Category: Psychology and communication

I begin this article with an enticing play on words: seduction, it’s child’s play. HAHAHA ! (you’ll understand)

Well, enough of provocation. I’m not saying that it is an easy discipline, especially after all the efforts you certainly done to find an infallible method to seduce women. I’m just saying that it helps to keep your child’s soul (or to reconnect with it) to get your own way.

Illustration

The other morning, there was a kid at my office. The son of my boss. Well, the girls were quite completely on him. I’m not saying that he would have been able to fuck them (too tiny dick anyway) but at least he managed to draw their attention and to move them. Why a 6-year-old kid would be able to do that and not us? What can we learn from children and animals (because yeah… drum roll… it works also with a small cat or a small too cute dog) ?

The day lesson

When I observe my Argentine mastiff or my little cat, I notice that if I managed to have the same manners, to be so uninhibited, I shall be the best womanizer of the world. When they approach a woman: no disproportionate ego (even the cat) they go for it there, smell their ass, casual, rub themselves, sociable, good-humored, no fear of rejection, no shame, spontaneous, touching… In other words: they manage almost always to be caressed.

Aren’t we animals too? When a dog or a cat wants to couple it adopt an aggressive game. It is thus the society that wants to make of us honeyed pussies. One more argument to support that this game I practise and that I teach on this blog is the best: it is natural. Instinctive. True.

But we are not for all that dogs!!! You are not going to throw yourself on the girls by trying to fornicate their legs. Sure. But it is not what I propose you! We are all the same civilized (for some), it would be absurd to act as animals (regression) and we do not want to embarrass them (that would waste everything). We thus need to find a compromise!

Transactional analysis

Let’s see more in detail how childish behavior can strengthen your game. For that purpose, we are going to lean on the famous Transactional analysis of the American psychiatrist Eric Berne (remember, we have already turned to it on this blog).

Transactional analysis (abbreviated to TA), is a theory in psychology that examines the interactions, or ‘transactions’, between a person and other people. The underlying precept is that humans are social creatures and that a person is a multi-faceted being that changes when in contact with another person in their world. Canadian-born US psychiatrist Eric Berne developed the concept and paradigm of TA in the late 1950s.

Transactional analysis integrates the theories of psychology and psychotherapy because it has elements of psychoanalytic, humanist and cognitive ideas. TA was first developed in the late 1950s by Canadian-born US psychiatrist Eric Berne.

According to the International Transactional Analysis Association, TA ‘is a theory of personality and a systematic psychotherapy for personal growth and personal change’.

As a theory of personality, TA describes how people are structured psychologically. It uses what is perhaps its best known model, the ego-state (Parent-Adult-Child) model, to do this. The same model helps explain how people function and express their personality in their behaviour

As Berne set his Psychology up, there are four life positions that a person can hold and holding a particular psychological position has profound implications for how an individual operationalizes his or her life. The positions are stated as:
1. I’m OK and you are OK. This is the healthiest position about life and it means that I feel good about myself and that I feel good about others and their competence.
2. I’m OK and you are not OK. In this position I feel good about myself but I see others as damaged or less than and it is usually not healthy,
3. I’m not OK and you are OK. In this position the person sees him/herself as the weak partner in relationships as the others in life are definitely better than the self. The person who holds this position will unconsciously accept abuse as OK.
4. I’m not OK and you are not OK. This is the worst position to be in as it means that I believe that I am in a terrible state and the rest of the world is as bad. Consequently there is no hope for any ultimate supports.

It is a theory of communication that can be extended to the analysis of systems and organisations.

It offers a theory for child development by explaining how our adult patterns of life originated in childhood. This explanation is based on the idea of a “Life (or Childhood) Script”: the assumption that we continue to re-play childhood strategies, even when this results in pain or defeat. Thus it claims to offer a theory of psychopathology.

In practical application, it can be used in the diagnosis and treatment of many types of psychological disorders and provides a method of therapy for individuals, couples, families and groups.

Outside the therapeutic field, it has been used in education to help teachers remain in clear communication at an appropriate level, in counseling and consultancy, in management and communications training and by other bodies.

Philosophy :
People are OK; thus each person has validity, importance, equality of respect.
Positive reinforcement increases feelings of being OK.
All people have a basic lovable core and a desire for positive growth.
Everyone (with only few exceptions, such as the severely brain-damaged) has the capacity to think.
All of the many facets of an individual have a positive value for them in some way.
People decide their story and destiny, therefore these decisions can be changed.
All emotional difficulties are curable.

Freedom from historical maladaptations embedded in the childhood script is required in order to become free of inappropriate, inauthentic and displaced emotions which are not a fair and honest reflection of here-and-now life (such as echoes of childhood suffering, pity-me and other mind games, compulsive behaviour and repetitive dysfunctional life patterns). The aim of change under TA is to move toward autonomy (freedom from childhood script), spontaneity, intimacy, problem solving as opposed to avoidance or passivity, cure as an ideal rather than merely making progress and learning new choices.

TA is a neo-Freudian theory of personality. Berne’s ego states are heavily influenced by Freud’s id, ego and super-ego, although they do not precisely correspond with them. A primary difference between Berne and Freud is the former’s treatment of the observable transactions known as “games”. A number of books popularized TA in the general public but did little to gain acceptance in the conventional psychoanalytic community. TA is considered by its adherents to be a more user-friendly and accessible model than the conventional psychoanalytic model. A number of modern-day TA practitioners emphasize the similarities with cognitive-behavioural models while others emphasize different models.

TA is not only post-Freudian but, according to its founder’s wishes, consciously extra-Freudian. That is to say that, while it has its roots in psychoanalysis, since Berne was a psychoanalytically-trained psychiatrist, it was designed as a dissenting branch of psychoanalysis in that it put its emphasis on transactional rather than “psycho-” analysis.

With its focus on transactions, TA shifted the attention from internal psychological dynamics to the dynamics contained in people’s interactions. Rather than believing that increasing awareness of the contents of unconsciously held ideas was the therapeutic path, TA concentrated on the content of people’s interactions with each other. Changing these interactions was TA’s path to solving emotional problems.

TA also differs from Freudian analysis in explaining that an individual’s final emotional state is the result of inner dialogue between different parts of the psyche, as opposed to the Freudian hypothesis that imagery is the overriding determinant of inner emotional state. (For example, depression may be due to ongoing critical verbal messages from the inner Parent to the inner Child.) Berne believed that it is relatively easy to identify these inner dialogues and that the ability to do so is parentally suppressed in early childhood.

In addition, Berne believed in making a commitment to “curing” his patients rather than just understanding them. To that end he introduced one of the most important aspects of TA: the contract—an agreement entered into by both client and therapist to pursue specific changes that the client desires.

Revising Freud’s concept of the human psyche as composed of the id, ego, and super-ego, Berne postulated in addition three “ego states”—the Parent, Adult, and Child states—which were largely shaped through childhood experiences. These three are all part of Freud’s ego; none represent the id or the superego.

Unhealthy childhood experiences can lead to these being pathologically fixated in the Child and Parent ego states, bringing discomfort to an individual and/or others in a variety of forms, including many types of mental illness.

Berne considered how individuals interact with one another, and how the ego states affect each set of transactions. Unproductive or counterproductive transactions were considered to be signs of ego state problems. Analyzing these transactions according to the person’s individual developmental history would enable the person to “get better”. Berne thought that virtually everyone has something problematic about their ego states and that negative behaviour would not be addressed by “treating” only the problematic individual.

Berne identified a typology of common counterproductive social interactions, identifying these as “games”.

Berne presented his theories in two popular books on transactional analysis: Games People Play (1964) and What Do You Say After You Say Hello? (1975). I’m OK, You’re OK (1969), written by Berne’s long-time friend Thomas Anthony Harris, is probably the most popular TA book.

By the 1970s, because of TA’s non-technical and non-threatening jargon and model of the human psyche, many of its terms and concepts were adopted by eclectic therapists as part of their individual approaches to psychotherapy. It also served well as a therapy model for groups of patients, or marital/family counselees, where interpersonal (rather than intrapersonal) disturbances were the focus of treatment. Critics have charged that TA—especially as loosely interpreted by those outside the more formal TA community—is a pseudoscience, when it is in fact better understood as a philosophy.

TA’s popularity in the U.S. waned in the 1970s, but it retains some popularity elsewhere in the world. The more dedicated TA purists banded together in 1964 with Berne to form a research and professional accrediting body, the International Transactional Analysis Association, or ITAA.

Leaving psychoanalysis half a century ago, Eric Berne presented transactional analysis to the world as a phenomenological approach supplementing Freud’s philosophical construct with observable data. His theory built on the science of Wilder Penfield and René Spitz along with the neo-psychoanalytic thought of people such as Paul Federn, Edoardo Weiss, and Erik Erikson. By moving to an interpersonal motivational theory, he placed it both in opposition to the psychoanalytic traditions of his day and within what would become the psychoanalytic traditions of the future.

From Berne, transactional analysts have inherited a determination to create an accessible and user-friendly system, an understanding of script or life-plan, ego states, transactions, and a theory of groups.

Within the overarching framework of transactional analysis, more recent transactional analysts have developed several different and overlapping theories of Transactional Analysis: cognitive, behavioural, relational, redecision, integrative, constructivist, narrative, body-work, positive psychological, personality adaptational, self-reparenting, psychodynamic, and neuroconstructivist.

Some transactional analysts highlight the many things they have in common with Cognitive behavioral therapy: the use of contracts with clear goals, the attention to cognitive distortions (called “Adult decontamination” or “Child deconfusion”), the focus on the client’s conscious attitudes and behaviours and the use of “strokes”.

Cognitive-based transactional analysts use ego state identification to identify communication distortions and teach different functional options in the dynamics of communication. Some make additional contracts for more profound work involving life plans or scripts or with unconscious processes, including those which manifest in the client-therapist relationship as transference and countertransference, and define themselves as psychodynamic or relational transactional analysts. Some highlight the study and promotion of subjective well-being and optimal human functioning rather than pathology and so identify with positive psychology. Some are increasingly influenced by current research in attachment, mother-infant interaction, and by the implications of interpersonal neurobiology and non-linear dynamic systems.

