MikeMehlman.net

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

In this video I talk about why PUAs downplay rejection and over-emphasize positive outcomes in dating.  One of the biggest reasons is insecurity tied to not recognizing that rejection is an inherent pillar of approach/dating and will never go away no matter what. It doesn't matter who the guy is. Rejection composes the overwhelming majority of cold approach and dating outcomes regardless of who you are, what you say, or what you do. This must be respected as intrinsic to the dating process.  One guy who commented on my last video made a good analogy to baseball where he said, "Hitting 3 out of 10 gets you in the hall of fame." In other words, it's normal and expected that the player will usually not have a "positive outcome." This is no different with dating and comes down to respecting and internalizing rejection as normal and predictable.  I don't want to make this post a debate about exact numerical figures and statistics. Guys will always have their differing views on what "good" numbers are, etc., and it's easy to get side-tracked with that. So instead it's better for me to inculcate the qualitative point that rejection will be the overwhelming majority of your interactions, full stop.  *You can’t avoid rejection. And it will be most of your interactions. Guys who try to sell you on how to minimize or avoid rejection are pandering to your neediness and your hopes of avoiding mental pain. Because they know you’re weak and are desperate to side-step pain.*  Anything in life that we want requires hard work and struggle. This applies probably most strongly to the dating process. Wouldn't it be great if we all just had a harem we're constantly sleeping with. Well if that were to happen, recognize that it requires you to approach hundreds of women per week + incur thousands upon thousands of rejections like it's your job. If the latter sounds exaggerated or unreasonable, consider that sleeping with multiple simultaneous plates also seems equally elusive to most guys.  It's really not that complicated: high numbers of rejections as an input corresponds to few numbers of sexual outcomes as an output. So if you want high numbers of sexual outcomes as an output, you need an absurd number of rejections as an input.  And then once you establish this within your mind as normal, an "absurd" number of rejections becomes predictable and not a big deal. My view is: in order to continue sleeping with various girls at my leisure, I need to continue to incur high volume of rejection, in perpetuity. There's no entitlement.  *I don't sleep with large numbers of women because I'm special and don't get rejected. I sleep with large numbers of women because I get rejected all of the time.*  Your hookups as an output are coupled to mandatory, no-questions-asked, high rejection volume as an input.  If you aren't willing to incur repeated high-volume rejection, don't expect high numbers of sexual outcomes.  Do you want me to tell you how to sleep with multiple women at the same time and have tons of sexual outcomes? I'm serious. I'm really going to tell you the secret right here. This will 100% work.  The answer is:

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/01/10/why-puas-lie-about-rejection/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

The purpose of this short clip is to discuss two easy ways to handle rejection better, which in turn will increase sexual outcomes.  You must recognize that rejection will never go away no matter who you are, what you say, or what you do. It will compose the overwhelming majority of your interactions with women no matter what. There's no way to change that. You must accept that rejection is normal, expected, and the bulk of your interactions. This needs to be respected as a stage-zero, foundational principle of approach and dating.  The more rejections the male takes, the higher his non-neediness and confidence levels become. This cannot be faked. It is the act of the male incurring incessant rejection and continuing to approach anyway that masculinizes his behavior and makes him high status, and that high status in turn will get him women.  That being said, rejection is a prerequisite for sexual outcome, not an adverse alternative to it. If you want more sexual outcomes, recognize that you can't escape the requirement for inordinately more rejections first. It's just a matter of putting in your mileage. The more rejection mileage you accrue, the more sexual outcomes you'll encounter along the way.  So your aim should be to go out and take as much rejection as possible. Because, once again, *it's a prerequisite* for sexual outcome. If you want to get laid more as an output variable, then you need *a lot more* rejection as an input variable.  In this video I talk about two ways you can handle rejection better - i.e., how I am able to shrug off repeated, ongoing rejection.

Post: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/01/07/how-to-overcome-rejection-like-its-nothing/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

Some guys might be like, "Wait, what? What does this clip have to do with approach/dating?"  If you've followed my content for some time, you may have noticed that although most of the stuff I post is about dating, there's a more minor percentage (maybe around 5%?) that's about stuff like travel, language, happiness, and money.  In this short clip I talk about one great way to stay young. Living life this way has provided a layer of happiness for me.  Happy New Years 2021 to all of you. And don't worry, I'll make my next 19 clips or so on dating stuff. Probably.

