Is Body Language more Important than Words?

by Eric Disco
Aug 24

On the forum, Zhelyazko asks:

[It's been said that] only 7% of all communication is verbal the other percents are in way of speaking and body language.

Do you agree with the findings of this study and what does it mean?

How you tell a story is way more important than what the story actually is?

The underlying question here is, considering the importance of body language, how important is the actual content of what you say?

Is it worth crafting and working on a specific stories to use over and over or is it better to just ‘wing it’ and focus on body language and delivery?

Lately, I’ve been using an opinion opener/story that goes like this.

I have a friend who’s dating this girl. She’s a really cool girl. I consider her a friend. She’s really cute too. But the problem is that she’s starting to gain A LOT of weight. I know it bothers my friend, but he doesn’t really know what to do. How do you tell a girl you’re dating that she’s getting fat?

The first time I used this, I was in a bar with my friend Lee. I was about to open two cute girls. I wasn’t sure whether they would be receptive to this, but I wanted to find out because I felt like it had potential.

They reacted well. They jumped in with jokes and comments talking about how he should ask her to play tennis with him and not eat so many sweets.

The next time I used this bit with some other women, I was more confident with it because I knew that it would likely get a good reaction.

How important was my body language and delivery? Very important. Could something else have worked just as well?

I recently filmed my friend Lee telling a story. He is a master storyteller.

We were in the park and he had opened two women and their mother. The women were in their early 20′s.

I couldn’t get close enough to where you could hear what he was saying, but you could see what he was doing:

He was emoting. He was punctuating different points in the story. He was pausing. He was telling the story slowly. He was going back and forth, looking them each in the eye as he told it.

For two or three minutes, he was holding court and holding the interest of all three women. He was being charismatic and attractive. And you could see them reacting to that.

Could he have done this with a less interesting story? Yes. Would it have worked as well as an interesting story? Probably not.

While body language and delivery reign supreme, having something good to say is definitely part of the equation.

Let’s say I tried out a different story instead.

Our air conditioning went out at work yesterday. Luckily I work in IT. We have a separate air conditioner for our servers. So while everyone was sweating, I decided to take my laptop and go work in the server room. While everyone was sweating, I was cool!

While I haven’t tried it, telling this story would likely not have gotten that great a reaction. This is because it’s not as social or emotional.

Yes, I could have delivered it with a lot of energy and fun, but the content of the story is far from intriguing to discuss with women in a bar.

There is a very fine synergy between having an interesting story, being confident in that story, and being able to deliver it with confident body language. They all work together.

If the content of your story sucks, you can improve the situation by delivery, but delivery will only take you so far.

If you have a story that you’ve never told before, then by definition you aren’t confident in that story. However, when you do tell a story a few times, you become confident because you know that it gets a good reaction.

In the end, whether body language is more important than content of your words is a moot point. The question of whether or not to have prepared material comes down strongly in favor of having prepared material.

This is because when you have planned material, it frees you to NOT think about what to say and instead focus on body language.

When you don’t have set things to say, you are constantly searching for what to say, thus distracting you from the most important part: your body language.

-----------------

posted in Attraction, Bar Game, Body Language

COMMENTS
38 responses
KL says:

As you mention, the effect of planned material is to put your mind in the right state–confident, at-ease, open, etc. That is what translates into your body language and voice tone. So as long as someone can get into that good state, their nonverbals will benefit massively. It doesn’t necessarily have to be from planned material, just whatever works for you.

I approached a girl the other day with nothing more than eye contact and a friendly “How are you doing?” followed up with “Beautiful weather this evening.” She responded to that, had a good conversation. Natural and easy.

Lee says:

@KL There is nothing wrong with doing it the way you did it. However, what most men do when they approach women that way – and I include myself in that group – is this: They fall into very ordinary, comfortable conversations. Nice day, beautiful city, where are you from, etc., and this is the death of the PUA. When I approach with my material, I quickly escalate to edgy, sexy conversation. I also tell stories that make it very easy for women to tell me their own stories. The experience I give them is not at all ordinary. If you can do that while winging it, more power to you. I, on the other hand, prefer to manage that experience. My stories are not there for me to be spontaneous. They are there to encourage women to be spontaneous, which I find is the bigger problem. You can be the most entertaining guy in the world, but if you can’t get women to play along, your sets will go nowhere. –Lee

Eric Disco says:

While what you say is less important than what you do (get sexual, have fun, connect with her, etc.), what you say is a place to hang your hat. It’s a framework.

