Happier Abroad Forum Community

Kangarunner,
Any links to videos of "Julien Blanc or Matt Cross or James Marshall" doing cold approach on strangers which are not rehearsed or staged? If there are then they are an exception. David DeAngelo never let anyone film him during a real cold approach. Nor would Mystery. Are you sure the videos are not staged? What if they are staged? Would you know it?

Winston wrote: ↑

November 6th, 2020, 1:14 am

Kangarunner,
Any links to videos of "Julien Blanc or Matt Cross or James Marshall" doing cold approach on strangers which are not rehearsed or staged?

@Winston You have to keep in mind that today we are in a post-PUA world. David DeAngelo and Mystery were the original PUA's. But, their style of PUA trend is over now. What those 3 guys I mentioned teach is not PUA tactics. It's more about being cool and confident with women and making conversation naturally with women that turns them On and not Off.

"doing cold approach on strangers which are not rehearsed or staged":

Matt Cross (starts at 2:40 into the video): www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5raKJY_2c4

James Marshall:

Rejected on video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrrKU5UKKaM

Infield Pickup in NYC Part 1: www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzox0TVxfqo

Infield Pickup in NYC Part 2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cIlDtv5f48

Why would any PUA coach allow filming of them doing cold approach if its not staged? If they got rejected or shunned on video it would ruin their careers. People would use that video against them for life right? Who would take that risk?

Its possible these people had their trusted friends take the videos and then used the ones that looked good but threw out the ones that didn't right?

Any friendly guy can talk to a woman for 5 minutes. But as soon as u ask their number they say "oh no i got a boyfriend". One way to do it politely without outright rejection is to print out business cards with your contact info on it and just hand it to them with no pressure.

Winston wrote: ↑

November 7th, 2020, 7:44 pm

Any friendly guy can talk to a woman for 5 minutes. But as soon as u ask their number they say "oh no i got a boyfriend".

There is still value in doing that. Years ago, I would have difficulty talking to girls, especially if they were drop dead gorgeous. Today, I have absolutely no fear of rejection whatsoever and that thick skin is from practice. In fact, a man is even more appealing to a woman when he accepts rejection with a smile and witticism before walking away to select another girl.

Winston wrote: ↑

November 7th, 2020, 7:44 pm

Why would any PUA coach allow filming of them doing cold approach if its not staged? If they got rejected or shunned on video it would ruin their careers. People would use that video against them for life right? Who would take that risk?

@Winston With the way you said that, it assumes PUA should work 100% of the time on every single approach. The 3 guys I listed do not define themselves as PUAs. Like I said, the PUA tactics trend is over now and it's been replaced with talking to women in a more natural, confident way. Social calibration. Social awareness. Of course those guys will show them get rejected on video because it shows that they are real people.

In this video, Todd is a clear example of how not to behave around girls, because he clearly doesn't get that the girls don't want to talk to him at all. www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6xSB73TuTY

I've said it before: PUA is dead, but cold approaching has been around since before PUA and will be around long after. There's not much to it. Be decent-looking, have enough confidence to say hello, and a reservoir's worth of patience for the vast majority of interactions leading to nothing.

I met my current gf in Vietnam through cold approach. There was no "art" involved. I just said hello and chatted for 5 minutes before getting her number. She is smoking hot like a model, half my age, super affectionate. But if I hadn't been in the right place at the right time I'd still be single. It's more about luck than "game".

kangarunner wrote: ↑

November 7th, 2020, 9:17 pm

In this video, Todd is a clear example of how not to behave around girls, because he clearly doesn't get that the girls don't want to talk to him at all. www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6xSB73TuTY

Wow, mega-cringe. That guy is a perfect example of why PUA has gotten a bad name.

flowerthief00 wrote: ↑

November 8th, 2020, 10:09 pm

I've said it before: PUA is dead, but cold approaching has been around since before PUA and will be around long after. There's not much to it. Be decent-looking, have enough confidence to say hello, and a reservoir's worth of patience for the vast majority of interactions leading to nothing.

I met my current gf in Vietnam through cold approach. There was no "art" involved. I just said hello and chatted for 5 minutes before getting her number. She is smoking hot like a model, half my age, super affectionate. But if I hadn't been in the right place at the right time I'd still be single. It's more about luck than "game".

I agree. I'm sure such natural cold approach has been the way it's done for thousands of years. I'm sure in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, most men either got their wives from cold approach or from their social connections and groups of friends or tribes. When you go to Russia or Brazil, you will also see that cold approach is totally natural and fluid, like following a stream down to a river. Only in super CCS countries - Closed/Cold, Cliquish, and Shallow/Superficial - like America, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. is it not natural. And in feminist countries too. That's what people don't get and don't talk about. So yes PUA is not necessary or useful.

However, I'm not sure the reason you met your gf is because of luck or timing. Sometimes it's destiny too. You never know right? How do you know it's luck or coincidence? Every atheist I ask about this has no answer. Why? How do you know there isn't a destiny or purpose or higher power? How do you know for sure? It could be that if you didn't meet her that day, you would have met her another way.

Keep in mind that if everything were a coincidence we would not exist or be here, because randomness can NEVER create life or complexity. Never. Not in a gazillion years. So we cannot be the result of random molecules colliding together without purpose. That's an atheist philosophy with zero proof and has hijacked the science community too of course. But that doesn't make it true if there's no evidence to support it.

Keep that in mind and you will see that chance and coincidence cannot explain everything or anything at all. Look at the big picture and learn to let go of your rigid beliefs if the data doesn't fit or if it doesn't make sense or doesn't feel right. Atheists need to learn that their beliefs do not have to be fixed. Look around you, do you honestly feel that everything is here by accident and random chance only???