). Back then, you really wanted to please women. You wanted their attention and approval. You admitted that you didn't understand women.

Then, you found the community. Here, you may have learned some frames and attitudes to help you 'understand' them, and you may have learned some clever tactics to get their attention, but your desire to please women was never challenged or changed.

There is very little difference between an AFC and a PUA. They both aim to please. They both are addicted to the attention and approval of women. You may say that the AFC is out to please by becoming 'boyfriend material,' and the PUA is out to please by merely becoming 'sex worthy,' but even that is suspect.

A PUA is just an AFC who's sexualized his aim to please women.

Since I've put myself on a conscious path to find 'the one' it seems I am having daily bouts of insight. I got over my obsessive promiscuity real quick when I realized it was nothing more than a compulsory desire to please women.

The community never questions this: Learn how to pick up chicks. Learn how to attract beautiful women. Learn how to increase value. Learn how to create chemistry. Learn how to pass her tests. Learn how to arouse desire. Learn how to chase, pursue, and please.

Let's take the concept of qualification. Look at this statement:

"Understanding qualification is absolutely crucial not only for successfully getting a woman, but also for getting better with women in general."

Do you see the problem with this? Do you see the insidious undercurrent that everything about the community reinforces the assumption that you need to please women?

This is just one small example.

Qualification is not to tactic. It is not something you use to convince her that you are a 'sexual selector' so she'll decide to let you please her.

Qualification is not a way for you to boost her level of interest.

Qualification is how you screen women, for real. It is how you weed out the ones you don't want in your life because you have standards.

Yes, you are allowed to have standards. And not because it makes you more attractive to women, but because it makes you a MAN.

Let me rewrite the above statement:

"Understanding qualification is absolutely crucial to pleasing yourself."

Pleasing women is no measure of success. You can brag about how many chicks you've 'scored,' but this is just an an appeal to vanity -- your excessive belief about your own attractiveness, prowess, or ability to please others.

Here's a question for you:

Was she really into you or was she just bored and horny?

Now, if you have Polarized Your 'Game' and you are on Path #2, I say go for it as long as the expectations are clear and mutual.

If you are on Path #1, qualification is critical. The measure of success here is the degree to which a woman matches your standards.

I'm going to write more on standards and expectations, but for now, I will tell you the #1 thing I screen for because it encompasses all of the other standards (like the 4 Pillars of L.O.V.E.) when looking for longevity and continuity in a relationship.

And that factor is called.... INTEREST.

This is how I see it: "I am only interested in a woman interested in me."

Further: "To show interest, her standards will sync with my own."

I did not say, 'effortlessly,' as successful relationships require deliberate effort. The point is that she understands my standards, and our expectations are effectively mutual.

Notice that my perspective is not to create interest, for I am only looking for women that are interested in me from the start. We strive to find out if we share ideas and are on the same page as far as commitment and life purpose.

If a woman is not interested in me, then I am not interested in her. I am not concerned with the one that got away. Nor am I concerned with sex. If our expectations aren't aligned, I will dump her long before sex.

In the results-obsessed seduction community, success equals having women. Failure equals being single.

In the Savage system, success equals being committed to an interested women. Failure equals being committed to UNinterested women.

After all, being in an unsatisfying marriage is FAR WORSE than being single.



Blogger Erika said...

Most of this post resonates with me.

"To demonstrate interest in me, she will happily strive to meet my standards."

I feel a little queasy reading this sentence. May be semantics, but it sounds to me like she has to "work hard" to "meet your standards."

I don't see it that way. I see it as two people have their clear picture of what they want in a mate, then they connect to see how well that matches up. Then if some areas match up, they may shift IF AND ONLY IF they are really doing it for themselves.

Like, if it's really important to the man that his woman is into skiing, can she find a place within herself that says "yes" to skiing, not for him but for herself (perhaps to fulfill her own needs for adventure or connection). If she can't find that place in herself, can he find a place in himself that can be sincerely content with her sitting in the lodge while he skis.

That sort of thing. I don't believe in striving because it sounds strained to me. I don't believe in ever doing things FOR the other person. And I don't believe in compromise. I believe in staying connected until solutions are found that are fully satisfying to both people.

June 24, 2009  
Blogger GoneSavage said...

Ah, dear Erika...

Can we stick with giving each other feedback on the practical content of our posts and effectiveness as empowering frames to share with others?

Yes 'strive' implies the potential for strain, struggle, and hard work. I wanted to offset this with 'happily.' You are not doing it FOR the other person you are joyfully doing it for youself and the shared connection which really
has a life of its own when two people are equally devoted and mutually demonstrating long-term interest.

I will make this more clear so I am certain to attract INTERESTED women that are truly willing to stay with the connection despite what seems like struggle (ie: finding a place of contribution where something seemingly imbalanced results in equality and reciporcity.)

I hear what you are saying about compromise (shifting to accomodate the other person) vs staying connected (finding a place in yourself for trying on new things).

I like that. Thanks.

June 24, 2009  
Anonymous Justin Carnahan said...

GS, I love this post.

I was recently texting a girl, and it went something like this:

Her: Prove to me you're worth it.

Me: I am a Bentley, not a Ford. If I have to sell myself to you, I am not the one you are looking for. I am a horrible salesman.

Her: Isn't that your job, to teach men to sell themselves to women?

Me: No, I teach men how to be the best men that they can be, so when the woman that they want comes along, they are everything she needs and more than she knows is possible.

Students who learn from me come wanting to learn how to please women. I teach them how to become the best men they can be, so that when they find "the one," whatever that means to them, they have the confidence to take action. It's not about living up to her standards, it's about setting our own standards and never letting ourselves down.