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

In this video I discuss a short point on how one can calibrate on the cold approach when the girl seems lean-unreceptive and doesn't want to talk right now.  That is, you approach her directly and tell her she's cute. She instantly appears to be in a rush, or puts up her hand and says she can't talk now. Or she isn't necessarily rushing but is moving away from you as you're trying to carry the short convo.  Greater than 99% of guys would interpret this type of girl as straight-up unreceptive and would probably quickly recede out of the interaction.  I've talked about before how many girls who might seem unreceptive actually aren't. If the male is a little bit pushy in his interactions, he'll be able to exchange with quite a few girls whom the more novice male wouldn't be able to secondary to insufficient audacity.  If you open a girl and she seems like she doesn't want to talk but is nevertheless responding minimally to you, one thing you can do is essentially hyper-emphasize that you're not going to consume her time. You're going to make it clear that you're not that guy who wants to consume 9 minutes of her time; you only want 15-20 seconds. You're making it clear.  You say at least 3-5 times, while also gesturing with your body and pointing away from her, "Well anyway, I've gotta head that way," or "Well anyway, I need to go that way."  Convo will go something like this:  You: "Hey you're cute."  Her: "Hey. I'm in a rush I can't talk now." (moving away from you)  You: "I've gotta head that way. How old are you."  Her: "Im busy now."  You: "I'm Michael. Well I've gotta go that way. How old are you."  Her: "22."  You: "What are you doing now?"  Her: "I'm going to go meet a friend." (moving away from you)  You: "Well I need to go that way. Do you like tapioca."  Her: "It's okay."  You: "Alright well let's talk again. I need to go that way. Let's exchange."  (She exchanges)  Guy reading this says, "What? I don't get it. Is that really a thing? Sounds weird Michael."  I'm just telling you one highly effective calibration I've evolved into when it comes to attempting to exchange with girls who are in a rush and/or are moving away from you and seem like they don't want to talk.  This is not something I've romanticized or...

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

I've talked about before how it is normal and predictable female behavior for a girl to decline your invite to meet up once or twice before eventually acquiescing.  A rookie error is to instantaneously delete a girl who declines your invite because you as the male hold yourself to being so non-needy and alpha. Guys will have their vehement disagreements about this. But I want you to hear me out because this will help you.  Greater than 99% of the time, if a girl ignores your text, she is unreceptive to the interaction and doesn't carry interest. Don't make it about you. Often times women are just in a state and aren't open to any guy who approaches them. It doesn't matter who he is.  But when a girl declines your invite, that's where things get more complicated.  Guys will make the contention that if a girl is interested, she will just straight-up make the time to meet up - no questions asked: "Mike, don't kid yourself about this so-called notion of female deferral being 'normal.' If she's interested, she'll make the time. If she doesn't make the time, she just doesn't like you."  But the same way on the cold approach much of the time you will not be able to judge a female's state of receptivity by what you observe on the surface, this too carries over into text.  If a girl ignores you on the cold approach, then yes, greater than 99% of the time she's genuinely unreceptive. But plenty of girls who seem unreceptive on the initial approach will go on to exchange, and even hook up. So when you text a girl, sometimes she might seem unreceptive to the convo, and even decline you once or twice, but she's still open to the interaction. It's not a matter of her being less interested. It's just female biology.  Females declining once or twice before agreeing to meet up is unrelated to whether you say, "When are you free" versus just proposing a date and time. Guys will have their differing viewpoints on which is better. My viewpoint, after many many thousands of texting interactions, is that it doesn't matter. Girls will decline/accept in a variety of circumstances.  When the female declines you, it is important to recognize as the male that this is sometimes a type of "beta shit-test," where she's looking to see if you carry any fractional provisional qualities. If she declines your initial offer to meet up and you instantaneously delete her because you're so alpha and non-needy, then that demonstrates you wouldn't have provided for or stood by her anyway (which is true). This is exactly the type of male she wants to screen-out.  The female is more than happy to screen-out males who won't provide. So if you're quick to delete after she declines with "Can't work," then you've failed her shit-test and, in turn, her test was effective at screening you out.  However, if the male makes many tens of thousands of approaches and picks up thousands of contacts, he will begin to see female deferral as normal. He'll begin to say, "This is predictable female behavior. I expect the girl to decline once or twice before meeting up. That's not weird. I don't take that personally." Therefore, this high-volume, "hyper-alpha" male will be able to effectively bypass the beta-shit-test by essentially "faking" beta qualities...

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/2020/12/27/when-you-should-not-delete-a-girls-contact/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

In this video I talk about three Don'ts of cold approach - i.e., three things you should never do on the cold approach.  I could by all means make a "Ten things you should never do on the cold approach" video, but I think distilling approach down to the fundamentals and starting with three solid points makes this clip concise and easier to digest.  I've made other content talking in more depth about the points in this video.  If you liked this, please don't forget to subscribe to my channel.