Many of the core TA models and concepts can be categorised into :
– Structural analysis – analysis of the individual psyche
– Transactional analysis proper – analysis of interpersonal transactions based on structural analysis of the individuals involved in the transaction
– Game analysis – repeating sequences of transactions that lead to a predetermined outcome subconsciously agreed to by the parties involved in the game
– Script analysis – a life plan that may involve long-term involvement in particular games in order to reach the life pay-off of the individual

These concepts can be understood as follows:

At any given time, a person experiences and manifests his or her personality through a mixture of behaviours, thoughts, and feelings. Typically, according to TA, there are three ego-states that people consistently use:
– ‘Parent (“exteropsyche”):’ a state in which people behave, feel, and think in response to an unconscious mimicking of how their parents (or other parental figures) acted, or how they interpreted their parent’s actions. For example, a person may shout at someone out of frustration because they learned from an influential figure in childhood the lesson that this seemed to be a way of relating that worked.
– ‘Adult (“neopsyche”):’ a state of the ego which is most like an artificially intelligent system processing information and making predictions about major emotions that could affect its operation. Learning to strengthen the Adult is a goal of TA. While a person is in the Adult ego state, he/she is directed towards an objective appraisal of reality.
– ‘Child (“archaeopsyche”):’ a state in which people behave, feel, and think similarly to how they did in childhood. For example, a person who receives a poor evaluation at work may respond by looking at the floor and crying or pouting, as when scolded as a child. Conversely, a person who receives a good evaluation may respond with a broad smile and a joyful gesture of thanks. The Child is the source of emotions, creation, recreation, spontaneity, and intimacy.

Berne differentiated his Parent, Adult, and Child ego states from actual adults, parents, and children, by using capital letters when describing them. These ego states may or may not represent the relationships that they act out. For example, in the workplace, an adult supervisor may take on the Parent role, and scold an adult employee as though he were a Child. Or a child, using the Parent ego-state, could scold her actual parent as though the parent were a Child.

Within each of these ego states are subdivisions. Thus Parental figures are often either more nurturing (permission-giving, security-giving) or more criticising (comparing to family traditions and ideals in generally negative ways); Childhood behaviours are either more natural (free) or more adapted to others. These subdivisions categorize individuals’ patterns of behaviour, feelings, and ways of thinking, which can be functional (beneficial or positive) or dysfunctional/counterproductive (negative).

Berne states that there are four types of diagnosis of ego states. They are: “behavioural” diagnosis, “social” diagnosis, “historical” diagnosis, and “phenomenological” diagnosis. A complete diagnosis would include all four types. It has subsequently been demonstrated that there is a fifth type of diagnosis, namely “contextual”, because the same behaviour will be diagnosed differently according to the context of the behaviour.

Ego states do not correspond directly to Sigmund Freud’s Ego, Superego, and Id, although there are obvious parallels: Superego/Parent; Ego/Adult; Id/Child. Ego states are consistent for each person, and (argue TA practitioners) are more observable than the components of Freud’s model. In other words, the ego state from which someone is communicating is evident in his or her behaviour, manner. and expression.

There is no “universal” ego state. For example, each Child ego state is unique to the childhood experiences, mentality, intellect, and family of each individual; it is not a generalized childlike state.

One ego state can become contaminated from another ego state. For example, when a person mistakes Parental rules and slogans for here-and-now Adult reality (the Adult ego state has become contaminated with the Parent), and when beliefs are taken as facts (the Adult ego state has become contaminated with the Child). Or when a person ‘knows’ that everyone is laughing at him because ‘they always laughed’. This would be an example of a childhood contamination (a Child contamination of the Adult), as here-and-now reality is being overlaid with memories of historic incidents in childhood.

Ego-state symbiosis is also possible according to Berne. In a symbiotic relationship, one participant borrows an ego state from the other participant and incorporates it into his or her personality. For instance, soldiers may absolve themselves of the question of the morality of their actions by deferring to their superiors. In this case, the soldier has incorporated the superior’s Parent ego state into his own persona (e.g. Banality of evil).

Although TA theory claims that ego states do not correspond directly to thinking, feeling, and judging, as these processes are present in every ego state, this claim appears to be self-contradictory to the claim that the Adult is like a computer processing information, therefore not feeling unless it is contaminated by the Child. A deeper understanding of TA is necessary in order to resolve this paradox. For example, Berne discusses how each ego state (Parent, Adult, and Child) can be perceived to be a further division of Parent-Adult-Child within the ego state itself. ‘Born to Win’ discusses how one of the goals of TA is to achieve integration of the other ego states into the Adult (an integrated Adult ego state) so that the awareness of the entire persona is elevated to the level of the Adult’s perception of reality.

Berne suspected that Parent, Adult, and Child ego states might be tied to specific areas of the human brain; an idea that has not been proven.

The three ego-state model has been questioned by a TA group in Australia, who have devised a two ego-state model as a means of solving perceived theoretical problems:

“The two ego-state model says that there is a Child ego state and a Parent ego state, placing the Adult ego state with the Parent ego state. […] How we learn to speak, add up and learn how to think is all just copied from our teachers, just as our morals and values are copied from our parents. There is no absolute truth where facts exist outside a person’s own belief system. Berne mistakenly concluded that there was and thus mistakenly put the Adult ego state as separate from the Parent ego state.” It is not clear, however, whether the concept of a learned perception of reality is counter-indicative to Berne’s theory of identifiably separate modes of rational and moral thought.

‘Transactions’ are the flow of communication, and more specifically the unspoken psychological flow of communication that runs parallel to spoken communication. Transactions occur simultaneously at both explicit and psychological levels. An example would be a sentence spoken in a sweet caring voice but with sarcastic intent. To read the real communication requires both surface and non-verbal reading.

‘Strokes’ are the recognition, attention or responsiveness that one person gives another. Strokes can be positive (nicknamed ‘warm fuzzies’) or negative (‘cold pricklies’). A key idea is that people hunger for recognition, and that lacking positive strokes, will seek whatever kind of recognition they can get, even if it is recognition of a negative kind. We test out as children what strategies and behaviours seem to get us strokes, of whatever kind we can get.

People often create pressure in (or experience pressure from) others to communicate in a way that matches their style, so that a boss who talks to his staff as a controlling parent will often engender self-abasement or other childlike responses. Those employees who resist may be removed or labelled as trouble-makers.

Transactions can be experienced as positive or negative, depending on the nature of the strokes within them. However, a negative transaction is often preferred to no transaction at all, because of a fundamental hunger for ‘strokes’.

The nature of transactions is important to understanding communication.

There are basically three kinds of transactions:
1. Reciprocal/Complementary (the simplest)
2. Crossed
3. Ulterior – Duplex/Angular (the most complex)

A simple reciprocal transaction occurs when both partners are addressing the ego state the other is in. These are also called complementary transactions. Example 1
A: ‘Have you written the report?’ (Adult to Adult
B: ‘Yes – I’m about to email it to you.’ (Adult to Adult)

Example 2:
A: ‘Would you like to skip this meeting and go watch a film with me instead?’ (Child to Child
B: ‘I’d love to – I don’t want to work any more. What should we go and see?’ (Child to Child)

Example 3:
A: ‘You should have your room tidy by now!’ (Parent to Child)
B: ‘Will you stop hassling me? I’ll do it eventually!’ (Child to Parent)

Communication like this can continue indefinitely. Clearly it will stop at some stage, but this psychologically balanced exchange of strokes can continue for some time.

Communication failures are typically caused by a ‘crossed transaction’ where partners address ego states other than the one their partner is in. Consider these examples.

Example 1a:
A: ‘Have you written that report?’ (Adult to Adult)
B: ‘Will you stop hassling me? I’ll do it eventually!’ (Child to Parent)

This is a crossed transaction likely to produce problems in the workplace. ‘A’ may respond with a Parent-to-Child transaction; for instance:
A: ‘If you don’t change your attitude, you’ll get fired.’

Example 2a:
A: ‘”Is your room tidy yet?’ (Parent to Child)
B: ‘I’m just going to do it, actually.’ (Adult to Adult)

This is a more positive crossed transaction. There is, however, the risk that ‘A’ will feel aggrieved that ‘B’ is acting responsibly and not playing their expected role, and the conversation will develop into:
A: ‘I can never trust you to do things!’ (Parent to Child)
B: ‘Why don’t you believe anything I say?’ (Child to Parent)

This can also continue indefinitely.

Another class of transaction is the ulterior transaction, where the explicit social conversation occurs in parallel with an implicit psychological transaction; for instance
A: ‘I need you to stay late at the office with me.’ (Adult words), body language indicates sexual intent (flirtatious Child)
B: ‘Of course.’ (Adult response to Adult statement), winking or grinning (Child accepts the hidden motive).

In TA theory, ‘Life Position’ refers to the general attitude about life (specifically the subconscious feeling as opposed to a conscious philosophical position) that colours every dyadic (i.e., person-to-person) transaction. Initially four such Life Positions were proposed:
1. I’m not OK, You’re OK (I-U+)
2. I’m not OK, You’re not OK (I-U-)
3. “I’m OK, You’re not OK (I+U-)
4. I’m OK, You’re OK (I+U+)

Australian TA analyst Tony White claimed that in order to better represent the Life Position behind disorders that were not allegedly as widespread and/or recognised at the time when TA was conceptualised as they are now (such as borderline personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder), the above list requires alteration. Also, two additional Life Positions are proposed:
1. I’m not OK, You’re OK (I-U+)
2. I’m not OK, You’re not OK” (I-U-), m,m,
3. I’m not OK, but You’re worse (I-U–)
4. I’m not-OK, You’re irrelevant (I-U?)
5. I’m a bit more OK than You are (I++U+)
6. I’m OK, You’re OK (I+U+)
7. I’m OK, You’re irrelevant (I+U?)

The difference between one’s own OK-ness and other’s OK-ness captured by the description ‘I’m OK, You’re not OK’ is substituted by a description that more accurately captures one’s own feeling (not jumping to conclusions based only on one’s perceived behaviour), therefore stating the difference in a new way: ‘I’m not OK, but you’re worse’ (I-U–).

Berne further developed life-position theory to include more complex three-cornered life positions such as: I’m OK, You’re OK, They’re not OK

In children, responses such as ‘Let’s go and play and then we’ll deal with those not-OK people later’ may be expected from this position, whereas in adults this position may lead to gang criminality.

