Skip to main content
MikeMehlman.net

MikeMehlman.net

By Mike Mehlman

Sup guys. If you're a reader of my blog, mikemehlman.net, then hopefully you'll enjoy this podcast experience. This is sorta just an "audio experiment" for the time being. Maybe you'll find this podcast boring as fuck. Or maybe you'll get some value out of it. Either way, I'm humbled and grateful for your time.
Available on
Apple Podcasts Logo
Castbox Logo
Google Podcasts Logo
Overcast Logo
Pocket Casts Logo
RadioPublic Logo
Spotify Logo
Currently playing episode

"I need to return! I need to return!"

MikeMehlman.netApr 19, 2019

00:00
08:49
Why you're not exchanging with more girls on the cold approach
Jun 24, 202111:09
The #1 factor that determines how much SEX a male has
Jun 14, 202108:42
5 things you should DO on the cold approach
Jun 14, 202115:26
81 girls' contacts in 9 hours of daygame
May 31, 202114:16
How to overcome insecurities about appearance

How to overcome insecurities about appearance

Watch this podcast in video form on YouTube here.

--

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 clip briefly addresses how we can make strides to feel better about our appearance, not just in dating, but in general. The idea being greater happiness, naturally.


Apr 01, 202111:45
Why the most affectionate girls will ghost

Why the most affectionate girls will ghost

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 clip briefly addresses why you should never be surprised when a girl who you think is interested in you ghosts. This clip also addresses male whining, which is one of the top things I despise.  Whining/complaining is the number-one trait that will finish a male. With all of the content I put out on the topic + time I spend discussing it in this chat, I still have been receiving DMs lately from guys who are "sad" a girl didn't hook up, or that she ghosted.

Mar 08, 202104:44
"How can I improve my self-esteem?" (DIFFERENT from growing confidence)

"How can I improve my self-esteem?" (DIFFERENT from growing confidence)

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 discussed in a lot of my content about how to improve confidence. In this current clip I compare that with how to improve self-esteem. The two routes of personal growth are very different, at least in my experience.  If you want a longer-form article on overcoming others' opinions and judgments, as well as how to improve self-esteem, you're going to want to read this article of mine: https://mikemehlman.net/2018/01/20/living-true-to-yourself/

Mar 02, 202115:38
Why most guys who seem promising STOP approaching women

Why most guys who seem promising STOP approaching women

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 is an advanced-level clip discussing why most guys who demonstrate some initial efficacy with approach eventually drop off from approach altogether.  In other words, it’s a predictable scenario of a guy who seems eager to be better with meeting women and improve his non-neediness and confidence, and he’ll start approaching for a few months (or even upward of a couple years), before finally fading entirely.  If he and I have a text exchange of some kind, it's always some form of him being down about his "low numbers" and rejections. And then I have to repeatedly assert that high rejections are normal and inherent to how approaching and meeting women works.  I've been preaching for a while how rejection composes the overwhelming majority of approaches and dating interactions no matter what. But many guys might only take this idea on board halfway. That is to say, they might tell themselves, "Ok, Mike said rejection is normal, and I get that, but like, I'm doing really bad. Like, my numbers are *really* low." And they become upset about the process and ultimately fade from approach altogether.  I have to reiterate that the number-one trait that determines a male's efficacy in dating is his ability to not complain about rejection and continue approaching anyway.   There's a DNA component where some males are just way more prone to complaining than others. But there's also a component of the degree to which the male understands rejection as normal and not a repudiation of himself.  Most of the rejections you take, it doesn't even matter who you are. Girls will reject the overwhelming majority of the time regardless. The reason most men aren't sleeping with a harem of women is because it requires consistently approaching A LOT of women and incurring incessant rejection as the entrance requirement to attaining that.  Even if your response is, "Yeah, but I don't even need a harem. I just honestly want one plate." My response is: you still need to approach consistently and in high-volume in order to maximize the chance of any of your interactions successfully proceeding.   Most guys approach as a mere expedient to find "the one," before eventually collapsing into a transient monogamy where the female commands the frame. And this isn't because this is what most guys truly want; it's because it's what most guys are *only able to attain.*  In other words, most guys *can't* attain a rotation of plates because they lack the ability to 1) approach consistently and in high volume, and 2) not complain about their rejections.  Those two aspects of approach and dating are the entrance requirement to having a repertoire of women you're dating. They're not an outrageous task. They're the baseline requirement.  I don't hook up with various women because I'm so special and don't get rejected. I hook up with various women *because* I get rejected all of the time incessantly *as the entrance requirement* for that to be the case.  The number of rejections you incur is directly proportional to how many hookups you have. If a male says he has "lots of hookups" but simultaneously says he doesn't get rejected a lot, then he's either lying about his hookups, or he's lying about getting rejected a lot.

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/02/28/why-most-guys-who-seem-promising-stop-approaching-women

Feb 28, 202108:04
Tinder: How to maximize dates/hookups (the unfair but effective way)

Tinder: How to maximize dates/hookups (the unfair but effective way)

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 clip I address two main points about dating apps:  1) Why girls will swipe right/up for you and then not respond, and  2) How to maximize dates/hookups.  I had written about Tinder / dating apps a couple years ago in extensive detail here:   https://mikemehlman.net/2019/05/30/tinder-why-she-wont-respond-to-your-message/

Feb 22, 202110:23
"How do I make a woman feel desired beyond just sex?"

"How do I make a woman feel desired beyond just sex?"

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 clip I address a question I received about how to make a woman feel desired beyond just sex.   That is, when it comes to giving some form of reassurance, what's the best route to go about that?  Do women even want reassurance that you're interested beyond sex?  What are some things I might say to women to help move an interaction forward?  Regardless of whether you're looking for an LTR or a casual plate, in this clip I address how to maximize the probability of moving an interaction forward with a woman.

Full post: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/02/21/how-do-i-make-a-woman-feel-desired-beyond-just-sex

Feb 21, 202110:52
How to be your most attractive with women (not the answer you expect)

How to be your most attractive with women (not the answer you expect)

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 been talking about for at least the past couple years about how the male is his most attractive when he is fully deregulated.  Guys will ask what the fuck that means.  Deregulation means fully winging your behavior. That is, it's not about the hyper-specifics of what you say or do; what matters most in your interactions with women is that you are fully winging your interactions and not implementing behavioral contrivances.  "Tactics" and "schemes" such as negging, disqualification, and kino are classic examples of where the male attempts to generate attraction from a place of contrivance.  The male must maintain a baseline of forwardness with deregulation superimposed on top of it. Deregulation is never a permission slip for non-forwardness.  In this video I formally talk about deregulation, one of my major themes. This will provide a lot of value for guys who have made many thousands of approaches but still aren't getting the results they want and/or still feel needy sometimes. For the novice male, hearing this advice early is essentially the luckiest scenario you could have encountered as you'll be off to the best start possible.  I've made plenty of content on the topic, but this video addresses deregulation head-on. Once again, lots of value here.

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/02/17/how-to-be-your-most-attractive-around-women

Feb 18, 202109:47
"How much do looks and age matter for male SMV?"

"How much do looks and age matter for male SMV?"

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 short clip I respond to a question about to what extent age matters in relation to the male's ability to attain sexual outcomes. That is, is there generally a certain timeframe (i.e., 40s, 50s, 60s) at which point the male will experience a notable drop-off in sexual outcomes.  I've talked about male SMV in prior content.  The question as far as an exact age with respect to hookups suggests to me the real information sought was: "How much do age and looks matter, period?"

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/02/13/how-much-do-looks-and-age-matter-for-male-smv

Feb 13, 202107:19
"Are 'rapport dates,' where I can't pull, sometimes worth it?"

