In this post, I chided (chid?) a PUA newbie for unsuccessfully using a difficult and ponderous Brad P opener on a girl buddy I know, and by association criticized the opener as well. Thinking on it, I may have been a little unfair to Brad P and his game techniques. There is more — much more — to a good opener than the words that come out of your mouth.
YaReally offers up some detail:
[The Horse Opener] works for BradP because he delivers it well. He talks slow and deep and captures the chick’s attention, uses massive pauses in his delivery to build suspense, etc. But most guys who read it online just spit it out as fast as they can because they’re worried the girl will leave if they don’t get to the punchline as fast as possible, which sounds to the girl like he’s “all over the place”.
BradP does it in a challenging, accusing (breaking rapport) way. Guys trying to copy just based off his text do it in an approval seeking, needy way.
You can hear his delivery in his “The Underground Dating Seminar” which is one of the better “no fuzzy hats and black nailpolish” PUA products out there in my opinion. He actually sounds like a cool chill guy when he talks and you can see why the things he says work for him. One of his students asks “What if she calls you out on it?” “Doesn’t matter. If you’re like “Hey do you like horses?” and she goes “Isn’t that that BradP line–” “No shut up. DO you like horses?”” He expects them to fall in line, and that’s why it works for him.
Women don’t walk away when you have your subcommunications down and exude alpha behavior (like the vibe that you EXPECT them to listen to you and answer you). You can command “HEY! Come here.” from across a room and just stare the girl down like you expect her to come over, and she will. Same time you can run a 5 minute opener and blab away like Russell Brand. When your subcommunications are down you can do pretty much anything you want.
Don’t get caught up in “canned” VS “improvised” Hang around for long periods of time with any of the naturally social people you know and you’ll find they all repeat their same stories to people (sometimes even to you, forgetting that they’ve told you before) with the same wording, emphasis, etc. ie – canned routines. It’s not a bad thing. The trick is understanding that the routine isn’t magical, it’s what you’re displaying during the routine that affects things.
All good points. I haven’t seen video of BradP in action, but from what YaReally writes, I can easily picture the horse opener working very well for him. His delivery sounds alpha: slow, steady and deep with requisite pauses to build suspense and eradicate the girl’s initial impulse to pigeonhole him as just another low value beta. Newbies take note: merely mouthing the words isn’t nearly enough. Parroting an opener won’t even get you 10% of the way to successfully sparking attraction. You’ve got to work on the whole presentation, from style to posture to voice tone to alpha body language mimicry to the all-important take-it-or-leave-it attitude. Only when you’ve nailed the entire delivery can you truthfully judge which openers suck and which don’t.
The Chateau spends a lot of time discussing body language and voice tonality because the fact of the matter is that the nonverbal improvements in your game will redound to your pickup success a lot more than improvements to the actual words you spit. Like YaReally says, if your total game is tight, you can accost a girl with just about any silly line and she’ll come alive with interest.
But my issue with the Horse Opener had more to do with the idea of foisting it on unready newbs in unwelcoming circumstances. A (relatively) complex opener that requires rock-solid frame and nonverbal cues should not be the first thing with which neophytes engage the field, particularly the day game field where women are on the move. It’s setting them up for failure. What BradP can do with horses and negs, the majority of newbs cannot. It’d be best to teach these guys the right nonverbal cues with a much simpler opener that won’t have them straining to recall all the details or rushing to get the words out and then crashing and burning in DLV dorkhell.
A guy with little pickup (or female) experience will feel weird talking about horses with a random girl on the street. This is not the case for experienced womanizers, who have the self-confidence and comfortable familiarity with their skills that they don’t feel strange talking about things that would rattle mere mortals just trying hard not to sound like a social pariah.
You’re missing everything that’s going on in those “Simple Pickup” videos. (http://www.youtube.com/user/SimplePickup ) Those guys have studied pickup and use a ton of PUA concepts and routines.
What they have isn’t “pure bluster and confidence” and above average looks. There are a dozen subtle subcommunications going on in how they approach women that allow the random/offensive stuff they say to not just work but build attraction.
I won’t get into it all, study pickup literature, go out and approach girls, observe naturals, etc. like the rest of us had to but here are a few things to watch for in their vids:
– congruency. If a girl tests them, they stick to their story and turn things around on the girl like SHE’S the one being weird.
– misinterpretation. They misinterpret everything sexually, that’s why they can be talking about masturbation and 3-ways with girls they’ve only just met, they direct the conversation to a sexual topic in a smooth/funny way.
– frame control. After they say something super offensive, they’ll just stand there and stare the girl down like “ya, I said that.” totally unapologetic and unashamed. A PUA concept is “what you feel, she feels”, so she pings off him to see if he’s embarrassed or apologetic about what he said and when he’s not, she feels like it must be okay. This is why when you go up with an opener you don’t think will work, it won’t work, and when you think it will work, it works.
– breaking rapport. Their voice tonality is loud, clear, and authoritative. They make statements and accusations and don’t sound like they’re seeking the girl’s approval.
– body language. They stand up straight and don’t fidget around nervously and hold eye-contact etc.
There’s a ton of other stuff going on that you’ll see if you study pickup in-depth.
It has nothing to do with their looks, as long as you think that way you’re in the wrong headspace.
Based on YaReally’s checklist, I can easily imagine how the aspiring PUA in the failed Horse Opener attempt blew his shot.
Congruency — Once she asked him a question about what he was getting at, he backed away from his initial boldness, and tried to explain himself. I bet he even sounded apologetic.
Misinterpretation — If anything, she was misinterpreting him.
Frame Control — As soon as she tossed that first “are you a weirdo?” look his way, I bet he got nervous and thought about bailing, thus ensuring that the remainder of his opener would come off even worse. (Once you’re committed to an opener, it’s surprisingly hard to break cadence for more fruitful pursuits. Call it the curse of the male mind.)
Breaking Rapport — She broke his rapport because his voice tonality was meek and trepidatious. If a girl is making statements and accusations, you know your game is failing. You want her to bounce off your statements and answer your accusations. From whence is love born!
Body Language — I bet he had his hands stuffed in his pockets, driving them deeper in his jeans when the opener began stinking.
I won’t bother putting looks in this list. Unless the guy was repulsively ugly, his looks or lack thereof had little to do with his failure. (The girl who relayed the story to me said nothing negative about his looks when I asked, which made me doubt it was anything more than his delivery which cost him a number close.) Men need to get it through their heads that women simply don’t react to a man’s physical attractiveness with the same urgency or lustfulness that men react to female beauty. A man with the right attitude and pickup technique will run rings around a socially clumsy or approval-seeking good-looking guy.