Life (or childhood) script :
– Script is a life plan, directed to a reward.
^– Script is decisional and responsive; i.e., decided upon in childhood in response to perceptions of the world and as a means of living with and making sense of the world. It is not just thrust upon a person by external forces.
– Script is reinforced by parents (or other influential figures and experiences).
– Script is for the most part outside awareness.
– Script is how we navigate and what we look for, the rest of reality is redefined (distorted) to match our filters.

Each culture, country and people in the world has a Mythos, that is, a legend explaining its origins, core beliefs and purpose. According to TA, so do individual people. A person begins writing his/her own life story (script) at a young age, as he/she tries to make sense of the world and his place within it. Although it is revised throughout life, the core story is selected and decided upon typically by age 7. As adults it passes out of awareness. A life script might be “to be hurt many times, and suffer and make others feel bad when I die”, and could result in a person indeed setting himself up for this, by adopting behaviours in childhood that produce exactly this effect. Though Berne identified several dozen common scripts, there are a practically infinite number of them. Scripts discussed in psychotherapy are mostly destructive as the patient’s script is psychopathological, however scripts may just as easily be mostly positive or beneficial.

Redefining and discounting :
– Redefining means the distortion of reality when we deliberately (but unconsciously) distort things to match our preferred way of seeing the world. Thus a person whose script involves “struggling alone against a cold hard world” may redefine others’ kindness, concluding that others are trying to get something by manipulation.
– Discounting means, to take something as, worth less than it is. Thus to give a substitute reaction which does not originate as a here-and-now Adult attempt to solve an actual problem, or to choose not to see evidence that would contradict one’s script. Types of discount can also include: passivity (doing nothing), over-adaptation, agitation, incapacitation, anger and violence.

Injunctions and drivers : TA identifies twelve key injunctions which people commonly build into their scripts. These are injunctions in the sense of being powerful “I can’t/mustn’t …” messages that embed into a child’s belief and life-script:
– Don’t be (will not exist)
– Don’t be who you are (Don’t Be You)
– Don’t be a child
– Don’t grow u
– Don’t make it in your life (Don’t Succeed)
– Don’t do anything!
– Don’t be important
– Don’t belong
– Don’t be close
– Don’t be well (don’t be sane!)
– Don’t think
– Don’t feel.

In addition, there is the so-called episcript:
“You should (or deserve to) have this happen in your life, so it doesn’t have to happen to me.” (Magical thinking on the part of the parent(s).)

Against these, a child is often told other things he or she must do. There is debate as to whether there are five or six of these ‘drivers’:
– Please me/others!
– Be perfect!
– Be Strong!
– Try Hard
– Hurry Up!
– Be Careful! (is in dispute)

Thus in creating his script, a child will often attempt to juggle these, example: “It’s okay for me to go on living (ignore don’t exist) so long as I try hard”.

This explains why some change is inordinately difficult. To continue the above example: When a person stops trying hard and relaxes to be with his family, the injunction You don’t have the right to exist which was being suppressed by their script now becomes exposed and a vivid threat. Such an individual may feel a massive psychological pressure which he himself doesn’t understand, to return to trying hard, in order to feel safe and justified (in a childlike way) in existing.

Driver behaviour is also detectable at a very small scale, for instance in instinctive responses to certain situations where driver behaviour is played out over five to twenty seconds.

Broadly speaking, scripts can fall into Tragic, Heroic or Banal (or Non-Winner) varieties, depending on their rules.

There are six ways of structuring time by giving and receiving strokes:
1. Withdrawal
2. Ritual
3. Pastimes
4. Activity
5. Games
6. Intimacy

This is sorted in accordance with stroke strength; Intimacy and Games in general allow for the most intensive strokes. Berne actually ordered them: Withdrawal, Ritual, Activity, Pastimes, Games, Intimacy.

Withdrawal : This means no strokes are being exchanged

Rituals : A ritual is a series of transactions that are complementary (reciprocal), stereotyped and based on social programming. Rituals usually comprise a series of strokes exchanged between two parties.

For instance, two people may have a daily two stroke ritual, where, the first time they meet each day, each one greets the other with a “Hi”. Others may have a four stroke ritual, such as:

A: Hi!
B: Hi! How are you?
A: Getting along. What about you?
B: Fine. See you around.

The next time they meet in the day, they may not exchange any strokes at all, or may just acknowledge each other’s presence with a curt nod.

Some phenomena associated with daily rituals:
– If a person exchanges fewer strokes than expected, the other person may feel that he is either preoccupied or acting high and mighty.
– If a person exchanges more strokes than expected, the other person might wonder whether he is trying to butter him up or get on good terms for some vested interests.
– If two people do not meet for a long time, a backlog of strokes gets built up, so that the next time they meet, they may exchange a large number of strokes to catch up.

A pastime is a series of transactions that is complementary (reciprocal), semi-ritualistic, and is mainly intended as a time-structuring activity. Pastimes have no covert purpose and can usually be carried out only between people on the same wavelength. They are usually shallow and harmless. Pastimes are a type of smalltalk.

Individuals often partake in similar pastimes throughout their entire life, as pastimes are generally very much linked to one’s life script and the games that one often plays. Some pastimes can even be understood as a reward for playing a certain game. For example, Eric Berne in Games People Play discusses how those who play the “Alcoholic” game (i.e., alcoholics, their Persecutors and their enablers) often enjoy the “Morning After” pastime in which participants share their most amusing or harrowing hangover stories.

Activities in this context mean the individuals work together for a common goal. This may be work, sports or something similar. In contrast to Pastimes, there is a meaningful purpose guiding the interactions, while Pastimes are just about exchanging strokes. Strokes can then be given in the context of the cooperation. Thus the strokes are generally not personal, but related to the activity.

Intimacy as a way of structuring time allows one to exchange the strongest strokes without playing a Game. Intimacy differs from Games as there is no covert purpose, and differs from Activities as there is no other process going on which defines a context of cooperation. Strokes are personal, relating to the other person, and often unconditional.

A game is a series of transactions that is complementary (reciprocal), ulterior, and proceeds towards a predictable outcome. Games are always characterized by a switch in roles of players towards the end. Games are always played by Parent and Child ego states, and games can have any number of players; however, an individual’s role can shift, and people within games can play multiple roles. If a person uses their Adult in a game then this would be a manoeuvre and not a game on the part of the person using their Adult ego state. Adult functioning is conscious. Game playing is out of awareness.

Berne identified dozens of games, noting that, regardless of when, where or by whom they were played, each game tended towards very similar structures in how many players or roles were involved, the rules of the game, and the game’s goals.

Each game has a payoff for those playing it, such as the aim of earning sympathy, satisfaction, vindication, or some other emotion that usually reinforces the life script. The antithesis of a game, that is, the way to break it, lies in discovering how to deprive the actors of their payoff.

Students of transactional analysis have discovered that people who are accustomed to a game are willing to play it even as a different “actor” from what they originally were.

One important aspect of a game is its number of players. Games may be two handed (that is, played by two players), three handed (that is, played by three players), or many handed. Three other quantitative variables are often useful to consider for games:
– Flexibility: The ability of the players to change the currency of the game (that is, the tools they use to play it). In a flexible game, players may shift from words, to money, to parts of the body.
– Tenacity: The persistence with which people play and stick to their games and their resistance to breaking it.
– Intensity: Easy games are games played in a relaxed way. Hard games are games played in a tense and aggressive way.

Based on the degree of acceptability and potential harm, games are classified as:
– First Degree Games are socially acceptable in the players’ social circle.
– Second Degree Games are games that the players would like to conceal, though they may not cause irreversible damage.
– Third Degree Games are games that could lead to drastic harm to one or more of the parties concerned.

Games are also studied based on their:
– Aim
– Roles
– Social and Psychological Paradigms
– Dynamics
– Advantages to players (Payoffs)

Transactional game analysis is fundamentally different from rational or mathematical game analysis in the following senses:
– The players do not always behave rationally in transactional analysis, but behave more like real people.
– Their motives are often ulterior.

Here are some of the most commonly found themes of games described in Games People Play by Eric Berne:
– YDYB: Why Don’t You, Yes But. Historically, the first game discovered.
– IFWY: If It Weren’t For You
– WAHM: Why does this Always Happen to Me? (setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy)
– SWYMD: See What You Made Me Do
– UGMIT: You Got Me Into This
– LHIT: Look How Hard I’ve Tried
– ITHY: I’m Only Trying to Help You (becoming a neglected martyr)
– LYAHF: Let’s You and Him Fight (staging a love triangle)
– NIGYYSOB / NIGYSOB: Now I’ve Got You, You Son Of a Bitch (escalating minor disagreements or errors into major interpersonal conflicts)
– RAPO: A woman falsely cries ‘rape’ or threatens to; related to Buzz Off Buster, a milder version in which a woman flirts with a man and then rejects his advances

Berne argued that the logic of games is wholly subjective; one person’s Parent state might interact with another’s Child, rather than as Adult to Adult.

Games can also be analysed according to the Karpman drama triangle, that is, by the roles of Persecutor, Victim and Rescuer. The ‘switch’ is then when one of these having allowed stable roles to become established, suddenly switches role. The Victim becomes a Persecutor, and throws the previous Persecutor into the Victim role, or the Rescuer suddenly switches to become a Persecutor (“You never appreciate me helping you!”).

The first such game theorized was Why don’t you/Yes, but in which one player (White) would pose a problem as if seeking help, and the other player(s) (Black) would offer solutions (the “Why don’t you?” suggestion). This game was noticed as many patients played it in therapy and psychiatry sessions, and inspired Berne to identify other interpersonal “games”.

White would point out a flaw in every Black player’s solution (the “Yes, but” response), until they all gave up in frustration. For example, if someone’s life script was “to be hurt many times, and suffer and make others feel bad when I die” a game of “Why Don’t You, Yes But” might proceed as follows
– White: I wish I could lose some weight
– Black: Why don’t you join a gym
– White: Yes but, I can’t afford the payments for a gym
– Black: Why don’t you speed walk around your block after you get home from work
– White: Yes but, I don’t dare walk alone in my neighborhood after dark
– Black: Why don’t you take the stairs at work instead of the elevator?