"Are 'rapport dates,' where I can't pull, sometimes worth it?"

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

Scenario 1:  Girl who's your type agrees to a 5pm date via text. She says however that she has to meet a friend at 6:30, and she can't adjust the time. Should you meet up with her or re-arrange for a different time?  Scenario 2:  You're approaching on the street / in a station and come across a girl who's your type. She's receptive. You go for the instadate. She agrees. But then she tells you she has to meet a friend in an hour. Do you go on the date anyway in order to build rapport and increase the chance of a second date, or do you just take her contact and keep approaching?  --  In this short clip I talk about whether "rapport dates" are worth it.  That is, is it worth it to go on a date with a girl even if you don't have the logistics (i.e., not enough time or too much distance) to get her back. Will this increase the chance of a subsequent date and hook up? My answer isn't what most guys might expect.  I also address in this clip "stacking" dates. And if I do stack, do I prioritize a girl I haven't slept with yet versus a plate, etc.

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/02/11/rapport-dates

Feb 11, 202109:05
"Do girls like older guys? Do 'old' guys get rejected more?"

"Do girls like older guys? Do 'old' guys get rejected more?"

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 clip is in response to a question I received about rejection in relation to age. I thought the Q was a half-troll because my last video was about how I get rejected all of the time, so count on someone to immediately seize on the opportunity to question whether it's about, e.g., something I'm doing wrong, or about age, etc.  I'm literally the only person out there who preaches with candor about how rejection is normal. Show me someone who tells you the truth about how rejection to the level I do. Won't happen.  I can't reiterate more that rejection will compose the majority of your interactions no matter who you are, what you say, or what you do. This is how it will be forever, in perpetuity. Essentially, getting rejected all of the time right now while I'm in my prime at age 34 is "training me" for when I get rejected all of the time when I'm, e.g., 64.  Very very rare that a girl will actually care that the male is older. She might say she doesn't prefer a guy who's, e.g., 52, but she'll by all means still date him if he's forward/confident enough and decently in shape. If the male is insecure about it and lacks confidence, that will reflect outwardly in his behavior, and that will actually be what winds up getting him rejected more than likely.  Male SMV is actually a lot higher during his 30s and 40s as compared to his 20s.  In other words, I will open girls who are 18+ when I'm a lot older, and various ones might even say, "Oh wow, creepy, grandpa are you lost?" But I'll know that the incessant rejections I get, even when I eventually hit my 60s, won't be *because* I'm older; they'll be because that's how most interactions go regardless. I'll reflect on all of the rejections I got when I was in my 20s and 30s and say, "I got rejected incessantly when I was in my prime. That's no different from now."  But more concretely, right now at 34 my ability to be forward and pull is a lot greater compared to even just a couple years ago. The notion of male SMV rising into his 30s it's just some arbitrary concept; it really does manifest in the sense that you will continue to become increasingly confident and bold. I can *feel* that my SMV is higher now. And it should be noted that this is because I have been an active practitioner and have stayed consistent with approach.  In terms of any value I can provide you, I want you to know that if you are in your 20s and feel like you are getting "old," or are concerned about getting older, just know that things will only get better into your 30s. Insofar as you continue approaching, your confidence level will continue to rise in a way that cannot be faked.  You will also fuck up a lot less in your 30s. Essentially the 20s male is characterized by fucking up a lot. And this entails many blown experiences that reside with the male painfully. But these only ignite him going forward, and he is less inclined to make the same mistakes into his 30s...

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/02/08/do-girls-like-older-guys

Feb 08, 202109:50
"Are my REJECTION PERCENTAGES too high? Do YOU get rejected a lot?"

"Are my REJECTION PERCENTAGES too high? Do YOU get rejected a lot?"

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 short clip I talk about the extent to which rejection is normal. I've made lots of content discussing how rejection will compose the overwhelming majority of your interactions regardless, but most guys take on that input/advice only halfway.  In other words, guys might hear me talk about the normality of rejection and say, "Ok, well I guess getting rejected a lot is normal." But they don't *actually* internalize my statement. They don't realize that when I say rejection will compose the majority of your interactions, it *literally will compose the majority of your interactions.*  So are you not getting the outcomes you're looking for? You feel like you're getting rejected too much? Right. Well that's normal. No it's not excessive. That's *normal.* That's how it's supposed to be.  The purpose of this short clip is to provide reinforcement of that point; it is to communicate to you that you need to embrace rejection as a core pillar of the dating process.  You will incur an inordinately greater number of rejections than you will sexual outcomes, at all time points. This will never change. So any male who truly does achieve high numbers of sexual outcomes *must* incur a significantly greater number of rejections. There's no way around that. It doesn't matter who you are, what you say, or what you do.  Needy PUAs will preach sexual outcomes sans the rejection - i.e., they won't discuss rejection as a normal facet of approach and dating. This is linked to insecurity and believing that rejection is an outright repudiation of the male.  Since high numbers of sexual outcomes require the male to absorb an inordinately greater number of rejections as a prerequisite, and the latter are what generate non-neediness and confidence in the male, if the male truly is truly having lots of sexual outcomes, he will be able to openly communicate about his rejections, since those are what generated his confidence to begin with.  Needy PUAs might be able to front charismatically, however this should not be misconstrued as confidence. Because true confidence will enable the male to openly discuss his rejections. And, once again, if he is actually achieving many sexual outcomes, then he must be incurring many more rejections as part of the process. So any discussion where the male ardently claims he doesn't get rejected a lot, and he's telling the truth, this therefore means he doesn't hook up a lot and merely is capable of fronting.  The inculcation and learning point is that if you want to hook up a lot, you need to get rejected a lot. The number-one trait in the male that will determine how successful he is achieving sexual outcomes is his ability to incur repeated rejection and continue approaching anyway. And he must never complain about his rejections and whine about his "low" percentages.  Male whining over rejection reflects a non-understanding about the normality of the extent to which it is normal. Because if the male understands that rejection composes the overwhelming majority of outcomes, he won't voice his concerns about why his rejection numbers are supposedly so high, or wonder about "what he's doing wrong."

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/02/07/are-my-rejection-percentages-too-high

Feb 07, 202106:30
Approaching in a new country with a language barrier

Approaching in a new country with a language barrier

Gaijin Guide to Japanese Daygame (My Japanese daygame book): https://www.amazon.com//dp/1718170394

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 had been living in Japan for about 6 months at the time, and I had gone on a day trip to Kyoto. I was with a female and we entered a bar around 4 or 5pm. I ordered a Guinness for myself and a hard cider for her.  The guy working at the bar was a white European probably in his late-30s. The girl I was with didn't speak English, and I communicated with her in hyper-rudimentary Japanese, but we managed. The bartender started speaking at me in fast Japanese. And he was obnoxious about it. It wasn't a scenario where he was trying to AMOG. He was essentially engaging in the typical foreigner dick-measuring contest of "My Japanese is better than yours."  I couldn't understand what he was saying. And he said to me, "How are you learning Japanese right now." I said I was at a Japanese school and that I mostly studied at cafes. He said, "You're wasting your time. You need to join a baseball team or something." Apparently he had spent 6-12 months playing on a baseball team when he first came to Japan and had learned the language really well that way. He made the point that if I wasn't actually using the language, I was wasting my time.  It must have been very satisfying for him. He sees me - this confident and cocky-appearing foreigner - come into the bar, and then he immediately makes it clear, "No, your Japanese sucks." I was really annoyed at the time. But the reason I remember this and am reflecting on it now is because he was right. His advice was the best I had received. I needed to *use* the language. And studying at cafes wasn't the ideal route.  If you're of the academic mindset where you enjoy learning from the books, you will experience a rude-awakening after 12-15 months of living in your country of interest.  I had written a long article back in 2017 on the benefits of language immersion. If you are considering moving to a new country, this article is a must-read. I've also written a book on Japanese daygame (link above).  Even after a few more years of living in Japan (over 4.5 years at the time of this post), it's still the case that if I were to do the whole process over again (e.g., move to Korea and start again from the ground-up), I would over-index on *conversation* and essentially keep the academic/bookwork to a minimum.  One might think that spending lots of time at cafes in order to assiduously learn the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary would ultimately help one with conversation in the long haul, but I cannot reiterate more that this is *not* the case. It sounds counterintuitive. But this is where real experience cannot be faked.  Essentially I had moved to Japan and invested heavily into a "potential energy period," where I spent long hours learning Japanese from books and flashcards, thinking that this initial study period would ultimately propel me into a much better place with conversation later on - i.e., "I'm going to have to learn this stuff anyway, so I might as well get it out of the way now. And I'll be way better at conversation later because of it."  But this couldn't be further from the truth. What I learned is that time spent on bookwork applies very very little to...