Saying whatever comes to mind every time you talk to a girl leads to a lack of consistency. If one day you open a girl with, “How are you doing?” The next time you say, “I had to tell you, you are fucking delicious,” the next time, “How do you get to Starbucks?” it will be very difficult to improve. One worked and the other two did not. Was it what I said? Was it what I did?

This is also about leading. If every time you talk to a girl, you let the conversation go where ever “it” goes, then you aren’t leading. You are letting her lead.

If you have a framework and know what you are doing, you can easily switch out stories, openers, etc. But most guys do not.

Eric

KL says:

Lee and Eric,

My general approach is something of a combination of spontaneity/ flexibility and structure. It is not typical of most of the “community.” That’s simply because although I love this stuff and find it fascinating to try out and think about, I don’t want it to become a craft that I work on per se, I want it to be a component of my lifestyle. Making lifestyle changes is more difficult at first, but far more rewarding over time.

Lee, I love your term “managing that experience.” Here we have the difference between a leader and a manager. My approach is to lead, and your approach is to manage. A subtle but powerful difference. Here is a short interesting article on leader vs. manager:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0703/070703ff.htm

I’m happy to have some ambiguity as to “why this girl went somewhere but that one did not.” Because I know that overall I’m going in the right direction, and I can see that I’m becoming more and more successful over time.

And anyway you can drive yourself crazy with that stuff because you will never have every single component exactly the same in each approach. And each girl and each moment is different. It’s much easier to focus on the core drivers of success, and use specific experiences as feedback or modifiers.

I do lead conversations. Absolutely. But I also know the girl has to meet me half way. She has to do some of the work (preferably most of the talking). I think women can seduce themselves to a major degree.

Lee says:

@KL First, let’s get the differences out of the way. Unless you are very good looking or bring value in some other way – status, fame, power – I don’t believe that the woman should talk more than the man. I agree with Mystery on this point, that it should be 80/20, with the man bearing the bigger load. I used to hate prepared material. I thought it was a kind of cop out, a gimmick. Over time, I noticed that while I wasn’t planning everything out, the same topics would come up again and again. I made a list and got the following: 1) Family / childhood, 2) work / passion, 3) where I came from / how I got here, and 4) relationships / sex. I would stumble through these stories differently every time. But the stories were not changing. They were my true life experiences and revealed a lot about me. It was just the way I told them that was changing. So what I had done is created a kind of fake spontaneity. Instead of giving girls the best experience and the best opportunity to tell their own stories, I stubbornly insisted on being unprepared. That’s when I sat down, wrote out my stories, and practiced telling them. I am not advising you to plow through your own material no matter what a girl offers you. I believe that if you have an opportunity for an unplanned connection, you should jump on it and leave your planned material behind. But as soon as the conversation returns to something mundane and ordinary, you should take over again, and bring your target back to one of the interesting subjects that will reveal something about one or hopefully both of you. Whether you call that management or leadership is not important to me, but there is no reason to be unprepared. One more thing. Here is why I think a lot of guys love to hate prepared material. With prepared material, there is little excuse not to turn up the heat. When I look at the community, the difference between guys who are just getting by and guys who are good is that the guys who are good really know how to turn up the heat. If you can do this without preparation, more power to you, dude! You are better at this than I am. When I try to do this on the fly, I wind up stumbling and sputtering out. However, you have to understand how different you are from most men. After having coached and talked to quite a few aspiring ladies’ men, I can tell you that the biggest problem most men have is that they tend to fall into ordinary, mundane, safe conversations with women, and the excuse I often hear from them is that they hate routines and they want to be spontaneous. –Lee

Zhelyazko says:

Eric I thought about it for some time and I tried to come up with some sort of elaborate expression but there is no way I can put the gratitude I feel towards you and all the other great guys in the forum into words.

You guys have helped me believe the change is possible. Before (and I am only 19 years of age) I thought myself a completely lost cause.

Sometimes I feel so inadequate in social situations and especially in the company of girls and seeing the incredibly long road ahead I feel ready to give up, but knowing that others are going through it as well keeps me going.

Do know that you ARE making a difference. Please keep it going :p

Thank you for giving me strength to keep trying. :)

Zhelyazko

Eric Disco says:

Z,

Thanks for the feedback. You guys are an inspiration to me too.