“Why Don’t You, Yes But” can proceed indefinitely, with any number of players in the Black role, until Black’s imagination is exhausted, and she can think of no other solutions. At this point, White “wins” by having stumped Black. After a silent pause following Black’s final suggestion, the game is often brought to a formal end by a third role, Green, who makes a comment such as, “It just goes to show how difficult it is to lose weight.”

The secondary gain for White was that he could claim to have justified his problem as insoluble and thus avoid the hard work of internal change; and for Black, to either feel the frustrated martyr (“I was only trying to help”) or a superior being, disrespected (“the patient was uncooperative”).

Superficially, this game can resemble Adult to Adult interaction (people seeking information or advice), but more often, according to Berne, the game is played by White’s helpless Child, and Black’s lecturing Parent ego states.

Another example of Berne’s approach was his identification of the game of “Drunk” or “Alcoholic.” As he explained it, the transactional object of the drunk, aside from the personal pleasure obtained by drinking, could be seen as being to set up a situation where the Child can be severely scolded not only by the internal parent but by any parental figures in the immediate environment who are interested enough to oblige. The pattern is shown to be similar to that in the non-alcoholic game “Schlemiel,” in which mess-making attracts attention and is a pleasure-giving way for White to lead up to the crux, which is obtaining forgiveness by Black.

There are a variety of organizations involved in playing ‘Alcoholic’, some of them national or even international in scope, others local. Many of them publish rules for the game. Nearly all of them explain how to play the role of Alcoholic: take a drink before breakfast, spend money allotted for other purposes, etc. They also explain the function of the Rescuer role in the game. Alcoholics Anonymous, Berne said, continues playing the actual game but concentrates on inducing the Alcoholic to take the role of Rescuer. Former Alcoholics are preferred because they know how the game goes, and hence are better qualified to play the supporting role of Rescuer than people who have never played before.

According to this type of analysis, with the rise of rescue organizations that publicize alcoholism as a disease rather than a transactional game, alcoholics have been taught to play “Wooden Leg”, a different game in which an organic ailment absolves White of blame.

A racket is the dual strategy of getting “permitted feelings,” while covering up feelings which we truly feel, but which we regard as being “not allowed”. More technically, a racket feeling is “a familiar set of emotions, learned and enhanced during childhood, experienced in many different stress situations, and maladaptive as an adult means of problem solving”.

A racket is then a set of behaviours which originate from the childhood script rather than in here-and-now full Adult thinking, which (1) are employed as a way to manipulate the environment to match the script rather than to actually solve the problem, and (2) whose covert goal is not so much to solve the problem, as to experience these racket feelings and feel internally justified in experiencing them.

Examples of racket and racket feelings: “Why do I meet good guys who turn out to be so hurtful”, or “He always takes advantage of my goodwill”. The racket is then a set of behaviours and chosen strategies learned and practised in childhood which in fact help to cause these feelings to be experienced. Typically this happens despite their own surface protestations and hurt feelings, out of awareness and in a way that is perceived as someone else’s fault. One covert pay-off for this racket and its feelings, might be to gain in a guilt free way, continued evidence and reinforcement for a childhood script belief that “People will always let you down”.

Eric Berne’s ability to express the ideas of TA in common language and his popularisation of the concepts in mass-market books inspired a boom of popular TA texts.

Thomas Harris’s successful popular work from the late 1960s, I’m OK, You’re OK is largely based on Transactional Analysis. A fundamental divergence, however, between Harris and Berne is that Berne postulates that everyone starts life in the “I’m OK” position, whereas Harris believes that life starts out “I’m not OK, you’re OK”.

New Age author James Redfield has acknowledged Harris and Berne as important influences in his best-seller The Celestine Prophecy (1993). The protagonists in the novel survive by striving (and succeeding) in escaping from “control dramas” that resemble the games of TA.

The 2nd episode of the 3rd season in the 4th generation of the “My Little Pony” series is called “Games Ponies Play” as an homage to this work.

Singer/songwriter Warren Zevon mentions Transactional Analysis in his 1980 song “Gorilla, You’re A Desperado.” “Then the ape grew very depressed. Went through Transactional Analysis.”

The power of children

The Child in the sense of Bern represents your spontaneous, energetic, carefree, curious, player side,. It is this light humor that tempts you to flirt with the attractive unknown that you have just met in the street. The Child is also this small mischievous genius who dictates your intuition, your creativity and your capacity to manipulate.

But he is often repressed by the authoritarian Normative Parent who slumbers in you. Exactly like earlier when you said to yourself that “it is not polite/it is absurd/it will make her uncomfortable“. It is also the Parent who judges (often in a negative way).

However, it is well your Adult state that takes the decisions. Thus, it’s up to you if you want to reconcile yourself with the child who slumbers in you.

Conclusion : be Parent in the situations that deserve it. But, in seduction, be also a little bit a child. Remember what said Neil Strauss in The Game about child’s soul: “I knew just what to do: fake them out with a couple of the practical jokes and pseudomagic tricks I’d learned in elementary school. In the field, one quickly learns that everything that was funny at age ten is funny all over again.“

For a concrete example if you want to observe somebody who switch well between these two states: Patrick Jane in Mentalist. His eyes, his naughty smile and his gift for magic tricks, the whole coated by a suit of responsible adult, turn them on.

Next time, thus let the cherub who slumbers in you express!

If you read my blog (or even my competitors), you must know that seduction is a kind of path divided into several stages. The attraction, the comfort, the isolation, etc. And you must also know that these stages are themselves divided into several sub-stages. One of them is very important and nevertheless I did not find much in the literature of the community of the seduction about the importance of the FIRST NAME.

I am not saying that you cannot screw a girl without knowing her first name (although I don’t remember that it already happened to me but in theory it is possible). I am just saying that our first name has a kind of power on us and that it would be stupid to don’t use it to distinguish yourself from the crowd, in seduction.

I can explain.

The anchoring

How would you think if you did not know words? You could certainly go out buying condoms but what would you say to yourself while going there?

It is very important to be able to name actions, things and people. A name on a face and hop it is not any more the unknown. It is not anymore “the crowd”.

Besides, our first name is often the first word known and memorized by the baby. It thus creates a particular connection with people who use our first name to talk to us.

Have you already heard anybody saying your first name without talking to you? Nevertheless you certainly turned around or at least felt concerned at this moment. It was stronger than you! Even if you are not the only one Julien or the only Estelle on Earth.

Application

If, in a club, you go from group to group, do not forget to ask for the first name of the girls (and even of the guys) after the first contact. It will then be easier for you to come back talking to them. And they will feel very flattered that you remembered their first name. Don’t give at once your first name, wait that they ask to you for it. Because if “she” does so, especially spontaneously, it is an indicator of interest. Do not then forget to give her your hand to add a kino to this interaction and make yourself much more nice to her (the power of the touched). I develop the importance of the touch of the hand in my book about Fast Seduction (the art of quick sex). Alpha handshake not like a great lump (a couch potato)!

By making the effort to ask for the first names and to give yours most of the time, you will so create a particular link with the attractive waitresses, the bakers and the girls who often go out at night. It is a good beginning! You will not anymore be the average customer in their eyes.

We name what we know ! And we know what we name ! (or almost)

And when you will see them again, you will be able to put them back very easily in a good state of mind by using their first names. Furthermore, by knowing the first name of a girl, you can talk to her friends “you too are a friend of Sophie?” They grant much more easily their confidence (trust) to a “friend” of friend.

It will thus be necessary to remember a lot of first names. For example, at the party of the new year of the last year, I learnt 32 first names. And I remembered them. Every single one. I’m not telling it to brag, nor to persuade that I am a mentalist, it is to show you that it is possible (and that it is not very difficult with a little of training and motivation). Know that it always makes an effect on people! Besides, they often feel quite bad “and you btw what is your first name again?”

How to remember first names?

First of all, do not think of what you’ll say after having asked for their identities. When you ask for “her” first name, concentrate and memorize it. Be attentive and if you did not heard well, do not hesitate to make her repeat! It is better than asking again one hour later!!! When she said it, repeat it by looking at her in eyes, say something like “nice to meet you Bérengère.”

You can also use mnemonics, like associating her with an animal which name begins with the same letter as her first name either with a character (like Caroline the Tortoise). For example: Lara the rabbit, Marie the marmot, Sarah the bitch (oops!) or with an adjective: Aurore the horrible, Malika the malignant, etc…. Capisch?

Do not do it too often either but pronounce from time to time the first names. You will notice that it has a positive effect on people. They will find you nicer and will thus reach more easily your requests. And not only in seduction but at work and somewhere else also… especially if other people do not do it! It is some basic psychology/communication tips!

And then

When you took her number, register with her first name to don’t forget it later when you will want to write it to her in a text. Also note the name of her friends, why not, as well as some information gleaned on people (in a pad or a memo pad). So, you can feed the conversation with them easily later without being thought of as a weirdo “then, do you have you licence now?” Or “so, did your sister have her high school diploma)?” They will find you very concerned and will like very much that you are interested in them!

Do not overestimate your memory: the first names of the new year, I have already forgotten half of them.

Conclusion: using the first name of the girls will allow you to establish a reliable link more quickly and then to reactivate the anchoring of your first good impression on them. Especially when you will have spoken to them just briefly.

Attention:
– Do not expect that they always remember your first name in return. Do not take offence in this case and tease them!
– Pay attention on the blunders: an error would make you lose points (even if that can allow to approach but well it is not very “ahhhh it is not you Marine, fuck, I took you for another one, how are you btw?” that is weird.

Good luck on the field naughty boys !

PS = I never forget a thing, especially not a naked chick.

One of the most common mistakes in seduction, it is to think that you have to say at all costs interesting things, to prove your value, even brag… Certain guys so become more talkative than a teenager in back of the classroom because of the stress engendered by the date. Golden rule: prefer showing her an a little bit low energy level that a too high one.

I am going to reveal you a secret: the human beings in general (and the girls in particular) like talking about themselves. They are only interested in what concerns them (directly or indirectly). To seduce more girls, I thus invite you to work on your ability of listening to make them talk about what they are interested in.