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/02/05/approaching-in-a-new-country-with-a-language-barrier

Feb 05, 202115:44
"Are your dates with plates different from your first dates?"

"Are your dates with plates different from your first dates?"

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 to get a girl back on a date, including driving the point that the ideal date is going to be one that is as short as possible.  Greater than 97% of my first dates (and second dates with girls I haven't hooked up with yet) are very boring and streamlined: I meet a girl at a busy station not far from where I live, we go to a cafe of some kind, and then I go for the pull within 10-25 minutes.  But the question I received a few days ago was specifically about the type of dates I have with established plates. That is, do I still focus on getting her back as quickly as possible where my dates are equally as streamlined and boring, or do I actually ever... ya know... have fun with the girls I see.  And the answer is: No, my dates are never fun. And I'm always boring.   This isn't me attempting to generate some kind of parody either. I'm being serious.  I keep my dates very short regardless as to if I'm out with a plate or not. But in the case of a plate, the brevity of my dates is more to do with efficiency and just not wanting to waste time, as opposed to keeping things short so that the chances of a hookup are maximal.  It's very rare for me to go on dinner-/drink-type dates. Even with plates, I practically never go for dinner. Once again, I'm boring. And any girl I see is probably okay with that, or prefers that. No I do not go bowling or to a pool hall. No I do not go to movies. And, again, very rare for me to go to dinner.  But here's where I can provide a little bit of value apart from just voicing my preferences:  Essentially my short, boring dating style is a natural result of my high volume of approach and meeting women, the same way my terse, 30-60-second cold approach convos are a function of my high volume.  In other words, I don't have short, boring dates because I'm intransigently adherent to some arbitrary notion of how streamlined and alpha a date is supposed to be. I literally don't give thought to it. The same way my convos on the cold approach are hyper-short, well so are my dates.  The assertion that one's approach volume is inversely related to his length of interactions is not a consideration that a male should force upon himself so as to "fake" the behavior of a high-volume male. In other words, a male need not artificially force his interactions to be hyper-terse because that's what I do. He should just be aware that as he approaches more both in the micro and macro, the natural proclivity will be toward him having shorter cold approach convos and dates, regardless as to if the latter are with plates or not.  If you want to meet up with a plate in order to go bowling or to a movie, that's great. That's just not what I do. I'm aware I'm boring. But I'm also fast and direct pretty much always. And if my approach volume were to fall, I'd probably be inclined to invest more into "couple time" and my dates would become more extended. This is not speculation either. I observe it with other males as a function of their low approach volume along a sliding scale, where the lower the volume of the male, the more extended and "couple-like" his dates tend to be.

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/02/04/are-your-dates-with-plates-different-from-your-first-dates

Feb 04, 202111:16
"Can you talk about ego and getting rejected by women?"

"Can you talk about ego and getting rejected by women?"

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

Someone asked a question on my last YouTube video about how ego relates to rejection. I wouldn't ordinarily think anything of this, but there are two notable points:  1) Various guys have asked me this, so apparently this is a concept frequently gestated, and  2) I myself have never once thought about ego in relation to rejection.  The second point in particular is very interesting to me because this might actually be the unlock into helping explain how I'm able to withstand incessant rejection to the level I do.  In other words, I've never once contemplated ego in relation to rejection. When I talk about aptitude for approach, somehow I just intuitively understood, even from Stage 1, that incessant rejection wasn't a repudiation of me but instead just an inherent facet of the cold approach / dating process.  The fact that I don't connect rejection with ego is what allows me to effectively embrace the former. It's what allows me to approach in high volume. If I internalized rejections as an affront to my ego, then I certainly wouldn't be able to approach as many women as I do.  *The less the male ties rejection to ego, the more greatly he will be able to withstand incessant rejection and continue approaching anyway.*  I've talked about how the #1 trait that determines a male's success in dating is his ability to continue approaching in spite of repeated rejection. This means the less the male ties his ego to rejection, the more successful he will be in dating. This makes sense in a qualitative sense - i.e., "Well yeah, ego is generally a bad thing, so of course a male would be better in dating if he doesn't have an ego." But the actual tangible bridge of thought to be made here is that less ego surrounding rejection means the male is literally able to approach more.  It's not an accident that I am able to approach as much as I do. It's a direct result of the mental state I occupy where I don't take rejection personally.  Guys might say they could approach a lot in theory if they wanted to. "Well yeah, I could approach tons of girls every day if I really wanted to." But I don't see this to be the case. I really don't think guys can. I don't think most guys are strong enough mentally to be able to maintain consistent approach volume.  It is in my view that the male's ability to incur repeated rejection and persevere with his approaches, as a result of not taking rejections personally, is a more core, innate characteristic of the male rather than one he acquires via his surroundings/influences - i.e., a constitutional rather than acquired/learned mindset.  A male can have the greatest influences in the world (i.e., my blog, videos, and DMs) and still be a whiny simp who takes rejection personally and can't maintain any appreciable volume of approach.  *My aptitude for approach is linked to the fact that I've somehow been able to innately decouple ego from the process of getting rejected repeatedly.*  The inability to disconnect ego from rejection is the reason why many guys will never identify the latter as inherent to approach/dating. Their ego prevents them from realizing/accepting that rejection is normal and will never go away. Their ego creates a blind spot. Essentially a form of denial that shields them from...

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/02/03/can-you-talk-about-ego-and-getting-rejected-by-women/

Feb 03, 202109:01
The #1 trait that determines a male's ability to be successful with women

The #1 trait that determines a male's ability to be successful with women

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, as the title clearly states, the #1 trait that determines a male's ability to be successful with women.  It is an observation I repeatedly make that many guys who start to become active approach practitioners over the course of several months will ultimately fade / drop off altogether.  If I happen to have convos with these guys, they'll admit how they haven't been approaching as much.  This is largely linked to not getting the outcomes they're looking for. It's understandable. After all, if you're investing time and mental energy into the approach/dating process, you want a return on your investment.  This clip will be particularly beneficial for you if you're finding your approach volume has declined because you're not getting the results you're looking for. And if you are still hyper-early in the approach process and haven't fallen off yet, this clip will help prevent you from succumbing to the inevitable mental struggles that lie ahead.

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/02/01/the-1-trait-that-determines-a-males-ability-to-be-successful-with-women/

Feb 01, 202109:11
"What do you think about CALLING girls to arrange a date?"

"What do you think about CALLING girls to arrange a date?"