Eric

Zhelyazko says:

Ok one more question.( Would be good if I had enough money and lived in USA, then it would be much easier, but hey)

By frame do you mean a certain model as in:
1. Open 2. Demonstrate value 3.Connect 4.Close

Please elaborate :)

Eric Disco says:

Yes, that’s exactly what I mean by framework. For me that looks roughly something like

Open –> Make small talk / banter –> Transition –> Connect / Qualify –> Close

I have things to say at every point.

Eric

KL says:

Lee:

I can’t see how the guy doing more of the talking is a good idea. If a guy succeeds while doing that, it’s because he’s doing other things right. Whoever talks more is lower status/ lower value, as a general rule. There are exceptions, but that’s the rule, whether in business, social relations, game, etc.

Now, of course at the beginning of the approach, you need to do more of the talking because she isn’t comfortable enough yet. But ultimately, the total amount of investment is mostly from her, and a minority from the guy. Or at best 50/50.

The difference between “management and leadership” is that management is more active, involved in low-level details, whereas leadership is about setting the framework and setting the tone, but letting others do most of the hands-on work.

That is what being prepared means to me. It’s not about specific things to say, but rather general subject-matter. I am leading the conversation by guiding it at key points. If she gets off on a boring tangent, I change subjects to something more interesting. She will follow the man’s lead.

I have a few “routine-like” things I do or say, for example picking up her hand to talk about her ring. But that’s very minimally gamey. My approach is to have a clear head, focus on having a good time and being in the moment, while having a few key phases to touch on, very much like what Eric just wrote. But I will not use scripts, not just because it makes me feel and come across less genuine and less honest, but also because I just can’t do it very well. My mind is always very active, and when I’m doing well, I thrive by being spontaneous.

An analogy: when I speak publicly, I don’t write out a speech, I write bullet points and major items I want to touch on, refer to it as I’m speaking, but the majority of what comes out of my mouth is spontaneous.

Y says:

I’m with KL on this one.

Less is more.

Let the woman talk.

Also… if you never wing conversations how will you ever develop that conversational muscle?

Better to take the training wheels off.

The sooner the better.

Lee says:

@KL It’s funny how different game can be. I’ll never do a ring routine. That is not me. It’s a routine. But if someone asks me what I do, I will answer almost the same way every time. Answering differently every time is a pretense. All of my “routines” are just my true life stories. They feel very natural because they are really me. They are less “routines” than your ring routine. Regarding a woman speaking more than the man, that is the golden standard. Ideally, the man says “Hey there” and the woman goes off for 15 minutes with only minor encouragement from the man. If I could have that, I would take it, but most of the time it works exactly as Mystery describes – a man does 80% of the talking until a woman is interested enough in the interaction to start contributing more. Unless you are famous, very good looking, or in some other way bring immediate value, I have never seen it take place otherwise. It happens all the time on my first dates, but that’s another story. If you’ve managed to do this consistently on the approach and with success, I would love to exchange recordings of our approaches so I can learn how to do it too. By the way, I also spoke in public several times every week for years. I also used bullet points. I noticed that after a while, when I talked about the same subject, I would say almost the same thing word for word. No scripts but that is just the way it turned out as a result of repetition. I found the best way to talk about certain subjects. And that is when I began to receive compliments on my natural, relaxed speaking style. –Lee

minihelmet says:

Ok I was confused by that 80/20 ratio. I agree with that for the beginning of the approach. I thought you meant on dates and later on too and thought that was crazy.

Cameron says:

“If I could have that, I would take it, but most of the time it works exactly as Mystery describes – a man does 80% of the talking until a woman is interested enough in the interaction to start contributing more. Unless you are famous, very good looking, or in some other way bring immediate value, I have never seen it take place otherwise. It happens all the time on my first dates, but that’s another story. If you’ve managed to do this consistently on the approach and with ”

Thats interesting, my experience of having great conversations has been much, much more around the 50/50 mark, or having her talking more, obviously dominating the conversation works well for Mystery and you (and probably a lot of other guys too) but its a mistake to say thats they only way it works.

Lee says:

@Cameron These conversations were 50/50 right away? Or after the fact? Meaning, it’s not surprising that your best sets were with women who were most enthusiastic about talking to you, but not knowing how you’re going to do with a particular woman, is your strategy to talk less than 50% right off the bat? Meaning, if the girl doesn’t talk as much as you do, do you walk away? I have seen videos of John Keegan, Adam Lyons, Jeremy Soul, and many others (which I can post links to here), but I’ve never seen what you’re describing in a video. Any links you can show me to guys who show this done successfully? I can tell you this: I’ve had students whose appearance and personalities are not very attractive. I’ve seen them succeed in getting girls to talk as much as they do, but only after initially talking about 90% of the time. After some time – after having demonstrated that there’s more to them than meets the eye – they get girls to open up, and then, yes, it can be 20/80 for the guy instead of 80/20, but that’s not what you’re describing, is it? –Lee

KL says:

Lee

I don’t do a ring routine, I might just talk about what is on her hand–it could be a ring, a bracelet, her nails, etc. The substance of what I’m saying is extemporaneous. But the “framework” part comes in the fact I am touching her hand. A routine would be I randomly start talking about her nails, saying a few specific lines/ story, when there is nothing particularly interesting or eye-catching about them.