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

I've talked about before how the most attractive way you can introduce yourself to a girl is by just walking up and straight-up telling her your name and that you think she's attractive. This is a direct and declarative opener.  Guys will get very impassioned about this and have all sorts of disagreements. "Michael, you're wrong. I think x." That's okay. I'm just communicating what I view to be the case.  The exact words you say don't matter.  "Hi I'm Michael, I thought you were cute."  "Hi I'm Michael, I thought you were attractive and wanted to say hi."  "Hey you're cute." (Then 7 seconds later telling her your name after a couple lines of talk, but not waiting too long)  It doesn't matter the exact combination of words you say. Don't fixate on that. Was does matter is the mere act of you walking up and telling her, in some form, who you are and that you think she's attractive.  For at least 95-98% of my cold approaches, I tell her immediately I think she's attractive. The smaller percentage I will tell her within 30-60 seconds. There's no mandatory reason why. It's just a matter of deregulation (i.e., winging your approaches).  I've talked about how the male is his most attractive when he is maximally deregulated (i.e., 100% winging his convos). I don't want to make that the focus of this post, but it's still important I communicate that. Having an efficient, general structure of convo you happen to have evolved into is not synonymous with regulation of behavior or scripting. That should be communicated.  What you absolutely do not want to do when saying hi to a girl is pander to the surroundings or what she's doing. Do not walk up and ask what kind of book she's reading. Do not make a comment about it being cold outside. Just walk right up and tell her she's cute.  Guys will sometimes notice that they'll say hi to a girl, she'll turn and smile, then they say she's attractive, *then* she accelerates away or says she's in a rush and walks off.  The guy then says, "Yeah, exactly, *that* is what caused her to be unreceptive. I said she was pretty, *then* she accelerated away. I shouldn't do that."  That line of thinking is literally what you do not want to fall into.  You telling a girl she's attractive will never function to flip a girl's state; it merely accelerates to expose the state she currently occupies.  If her underlying state is unreceptive, it doesn't matter how direct or indirect you are; she's going to reject no matter what. Doesn't matter who the guy is.  Then why does it matter how you open girls if unreceptive ones are going to reject no matter what?  When you walk up and tell her she's attractive, and she engages you + exchanges, what this means is that her underlying state was receptive to begin with and your words merely functioned to expose that. Had you been indirect and pandering, that only would have increased the likelihood that she would have closed herself off. How do I know that? Because male neediness vs non-neediness permeates to the surface no matter what. And the act of the male indirectly pandering is one of the most salient outward manifestations of neediness.  When a male opens a girl indirectly by pandering to the surroundings, what this says is he's trying to be...

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

In this video I break down approach anxiety into essentially two different types: that experienced by the novice male with few approaches, and that experienced by the more advanced male despite his many thousands of approaches.  In other words, there's value to be garnered here even for more experienced males who otherwise consider themselves as having moved far beyond having approach anxiety.  Let's start with discussing approach anxiety for more novice males:  If you're at stage-zero and still struggling to say hi to women in general, the starting point is telling yourself that "The approach itself is the success."  She can reject you. Great. Because it's not about whether you get her contact that matters. It's the fact that you are able to walk up to her and introduce yourself, period, that is the success.  If you frame the approach itself as the metric for success, you always have a 100% success rate insofar as you say hi. Once again, it's not about whether she rejects you or not. Just making the mere approach - that's it - *is* the success.  Another point is recognizing that rejection is going to be the overwhelming majority of your approaches no matter what. You can't avoid this. Do not try to circumvent or minimize rejection. It will never go away no matter who you are, what you say, or what you do.   That is to say, rather than looking at your rejections as though you're doing something wrong, understand that rejection will literally never go away, forever and ever. It doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter what you look like.  Do you know how much I get rejected? All the time. Every day. In perpetuity.  If you were to approach with me here in Japan and say, "Michael, you're so incredible. Show me how you pick up the ladies." It would essentially just be a clinic in you watching me take incessant rejection. You'd say, "Wow, I thought this guy was supposed to be good with women." And my response would be, "Incessant rejection is not some adverse alternative to sexual outcomes with women; it's a *prerequisite* for them."  You will take inordinately more rejections from women than you will ever have contact exchanges and sexual outcomes. The latter are impossible without intractable rejection. Once again, it will never go away no matter what.  So your two starting points for eliminating approach anxiety as a novice male:  1) The approach itself is the success.  2) Rejection is normal and occurs inordinately more often than conversions. It will never go away no matter who you are, what you say, or what you do. Forever. In perpetuity. (And Mike Mehlman gets rejected all of the time. That helps too.)  But let's say you're still experiencing approach anxiety despite the above. What can you do?  I've talked about in one of my old articles how...