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 in prior content the general ideas of soup texting and how to arrange a date. In this current clip I respond to a question about *calling* girls to arrange dates.  It's like "oh wow *calling* girls, holy shit."  In other words, if you're able to get the girl on the phone and have a short convo with her, wouldn't that theoretically increase the male's chances of securing a date? So I address this in the current clip.  As I've discussed prior, the male is his most attractive when he is fully deregulated (i.e., 100% winging his interactions). Insofar as you maintain high approach volume, your non-neediness will be maximal, and natural attractive behaviors will manifest on your end.  That is to say, the exact timing of when you text and what you say, or even whether you text vs call the girl, doesn't matter insofar as you are consistently approaching and are deregulated.  However what I can say is that I never call girls. And that's not because I have an ego-based rule against it in any way. It's because I am consistent with approach and have high volume of contact acquisitions, so it's not a spontaneous behavior that ever manifests on my end.  The greater the approach volume of the male, and the more contacts he picks up, the less likely he is to even consider calling girls. It's just not practical.  The less the male meets new women, the more likely he is to affix longer-term, "what's the potential with this girl?"-type thoughts to any one girl he meets. This isn't about right or wrong. This is just a matter of the natural behaviors that manifest on the male's end as a result of the volume of approach he does.  And even if one were to make the argument, "But what about, despite high numbers of contacts, you pick out one or two girls you liked more and then just call them? Can't you work in the habit somehow?"  My response is: Once again, I just never call girls. And truthfully, I don't even care if it theoretically could increase the chance of meeting up with an occasional girl by 8%.  If a girl doesn't meet up with me because I texted rather than called her, I'm okay not meeting up with that girl.  It's called: you launch off high-volume texts and various ones will respond. Then just ask if they like coffee/tapioca, then arrange a time, then meet up. That's the process. It's not complicated.  If you want to call girls because that's your deregulation, my advice is it's OK to experiment a bit and try it out for yourself. But it's important to note that as your approach volume increases and you acquire more contacts, the notion of calling girls will literally become laughable.  When I was living in Australia with my old Italian housemate, for pure entertainment I decided to call a girl I had approached a few days earlier. It was funny because he knew the girl from one of his social circles on campus, and he was like, "You're calling her?" We laughed. I got the girl on the phone and we talked for maybe 5-10 minutes. I can't even recall whether I had tried to arrange a date with her during that short convo, but I do remember that we never ended up meeting up. And apart from that, I can't even remember the last time I've called a girl...

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/

Jan 26, 202109:26
The most BETA, excuse filled comment I've ever seen
Jan 26, 202113:33
"HOW LONG should I wait to text her?"

"HOW LONG should I wait to text her?"

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 had written previous content back in 2017 on when/how to text girls. My answer at the time was "whenever/however the fuck you feel like it." In this new, short clip, I elaborate a bit more and incorporate more evolved perspective.  As I've discussed repeatedly, the male is his most attractive when he is fully deregulated (i.e., 100% winging his interactions). This applies to texting the same way it does to cold approach, your actual dates, and when you have the girl in your bedroom. In other words, the male should never try to regulate his behavior in any way. The more you wing your interactions, the more attractive you are as a male.  When you're texting a girl, don't try to be purposely distancing or cold in order to come off as though you're busy or less needy. Your true state of neediness vs non-neediness will permeate to the surface no matter what. If you try to, e.g., not text a girl for intervals of 3 days because you think that makes you seem less needy, your true state will shine through regardless.  It's less about exact frequency/timing and more about the male just truly winging his interactions. The lower the approach volume of the male, the greater the tendency toward texting girls very soon after meeting them. If the male's approach volume is high, he might not end up texting various girls for weeks to months after the fact.  However, once again, if your approach volume is low and you try to "fake" non-neediness in any way, your true state will permeate to the surface regardless.  If you want to be maximally attractive when texting girls, recognize that insofar as you are engaged in consistent, high-volume approach, the natural behaviors you manifest will be your most attractive.  If you are approaching 50+ girls a day, 4+ days a week, then you launching off a random string of four words to a girl at 237am when you're taking a dump is you at your most attractive.  You think I'm joking but I'm not. When I am engaged in consistent, high-volume approach, I feel very confident about my texting because I recognize that it truly doesn't matter exactly when I text or what I say, because the mere fact that I'm approaching in high-volume means I am at my most attractive state.  You can't fake your level of non-neediness. If you want the most valuable answer as far as how/when to text girls, it genuinely is the case that your texting will be highly variable between girls and that the specifics don't matter.  It's not about calculating your timing and crafting the exact words you say; it's about you maintaining high approach volume and then letting your behavior naturally play out as its most attractive.  Sometimes you'll start texting girls soon after meeting them. Sometimes you won't. Sometimes you'll be more soup with your convos. Sometimes you won't be. Do not attach rigid rules or self-guidelines to what is supposedly ideal via text. As I said, approach consistently and in high volume and let your natural attractive behaviors play out.  "But Michael, you preach about deregulation and maintaining approach volume so that I'm my most attractive, but can you give me at least some sort of idea about when I should text? Like how many days, etc. Just some idea."

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/01/22/how-long-should-i-wait-to-text-her/

Jan 22, 202111:03
Worst missed opportunity / The number-one way to lose a girl

Worst missed opportunity / The number-one way to lose a girl

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 had actually written about this a little in my 2017 in my post, 'Absolute biggest myth in history,' but in this current clip I add a bit more in terms of how fucking up, to an effect, could be viewed as a *good* thing.  The same way rejection is a prerequisite for positive outcomes in dating, fucking up with women is a prerequisite for ultimately converting over more and creating low-probability hookups that were previously out of your reach.

Jan 21, 202110:34
The repercussions you'll face if your approach volume DECLINES

The repercussions you'll face if your approach volume DECLINES

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

One of the natural phases a male will progress through as he approaches women over time will be that of "enlightened complacency" 2-3 years in.  After approaching girls for 2-3 years, he'll start to ask himself *why* he should even approach at all. Why does he *need* to?  He's demonstrated/proved to himself that he can sleep with various women if he wants to, so why go out of one's way to be hyper-bold and audacious. Is it really necessary, he asks himself.  He hasn't abandoned approach altogether. Of course he still enjoys meeting women. But he just doesn't see a compelling reason to go out of his way to be as stunningly audacious as perhaps he's been up until this point.  I call this the "enlightened complacency" phase because I now view this as one of the predictable phases a male who approaches will pass through as he continues on his journey meeting women.  Males early on in their approach life, even if completely unaware of it, are often out meeting women simply to prove to themselves that they're capable of getting laid. They don't just want to get laid; they want to prove to themselves that they can get laid. They're trying to check off this box on their inner male.  After 2-3 years of getting laid a bit, the male has begun to feel like he's demonstrated to himself that he's capable. Why approach as much if he's already proved he can get laid if he wants to.  So what happens is this: the male enters a lower volume period where he doesn't approach as much. This period will generally last 3-9 months. Yes, he will continue approaching. But not nearly as much. He'll find himself passing up various approaches that require him going out of his way. "I don't need to approach that girl. I'm good."  During this time, his non-neediness and confidence levels begin declining. He's not aware of it. Because he's a fledgling approach practitioner without much experience to reflect on, he doesn't understand the repercussions of lower volume. Nevertheless, he isn't phased in any way and just lives out life, albeit approaching less, over the next 3-9 months. He once again doesn't see a compelling reason to approach. He's generally content, he tells himself.  A guy could theoretically ask, "Michael, but if you're still approaching, even if less, wouldn't your non-neediness and confidence levels still go up? Why would they start declining if you're still approaching. Are you saying non-neediness and confidence are micro-volume-dependent?"  My response is: Although approach always increases the male's non-neediness and confidence, yes, it is the male's increasing frequency of forgoing approaches he thinks about making during his complacency phase that is responsible for the decline in non-neediness and confidence. I've talked about before how there's never any stagnation in the male's non-neediness and confidence baselines. You go up or down with every approach vs non-approach. The male might make gains with the approaches he does make, but he essentially incurs a net loss because forgoing approaches is harmful to his psych.