The touch serves the sexual purpose I’m trying to further, but the actual words have almost no meaning–she probably won’t remember it anyway. I might just grab her hand and talk about something else altogether.

The only non-spontaneous things I say are, like you, things I’ve said over and over and are just a habit at this point.

On amount of speaking, I think we’re more or less on the same page actually. I agree the guy has to do more talking at the start because she doesn’t know him yet. If she does “know him” to some degree (i.e. he has social proof in her eyes), then it can happen as you described. But ultimately most of the investment comes from her.

Also, the power of body language, voice tone and eye contact can be seen by making an effort to go silent in conversation sooner rather than later. It will be awkward, tense and perfect. It is a test to see how she reacts–investment means interest, ignoring means no interest. Also: just going silent *in and of itself* shows dominance and high value, because you are showing, unlike most other guys, you don’t need to blab to try to impress her.

KL says:

One more thing. The man can go silent sooner than many guys think. This is especially true if you have other factors that communicate value to her. The more such factors you have, the easier it is. Being a movie star is the pinnacle, but it can be massively increased by most guys through fashion, posture, good vibe and energy, and taking initiative to organize social groups, parties or any instance of having a leadership role in a group.

Cameron says:

No Lee, I’m talking about a conversation which is 50/50 right off the bat.

I don’t have that many links or that cause most guys in the community tend to do most of the talking like you describe but there are a few ladykillers out there who believe in a balanced conversation.

http://www.thenaturallifestyles.com/blog/2010/11/2-minute-number-close-by-zanna-infield-breakdown/

Y says:

Juggler is a good example of someone who gets the girl to invest ASAP. He used to have an 80/20 rule where the man had to put in 80% of the conversation. But now he advocates listening more.

Sure the guy has to say start the conversation but I think the MM style routine stories are over rated and are a way of qualifying yourself.

IME it’s better to have the girl talking to you more as quickly as possible.

Lee says:

@Cameron and Y: Guys, I know many people advocate this as an objective, as, in the end, do I. What I don’t see is an example of how a man – and especially a man who, by appearances, has less to offer – can start a conversation that is, from the very beginning 50/50. Can you send me a link to the actual video rather than the site itself? This is the only full pickup video I found there and it’s basically the man talking for about 3 minutes before the woman starts to contribute: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYql-4cMfw&feature=player_embedded#! Even so, her answers are pretty terse. When I tell a story about my parents and then say, “How about you? You close with your folks?” I usually get much better buy in than this. I’m still looking for a proof of concept rather than an explanation of the concept. –Lee

Very much disagree with the message in the post.

OK, in terms of the common sense stuff, sure—a good story is better than a story about the washing machine or the window cleaner. But why is that? Because you can a.) invest in it emotionally, and b.) use it to connect.

But the only reason these routines work when they work is because of the person delivering them–if the person isn’t invested in the story, the girl won’t be either. That’s where all this dancing monkey stuff comes in…some guy end up saying random crap that neither he nor the girl give a rat’s ass about–and there really isn’t anything attractive in that.

A routine is helpful if you have NO IDEA WHAT TO SAY…and if you’re able to choose one that you can buy into, well, fine.

But every time I have used routines, it hasn’t worked at all—when I speak off the cuff I do really well.

Basically, if it feels phony, it is phony and you won’t get the girl.

Lee says:

@KL I think we agree

@TheRest So far, I have these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAeV7JkGBWI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUYql-4cMfw

Both videos are James Marshall of The Natural Lifestyles. Is this what you guys mean by an unscripted, natural approach? I’m genuinely trying to find examples, so if you know of any, please help me. I am a student as well as a teacher and would love to learn something new.

–Lee

Lee says:

Here is one more from SucceedAtDating.com, an Australian outfit that also claims to fall under the mantle of natural game:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vYJyAvotxI

Cameron says:

Lee, if you want to look at the video I posted, just click the link and scroll down a teeny little bit, I dont think its too much to ask.