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/2020/12/24/how-do-i-reduce-my-approach-anxiety/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

This short post covers two main points: 1) female non-receptiveness is the male non-approach (I've written a longer article on this topic before), and 2) you cannot achieve high contact acquisitions without incurring a greater number of rejections first.  To address the first point:  The same way most males won't approach females no matter what, most females will reject males no matter what.  This isn't weird. This is normal and expected.  Most of the time guys will simply just never approach. Likewise, most of the time girls will simply just not be receptive when you say hi.  This default non-receptiveness by females is particularly apparent during high-volume approach sessions, where the male will observe how most females will deflect no matter what. It's not about who he is, what he says, or what he does - most women will decline an interaction regardless.  This natural default setting in females mirrors the non-approach default setting in men.  Most guys carry a fear around saying hi to women. They care about others' opinions and judgments so much that they're unable to introduce themselves to women they find attractive. On the surface, they may justify their non-forwardness by repeating trite societal talking points designed to shame, such as that approach is "creepy" or "harassment." In reality these are superficial and meaningless justifications and are merely rooted in fear held at a more visceral level.  Most women's fear manifests reciprocally as the declination of male advancements. They too may justify on the surface that a guy approaching them in public is "creepy," but the default/gut response is rooted in fear.  Cogent arguments can be made as far as the evolutionary basis for male non-approach and female non-receptiveness: males risked being killed in the caveman days before laws; females risked carrying offspring without securing provision.  However both genders, by avoiding these risks, also have evolved to potentially miss out on procreation altogether as a result.  Most men will go through life never realizing they could have unlocked countless more sexual opportunities; many women will remain childless despite staying "picky" even in their low-SMV 40s.  I didn't mention it in this video, but it should also be noted that the same way it becomes increasingly difficult for a male to make an approach the longer he hesitates / contemplates it, females will become increasingly closed off the longer they themselves contemplate a male's approach.  If you are at a cafe and a girl sits down at the table next to you, she's much more likely to be receptive if you open her the moment she sits down versus if you both sit there in silence for 30 minutes and she can feel out your awkwardness and hesitation. This means if you see a girl and/or she sees you, do everything you can to minimize any discontinuity and approach her as soon as you can. Think less. Act more.  To address the second point:  Don't expect to pick up 37 contacts in a day (or 68 contacts in a day) without taking 150 or 200+ rejections at the same time.  Guys will fixate on lay count as well. This too holds true: you will not acquire the sexual outcomes you're looking for without...

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/2020/12/23/a-another-post-for-men-looking-to-pick-up-more-contacts/

Main blog - https://mikemehlman.net/

Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/mikemehlman

Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/mike_mehlman/

Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/mikemehlman.net

This post is a short update of a longer article on sexual market value (SMV) I wrote a couple years ago.  My thoughts have evolved significantly and I've converged more or less on seeing that male SMV is mostly determined by confidence level.  Not looks. Not fame. Not wealth.  Guys will have their criticisms. Guys will disagree. Guys will view this conceptualization of mine as a mere well-rationalized defense mechanism of sorts.  But the male SMV is mostly determined by his confidence level.  When guys are asked to envision a hypothetical high-status/-SMV male, the first image that often comes to mind is of a super-attractive rockstar who's rich and has women rushing to his side.  Guys tend to think of male SMV as essentially the degree to which women are flocking to the male, or the degree to which women “want” the male. The more women in society as a whole “want” the male, the higher his supposed SMV.  However it is my contention that male SMV is not mostly determined by how eager and willing women are to flock to him, but rather mostly by whether the male is actually able to convert women over sexually when they are in his presence. And the latter is dependent on whether the male is confident and forward enough to capitalize on his opportunities.  People's opinions aren't what matter. It's what the male is able to achieve in terms of objective sexual efficacy that does.  A male might have copious sexual opportunities. But can he actually convert those opportunities over.  Once again, it's not our opinions that matter. It's what the male actually achieves in terms of sexual efficacy that does. This is what determines his SMV.  What looks, wealth, and fame function to do is better position the male to have sexual opportunities, but these aspects of attraction in and of themselves do not induce the objective sexual outcomes; the male's forwardness and confidence primarily do.  Male SMV is determined mostly by confidence level.  This is an important point to make:  Looks, wealth, and fame don't directly produce sexual outcomes. They yield mere potential for opportunity for sexual outcomes.  Well you know what else equals potential for opportunity for sexual outcomes? Consistent approach.  And the benefit of consistent approach is that it increases the male's confidence level because he exposes himself to incessant rejection. And as I've talked about, incurring repeated rejection + overcoming it is the source of male confidence.  The male need not be physically attractive, rich, or famous in order to generate opportunities for sexual outcomes insofar as he approaches high-volume and consistently.  If I'm famous and girls want to go on dates with me because I'm so amazing, if we distill this down, this really is no different from an unknown male who approaches a lot who earns himself lots of dates...

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/2020/12/21/what-determines-a-males-sexual-market-value-smv/