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/01/21/the-repercussions-youll-face-if-your-approach-volume-declines/

Jan 21, 202113:03
ONE CONCRETE STEP to handle rejection better

ONE CONCRETE STEP to handle rejection better

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 short clip I talk about one tangible and concrete step the male can take to handle rejection better.  I've discussed in prior content about how to handle rejection, but here I discuss one concrete (and slightly weird and hallucinogenic) way to do just that.

Full post on blog: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/01/19/one-concrete-step-to-handle-rejection-better/

Jan 19, 202105:37
"Why am I still not seeing results even after many thousands of approaches?"

"Why am I still not seeing results even after many thousands of approaches?"

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 will probably be one of my least popular videos and posts because the answer is not what most guys would want to hear.  But I'm not about preaching answers that are designed to pander or make you feel good. I'm about communicating truth.  The main question I was asked was: why might it be the case that some guys who approach consistently for many months still aren't acquiring sexual outcomes / plates.  Before addressing that question head-on, it should be noted that even many guys who would consider themselves active approach practitioners *still* aren't actually as consistent with approach as they imagine themselves to be.  I've said that a male should expect to approach a bare minimum of 4+ days per week, 20-40+ girls per day, for at least 6 months, in order to generate 5+ girls he's seeing. So in theory, to have 2-3 plates, the male could probably get by approaching 20ish girls per day, 4 days per week, for at least 4-6 months.  In contrast, the 2-3 days per week that you approach 10-15 girls don't constitute practitionership. That's better than zero. But, no, I don't consider that sufficient approach.  So the first step in addressing this question is honestly reflecting on whether you have been approaching 4+ days per week, 20-40+ girls per day, for at least 6 months. If no, then you just need to be more patient and put in the work.  The male then says, "No but Michael, *I have* been doing that amount of volume and am not even seeing like one or two girls, so now what? What am I doing wrong?"  I should also make a point that consistency matters just as much as raw approach volume. The growth in male non-neediness and confidence is greater if he approaches 20 girls per day, 4 days per week, versus if he goes out one day per week and approaches 80. Consistency plays into the male psych in a way that cannot be faked. So even if your raw approach volume has been satisfactory, reflect on whether you have been approaching at least four days per week.  And as I've talked about in previous content, the male must also fully deregulate his behavior and not implement any contrivances, i.e., kino, negging, disqualification, etc. The male is his most attractive when he is fully winging his approaches and not trying to circumvent rejection in any way.  Conversations should be short, direct, and pushy. Deregulation is not a permission slip for non-forwardness. Your aim should be to have short, direct convos with girls, while still completely winging it.  You will get rejected incessantly no matter who you are, what you say, or what you do, but I ask that you're patient and do 4+ days per week of approach, 20-40+ approaches per day, for at least 6 months. Then tell me at that point whether you're still not accumulating plates.  "Michael, you're not getting me. I'm telling you that I have been approaching consistently and at high volume like you're talking about. I know I'm more non-needy and confident for sure. But I'm still not seeing results. Why."  Okay, well this is where I give more of an answer guys don't want to hear:

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/

Jan 18, 202109:22
"How do I create many simultaneous plates?"

"How do I create many simultaneous plates?"

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 in a prior article about how to establish a repertoire of plates. This current post is more a reiteration of the previous discussion + includes a short video to drive my main points home, mostly in response to a recent comment/question on YouTube about how to establish plates (that's right, let me engage my audience).  The first main thing the male must understand if he wants to create many simultaneous plates is that it is extremely hard to do this because it necessitates high-volume, consistent approach over many months. In other words, it requires an incredible amount of hard work that most guys just aren't willing to invest into the process.  Yet again, there's zero entitlement to living a life where you have a repertoire of plates. And I'm not talking about 2-3 girls you sleep with somewhat routinely and then come out and declare your beta complacency.  I'm talking about having 6-10 different girls you see with varying frequency (i.e., as much as 2-3x a week, and as little as once every couple months) + having frequent dates where you have random hookups with girls who don't become plates.  The # of theoretical plates and hookups you want must be commensurate with the volume of consistent approach you engage in. There's no way around that.  It's not hard to maintain 2-3 plates + have few sporadic hookups. But it *is* hard to maintain 6-10 plates + have many sporadic hookups. The time you invest into approach as an input = your frequency of sexual outcomes as an output. This isn't complicated, but I must reiterate it.  Also, high-volume approach means high-volume rejection. So that leads me to the second point:  In order to live a life where you have many women you're simultaneously seeing + hooking up with, it necessitates that not only are you approaching consistently and with high-volume, but you are also incurring repeated, ongoing rejection at a level most guys can't even come close to fathoming.  This is why most guys simply just don't have many simultaneous plates + hookups. It's a combination of 1) not liking the idea of going out and incurring repeated rejection, and 2) not wanting to invest the time into approach. Guys want quick outcomes but don't recognize that a certain amount of hard work needs to be invested in order to acquire those outcomes.  You don't just go out, make a few approaches, and acquire instant hookups. It doesn't work like that. You must make an inordinate number of approaches (and incur vastly more rejections) compared to any theoretical quantity of hookups you hope to achieve.  I've talked about many times before how rejection will compose the majority of your interactions no matter what. So in order to live a life where you have many simultaneous plates, the amount of rejection you incur as a male needs to exist at a theoretical percentile that corresponds to the rarity of the sexual life you lead.  So if you want a top-0.001% life where you sleep with 10 different girls simultaneously + have many sporadic hookups, then that requires you approach at the top-0.001% level compared to other guys. Your desire for a certain number of plates and hookups must match your investment into approach + incurring rejection.  Some guys want more quantitative discussion though. "Michael, but can you tell me actual numbers. Like, *how many* girls do I need to approach and how often? Just give me an idea."

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/

Jan 17, 202113:39
"How is it possible that a male who's made thousands of approaches can still be needy?"

"How is it possible that a male who's made thousands of approaches can still be needy?"

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 the last clip I made, I talked about why a male who's made many thousands of approaches in the macro, who considers himself to be very confident, can still feel tension with an occasional approach he makes.  I discussed how this is attributed mostly to 1) negative flux in recent micro approach volumes, and 2) mere insufficient diversity of approaches made to date.  However in this clip I make a point about why a male who's made many thousands of approaches in the macro can still actually just be straight-up needy. In other words, if the act of the male approaching over time is supposed to augment his non-neediness and confidence levels, then how is it possible that he can still feel/be needy despite having already made so many approaches.  The reason is because high macro volume in and of itself is not sufficient for fully eradicating the male of neediness and diffidence. It's high-volume *deregulated* approach that augments the male's non-neediness and confidence levels.  That is to say, if the male goes into his approaches attempting to modify his behavior and avoid/circumvent rejection, he will always remain in a needy purgatory. The male needs to *embrace rejection* as a fundamental step in his approach journey.  The male must recognize that rejection will never go away no matter who he is, what he says, or what he does. It's unavoidable. It's an inherent facet of approach/dating. This must be recognized.  He must also be made aware that rejection is the source of male confidence. This is a more difficult concept for most males to grasp, as guys tend to overly focus on acquiring as many outcomes as possible. But the male should, at the very least, be inculcated with the point that his confidence level is linked to his rejections, not his positive outcomes.  So the combination of saying, "Rejection will never go away no matter what + it's the source of my confidence as a male" should help the male embrace it in his approach life.  He should start to view rejection vs non-rejection not as a binary system (i.e., he should not view each individual approach as "I got rejected vs I didn't"), but instead as linear sequences, where he knows that he is unequivocally *guaranteed* to get rejected, e.g., 12 times in a row before exchanging with the 13th girl.  It's OK to incur incessant rejection because not only will it never go away, and not only is it the source of male confidence, but further, it is a prerequisite for ultimately picking up contacts and hooking up.  Once the male internalizes that rejection is normal/unavoidable, the goal becomes not to minimize/avoid it, but rather how to better persevere through it. Once he reaches this stage, he will not worry about modifying his behavior in any way when he goes out approaching - i.e., he will become more deregulated in his behavior.  And when the male fully deregulates (i.e., when he fully wings his approaches), it is only now that he accrues the maximal amount of non-neediness and confidence from each approach he makes...