Lee says:

@Cameron It keeps telling me the video is private. Can you give me a direct link, maybe? –Lee

Cameron says:

Oh fuck, your right, it is private……..unfortunately I have no such access my friend.

Lee says:

So, here is Yad, who was recently voted #1 daygame pickup artist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFjAb-fvzPs&playnext=1&list=PL98DC8AFB1D3600A3

This is a great video. No routines. I just want to know before I really spend time trying to figure this out if this is what you guys meant – if this is indeed what you hold up as a prime example of natural game. If this video is real, I have to admit that this guy is pretty awesome.

Lee

KL says:

Lee:

Yad is definitely a good one that I have studied. I think he has even gotten better since that video.

(Unfortunately my internet connection at the moment is thin, but after a day or two I can get a few more videos for you.)

There is also another English guy named Antony P who worked with PUA Training, very strong frame. Another one that comes to mind is Alistair who worked with the same company (although not as silent).

David Wygant basically wrote the book on natural game. So much so that he doesn’t even talk in terms of “game.” He talks a lot about listening and being in the moment. I’m a fan of his as well.

Lee says:

@KL Haven’t found any videos of Wygant in action. Post any examples you think are relevant. I’m interested in having a good sample so I understand this. –Lee

Lee says:

So guys, you know how this works. I am a math geek and I love to analyze and quantify. I took the four videos and counted the words spoken by the men and the words spoken by the women. Yad comes closest to Cameron’s fifty/fifty ideal. He clocks in at 62%. Alex is over my 80% figure. Jeff Marshall is 73%. Suffice it to say that even the masters of natural game are much closer to Mystery’s 80/20 number than just watching these videos would make you believe. We are so used to men doing almost all of the talking that when we see women react positively from the start – like the Russian girl in Yad’s video – it feels like she’s talking all the time. But when you actually count the words, you see that Yad is still doing most of the talking.

Now, I want to focus on what is absent from these videos. This absence is particularly conspicuous in Yad’s five minute sidewalk make out and Marshall’s low energy park approach (of the two girls sunning on the grass). It’s all of the following: Childhood, work, family, dreams, books, music, dance, sports, where they live, how they live, relationships, friendships… in fact, almost every element of connection is missing. At the end of these interactions, these men know nothing about these women and the women know nothing about these men. This is my biggest criticism of “natural game”. In a natural conversation, people reveal very little about themselves. It is not “natural” for people to get close to each other over very short periods of time. Some subjects are just not part of natural conversation. Take for example, the subject of sex. You don’t hear anything about it in these four videos. These conversations are deliberately boring.

So boring in fact that – and I am speaking only for myself here – knowing what I do about the women in these videos, I wouldn’t actually want to go on a date with any of them. A couple are really cute, but these videos reveal nothing of their real personalities, how they think about life, what they love or even love to do. All these videos reveal is that these women are willing to engage in mundane small talk.

Now, let’s look at these approaches from the girls’ perspectives. As a coach and as someone who knows many members of the community, I can tell you that it is easier for some men to get a make out than it is for them to get a date. A make out requires only attraction. Most dates require connection as well as attraction. From what I saw in these videos, I am not actually sure that any of these girls will be going on a date with the guys who approached them. They have “flake” written all over them. Ask your female friends if they’ve ever given out a number with every intention of seeing a guy again, then woke up the next morning and asked themselves what they were thinking giving a number to a guy they knew virtually nothing about. It’s the most common thing in the world. Every woman has a story like this.

What Yad does in this video – the bullshit about the Russian dolls and the story of Anastasia – is pure sugary banter. There is no actual content to this conversation. Nothing is revealed and no emotions are actually shared.

Now, look at the difference between these two questions:

1) Me: “Are you close to your parents?”

2) Me: “My parents live in Wisconsin in the same house where I grew up. My room is exactly the way I left it after high school. My mom dusts it every week. It’s funny but when I lived in the same house as my old man, I hardly said anything to him at all. And now that I’m here and he’s a million miles away, we’re on the phone every night, closer than ever. How about you, you close with your folks?”

If you felt the second paragraph tugging at your emotions, then you understand the power of stories. Those are the kinds of stories I’m talking about, not what most members of the community call “routines”.