The ability to listen, it is not only “to make your interlocutor talk randomly”. You have to learn how to notice the verbal and nonverbal signals (implicit or explicit) that will allow you to direct the conversation in an adequate way (on convenient subjects) to get your own way.

Live in the moment

For a good ability to listen, be totally focus on what you are doing. Dedicate your attention on your date. But keep a casual face! You will have to ally logic / capacity of analysis and creativity / spontaneity.

Forget the “too much prepared” techniques of seduction that look like informatic programming language of geek. You can study various methods to get a plan (and thus all the time check more or less where you are situated in your way towards her bed) but step back on game plans because every interaction is unique. To react in an optimal way, don’t be extremely focused on your game. You will so maybe be focused between her legs one night or the other one.

The listening of the explicit and the listening of the implicit

The listening of the explicit, it is to listen to “the words” of your interlocutor. What she says, to adapt yourself to her style of language. You can synchronize with her on this plan while keeping your own personality. Do not hesitate to use her first name when you talk to her: people like that you remember their first name (but do not expect them to do the same thing for you). In an ideal frame, you can chat and hear each other suitably. That it is a good thing: with any luck, you will turn your tongue in the same direction when you will kiss.

The listening of the implicit, it is to listen to “the emotional state” of your interlocutor. All the words, according to how they are said, can mean something or the opposite. Try to put her in emotional conditions convenient to seduction by directing her on subjects that make her have fun. When you try to pick up a girl, even if she is shy or does not know what to say (no imagination, no skill of communication) you can notice that her voice itself gives you an idea of her level of interest (if she is very enthusiastic, it is an indicator of interest, even if she does not really know what to say). Learn how to read between the lines! For some, it is innate for others we have to learn…

Thus you will increase your level of empathy. That is to say : you will learn how to perceive better and to understand what feels the person in front of you. The empathy is a notion indicating the “understanding” of the feelings of another individual, even, in a more general sense, his/her non-emotional states, like the faiths or beliefs (it is then more precisely about cognitive empathy). In ordinary language, this phenomenon is often designed by the expression “being in the shoes of the other one”.

This understanding occurs by a not-focus of the person on himself and can lead to actions related to the survival of the subject aimed by the empathy, independently, and sometimes even to the detriment of the interests of the subject feeling empathy. In the study of the interpersonal relations, the empathy is thus different from notions of sympathy, condolence, altruism or emotional contagion that can ensue from it.

One of these days, will need that we also speak about the active listening and about the passive listening. Well, OK, let’s do it right now : thus what is the active listening ? It is to be interested in the other one, in what she says. Close look at what she tells, try to understand and to help her to understand herself, to step back, in brief, to be in the empathy, exactly…

By opposition, there is a passive listening. It is what we all do at various moments of the day. Do you remember the last ad you saw or heard? The listening is distracted, without particular attention.

To do things properly, for an optimal listening, it would also be necessary to avoid throwing our own filter on our perception of the conversation. Everyone acts in one’s own interest as they say and thus we all interact with the world according to our world map, what can bias slightly the interactions. To do things properly, would need to succeed in releasing ourselves from all this but well… It is maybe not worth the effort to make some zeal either ! 😉

Listening actively is an art that requires a strong concentration, and a focus on the other one.

The main reproach we can make to the community of the seduction

What I do not like in the community of the seduction (especially in English), it is the ready-to-use routines or the “techniques” that leave no room for creativity. As soon as what you say does not come from you and does not correspond to your personality (for example: magic words that other people advised you to pronounce to seduce) it is some shit. Do not become a robot. Be an artist, a real one. Get off the beaten track! Have fun while you try to pick up!!! Do not have the impression to work or to walk on eggshells when you interact with chicks, seriously, it would be a pain in the ass (for you and for her)!

Do not either always try to anticipate! Neither her reactions nor anything… nor thinking for her. Provoke / try your luck and see what happens. The important, it is to have no regrets when you go to bed even if you go there alone! You will sometimes be surprised by how can a party turn when we just light the fuse of the bomb (this is a metaphor)! Some people think that it is the people who are not confident in fact who try to always control everything… so you know what you have to do now because sexy women do not want to see this part of you (ie this lacks confidence – but I’m not saying that you cannot have some weaknesses it’s not at all the same thing). Reading my blog, it’s good, but letting it go on the field is awesome! However, for that purpose you have to overcome all these excuses your anxiety urges you to imagine !!! Do not deny! Even me, I still find excuses sometimes… except that I am conscious of it and so I act accordingly.

Know that quite a lot of girls want to get acquainted with you. But I’m talking about the “real you”, not the you submitted to the social pressure nor the you submitted to the mechanical game that makes you say things which do not correspond to you (just because you’ve read them in the FR of a mythomaniac asshole). Do not speak too fast either, it is stressful… finally as for myself it pisses me off. I thus imagine that I am not the only one in this case.

Cooperation rather than opposition

I’m not trying to annoy you with theory but try to always adopt a guy a cooperative mode of conversation rather than a defensive mode. So, your target will maybe do the same… In any case, it is the purpose and that increases your chances of success! Cooperate in the conversation to better cooperate in the bed!

If you have already practiced theatrical improvisation with other people, you know that you should absolutely not block the ideas of your partner but rather instead develop them. And of course, do not block the conversations by answering “in one word”. Seriously, when a girl does that, I answers her “do you know that it is with this kind of answers that you could block the conversation.
– of course no (that means go for it make all the efforts for me, I am a princess)
– OF COURSE YES, so bye bye.” I hate bootlicking the girls, I prefer licking them somewhere else. Then for example on Tinder when I write 10 lines and they answer with 3 words I train them.

I invite you to go further than what she says and to go into her delirium rather than to block her. I’m not saying that you have to agree with all her ideas but avoid the following words “no”, “but”, etc. (everything that can block a conversation). Prefer the mindset “yes and …” This simple thing will make you conversation richer and funkier!

It is also a good technique to manage the shit-tests (these questions supposed to destabilize you to test your confidence) : “Do you say this kind of thing to every girl ?
– Yes to all the girls even my mum and she likes it.”

” You are you a hot womanizer you!
– Yes moreover I try to reach 750 girls fucked before 2016.”

“I am not a sex thing.
– Neither do I. But why do you speak to me about that? That makes you look a little insecure all the same.” (It also works when you synchronize on negation)

It is all the same much funnier to show them how much their questions are absurd and to avoid getting stuck in the embarrassment of shitty justifications to try to prove them your value like a knight who would kill a dragon to be entitled to a kiss on the cheek on behalf of a princess. And then it is better than answering “shut up biatch” as I’m used to do. Self control requiered!!!

Any woman is a discovery and can surprise you (for the better or for the worse). I always have hope to meet a girl who is going to make me have fun! Even if it is my tenth silly bitch of the day… I continue for the eleventh who will (maybe) be an adorable small cocksucker, funny, sexy, open-minded AND WHO KNOWS HOW TO CHOOSE BEAUTIFUL UNDERWEAR. It’s important all the same. That’s it the point of the game according to me and this is the way I advise you to live it!!! To thank her for being so cool and attractive, I shall lick her during hmmm… 20 minutes ! 😉

See you soon on the field !

For more advice to don’t let women work you up, I suggest you to read this ebook.

Today I want to talk to you about sexualization because many guys have difficulty with sexualizing their conversations. Nevertheless, it is an important step of your learning if you want to ejaculate with a lot of attractive girls. My purpose by writing this article is to tempt you to add a little of sexual tension to your approaches and to your dates.

A conversation like “what’s your name? where do you come from ? what is your job/studies ? what do you want to do later (job) ?” has few chances to tempt a woman to jump on you like a Moroccan jumps on a dromedaries (there is a big bump). Unless if she is really very attracted from the beginning… but well, we will just handle the general case here.

Definition : sexualizing is not as we could think = “talking about sex”. You just have to switch on Canal+ to hear impolite columnists making up a competition of lack of respect and vulgarity. You just have to buy a women’s magazine to understand that talking about sex between girls is not at all extraordinary (thus why would it be extraordinary to talk about sex with a guy?) You just have to buy a GQ to read foolishness written by girls paid to explain to you that realizing your fantasies is a bad thing. Thus, even if you want to be provocative, know that asking her point-blank if she likes sodomy is not THAT original and is not effective. Sexualizing, it’s introducing sex.

Thus: beginning the conversation by asking her “do you want to suck my dick ?” or “hello can I take you doggystyle ?” won’t work (I do it sometimes when I am drunk but well it is most of the time just for fun). The golden rule of sexualisation is : the more a conversation is sex-based the less she has to take you for a dead man of hunger. You are a player, teasing, you have naughty thoughts that you communicate but if something lets her think that you did not touch a woman for a long time, she will lose attraction for you (cf. the principle of preselection by other women).

What we want to do when we sexualize, it is to establish a sexual tension, a game, some sensualism, to make her feel comfortable with the possible naughty thoughts (which she certainly already had) by showing her THE FIRST ONE that we feel comfortable on this ground, and also by suggesting her more or less subtly not you own really catholic ideas in a more or less explicit way.

Just like in the bed, you have to take the initiative to bring the subject, to surprise her by your nerve and your original ideas that make you stand out from the crowd (avoid all the same the weird things like fetishism) and make her rates of hormones rise (= make her live feelings). By talking to her about sex, if she is not too much ashamed (tight ass) she will imagine herself doing dirty things with you. Or then she will think again about the act in itself (that she has seemingly already made) and will be turned on then will associate you with this excitement. In any case, she will a little lose control, but I have to warn you some do not like it : that puts them under stress… those ones can react in an unpredictable way. That can go from the blowjob to the slap right in the face including insults.

Why do accountants have a so bad reputation in seduction? They have the reputation to be stuck to the facts. The facts, the facts and only the facts. A girl is thus very afraid of being damn bored with a typical accountant. He has as many chances to kiss Alice David as Alice Isaaz to slip on a banana skin and to fall naked on my sex nicknamed John-David.

Sexualisation is thus a kind of verbal preliminary that prepares the girl to welcome you into her. It is necessary to prepare her mentally. Even for the dirtiest, a minimum is needed. It can be done in face-to-face or on the Internet / by texts for those who like writing.