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/01/15/how-is-it-possible-that-a-male-whos-made-thousands-of-approaches-can-still-be-needy/


Jan 15, 202105:56
"I've made many thousands of approaches. Why do I still feel tension sometimes?"

"I've made many thousands of approaches. Why do I still feel tension sometimes?"

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 clip I talk about why a male who's very confident and who has made many thousands of approaches can still feel occasional tension on an approach.  In other words, the male asks, "I've made many thousands of approaches. I consider myself to have an extremely high confidence level. In fact, I know I'm very confident. So why do I still feel tension sometimes. Seems weird to me."  There's two main reasons:  The first is, despite your high macro approach volume, your micro (i.e., daily) approach volumes have been lower lately than they should be.  This is an honor system. Only you know how many approaches you've been making recently. You may have made many thousands of approaches to date, but if you genuinely reflect, you're aware you haven't been doing quite as much lately. Because if you're going out and making 50+ approaches 5+ days a week, you can bet that you will not conspicuously feel tension on your approaches. So the feeling you have can be linked to lower micro volumes.  I've used the analogy before that approaching women consistently is akin to going to the gym. It doesn't matter how jacked you are because you've been lifting near-daily for years; if you stop going for three weeks (or your workouts become shorter/meager) you're going to feel a little sore when you do a legitimate session again. So tension can manifest as a result of negative flux in one's micro volumes.  The second reason the male who has high macro volume may still feel tension on an occasional approach is because he's actually still pushing the boundaries of the diversity of approaches he's making.  In other words, maybe you can make 50 street/station approaches on an afternoon with zero issue, and you do that quite often. But then you see a coworker in silence at work and feel a little bit of tension when wanting to ask her out.  I attribute the latter scenario not to the male's fear of repercussion about approaching (i.e., "Will I get in trouble if I ask out a coworker?"), but more to the mere point that a male needs greater approach diversity. If you saw your coworker on the street, you'd approach her confidently and boldly, with zero issues. But at work, for some reason you feel tension.   Recognize that tension associated with any approach can be traced back to caring about others' opinions and judgments in some form.   You need "practice," essentially, with approaching more in scenarios that require shielding out others' opinions and judgments (i.e., other coworkers'; or that of people in silence on the bus/train), even if you have less experience with these types of approaches.  High micro volumes (as I discussed in point #1) can function to help the male "unlock" higher tension approaches he has less experience with. If you are approaching in high volume near-daily, it will be easier to open your coworker in silence, or a girl on a crowded train in silence.   So the bottom line is:  If you consider yourself to have a very high confidence level but still experience tension on an occasional approach and are wondering why...

Full article: https://mikemehlman.net/2021/01/15/ive-made-many-thousands-of-approaches-why-do-i-still-feel-tension-sometimes/

Jan 15, 202106:58
How to maintain her commitment when she knows you're polygamous

How to maintain her commitment when she knows you're polygamous

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 is a raw, longer-form articulation of my thoughts on a topic that is pretty tough to discuss in a short, consolidated way.  In this clip I talk about two main topics:  1) How to maintain a female's *sexual* interest throughout the course of an interaction/relationship with her; and  2) How to maintain a relationship where she's committed to you yet tolerates you sleeping around (i.e., how to have your cake and eat it too).  For point #1, I emphasize *sexual* because relationships can be healthy longer term yet platonic sexually.  Attraction based on love, mutual respect, and appreciation for the other's goodness can keep two people together, despite the interaction becoming more platonic sexually with time.  For point #2, it is possible to have a healthy relationship with a female where you develop deeper connection + she stays committed to you and obsessed sexually, all while you continue to see others. It just requires hard work to get there.  I will make other videos on these topics eventually most likely. But this is a raw clip where I at least preliminarily get my thoughts out on the table.

Jan 12, 202123:20
Why PUAs lie about rejection

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

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/

Jan 09, 202110:58
How to overcome rejection like it's NOTHING

How to overcome rejection like it's 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

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/

Jan 06, 202108:06
One great way to stay YOUNG

One great way to stay YOUNG

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.

Dec 28, 202004:50
How to get her contact IF SHE'S RUSHING

How to get her contact IF SHE'S RUSHING

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/

Dec 27, 202006:15
When you should NOT delete a girl's contact

When you should NOT delete a girl's 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

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/

Dec 26, 202014:23
THREE THINGS you should NEVER DO on the cold approach

THREE THINGS you should NEVER DO on the cold approach

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.

Dec 25, 202008:56
"Should I use direct or indirect openers?"

"Should I use direct or indirect openers?"

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/

Dec 23, 202010:02
"How do I reduce my approach anxiety?"

"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

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/

Dec 23, 202013:35
Only picked up 37 GIRLS' CONTACTS in 5 hours

Only picked up 37 GIRLS' CONTACTS in 5 hours

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/

Dec 22, 202011:42
What most determines the Male Sexual Market Value (SMV)

What most determines the Male Sexual Market Value (SMV)

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/

Dec 20, 202013:39
How to pick up 68 GIRLS' CONTACTS in one afternoon

How to pick up 68 GIRLS' CONTACTS in one afternoon

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 and article I talk about how to pick up high volume of contact acquisitions through daygame approach. I've discussed this topic at length before, but this piece brings concise and renewed awareness to guys who are looking to increase the number of contacts they pick up.  The first point is to approach in a venue that enables high-volume approach. I find intra-city bustling stations are the number-one way to accomplish this. It is simply the case that the greater # of interactions/collisions with females per unit time, the greater number of approaches the male can make, and therefore the greater number of contacts he can pick up.  Most guys will say, "Yeah but I don't live in a high-volume area like that." And my response is: the same way it's the responsibility of the male to take the initiative to approach, period, it's also the responsibility of the male to move to an area that is conducive to high-volume approach. So plan to eventually make a move to a big city. If you cannot do that for a while, figure out which areas around your community are most populated (e.g., malls, etc.).  Rejection will be the overwhelming majority of cold approaches no matter what. So the male should expect to make, on average, between 3-7 approaches for every contact he picks up. Some days he will seemingly get all rejections. Other days he will be seemingly rapid-fire picking up contacts left and right. But nevertheless numbers balance out and, overall, simply putting oneself in an intra-city, intra-station venue enables the highest probability of high-volume contact acquisition.  Once the male establishes an appropriate venue, the irony regarding the pickup of high-volume contacts is that the male must focus on exactly *not* doing that. I preach that process-, not outcome-, orientation is important in keeping the male's mindset clean/free from behavioral regulation and contrivance, which in turn only serve to make the male less attractive in his interactions. The male must be as deregulated as possible in his interactions (i.e., completely winging them) and must engage women for short, not rambling, convos.  The male's ultimate aim should be that his convos evolve to be hyper-short and deregulated. Guys tend to feel uncomfortable and regulated making short, forward convos initially (i.e., they want to stand there talking for 5-10 minutes), but recognize that insofar as you pick up the girl's contact, the trajectory of the interaction is a toss-up regardless.  In other words, whether you pull her contact within 30 seconds or 8 minutes, the chance of her flaking vs eventually agreeing to a date isn't affected either way. Girls will always flake in perpetuity. Her willingness to accept a date in some form is almost always state-dependent, not based on the arbitrary degree of connection you felt you established with her during the cold approach. So let that give you comfort in knowing that your initial convo can feel super-abrupt/rushed, yet she's still just as likely to flake or accept a date anyway.  If you want to pick up lots of contacts, the focus of your approach days must be high-volume rejection. Your aim at the start of an approach day should *not* be, "I'm going to pick up x number of contacts today." It needs to be, "I'm going to take a high number of rejections today." This is the starting point for...

