Well, there is Krauser’s Pussy Begging (worth a read), and there is Coffee’s version of it. The title in my case is not ironic; we will indeed discuss raw, unfiltered pussy begging as a core seduction skill. It is particularly useful for fast escalation and relationship retention.
Okay … let us be more precise and define pussy begging. Essentially, what I mean here is behaviours that when taken out of context, would most likely be classified as Beta. For example, giving the frame to the girl, maybe doing something good for her when we aren’t getting compliance or forfeiting our Alpha behaviour once in a while. There are gradations to these, both in how much Beta you look like, from king Beta: maybe begging her for something, to mini Beta: maybe buying her flowers or a dinner, to even micro Beta: giving her one bite of your sandwich. These are combined with the interest of the girl; a highly interested girl will forgive more than a girl on the fence. The old adage stands strong: “You don’t need Game when you have compliance”.
Well then, how do we distinguish the behaviour and the girl’s interest to see if something is viable or not… well, calibration. Calibration is the basis of advanced Game, and there is no substitute for experience, and in particular, experience of successfully seducing girls. But that aside, there are still many concepts on the loose here, so let’s get to the meat of the article.
First, let us see why this train of thought “Pussy Begging” is even admissible. It comes from our bird’s-eye view of seduction. Daygame usually assumes a win-win frame; put it bluntly, both the guy and the girl get more out of the seduction than what they put in. It is like investing 100$ to get a guaranteed next-day return of 120$. Well, how much money should you invest in such a setting? The answer is your entire bank account. However, no such deal is guaranteed with girls. But the error lies in not identifying “profitable deals”, not with the “investing” part. Contrary to this viewpoint is the run-of-the-mill manosphere Twitter guy who sees seduction as a zero-sum game. Then, of course, any forfeit of your frame is your “loss” and her “win”. The typical Beta-transactional mindset also ascribes to this: the guy buys affection from the girl by providing. So you have to “lose” resources to “win” intimacy.
I hope this helps to relax the idea of forfeiting the frame sometimes, maybe letting her lead (when it is to your advantage), or even showing a non-alpha side of your character.
Let us now see some scenarios where the above discussion is applicable:
Relationships
Relationships, as all of Game, are frame (negotiation) based. It is idealised to think that the frame can be set in stone and forgotten thereafter, but in reality, as new experiences and situations arise in the span of the relation, some adjustments and expectations need to be set.
It is very easy to always dismiss this and say, “This is my frame, and we will do as I say”… but you need to consider your proposition. Is your frame considerate of her? Does it completely run over her? What are the consequences of her self-image and her character if she accepts your frame? I remember a guy who had discovered red pill and was trying to change the frame of his marriage. He was describing to us the conversations with his wife. And I could see really clearly, he had the right idea, but how could she ever accept his proposition? He was proposing an adamant frame: “I hold the value in this relationship and I know it”, but he was leaving his wife no leeway to accept this. She would have had to forfeit all her sense of self-respect if she were to stay with him and not proceed to a divorce. Should I state the outcome of his story …?
Takeaway: yes, we need a dominant frame, we can’t yield to every whim of the girl… but always ask yourself, what is your proposition to the girl? What are you asking her psyche to accept alongside your terms?
Cultural norms (i.e. calibration)
Let’s assume an imaginary ultra-conservative society. Marriage is sacred over there. You swoop in with your daygame leather jacket, and lo and behold, you got a date. You start imposing your lover/adventure sex frame on her… but you slip, maybe you say “marriage is for losers”. Wait… something is off here.
On the other hand, you are in the US. Not only can you joke about marriage, but you didn’t even call your date a “date”; you called it a “hangout“. What changed here?
Of course, you are going against cultural norms. For a species (females) that is socially savvy and conforming to the norm, this is a foul. To impose the adventure frame, you need to get her to step out of the norm. But a small step is “out of the norm” and a giant leap is also “out of the norm”. How much you can ask of her depends on the girl’s type/character and culture. But you should be asking a fair request; otherwise, she won’t accept it.
Long term planning
Sometimes I read Twitter and I seriously wonder if the people who talk about Game have completely missed the point. So many guys expect the girl to be compliant and friendly, and if she is not, she is a bitch. Well, the girl doesn’t owe you; there is Game to be done, and you are not owed any compliance at all. In fact, she should be resisting your frame at some point; otherwise, you are fumbling something in the “Younger-hotter-tighter” categories. To accept an aggressive push with no resistance, she is lacking in fertility (“younger”), hotness, or you are too slow on escalation.
Your goal as the player is to guide the ship, no matter what the girl throws at you. If the ship stays on course, i.e., the escalation is progressing on an abstract level, it doesn’t matter how this happens on a practical level.
To finish, here is an exaggerated example. If the girl has “agreed” to kiss when you cross the lamp post 10m away. It doesn’t matter if you play a chivalrous white knight to get her to walk those last 10m. It might even be necessary for her to feel she “wins” something out of you before she invests her feelings in that kiss.