Especially, don’t be one of these boring and soporific guys. Do not join the gang of the tiresomeness. It is what could happen when you tell her your day of WORK with a lot of details that do not interest her… all this to brag and/or to be thought of as a “nice” guy. According to me, it is better to go too far than not enough.

If I summarize: sexualisation is any conversation between a man and a woman who would be inappropriate between two guys. Or at work. Or with your sister / mother.

– The shiest will sexualize with easy things that are indirectly sexual as “do you prefer eating black chocolate or listening some music while running in the forest?”

With that, you sexualize because you remind her pleasant things that are associated to you by your simple presence when she thinks of it. Capisch ? Otherwise, reread this rickety sentence.

In any case, you have to sexualize with your body language while you talk (as explained here and there in details). Because obviously, if you say sexy things by looking at your feet and by reaching for the high notes, that is going to waste all your effect: you would not assume and she would feel it, and thus she would not respect you anymore. To be sexy, don’t be easy to destabilize. I speak to you about something that is related to the domain of the emotion (and of the balance of power sometimes) and not of the logic (which would be : you are not ugly, you have a good job and you are nice then you have sex with hotties… but unfortunately that does not work like that).

*A little more dared “where do like kisses the most ?”

*The level still above “what is the color of your underwear today ?”

*Then : allusions, plays on words, tell her that she has a dirty mind when she has the misfortune chance of saying an ambiguous word… etc.

*The last level and the most difficult to master, it is the pushy attitude. It is the nuclear bomb of seduction. I do it often but sometimes I still go too far: the euphoria of the moment sometimes traps us by making us lose any sense of moderation. It is not a problem in itself but well we shock some and we are sometimes thought of as a weirdo around politically correct people, it is boring… I even have been punched once.

To inspire you, I give a lot of examples of field-tested lines that work well in this ebook.

The purpose is to connect with woman on an emotional level. If everything goes well, they will find you original & funny (otherwise calibrate better that is to say adapt better to your context / environment)…

With this attitude, we are very far from the “interview mode” they hear most of the time. Having said that, the originality and all this stuff can destabilize the girls been used to losers. Then they will test you to see if you are really cool or if you play a role. There is also the case of the silly bitches (often bimbos or virgins) who are afraid as soon as we get off the beaten track “aaaaaah you talked to me about sex you are a pervert go away.” It speaks for itself. It is often the ones who do not understand the second degree humor/irony or who dread so much to fall on a weirdo that they see weirdos everywhere (they have been too much warned by their mother who in fact fucked in the hay with the neighbor). Really needs to be confident to do that because floozies will try to make you feel guilty and to put you back in the mold of the handleable guys (that arranges them). Don’t be a victime!

You will play with her. That will make her comfortable. She will maybe even play your game and will feel freed by your casual side. Your interaction, under the cover of a small role play, will so be less perturbed by social pressure. Maybe, she will answer your teasings by a pat on the shoulder or an emotional insult “asshollllllllllle, I am not a stupid blonde who has a goldfish memory!”

Alternate the warmth and the cold (compliments / teasings) to make the pleasure rise according to the principle of “push and pull”.

Know that we can sexualize any conversation (even the really not sexy topics, just needs to have good reflexes and to bounce on certain words that allow an easy sexualization) with a girl we like outside the frames of work and family. Within 5 minutes, it is totally possible.

What quite a lot of guys find difficult to understand it is that it is necessary to ASSUME. Whatever you do. Even if sex is underlying in any interaction man / woman : you are a man who has some sexual desire and who does not plan to hide it because you are not a hypocrite unlike most of the guys who are spongy but who only think about screwing her and leave her just after. That is the big paradox of women, they push away the true guys and take the smooth talkers then are disappointed and after are mad at the true guys and their final conclusion is always “you are all jerks”…!

Morality : masturbation is not your thing. You are used to real women, to hot and wet real vaginas. She has to respect you for that, it is logical. Except that if that does not arrange her, you will come up against the famous bad feminine faith and take a tremendous amount of shit “come on you are too confident/cocky you I will put you back in place !
– Oh really ? What’s your interest there ? Why don’t you rather take advantage of it to have orgasms ? Go back with your bad legs if you are so afraid of great legs.”

Revelation : she has sexual desires too. Then, you can quench them together and nobody loses there (if both are frank from the beginning about what they want) ! Everybody wins at it in that case. It is a win-win scenario. It is all the same better than watching TV alone with your wubby. This must be your underlying mindset.

In brief, talk to her imagination, to her instinct. Use the three channels of communication (visual, hearing, kinesthetic), when you describe a scene. But this is another story.

The last word: talk to her like you would talk to an old & a little bit naughty friend.

With that, don’t forget to walk the talk: the kinos.

See you soon !

“The elevator indicates maximum load = 300kg are you sure that you can come in?“

This article has been written by Virginie.

It’s me again… again ! Admit that you missed me. You can’t deny, I study psychology thus I know better than you what you think. Mouah ah ah ! Hum hum, well well…

In a previous article, Fabrice talked about the influence of beliefs on the behavior, how they can be limiting or, on the contrary, source of opening. And he is right. But there is something else. Let’s take an example: a smoker knows (he has the belief) that smoking is bad for his health. However, his behavior stay the same, he smokes. What tends to show that this reasoning has its limits. It is also valid in various other domains: sport, food, work,… and gender relations, of course !

In fact, what takes place most of the time is the opposite: our behavior influences our thoughts. Simply put, we deduce information on ourselves from the way we acted – or from the feedback we had from the others on our behavior. This is the way a teacher who tells to a pupil that he is bad/will never have his degree/has no future/etc. is going “to condition” him to continue in this way: the pupil interiorizes the judgment of the teacher on his behavior (for example, the result to a test) and will think then, that actually, he is bad/will never have his degree/has no future. Then : early school leaving, deal of drug in front of the high school followed by bad-trips, a murder committed under LCD and a life spent in jail (well, OK, I slightly exaggerated but, needs to understand me, I lived not far from Marseille). Well, then there are also those there who are going to want to prove to the teacher that he is wrong, will work hard, will have a high school diploma, go to the ENA(NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION SCHOOL), become a CEO of a big four quoted in stock exchange and finish their life on a paradisiac island (that they will have bought) surrounded with riders. Well, that is not the point.

Another example, closer to the subject of this blog: a guy tries an approach on a young lady. He is rejected/ignored/insulted like the 3 649 previous times. As a result, is created in his mind an association between “way of approaching” and “self-esteem”. Thus, every time he will try to pick up, this poor small chap will remember his previous fruitless attempts and will have a loser mind. That reminds you something? (As for myself, I hope so, so that I’m not writing this article for nothing – if not, good for you but what are you doing here then?!).

Naturally, the influence of the behavior on thoughts also works when in a positive way. The parents very well understood it: by congratulating their child after he tidied up his room/hung the washing up/ emptied the dishwasher /empty the garbage/etc. by saying that he is helpful/thoughtful/autonomous /etc. It will incite the child has to act more often in this way in the future. Yes, it is a kind of conditioning. But, anyway, the society tries to condition us thus it is better if we are for something useful.

In the same way, when you find a routine that work, you feel powerful. And, naturally, you will associate this routine with your success and with the image you have of yourself. So, every time you will use it, your successful past will come back in your mind and you will feel more confident. More confident, you will better communicate – on the verbal level as well as on the nonverbal level. And, statistically, you will increase your chances to succeed again. Admit that it is not bad, as virtuous circle!

All this to say that the behavior (ours or those of others) influences enormously the thoughts (ours or those of others). Fighting against limiting thoughts is a thing, but it is too reducing. There is a mutual interaction. Moreover, this one has three way: behavior-thought-society.

In brief, after the theory, let’s practice. You certainly know that we judge from what is observable thus from behaviors. Moreover, studies showed that when we have to interpret the behavior of somebody else, we tend has to explain it by internal factors (“he is like that, it is in his nature “, ie, his personality), by putting aside the external factors (the environment, the situation, etc.) While when we have to explain our own behavior, we more take into account external factors. Of course, all this depends on the kind of behavior (positive or negative), on our relation with the other one (friend or enemy?), etc. All this to say that you fully agree with me to say that an individual is not a sum of behavior. And that a same behavior can be the object of multiple more or less right interpretations among which only the author of the aforementioned behavior can be the “most true”.

Thus, when a girl tells you that you are just “a knackered big person, a pervert, a sex maniac” because you dared to approach her, it is your behavior she judges. Not YOU. Then why granting so much importance, why being affected by this judgment? We have just agreed on the fact that an individual is not a sum of behavior and, besides, that we tend to minimize the part of the environment when we judge somebody else. Learn to get loose from hasty judgments like that, understand, please, that it is not you and your personality that are questioned but your way of behaving. Take a step back. Then, you should not fall in the inverse excess which would consist in considering as null and void any judgment of your behavior coming from somebody else than you. It is not because you find your routine really too classy that everybody has to think like you – or you should create a dictatorship or a sect. Then, anyway, the purpose is not to please everybody, that would mean pleasing whoever. And admit that you do not want that your future girlfriend is whoever. In summary, do not too much take to heart remarks you could hear but question them. If they are justified, work on it to make adjustment. If it is unfounded, move on.

An exercise that could be interesting would be to train to approach a friend (a girl). So, she could tell you what she likes, the embarrassment, what puts her ill-at-ease, etc. Of course, all the girls do not react in the same way and what your friend appreciates can be different from what will seduce your future target. But having a feminine opinion is, I think, always good to take. Of course, it is better to ask to a girl you know well, so that her opinion is as frank as possible. Or then, call a gay buddy.

I hope that this article will have pleased you and will help you in your fight against the stronger sex.

What is a belief (or a faith) ? As its name indicates it, it is the fact of believing in something. It is a kind of thought inked in us that has influence on all our other thoughts.

A belief has nothing to do with the fact of knowing. It is “to believe”, as the name indicates it (again). And often, without proof, besides. Then yeah, it is a little bit stupid! But we are all treated similarly with this thing…

Everybody has his own faiths and sees the world through them. It is difficult to realize it because the beliefs are a part of us, of our way of working. Just like a fish does not see the water in which it swims.

But this “water” has a fundamental role. Indeed, the faiths influence our words, our actions, our decisions… In brief, our behavior in the broad sense. Then, this behavior that will occur and reproduce, is going to strengthen itself, until becoming a new habit resulting in new faiths. Did you follow ?