I want to add to this one last factor that makes stories particularly effective for men who don’t bring a lot of value to the interaction right away. Most of the men who ask me for advice are not nearly as good looking as Alex or Jeff or Zana or Wygant or Juggler or Gambler. Some are foreign born with accents. Some are short. Some are bald and have little pot bellies. They can still succeed but not by asking women to render an immediate judgment about them. They can succeed by charming women into a state of curiosity. To do that, they talk in a way that is intriguing and unusual until a woman takes enough interest in them to start contributing more than she is willing to contribute when she first meets them.

–Lee

Yad is real—

Good friend of mine did a couple of sessions with him…obviously can’t vouch for the video specifically, but girls generally like him (because he comes across as perfectly real) so nothing’s particularly surprising. Also consider he’s chatted up probably 20,000 women in London.

@KL–you know who else is good (and comes across as a real person)–Andy Yosha.

I did a session with him myself couple years ago.

These people just seem…normal.

@KL/Lee–one more thing….

The one thing I got from Andy Yosha which I’ve been trying to do for a year (sometimes successfully) is simply this:

Just let go. Even if you don’t feel like you have natural instinct in this area, you do–it just hasn’t been accessed very much. Chances are you’ll bomb like hell the first several times…but that’s fine. ‘direct vs. indirect’ doesn’t really matter…although the natural instinct does seem to pull towards being direct–or else why would you be there?

It’s a great mentality–and I find that the times I”m able to call it up, it works amazingly well. Usually I suppress it though.

Y says:

@Lee

I would class yourself more as someone that is expressing themselves rather than looking to impress with stories.

So more in the Juggler camp rather than Mystery’s DHV routines.

KL says:

Lee:

I find the videos great for inspiration–and that was one of the original things that really got me interested in this stuff. But of course anybody can edit and post a video of anything, so they can do 100 approaches, fail utterly in 99 of them, and then post the one successful one. Not saying that’s what these guys are doing, but the point is there are issues there.

And I agree with the high likelihood of flakes, simply because I’ve experienced it. I can get numbers pretty easily. In fact, too easily. Women give out numbers these days like handshakes.

Wygant does not really do approach videos, except of his students practicing it seems.

I searched for Anthony P, but unfortunately it looks like the accounts that had the videos have been deleted.

You are right about mundane small talk not leading anywhere. But that’s not what being “natural” means to me. Natural is not to be confused with normal. It is normal to talk about boring stuff. But sex comes from nature, therefore the answer lies in getting back to nature–getting back to genuineness and honesty about who you are and what you want. That’s precisely where the emotional and sexual connection arises.

Now in your 2nd paragraph above you’re conveying strong emotions. That’s what any attractive man will do, regardless of whether they use 100 words or 10. And you are getting back to nature in the sense of being your best self and conveying genuine feelings.

Finally, on word counts. One of the great benefits of trying to say less once you’re in the convo is to really gauge her interest. It is a test–will she pick up the conversational slack, or just let it drop? Tells you everything you need to know, about this interaction as well as what you need to improve.

The point of that video isn’t ‘this is how you get a girl to make out with you’…it’s that if you’re natural and are in tune with the interaction that interesting things can happen.

The reason Yad’s good is that he has an excellent sense of the girl–and is paying attention to things holistically, rather than tactically. Stated another way, anyone looking from the outside can see that Yad likes the girl and vice versa–this is NOT the case with about 99% of the pick-up videos, nearly all of which look pretty canned. There’s no way of telling how many of those number exchanges lead to a date or sex, and I’m willing to bet that it’s very few.

Also, Yad knows how to escalate/take thing sexual–but not to force it. It wasn’t necessary in this case, because the chemistry was clearly there. Very few tactics involved–just sense and feeling.

Lee says:

@GoodyearBlimp Yad’s frame is strong. I’m impressed. He seems like a likable guy. Hell, I’d love to hang with him. However, I don’t want to meet a woman this way. She’s cute as hell. But she’s told him nothing meaningful about herself. He’s told her nothing about himself. They’ve connected on absolutely nothing interesting or important. And there’s a very good chance that a set like this is going to flake. It’s not because I think Yad sucks. I think he’s awesome. Sets like this one just flake more than sets where real emotions are exchanged and real connections are made. I realize that it is possible to have those connections with natural game, but I haven’t seen many examples of it. I have seen many examples of women who are otherwise not particularly responsive getting drawn out of their shells by interesting, emotionally rich, provocative, and well-crafted stories, especially if those stories are real and reveal something true and meaningful (and sometimes vulnerable) about a man. –Lee

Very rapidly this web site will be famous among
all blogging and site-building people, due to it’s nice articles or reviews

LEAVE A COMMENT