Lovedrop, has traveled with Mystery for years, coaching students in the field and speaking at pickup seminars and conferences all over the world. He is the author of Revelation, the co-writer of The Mystery Method, and a founder of VenusianArts.com. He lives in Los Angeles with his girlfriend.
January 31, 2010 by Lovedrop
Filed under Featured Articles, News & Events
The Pick-Up Artist 2 (tv show) is a reality show on VH1 and iTunes, starring our very own Mystery and Matador. (Click for full article.)
The Pickup Artist: The New and Improved Art of Seduction (the book) is our new release from Villard books, by Mystery, author of The Mystery Method: How To Get Beautiful Women Into Bed, and Lovedrop, author of Revelation.
Coming off the success of his first bestselling book, The Mystery Method, Mystery once again teams up with writer Chris Odom to "impart some pearls of wisdom," and this time, he has quite a story to tell. Just as his VH1 reality show The Pickup Artist is about to debut in the United States, Mystery and his crew have withdrawn to their gorgeous Miami mansion to get into shape and plot their next move. A one-on-one pua student, Adam, comes to stay at the house and get his every question answered. As a kaleidoscope of crazy pua characters enlivens the scene, Mystery begins to draw Adam deeper and deeper into his world, where he witnesses firsthand the pitfalls of the pickup artist lifestyle, and gains an intimate portrait of Mystery's ideas and struggles. Eventually Adam must decide whether the powers of the pua game are worth the surreal lifestyle that comes along with it. As the book progresses, Mystery and his partners, Lovedrop and Matador, travel from the sands of South Beach to the strip clubs of Las Vegas, criss-crossing the country to teach their seminars on pickup and seduction. They party in the Hollywood Hills, set up their own Pleasure Bubble, and taste the high life among the towering skyscrapers of Manhattan. Along the way, Mystery reveals the next level of game theory and technique, designed to catapult timid and insecure men into a world of confidence, attractiveness, and all-around success with women. Mystery serves another rich helping of knowledge this go-around, for those readers seeking his techniques…
• A list of all the triggers that create—and destroy—attraction
• A new way to approach strangers and start a conversation: microcalibrated openers
• Mystery’s most powerful humor technique, The Absurd—so you’ll never run out of things to say again
• A full chapter on physical escalation (touching, kissing, “making a move”)
• The solution to inner-game issues, for improved confidence
• A chapter on exotic dancers and strip clubs
• How to set up your pimp pad
• Mystery's philosophy on life
• Plenty of gambits
• And much, much more…
When it comes time for Mystery to reveal the secrets of physical escalation (touching, kissing, 'making a move') he says,
"Physical escalation is actually quite easy. Just read along with me, and I will show you how. Just do what I say and it will work. Don’t worry, it’s easy, and the moves I’m going to teach you will not get you rejected. Trust me, it’s fun and you can stop anytime. Now, let’s get right into it…"
With all the good advice in this book, Valentine's day is sure to be just a little less lonely this year. We didn't know it could be so easy, Mystery. Thanks for all the good work. The Pickup Artist: The New and Improved Art of Seduction, by Mystery with Chris Odom. Foreword by Neil Strauss, author of The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists. Also by Mystery: The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed
January 30, 2010 by Lovedrop
Filed under Product Reviews
The Pickup Artist book (2010, www.ThePickupArtistBook.com) contains pickup knowledge from several veins:
— New writings throughout (obviously)
— Excerpts from Revelation (on Opening, Inner Game, and Humor; about 3% of the new book is excerpted from Revelation.)
— Erik's old writings (his classic posts from ASF, cleaned up and organized for your bookshelf.)
— The book contains a "Bootcamp Handout" as well, with:
-an IOI/IOD chart,
-a Ghost/Flame chart,
-a Neg chart,
-chapter 2 on Kino Escalation,
-a DHV/DLV chart,
-the 13 steps of Group Theory,
-a bunch of Openers,
-Mystery's top 10 tips, etc.
The book also contains a story "narrative":
-The office scene teaches AMOGing,
-the Strip Club scene teaches strippers,
-the South Beach chapter teaches buying temperature and club dynamics,
-the Pleasure Bubble scene teaches how to decorate your pad,
-and the Party in the Hills chapter contains Mystery's new Universe gambit.