It is thus fundamental, when we want to do some personal fulfillment, to discover what are our faiths and to determine if they are constructive or limiting. For this purpose, we need to auto-question methodically.

Watch out! I am not saying that you have to adopt MY faiths. After all, we are all different and I do not want to make you a brainwashing. If it was the case, I would work for the CIA! I just want to bring you to question your limiting faiths most solidly installed. You will see that by getting rid of your limiting faiths, you widen your range of possibilities. I want you to think FOR YOURSELF.

The limiting belief, what is it ? It is shit. OK. What else ? It is something we think right but isn’t (or not always) and which prevents us from doing what we really want to do.

The faith that says that you should not kill or that stealing is bad, it is something true (even if that was not true always for everybody). It is thus not a faith… It is a fact and you risk serious troubles with the law if you think differently. On the other hand, the faith that says it is bad to speak to people you don’t know and try to pick up attractive single women (in a polished and respectful way)… this is shit!

Maybe you think you are not beautiful, or you have no charm. Wonder if you have already made people laugh or if girls have already found you attractive (even ugly girls that’s not the point). Yes ? So, you’re on your good way.

This kind of judgment can also apply to other people. Like when you say that girls who like sex are easy whores. It is wrong: there are very good girls who like sex. Just like there are big frustrated silly bitches.

Generalization is an enormous problem. “Girls do not like that we try to pick them up, they find it weird” is what I heard the most. The truth is some do not like it, others appreciate. Just like the pushy attitude. Extremes and intellectual absolutes are dangerous.

Ideally, it would be necessary to avoid thinking negatively. It would be necessary to speak to yourself in a positive way. Easier to say than to do. Instead of wondering how you would avoid being premature or how you could avoid seeming too shy during the date… Try to wonder how you will succeed in making her enjoy like crazy or how you will make a success of your date.

The faiths create: possibilities OR dead ends. Every time you say to yourself that you cannot, while in fact technically you can, it is wrong. And that decreases your potential. There are always more options than you think. Get rid of your psychological coal nuts.

In The Game, Neil Strauss wrote about the kiss “as soon as you ask yourself whether you should or shouldn’t, that means you should “.

With that read, at the beginning of my Game, I began to approach and to kiss girls after just a few minutes of discussion and I noticed that even if often they were surprised, they appreciated. Then, I said to myself that I was going to take the matter farther. I tried to fuck them in bathrooms during parties, in the street, in my car, etc. And if some were shocked by my cavalier manners, others appreciated to live a passionate scene worthy of a porn movie. Rare are the ones who regretted (not rares are the ones who regretted not having tried to go out of their comfort zone).

Moreover, often, it was because they felt guilty after… That is because their feelings made them act on the moment and then they found it against their plan of thought “a girl from a good family does not do that even if it was funny“. From there, we realize that faiths determine our degree of social and sexual freedom.

There is one last interesting thing there with the faiths, it is that they shrink our field of vision. Like the blinders of horses. So, when a girl will be in attitude of seduction with you, you will not notice it if you are persuaded that girls are not usually interested in you. We notice more easily what belongs to our plan of thought. The rest, we hide it or often reject it.

Also, beliefs can show you things that do not exist, like a guy who would try to pick up your girlfriend while he is in fact a gayfriend (and that he would prefer to pick YOU up). Generally, we believe more easily: what we would really enjoy AND what we are very afraid of.

It is because of the faiths we have that we all live in our own reality (when for me it is obvious that girls like sex and that I can fuck one in the crappers of a club after 10mn of talking while respecting her ; others would see a conceited misogynous guy there and it is hard to say who is wrong or right). Finally, to a certain extent all the same…

To note all the same that for some suggestible people, the faiths can have physical consequences. Where from the psychosomatic illnesses. More generally, our faiths influence our body language and thus the reactions of others. Good beliefs attracts good things.

Below some questions to help you to determine if your beliefs are limiting or helpful :

Question 1 : What the Hell could happen if you did it? What have you got to lose? What is the potentiel gain?
Question 2 : What would you need more than what you have right now to do it? Is it possible to do it right now anyway ? Why not ?
Question 3 : Why do you think this way ? Who or what put it in your mind ?
Question 4 : It is helpful and does it go in the sense of your objective of life?
Question 5 : Are there circumstances in which that does not apply? Which ones and why? (back to question 1)

I wish you a good questioning of your faiths about yourself, girls and gender relations.

PS = The girls have to love you because you are an alpha and a good leg OR you have to go into a great deal of trouble and pay them drinks ? As for myself, I’ve chosen my sexual reality. And if that annoys you because you are frustrated, let me all the same be happy, please. Be tolerant.

I recently attended the conference of Yousri Marzouki on jealousy, organized by the student association Psych’Aid at the Faculty of literature, languages, arts and human sciences of Aix.

Yousri Marzouki is Lecturer in cognitive psychology there and also CNRS Researcher. He exports his works on jealousy in America. I sent him an e-mail to talk to him about the article that I had written on jealousy and he answered “ I have read with great interest your blog that I find quite original for our French culture, what can totally explain its success with your faithful readers”.

In “Jealousy, from genetics to culture”, he made an overview on various aspects of jealousy (biological, psychological, anthropological and cultural) by explaining well that all these factors are linked and in permanent interaction. The whole thing on a nice and funny tone.

What are we talking about ? “Loving” jealousy, of course.

In The Tragedy of Othello, Moor of Venice, William Shakespeare described jealousy as a “It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on; that cuckold lives in bliss“. A “green-eyed monster”, of course, but I’m not talking about Ian Somerhalder.

Loving jealousy is indeed sometimes a destructive emotion (eg. crimes of passion) which is the consequence of the fear of losing the love of your life or the exclusivity of his/her love – feeling that is more often established on your imagination than on real facts. From then on, jealousy can self-feed in a irrational and uncontrollable way. Killing the love of your life so he or she doesn’t leave you, it is a weird idea all the same!

When it is permanent or excessive, jealousy is a kind of paranoia linked to a “love” relationship on a possessive or even castrating exclusive mode. Loving jealousy cannot exist if the partners have a true relationship of trust, but this notion remains of course subjective and the sickly jealous person just never can have enough.

Loving jealousy is often similar to possessiveness, sometimes hatred; this feeling exist for men and for women. For example, a jealous woman hates seeing or imagining her partner spending time with other people (expecting, of course, the worst). Not only because she is deprived of his presence, but also because she considers herself as the only legal profitable of the attention of her partner. That concerns us all, this is why it is interesting to talk one more time about this subject, and this time with another angle of attack.

Jealousy is a feeling of exclusivity that can deprive the partner of freedom and put the couple in danger. I have even already seen girls being jealous of the job or of the buddies of their guy. The jealous person gives so much importance to the object of his/her jealousy that he/she loses any notion of moderation. For example, jerks have already assaulted me just because I spoke to their girl (this fear of losing their girlfriend makes some guys go paranoiac).

Infidelity and jealousy.

During his conference, Yousri Marzouki announced to a varied academic public that infidelity and jealousy were an integral part of everybody. We all thus are poor beings under the influence of our genetic programming and of our hormones (while having a certain capacity to modulate all this in particular by our environment). Politically correct people left the room.

But the readers of this blog know it: men are genetically programmed to be polygamous and to reproduce as much as possible. Where from infidelity. Women, them, are programmed to try to reproduce with the best possible holders of genes (in reach) but, also, to make so that they and their progeny benefit from the best possible resources. Sometimes it is not possible with the same partner thus she makes a kid with her lover and manage to make him/her raise by her husband. Unnoticed. Where from infidelity. But well, the politically correct tries to persuade us that it is bad, that it is not natural, to make us feel guilty.

The faithful readers of this blog also know that jealousy involves a whole “emotional episode” including a trouble of personality. This jealousy can be caused by already lived experiences, thoughts, perceptions, memories, but also imagination or questions. The education and the rational faith do not really matter. Jealousy is thus more spread among people suffering from low self-esteem. And as most of people are in this case, jealousy is an almost universal problem. Thus, if our partner does not show himself/herself jealous, should we get worried?

Making close friends (or girlfriends) can thus be followed by an emotional insecurity or a feeling of solitude for some people when these friends interact with others. Thus, to avoid being too jealous, should we avoid being interested in one girl in particular? Where from the image of the womanizer with a broken heart who protects himself from the power women have on him under his tough guy mask. And according to the same logic, should women avoid becoming attached to one guy in particular to be happy and spread?

Infidelity and ejaculation.

Yousri Marzouki also spoke about the Coolidge effect which roughly is that the average time of ejaculation is 5 times shorter during the first sexual intercourse with a new partner than after having fucked her several times. An effect observed with all the male mammals, no complexes to have.

I had already noticed this phenomenon but I thought that it was just because I was less excited. That novelty boosted me. With that said, sometimes when I did not eat, for example, I stay hard 2 hours or then sometimes it is because of the condom (poor girl bombarded). In brief, there are lots of other factors (and I’m not talking about X-Factor).

I am not advising you to don’t eat or to buy bad condoms before visiting a new girl to enjoy more. Anyway, lick her and that will get better then you will have time to reload like that. The second time, once warm, it should come less fast all the same.

Jealousy and evolutionary psychology.

The purposes of jealousy would be to urge people to guarantee their reproduction and to protect their progeny. We are thus really few things in front of our instinct. We already knew it thanks to evolutionary psychology and to what we need to communicate to seduce. But this behavior must be a fucking evolutionary advantage if it is still present in all of us.

The striking fact of the conference is that apparently women are more afraid that their spouse has feelings for another one whereas men are more afraid that their partner sleeps with another one. It came true with my girlfriend (open relationship): she doesn’t care if I sleep with other girls as long as I do not become attached to them. It pisses me off a little more that she sleeps or has slept with others. But well, I am fair play. Moreover it is interesting to realize that we can be jealous of an ex.

The above figure illustrates “the universality” of both sexes reaction in front of sexual infidelity. The below figure illustrates the explanation supplied by evolutionary psychology for this “universal” reaction. (Slides gracefully given by Y. Marzouki)

It is, I think, again related to evolutionary psychology: men are programmed to don’t want to waste their resources for raising the child of another one (except in the case of adoption – being deceived it is to raise the child of another one by thinking that he/she is yours, it is not just that your wife got fucked by another one). As for the women, they are programmed to try to have access to the resources and to the protection of the man, for them and their children (even if they are not HIS children).