Can the average guy quit mid coitus without hesitation? Can they be in bed with a girl and not be frustrated by her desire to not engage in sex? Can they truly be outcome independent? I think this outcome independence is the ultimate test of self validation. Few are the people that can be ok when things come to a halt for whatever reason, and enjoy the moment, no matter what it brings. The ones that can will find a much more satisfying love life, and life in general I'd wager.

I don't know any man who'd deny that they'd enjoy being the world's greatest lover. Can men lose the need for that validation and be ecstatic with being the best lover/men they can be? I think deep down, you and I share the desire to give that gift and understanding to our students, though I could be way off.

June 25, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Erika: "And I don't believe in compromise. I believe in staying connected until solutions are found that are fully satisfying to both people."

That sounds like a nightmare.

June 25, 2009  
Blogger Linmayu said...

Ahhh, qualification.

"Qualification is how you screen women, for real. It is how you weed out the ones you don't want in your life because you have standards.

Yes, you are allowed to have standards. And not because it makes you more attractive to women, but because it makes you a MAN."

This feels so harsh and cold to read and I always fear being judged as unworthy and left out in the cold...HOWEVER...we women do it too. When I started dating I tried to be open to every man--and it felt awful! I wondered every day why I even spent a minute of time thinking about some of these people.

Numbers: Looking for "the one" means looking for ONE person, out of billions, to commit to. Weeding becomes an absolute necessity. Even over there on Siren Island, we weed--we keep seeing only men who make us feel good. In my case that meant letting go of every single one of them--I'd rather be alone than date anyone who doesn't feel right.

Did I mention I hate logic?

June 25, 2009  
Blogger Poetry of Flesh said...

I've had to read this post repeatedly. Partially due to exhaustion, partially to get past biases and try different points of view.

I don't know much about the pick up community.

But I do know about guys. The general AFCs and others that straddle the two worlds of knowing how to get girls, but still struggling with their own Chumpness.

I've always felt bad for the male half of the population, much to the dismay of the feminist population, I'm sure. The general male is raised to hide emotions, to tough it up, to be manly, to excel or he's worthless. He's taught that his job is his identity, and any value he brings to the table is through that job. He has to be successful with women, or he's a loser. If he expresses love, joy, or devotion, he's called pussywhipped.

And then you get to sex. He has to know what he's doing. If he's with a virgin, he has to be careful. He always has to be considering of his partner. If he orgasms too early, he's looked down on. If he doesn't orgasm, the girl is crushed or something is wrong with him. He has to get it up, keep it up, or he's less of a man. If he can't bring his partner to orgasm, he has failed. It's a constant state of pleasing and being in control, of never actually getting to relax because he has to be on the ball or all of her girlfriends will know, so all of his guyfriends will know, so he has to perform.

Then, as you said, you toss in being a PUA. Now you've ramped it up beyond that "average" need to please. There's expectations now. You better be good at your game, you better be nailing those hotties, and when you do, you better set them to screaming with pleasure because you're so experienced, because you're marketing yourself and if you can't do those things, you're failing hard.

It no longer becomes about what the PUA wants, but what he can do: the attention he can garner, the attraction he can stimulate.

So, then, if you switch tracks over to someone who is interested in you from the start, no game is needed. It simply becomes, as you said, a comparing of notes, adjusting as you communicate and learn from each other.

If a standard is put forth, and not met by either partner, the question becomes, "Is this a standard I find reasonable, that I can agree with, and that I can strive for, not for my partner, but for myself?"

I love Justin's comment on this post, by the way. I'm currently with a man who can quit mid coitus without hesitation, along with the rest of the list provided. I've always desired that in a partner, rarely found it. It's good to know that others think of it as well.

June 25, 2009  
Blogger Poetry of Flesh said...

...and I hit the character count limit. Lame. Continuing...

As to your earlier inquiry, how does a man's desire to please me fit in with my sexuality?

It's a little tricky for me, and multilayered. I doubt I could address it all here.

As I mentioned near the top of this mini-essay, I feel bad for men, especially when it comes to their sexuality, the need to perform and please. So many of my lovers have fallen into that trap, and I serve them, please them, submit to them, by getting them to relax, by showing them that I am more experienced than they are, that I am in control of myself and the situation, and that sex can be fun, it can be joyful. They're self-conscious about their bodies, so I show my love for their form through words and touches. They worry about their performance and we talk, before and after, about how sex is not about the orgasm, but being with another person, learning them, their sexuality, their responses. I get them to relax enough that they can actual explore my body, explore their own body with a woman, and ask questions about movements, angles, touching, how things feel. They get to learn what they enjoy, and, in giving them the space and encouragement to do that, I'm pleasing them by teaching them how to please me.

When I'm with a man who does not need that workspace, the lines blur a bit. I don't like a man focusing on pleasing me if he is receiving no pleasure from it, and it's rare that I actually believe my partner that he is enjoying how long it takes me to orgasm.

My main guy loves to watch me orgasm, and because he is so aware of his sexuality and is able to effectively communicate it, I am relaxed enough with him to orgasm. (The Sybian doesn't hurt matters, either.)

One of my guys told me, a little bit ago, "To please you, to focus on your needs, I have to ignore them."

It's totally true.

Hope that answered some of your query.

June 25, 2009  
Blogger Erika said...

"Erika: "And I don't believe in compromise. I believe in staying connected until solutions are found that are fully satisfying to both people."

That sounds like a nightmare."

Actually, it feels like heaven on earth. To have that level of connection. It's something Marshall Rosenberg teaches. Compromise leads to resentment. Connection leads to spontaneous solutions that meet everyone's needs.

June 26, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gone savage, you gotta check out the book Modeone: let the women know what you're really thinking. it resonates with everything in your post. you should check out alan roger currie's show as well (the author) on

he might interview marc rudov soon.


July 05, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home