There are various other nuggets throughout, from various writings and interviews. Often the dialogue is based on notes of actual dialogue, and recordings of live pickups.
The purpose of the narrative, being restricted to a series of vignettes, was several:
1) To capture the people as characters. To make you really feel like you are hanging out with Mystery and Matador and all the rest.
2) To capture the spirit of the time. To make you feel like you were really there in Project Miami, or at the Pleasure Bubble. (As if a magical movie camera went back in time to the Project Miami house and captured it into book form, so you could feel as if you were really there.)
3) To teach game.
4) To lampoon ALL the characters, including the three main characters. We discovered that this improved the humor, and improved the characters. It is also in keeping with community literature 
The characters that I lampooned the most ended up becoming the best characters in the book (see the Rat, for example.) It just makes the characters more vivid and more funny, more cartoon-like. Like something out of a movie. To shine the light on their flaws. Mystery gets it pretty bad too; see the introduction of the book for one example of this. And Mehow gets it, of course.
Sorry if you got creamed, Mehow }:-) Think of it like South Park or the Simpsons. No one is safe. Mehow, especially, is a great PUA teacher and innovator, and I wholeheartedly recommend his products and training. But Matador did pick on him when we were at Project Miami and the book captures that, as much to lampoon Matador as Mehow. But it was all in good fun – we are all brothers.
Check out Mehow's page at the site for the new book at www.ThePickupArtistBook.com/Mehow
And for custom Lovedrop video content that you can't get anywhere else, check out Mehow's 10SSA product. It's a winner.
-Lovedrop
May 17, 2009 by Lovedrop
Filed under Featured Articles, Psychology
Craig once said that “It’s Always On.” My thoughts on this (why it is true) are,
While gaming, whenever escalation is possible, continue escalating AS A RULE. Ignore her non-committal behavior; she WILL act non-committal in order to handle her own ASD. She has to do this (explained below.) Just continue to plow in a non-needy way.
Women will act non-committal due to the sexual non-responsibility rule (a.k.a ASD), but subject to appropriate gaming they will continue to display passive IOIs such as allowing the gaming to continue, and allowing escalation (but acting like it’s weird in order to avoid responsibility/ASD.)
Have you ever been gaming a girl, and she has a weird smile on her face, with her eyebrows up, like she thinks you’re being weird? But at the same time, she continues to show passive IOIs. And also she doesn’t contribute that much, forcing you to carry most of the interaction. But she goes along with it. Players can miscalibrate this because of her weird look and her non-investment, they decide that she is being “a bitch” and they say “whatever fuck it then, I don’t care” when they actually could have kept plowing and got the girl.
This is interesting because ASD theory thus predicts the necessity of plowing. Plowing is also the accepted solution to token resistance, which is itself merely a more energetic form of this same passive IOI mechanism. Thus Token Resistance can be interpreted as an IOI. If she feels it necessary to begin avoiding responsibility for something that she feels inside, and she telegraphs this feeling via token resistance behavior, can’t we then take it as an indicator?
Some new terms:
Predictive Resistance: This is similar to token resistance, except she volunteers it without prompting. (Usually token resistance is thought of as a RESPONSE to some compliance test from the player.) Example: “I hope you know we’re not having sex tonight.” Why would she say this unless she is feeling ASD? And if I am not currently escalating, how does she feel ASD? Because she is getting excited and thus feels the need to avoid responsibility for it. This is how ASD gets activated. This is also WHY we have traditionally known that predictive resistance is actually an IOI from the girl. Girls don’t say that sort of thing to beggars on the street. They say it to hot guys when they are sitting on their couch together.
This is also why false disqualifiers work…because they eliminate her need to avoid responsibility and thus DEACTIVATE ASD.
Plowing is necessary yet so is flipping the script. You must do both.
Indicators: There are IOIs and IODs. Are there also IOQs? I.e. indicator of qualification. If there are reliable indicators for various other aspects of the game, such as the above-described “passive ioi / asd” indicator then perhaps we can improve intuitive accuracy. There must be entire classes of indicators and common confusions that occur.
====================
Eventually she opened up when I was just being myself and having fun,
***being persistent and smiling was key.
Formula: Due to previously discussed “act like you’re weird but give passive IOIs” mechanism, smile (relaxed, no big deal, being myself, unreactive) while plowing (90% rule) and using positive misinterpretation. Actually just viewing everything through the most positive frame possible.