Jealousy and ejaculation.

Men would be more unfaithful than women. We understand why, in theory. We understand that the guys reproduce with their official partner and, if they also can, with a mistress. It’s easy, it doesn’t last 9 months. But needs to know that about 10 % of the children have not for biological father the one who raises them (source : Aux frontières de la vie: pour une éthique à la française Documentation française 1991 p. 73.). And also, now, the law is really in favor of the woman, thus financially it is hard to pay pensions and everything. I think that all in all, men are not necessarily winning with this system. The morality is : it is a better idea to donate some sperm! 😉

France would be the fifth most dangerous country in the world for married couples, with 43 % of adulteries. It is maybe because of loose clubs, dating sites and social networks that make all this easy and discreet. There is also the fact that girls want “to stand out well” (they want to seem “purer” than they are in fact) with their husband and thus maybe let off steam out of their house. We also wanted that the Woman is our equal thus she fucks, has fun and sometimes cheats on us. It’s the game !

But as for myself, I do not really buy it when I see that for the guys, having sex is an assault course and that for the women it is just a question of saying “yes” or “no”. I have already fucked some girls in couple and they were not the most difficult women in my sexual career. Except that they will probably not admit it during a statistical survey whereas the guys, maybe, will even invent some conquests.

Jealousy and culture.

I remember the story of a prince who had 10 000 women in his harem. He kept them but couldn’t fuck them all: the point was that other men cannot have them. Jealousy can thus serve to spread our genes more and better than the other genetic competitors.

Yousri Marzouki also taught me that in other cultures far away from us: it is the women who are polygamous. Polyandry is accepted there, it is the case of tribes Mosuo in China and Yanomami in Amazonia. Jealousy is thus non-existent there (or then very badly seen because it would mean criticizing their way of functioning: social pressure is inverted compared to our area). As for myself, that would not probably have disturbed me to be Cleopatra’s sexual slave.

Even more “improbable”: in some tribes, the father is absent in the life of his child. He just gets the woman pregnant. It is the case with the Trobiandais (in Oceania) where, once been born, the child is raised by his mother and his maternal uncle. All their sexual life is very different from the one we know in West (if you want to know more about it, check Malinowski’s works).

Attraction, culture and instinct.

Finally, he also speaks about other forms of attraction like those who are turned on by intelligence (the sapio-sexuals) or those who are attracted by everybody (pan sexuals).There are poly-lovers too, I’m not kidding, don’t be mad at them it’s just the way they are. Mystery in The Game describes himself as a poly-lover, by the way. It is very interesting to know that all this exists, that allows to step back, especially the real asexual (who are not necessarily ice-cold).

The attraction for the alpha male or for the not-too-stupid-hottie is the most general thing but there are thus other logics of attraction, rarer. The thing is we cannot go into all these details with the Game because it is statistical: we act on what will give us the greatest level of success with the largest number of women.

To don’t be discouraged, let’s not forget that according to Helen Fisher’s works, love is not the fruit of the feelings, but a simple physiological need, just like hunger or sleep…

Jealousy and literature.

In the literature, a study of jealousy is proposed in Un amour de Swann (Marcel Proust.)

Jealousy and threesome.

So, after the show, I asked all the couples if they were up for a threesome.

This article was written by Virginie.

Should a girl sleep on the first date ? That is THE question. If you expect a definitive yes or no, you can already turn back. And do not consider as gospel truth everything I am about to write. What follows is my opinion, stemming from a personal reflection and from what I have learned in my studies of Psychology. Work and question this opinion.

I would like to take the problem the other way: why couldn’t we sleep on the first date? What are the risks ? To say it frankly, the girls would be thought of as unfaithful bitches with whom it is impossible to have a serious relation, guys for Don Juan who are irresistible and awesomely endowed. What a male chauvinist society ! And, exactly, here is the problem: the society.

Let’s develop just a little. A society it is, among others things, individuals who live in common. Yet, to do it, there must be a cohesion between people. Thus a control of their aggressiveness and their sexuality natural. This is where Culture comes in, sum of achievements thanks to which our life is different from the ones of our ancestors. So, this Culture uses all the possible means to federate the members by inhibiting their libido so that this libido is in the service of activities said “superior” (the sciences and the arts, for example).

In summary, the Man of Culture submits himself to limitations to live more or less in security. That is why hardly one century ago, only the sexual relations between married men and women were authorized. Since then, the mentalities a little evolved and the sexuality released itself. Thank you, May 68!

But, all the same, this disinhibition should not be too important. If each man could do whatever he wants, it would be a total chaos out there. Where from this ambient social pressure. It allows to keep the individuals under control & to manipulate them more easily. So, the one who goes away from the standard (implicit or explicit) is immediately labelled as deviant. This is why sleeping on the first date became a “not normal” behavior. Don’t you find all this very shocking? No ? And what if I told you that, now, creativity is considered as a mental illness? You write, play an instrument, draw or paint? Then you have a problem, you need a doctor! In any case, it is what certain psychiatrists would tell you. Another example : you eat healthily, by avoiding industrial products and by favoring the most natural ones? Then you suffer of “orthorexie” (French word), a very grave eating disorder because it makes the food-processing and the pharmaceutical industries lose money.

In brief, all this was to explain to you briefly where from comes this rule “not sleeping on the first date”. Thus, after the theory, let’s practice.

Concretely, I would say that it is just necessary to follow your instinct. By disregarding of “what people say”. The individuals tend to believe that all what they do is observed by the other people around them. An example: you fall in the street. First reflex (after putting your hands in front of you to don’t finish deformed): looking around to see the reaction of the passers-by. Appearance took so much importance that we forget of, simply, being. We have to respect rules, codes or bans on a daily basis. Then why not adducing a small bracket of pleasure by sleeping with this beautiful unknown with the dark look (or this inflammatory red-haired person with the sexy swayed hips) ? All right, we live more and more for a long time, but it is no reason to don’t take advantage of every moment of the life. But you should not either fall in the inverse excess, IE wanting at all costs to sleep at the first date and, as a result, put on yourself a fucking huge pressure (pressure which would prevent you from reaching your goal and would frustrate you).

Except social pressure, it is also necessary to take into account two other things: the religion and the STD. For some people, having sex before being married is a sin. Even if you do not share this point of view, respect it. And look for somebody else – unless you feel ready to wait or to get married quickly. As regards STD, the number of preconceived ideas is hallucinating all the same. What can be at the origin of certain reluctances. But it does not necessarily mean that there are no risks. Thus wear a condom it is fashion! (it was the advice of the day).

Roughly, indulge yourself and send the social pressure to hell (but not too much at the risk of frightening people around you, among whom is, maybe, your one true love). I know that it is easier to say than to do, that the fear of not being good enough is also part of the deal. If that can reassure you, it is for both sexes. But the more you will be accustomed to go out of your comfort zone, the less this anxiety will be strong and, even, will become a boost. However, the positive vizualisation, the meditation, the qi-gong (the yoga of Chinese, more “active”) can be ways to help you to manage this fear. And no need to spend fortunes, you will find videos and advices on the Internet.

Another point than I would like to approach: the difference man / woman. While for sir, having sex during the first evening is not generally a problem, it is more often a problem for madam. One of the explanations is to be found in the evolutionary psychology about which Fabrice has already spoken to you. Roughly: the purpose of life is to reproduce. This is why, before, the men made a maximum of women pregnant, because the infant mortality was important. This behavior continued to a certain extent until today. The women, once pregnant, were up to nine months of physical distortions, mood swings and abdominal pains. This is why they did not have to fail as for the choice of the father of their child. What explains, partially, the current attitude of the fair sex (even if we are not really conscious of it).

So, men and women do not approach sexuality in the same way – although things change and, sometimes, are reversed. Then, please, do not judge. The girl sleeps on the first date ? Or not ? Do not criticize her. On one hand, that would not change things and, on the other hand, that even risks to worsen them. Do not forget, either, that everybody does not manage to overcome his or her social pressure. Then if your target refuses to sleep that same night, do not delete her from your list at once (Well, if after 3-4 dates she always keeps you waiting by using phony excuses while using you to go to the restaurant or to the movies, next her, do not be masochistic! Especially that the sexual compatibility plays an important role in the life of a couple).

Little particular case: the first times (male or feminine). If the person you like never did it, it is more understandable, I think, that he or she does not want to sleep at the first date. For example, as for me, I felt ready only at the end of the third date. Nevertheless God knows that, physically, I wanted it. But, psychologically, I was not in the same point there. And it is, partially, because I did not feel judged nor oppressed that I was able to take the plunge. Thus, at the risk of repeating myself, do not judge!

A last thing before leaving you alone: I do not think that sleeping the first evening could put a stop to a more serious relation. Because you are not in the judgment (I hammer the nail again a little, repetition is the key of memorization), you do not consider the girl who acts so as a bitch but as somebody who enjoys life. This nuance in your way of seeing things would change everything. Personally, it doesn’t bother me to sleep at the first meeting. That makes save time (it would be a pity to realize after three restaurants and two movies that, in the bed, that doesn’t match). Then it is a great way to break the ice. Once the other one saw us naked, there is no reason anymore to hide behind masks. Well, it is not a reason to tell your whole life, keep a little of mystery!

Ah and another last thing: as for the blowjob, my opinion is the same. In an ideal world, practising it the first night is not unhealthy or I-don’t-know-what-else. But we do not live in such a world and the social pressure, the faiths or the values are so many obstacles to its practice. It’s up to you to try to reduce the fears and the guilt your target could feel. Be conscious that all the girls do not think like me. Thus be lenient on my congeners – but don’t be a doormat either.

Well. If you want to know more about the “theoretical” part of it (or how the life in society builds itself on sexual renunciation), I advise to you The Uneasiness in Culture, by Freud. He said quite a lot of bullshit in his life but also, sometimes, intelligent things. This book is one of his good works, in my opinion.

Also, if you have questions, suggestions or criticism, do not hesitate to leave a comment, I would answer with pleasure.