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Dec 15, 202016:55
WHAT IT MEANS when you get GHOSTED (not the answer you expect)

WHAT IT MEANS when you get GHOSTED (not the answer you expect)

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 topic is going to be met with probably a high degree of pushback and criticism by many guys. There will be plenty of guys who disagree with me here. "Michael you're wrong." Or (my favorite) "Mike, I read your last post. I agree with 80-90% of what you said." My response: "Meaning 10-20% of you is a cuck." And that's okay. We don't have to agree on everything.  When we consider ghosting, where the girl ignores our message, this can obviously refer to pre- or post-hookup. This discussion is more in relation to post-hookup, because we already know that most girls will ignore pre-hookup anyway (i.e., no matter what you say or do, most girls will not respond to your initial text, or will fade after a few texts).  So let's say you've hooked up with a girl. She was "super-affectionate," seemed "really into you," and even texted you afterward saying thank you and that she's looking forward to next time. Then she goes on to ignore your messages. What's that about? What happened?  My contention: That's not weird. That's normal female behavior. Frequently getting ghosting, regardless of who the male is, is predictable and expected. It's not a repudiation of you. This is just how females work much of the time.  You see, it takes many many years and many dating data points to start to feel this out. We as guys always want to draw our conclusions about things:  "There *must* be a reason she wasn't interested. We had amazing chemistry, so it *must* be because I'm not good-looking enough. That *must* be the case. Because we got along so well. If I were Brad Pitt, obviously she wouldn't ghost. So it *must* be my looks. No other conclusion can be made." Etc. We always want to draw conclusions. We always want to establish the reason she wasn't interested. And the overwhelming majority of the time, guys will assume it comes down to either looks or bedroom performance.  I can start off by saying that I take more rejections and get flaked and ghosted on more than anyone else out there. And with that I've started to be able to see that ghosting is just normal female behavior, as is the rejection on the cold approach, as is her unwillingness to come back on the date much of the time.  This is about understanding what's normal and predictable. The same exact way on the cold approach we know rejection is going to be the outcome the overwhelming majority of the time - it doesn't matter who we are, what we say, or what we do - most girls will reject/deflect no matter what - well most girls will decline to come back on the date, even if you are maximally forward, *as will most girls ghost after you've hooked up with them.*  In other words, I'm making the assertion that even if an occasional girl doesn't want to see you again because you didn't go down on her for 29 minutes in the bedroom and make her come twice, or because she only wants to settle with a guy who's at least 6'5" and a CEO, the overwhelming majority of girls actually don't function this way. You need to escape these movie-esque notions that only cause you to get down about yourself.  It's reasonable for us to think as guys that if a girl ghosts post-hookup, that it likely means that despite crossing a threshold where she was willing to hook up, we didn't cross this higher, arbitrary threshold where she was willing to take us on as a boyfriend. We might think that's the case because *we think that way in terms of how we date girls,* but women don't think like we do.

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Dec 13, 202019:32
How to generate the HOOKUP once she's at your place (BEDROOM GAME)

How to generate the HOOKUP once she's at your place (BEDROOM GAME)

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

Incessancy is an understatement when referring to the number of times the past year guys have been asking me to write a bedroom game article.  I talk about in this video some of the basic things I see as important when I take a girl back to my place. I've made other videos and articles on how to pull from a date, but this piece focuses exclusively on what to do once you actually get her back to your place.  The first important point is: Do not service her in any way.  Do not ask if she wants some water. Do not ask if you can get her some wine.  This behavior on the male's end is catering and beta and will only function to increase the chance she shuts herself off. Some guys might think this sounds excessive. It's not. You need to be focused on just moving quickly to hook up. It's not about making her comfortable. Don't worry about her comfort level.  The second important point is: The more time you spend at your place, the less likely you are to actually hook up.  Do not spend time talking and getting comfortable. The same exact way your date should be as short as possible (i.e., 10-30 minutes tops), once she's at your place, do not dither where you are entering deep convo mode over wine. You literally want to walk through the door and just get some sort of movie ready.  I walk into my place with the girl. During the first 60 seconds, I shut the curtains, dim the lights slightly, turn on my lava lamp, and open my laptop and find a movie. While I'm doing this, I tell her to find her name on the Kanji poster on my wall (almost all of the girls I bring back are Japanese).  Then I walk over to my bathroom and quickly wash my hands. Part of the reason I do this is because it allows me to smoothly shut off the light by the door at the same time I turn the bathroom light off. I will also lock the door at this time (if she hadn't already done that when she followed me in).  I then just start the movie and sit down on my bed. I'll tell her she can sit. If she sits more than 1-2 feet away, within 5-10 seconds I'll put my arm around her and tell her she can sit closer. She will usually move next to me at this point. I then dim the lights fully and within 30 seconds go for the kiss. If the girl is not putting up any resistance, then it's obviously just clear-sailing from there. However the value I can communicate is when the girl is putting up varying degrees of resistance.  If she doesn't kiss, don't try to kiss her a second time. I'd say at least one-half to two-thirds of the girls I hook up with at my place refuse the kiss. It's been to my subjective understanding over many years that going for the kiss repeatedly when she refuses the first time risks genuinely putting her off. Many girls will be willing to hook up; they just don't want to kiss.

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Dec 12, 202033:27
One of the biggest ROOKIE ERRORS on the cold approach

One of the biggest ROOKIE ERRORS on the cold approach

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

If you go out to the city to approach and have 2-3 hours to kill, it's a big big rookie error to take a girl's contact instead of trying to insta-date her.  When you go on a date with a girl, the amount of time that has transpired since you met her, whether that's 30 minutes or two weeks, is irrelevant in terms of the probability of her ultimately coming back with you. This is a hugely valuable piece of information because guys will think there's no way a girl is just as likely to come back with you if she just met you.  "Mike, the odds must be slightly lower. Like probably at least a little bit." No, they're not.   All that matters is that you are on the date. It doesn't matter that you just met her. And then you go for the pull exactly as you would any other date. The chance of her coming back is the same. This has been my experience in the macro.  So then why am I preaching that it's a huge rookie error to take her contact as opposed to insta-dating her?  Because you're very likely never going to see her again after you exchange contacts.  If she declines the insta-date, yes, exchange contacts. But don't just default into automatically making the contact acquisition your strict focus. You need to push for insta-dates as a core aspect of cold approach.  When she's standing in front of you after you've opened her, that's likely going to be the last time you're ever going to see her. She likely won't respond.  The same exact way most girls on the cold approach will reject - that's not weird; we know that's normal; we expect that - the same is true with texting: most girls just won't respond or will ultimately not meet up. It's not a repudiation of you; it's just how the fractional dynamics of dating work.   You have to think about what you're trying to accomplish when you take a girl's contact. What are you expecting to happen. You're going to text her in, e.g., a day, or one week, or two weeks, with "Hey." Then you hope she responds. Then you ask if she likes coffee or tapioca. Then she has to respond again. Then you ask when she's free or propose a day that works for you. Then she has to agree to it. The point being: the texting process generates friction, and most girls will inevitably not reply.  So let's say you actually do get the girl out again. You managed to get through the texting friction. The two of you are now face-to-face in the city / station, ready to go to a cafe. But isn't that the same exact situation you were in when you first met? Literally nothing has changed: you're both just standing in front of each other again.  When you meet an 18-year-old who's your type, good luck getting her out again if you exchange with her. By all means, yes, various girls will meet up with you just out of probability, but just be aware that if she's not up to anything in particular and you don't try to insta-date her on the spot, that's a big big rookie error. Because if she agrees to go to a cafe with you, the chance of getting her back is the same as any other date. Once again, *all that matters is that she's on the date,* not the duration of time that has transpired since you first met.