This still gives room for routines (such as an opening stack) and calibration (such as negs and kino plowing.)
Everything else still applies…use DHVs, use false disqualifiers, kino escalate, get investment and qualify her, etc.
=====
TRY sarging from the frame of mingling, or spidering, where you’re not necessarily trying to pickup but only trying to meet high-value people and add them to your social circle.
ALSO try doing this but ALSO doing pickup as well. Doing jealousy, etc.
=====
Violation theory / ethics
Often we can violate social norms in the field, for the sake of practice or experimentation, and this is part of the learning process. In fact this is important for learning more about how social interaction really works, and we must feel dispassionate. But in the long term, we still must be aware of social norms and how they affect our game – we have to “surf the wave” and think intelligently about how to exploit these mechanisms, and not hide behind an “I don’t give a fuck” attitude. This becomes ESPECIALLY RELEVANT when you begin to focus more on social circle game and less on cold approach game. You only live once!
When someone comes in your set, and is nice to you, without making social errors, then you are a violator if you are rude or cruel to him. If his frame is really weak, then he will still lose. But if he has a strong frame and is unreactive, then he will win, since YOU are the one who is in violation. You are the one who was being mean.
Conversely, if you go into someone else’s set, and you are nice, without making social errors, then the set is under a certain social obligation to show basic politeness. They can’t just ignore you. At this point you can just plow.
Why is this important? Because this ethical rule seems to be in operation socially, whether people see it or not. And because there is power to be derived: There is no longer any social obligation to be polite once someone has become a violator. If you enter a guy’s set politely, and the guy is rudely amoging you without provocation, he is a violator and you can now just ignore him like he’s not there. The more he reacts after that, the more his value drops while yours goes up. You couldn’t have previously ignored him if he hadn’t been rude – since that would have turned YOU into a violator.
There has been an important question related to AMOG tactics for a while now. The question is, if I am AMOGing the guy, aren’t I becoming more and more reactive to him, thus giving him power? AMOG lines are cool, but “less is more”…etc. Calibration is important:
— You can just AMOG him. You MUST calibrate that he will knuckle under your frame before you attempt this.
— If you miscalibrate and he retains a strong frame and positive attitude, then he wins. You are now in violation and he can ignore you.
— Instead of attacking him, you can BAIT him to try to AMOG you. (People have previously used these terms interchangeably, but I am now suggesting that there is a difference.) If he does, he is now a violator and you can ignore him. Most people will fall for this, this is why classical AMOG theory works. This is the mechanism being exploited. If he doesn’t take the bait, you are still in the game since you only baited and you never actually violated. But you lost a little “social energy”. The more obvious it becomes that you are baiting him, the more you are REACTING to him. The less he takes the bait, the more YOU are becoming REACTIVE to HIM.
A piece of violation theory (or “ethical theory”) thus becomes the ability to bait people into making social errors. People will often hang themselves without your help. Other people need some rope. If you can bait people into violating (or DLVing which I think is slightly different. A DLV is a social error but a social error is not a DLV.) If you can bait people into violating, then the rules now apply: I can ignore the person without become a violator myself. My value will continue to rise and his will continue to drop. This will also generate attraction in nearby females. Useful?
I think that girls are really good at this. Stupid girls just violate (they can get away with some degree of this but they lose power as a result). But girls with social skills will bait other people to violate. Or even worse: set a double-bind frame and so NO MATTER what you do, you just hung yourself.
This is interesting as well: if she sets a double-bind frame where I will lose, and I don’t come up with a good comeback (reframe), then I will also lose. The fact that I was silent subcommunicates that I couldn’t think of a good response, making me the loser in the battle of the wits. It is also implicitly interpreted by her that her frame must have been correct, that I AM a violator, and that I had nothing to say in my own defense. She can now ignore me AND continue dropping my value if I stick around (due to violation theory.)
POSITIVE MISINTERPRETATION
This shows why frame control is so important, why I must always have a good answer to a shit test. She is baiting me to disqualify myself. And not only must I have a good answer, but I must be totally friendly and nice and unreactive. Even if she is non-responsive, or acts like I’m weird, or challenges me, I mustn’t be rude, unfriendly, or angry/reactive, because that is exactly what she is baiting me to do. For the sole purpose of making me a VIOLATOR so that she can blow me out without becoming a violator herself. Notice that when your value is low, girls will get really impatient and try to pick fights so that they have moral justification to blow you out. Girls will also do this when they want to end a relationship. Again, this all stems from the “no responsibility” rule.
How to get to her WITHOUT VIOLATING.
— Be friendly and nice, without “crossing that line” of being mean to someone, while simultaneously plowing and interpreting everything in a positive way. Do NOT get reactive or you lose. Just act like nothing is a big deal, keep plowing and being yourself, and don’t violate social norms.
— Neg. Perhaps this is why Negs have been so hard to understand. I can define a neg as something that conveys disinterest, while simultaneously NOT crossing a violation line. If I say, “I hate you, you fucking bitch” then I have conveyed disinterest. But I have also disqualified myself by violating. Now I’m creepy and people can ignore me without feeling guilty. She’s looking to screen me out anyway, early on especially, so I basically just made it easy for her. (Some guys walk away from this sort of thing saying, “Whatever, I don’t care. I really don’t give a fuck.” It’s good to not give a fuck. But that attitude should be combined with the social intelligence not to make social errors and get yourself disqualified. We are playing to win, so don’t deliberately hang yourself. People WILL give you the rope – watch out for it. They are baiting you.)
Negs allow me to do very useful things (frame control, false disqualifiers, emotional stimulation, comfort building, value subcommunication) while simultaneously NOT crossing the violation boundary and getting disqualified. I’m still friendly and unreactive. I’m not a violator. And as long as I keep plowing, she can’t blow me out.
This may be what people are talking about when they say that people can’t blow them out of set anymore.
Ways that SHE will try to BAIT YOU to violate
— Her friend runs over and they scream and hug. Now they have created a new shared frame together. If I bust in, in a reactive way, I am now a violator. If I stand there like a dork, I feel stupid and start to panic. The social pressure is building on me…I can’t leave and I can’t stay. Eventually I slink away. Notice that Mystery‘s solution FOLLOWS SOCIAL NORMS: First you cut your thread (appropriate) then you ask the target to introduce the obstacle (appropriate)
— Her friend is rude to you. You are rude to her friend. Now the target can treat you like a violator and it’s “not her fault.” Don’t take the bait.
— “Well thanks for coming over to say hi, it was really nice to meet you.”
— “Um, we haven’t seen each other in a long time; we’re having a really important conversation right now.”
— These are interesting because now if I stay, I am a violator EVEN IF I CONTINUE TO BE NICE. They have set the frame that merely being there makes me a violator. In my experience, the best solution here is a massive value demonstrator combined with a false disqualifier: “Oh we’re actually on our way over to Skybar, I just wanted to stop and say hi first…” (stack forward.) ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR THIS?
— Another suggestion for this, of course, is to come in with massive value and a false time constraint in the FIRST PLACE, so they don’t bait me in this way. For example, you get a lot less of this bullshit if you have first been building your value in the room, for example by parading a hot girl around. Ever notice that the other sets open easier once you have been parading a hot girl around?
Interesting: When Mystery handles an interrupt, he reminds the target that it’s “the polite thing to do” to introduce him to the obstacle. Now she has to do it, she would be a VIOLATOR if she didn’t. So she does. Interesting that she can PRETEND she didn’t think of it and absolve herself of responsibility. If she leaves you standing there and you eventually leave, it’s still “not her fault.” But once you make it explicit that she’s being rude, now she HAS to follow social norms, so she does. There are thus cases where you can use your knowledge of social norms to force people to comply with them where they might normally pretend they didn’t notice. This is why social norms are so interesting – because people DO follow them, whether they have full knowledge of them or not. But having that knowledge gives you an edge.
— Also interesting: If I explicitly voice a secret society rule or understanding, I HAVE committed a violation. BUT I can act as if I didn’t notice it and still get away with it. Other people nearby can ignore it and it will go away. But if someone says “but of course” he is pointing that that I am a violator, that I have made explicit something that people prefer to assume. This is because people like to act Secret Society, without being made RESPONSIBLE for it, by pretending they don’t know. When I point it out explicitly, they can no longer pretend, and thus they are forced to deny their own behavior and to pay lip service to social programming. I have become a PARTY POOPER – a VIOLATOR. I have already fucked up. But by saying “but of course” the person has now made my fuckup clear and my lack of social intelligence is now evident. DON’T TALK ABOUT THE SECRET SOCIETY. Remember one of the rules of the Secret Society is that you don’t talk about it. Talking about it implies that you aren’t familiar with the rule, and thus you must NOT BE A MEMBER.
— Thus the strategy should always be to ASSUME the secret society is true, and escalate accordingly, while simultaneously pretending that it’s not true and also paying lip service to the typical social programming.
— The phrase “it’d be rude not to.” This phrase absolves yourself of responsibility by implying that you would be a violator if you did anything else. Remember, people can’t blame you if there is a higher authority. This phrase uses social norms as a higher authority.
— Interesting that the phrase can ALSO be used in cases where it’s NOT LOGICALLY TRUE, but will still have the same effect regardless. The more obvious it becomes that the phrase is actually not appropriate, the more funny it becomes when you use the phrase. What is the tie-in here with humor?
Are there ways to get rid of someone WITHOUT using violation theory?
— can’t think of one
This could be really important.
Some general principles:
— Don’t ever violate a social norm since it causes you to lose power. (Unless you are doing some specific practice or experimentation.) Always keep the “high ground” morally. Always be unreactive, friendly – and plow.
— If someone BAITS you, continue to be unreactive, friendly, and plow.
— If someone VIOLATES you, you can now AMOG and IGNORE him without becoming a violator. Ignore is preferable since it is less reactive. A single good AMOG line can be useful as well depending on context.
— You can also BAIT someone into violating. If he takes the bait, he is now a violator and the above now applies.
— If he doesn’t take the bait, then calibrate: Can you bait him again? If you keep it up, he will gain an edge because you are reacting slightly more. The most you can do beyond this is just be unreactive, friendly, plow, and ignore him as much as possible without going into violation.
— If you can calibrate that the person has a weak frame, you can just violate him and retain the stronger frame. But beware: now all of his friends, some of whom may be socially more intelligent than him, can ignore you and get away with it.
Back to this paragraph:
Have you ever been gaming a girl, and she has a weird smile on her face, with her eyebrows up a bit, like she thinks you’re being weird? But at the same time, she continues to show passive IOIs. And also she doesn’t contribute that much, forcing you to carry most of the interaction. But she goes along with it. Players can miscalibrate this because of her weird look and her non-investment, they decide that she is being “a bitch” and they say “whatever fuck it then, I don’t care” when they actually could have kept plowing.
What’s really going on is that she uses her facial expression to set a frame that you are weird. This absolves her of responsibility of what is happening (so she can allow it to continue.) Unfortunately, this also baits the PLAYER to become a violator. “I’m not BEING weird, but she’s ACTING like I’m weird. What a BITCH!” If you aren’t socially intelligent, you will take the “bait” that she was “rude” to you, and thus you will be rude back to her. Once you do this:
— IN YOUR MIND: She was rude for no reason, therefore I was rude back. Whatever. Fuck her. I don’t care. Women are bitches.
— IN HER MIND: I didn’t do anything wrong. He was being weird to me and then he was being rude to me so I filtered him out. Just another loser.
A guy with a stronger frame will remain unreactive to her bait and friendly, and will never go into violation and won’t get screened out. He can’t get blown out. Now all he has to do is continue stimulating her emotions and DHVing. The best part is that the unreactive, friendly part is a DHV in-and-of-itself.
So she is selecting for strength. Is she trying to blow me out or trying to get with me? BOTH. One or the other will work, either outcome is fine with her. It’s not her fault either way. I COULD interpret that she is blowing me out, and I’d be RIGHT. I could get all reactive about this. Or I COULD interpret that it is ON and that she is testing for strength. And I would be RIGHT in this case as well. It is my own value and my own subcommunications that determine which way she will interpret it. NOT — HER — FAULT.
Other concepts:
Different violations, and different baits, have differing levels of plausible deniability.
Some violations only exist if they are pointed out (“Introduce me to your friend, it’s the polite thing to do.”)
Some baits are more or less reactive. If it isn’t obvious that I’m baiting (“thanks for stopping by!”) then I retain plausible deniability while simultaneously forcing the person to become a violator if they stay. I don’t come off as reactive. If it IS obvious that I’m baiting (“oh that’s a really nice coat you got there. You from the CIRCUS?”) then I’m also perceived as more reactive. If I continue baiting in this way I will become the more reactive one and eventually lose. This is why, when AMOGing, “less is more.” I gave myself less plausible deniability.
— Always maximize my own plausible deniability, and that of my target, while minimizing that of rival players and AMOGs.
“Can I have a light?” is a great opener (I got the idea from Christophe). It ties in here because it’s a socially reasonable request, and makes the person look like a jerk if they don’t give you compliance. This is why it’s better to use small hoops early on…because the smaller the hoop, the more of a violator the person appears to be if they defy.
April 9, 2009 by Lovedrop
Filed under Dating Advice and Tips
Men really can laugh women into bed, because a sense of humour makes them seem more intelligent, psychologists have found.
A new study shows that women think that funny men are smarter and more likely to be honest than more dour counterparts.
Although studies have shown that humour is not linked to intelligence, researchers believe that the findings could be the reason why so many lonely heart ads placed by women list GSOH (good sense of humour) as a prerequisite for a partner.
Women have evolved to find intelligence an attractive quality because it suggests that a man will be a good provider for her and her children, the researchers believe.
Kristofor McCarty, from Northumbria University, who led the study, said: “A quick browse of lonely-hearts ads will confirm that women look for a good sense of humour in a potential partner ? our research may explain why this is the case.
“The findings provide evidence that women use humour as an indication of a guy’s intelligence.
“Intelligence is a very attractive quality as a clever man should be more able to provide resources for his offspring.
“But guys be warned: not just any gag will do. We discovered that the humour must be genuinely funny for the man to be judged as more intelligent.”
James Corden, the comedy star of BBC hit Gavin and Stacey, has said that being funny helped him to attract women from his teenage years onwards.
?My weight was never a concern for me. I could always talk to them and make them laugh, so they tended to overlook my physical imperfections,? said Corden, who is currently dating actress Sheridan Smith.
To rate the attractiveness of a sense of humour in the study, 45 heterosexual women were asked to read shorts descriptions of themselves compiled by 20 men, 10 of which were scored as extremely funny and 10 as only slightly funny.
The women were than asked how intelligent and honest they thought that the men were and how likely they would be to go on to develop a friendship or a long-term relationship with them.
The findings, to be presented at the British Psychological Society Annual Conference in Brighton on Wednesday, show that men who used the funniest descriptions of themselves were thought to be significantly more intelligent than those who weren’t as witty.
The women in the study also judged the men who had a good sense of humour as more honest and said that they would be more likely to become friends with them.
Funnier men were also seen as a better catch for a long-term relationship, according to the findings.
While women appear to prefer a men who makes them laugh, the psychologists say that previous studies have shown that the same does not hold true when the sexes are reversed – and men are not more attracted to funny girls.
Excerpted from The Telegraph. Read article here.
June 21, 2008 by Lovedrop
Filed under Gossip and Drama
The lawsuit has been settled to our satisfaction.
For the past year, we have posted comments on this website relating to a dispute between Nicholas Benedict aka Savoy and Mystery Method Corporation on the one hand, and us on the other hand.
We have since settled our differences. It has come to light that not all of the information in the posts/blogs/FAQs relating to Nicholas Benedict aka Savoy or Mystery Method corporation was accurate.
We would like to take this opportunity to apologize for any and all inaccuracies that we may have posted.
February 19, 2007 by Lovedrop
Filed under Featured Articles, Miscellaneous
Over the past ten years, we have systematically developed the most effective methods in the world for attracting and dating beautiful women. Our ideas first came to mainstream prominence in Neil Strauss' best-selling book, The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists and then later on the hit show The Pickup Artist on VH1. We have cracked the code to human emotions and social intelligence, and now our mission is to continually refine our art and to make this technology available to others who seek to learn it. As our thousands of students worldwide have learned for themselves, our system is real, and it gets results. Whether you want to feel socially empowered, you?re looking to meet the right girl, or you just want better dating options, the Venusian Arts can make it happen for you.
Venusian Arts on Facebook
Follow Mystery on Twitter
Follow Discovery on Facebook