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Dec 11, 202020:16
How to GET A GIRL BACK with you on the date

How to GET A GIRL BACK with you on the date

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 ideal date is no more than 30 minutes in length and takes place at a cafe or tapioca place. The shorter the date is, the more likely you are to get her back.  If she proposes dinner and drinks, counter by saying a cafe is good. The former is more expensive and time-consuming. The notion that a nighttime-vibe-type date will increase your chances is false in my opinion and experience. I know some guys vehemently disagree with this point, and that's okay, but dinner and drinks DO NOT increase your chances over just a simple cafe date. That's a valuable initial point for me to make.  Meet her in the station and walk to a cafe nearby. Make small talk for 10-20 minutes before going for the pull.  This might sound incredibly short for most guys. I understand and can empathize with that. My dates have evolved substantially over the past couple of years, where even myself two years ago would view my current perspectives as unrelatable. As your non-neediness, confidence, and experience levels grow, your dates will naturally become shorter and shorter. This is because you see that shorter dates are *better,* not worse.  The girl will come into the date where she's either down to hook up or she's not, and it's on the male to lose the hookup by not being forward enough. Insofar as the male is sufficiently forward, it doesn't matter who he is. He's interchangeable and meaningless, and the girl will go back with any male who's sufficiently forward. That will be her state going into the date.  If that sounds weird, recognize that the girl in front of you is interchangeable as well. You'd go back with pretty much any girl who's cute enough. Doesn't really matter who she is. Well it's the same with her in terms of the forward guy she's with. It's not about what he looks like; it's about how *forward* he is. She doesn't have to like you. She doesn't have to be interested. But if you're forward to get her back and she's in the hookup state, she'll take your lead. Once again, it's not about male looks.  If you're sufficiently forward and she comes back and hooks up, the male can't get high on his own supply because it's not the case that the girl even necessarily likes him; it's just the case that he was sufficiently forward. But this is good news, because if she rejects / doesn't want to come back (assuming the male is maximally forward), this is not a repudiation of him; she just wasn't in the state to hook up.  When you go on the actual date, it's not about what you say. Talk about whatever you want - school, work, hobbies, siblings, travel - anything you want. Be non-smooth. What you talk about doesn't matter. What matters is that you are 100% winging your conversation (i.e., being deregulated) and are forward.  After 10-20 minutes, even if you're having good conversation with her and could extend, make your movie transition. Some guys will say their deregulation is to build connection and have longer dates. My response to that is: deregulation is not a permission slip for being non-forward. The aim is to carry a baseline of forwardness with deregulation superimposed onto it.

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Dec 09, 202017:20
The RECIPE for becoming more forward and calibrated in dating

The RECIPE for becoming more forward and calibrated in dating

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

One of the questions guys ask me is about what becoming more confident feels like. What should they expect to see changing for themselves? What's going to be different if they just trust what I've been preaching about high approach volume and put in the work to meet lots of girls and absorb incessant rejection.  We all want to look forward to a positive dating future. Sure, Michael says just go out, put in the work to approach, take incessant rejection, and then after many months and years, good things will happen. But why trust that. Why have faith that being patient will pay off. Can you at least tell me some things to expect as time goes on?  I think one of the most important points to drill down is that the same way rejection is a prerequisite for positive outcome (i.e., you're guaranteed to get rejected 14 times in a row while cold approaching before the 15th girl exchanges with you), fucking up a lot with girls and missing out on easy sexual opportunities over the course of many years is a prerequisite for ultimately becoming a deadly agent with how effectual you are on the approach and pull.  In other words, the realization of how fucking up is inherent to the dating process is something that manifests as time goes on. The more confident the male is, the more he's able to contrast with his pre- and early-approach life and see how things have changed drastically. He basically just views his "earlier life" as incessant fucking up. It's painful to think about, but many of his inconvenient memories help continue driving him forward.  The male's concept of what fucking up entails will continue to evolve as macro approach volume grows. In the beginning, fucking up simply means you didn't make a move while the girl was at your place. Then fucking up can evolve to mean you just didn't go for the pull while out on the date. Then it will eventually become that you didn't try to insta-date / insta-pull her directly from the station after 30 seconds when she said she wasn't really up to anything, and yet you could have "squeezed her in" before your date in an hour ("I should have just gone for it. Who cares if I have a date in an hour."). Once again, your concept of what fucking up means will continue to shift as you become more experienced.  Essentially the only reason I'm in a position where I can preach about dating and approach as though I'm so knowledgeable is because I had to fuck up and lose out on countless opportunities in my past.  The leverage I have to be able to preach about how to be better with approach and dating is only derived from the inordinate number of mistakes I made over the course of many years.  The other thing is: the male will tend to always think he's pretty good at every step of the way, especially when he's confident, even though with each passing year he'll look back and say, "Wow, I was incredibly amateur."  So why does recognizing that fucking up is normal actually matter? How does this relate to growth in confidence and real-life changes?

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Dec 09, 202015:27
If I want to CONNECT with a girl, how does that relate to how I should behave?

If I want to CONNECT with a girl, how does that relate to how I should behave?

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 how the male is his most attractive when he is fully deregulated (i.e., 100% winging his approaches).  However an observation I've made after having started to preach deregulation is the propensity for guys to use it as an excuse for being non-forward and not putting in work.  In other words, guys will frequently say things like, "Well I spent 90 minutes at dinner with her and didn't go for the pull, but that's my deregulation. I think it's okay to not burn the bridge."  The implication is: the guy is uncalibrated and non-forward, but he proclaims that's okay because he's just being himself, and, as Mike has preached, the male should just be himself by deregulating.  It's really important that I reiterate deregulation is not a permission slip for non-forwardness on the approach and while out on dates.  I've said before that, yes, I would rather have you 100% deregulate and be inefficient in your interactions than to force unnatural behavior, but I want you to take on the mindset that *pushing yourself to be more forward in your interactions while simultaneously deregulating is not synonymous with regulation.*  That is to say, just because you feel uncomfortable being forward doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for forwardness.  I'm not telling you to artificially modify your behavior. I'm telling you to 100% wing your approaches and be you. I'm just saying *be forward while winging your approaches.*  You want to improve your sexual outcomes. I know. And you're asking me how you can improve your conversion rates. Well I'm telling you.  Guys would rather pay thousands of dollars to PUAs who will lie to them about how rejection is avoidable and how implementing various tactics will help. People are always looking for shortcuts - always looking for soundbites that corroborate their laziness.  *Be glad* that I'm not recommending needy tactics and schemes to you. I'm literally saying: if you want more sexual outcomes, you need to:  1) Approach a high number of girls and accept that rejection will be the inevitable outcome the overwhelming majority of the time. It will never go away no matter who you are, what you say, or what you do.  2) 100% wing your approaches. Don't implement needy tactics (e.g., kino). Be okay with being non-smooth. Remember that it's not about what you say. Your mere behavior when you completely wing the interaction *is* how you come off as your most attractive.  3) Push the interaction along and don't waste time. Recognize that your perception of burning the bridge is all in your head and one of the biggest mistakes guys make. Your impression of the interaction is untethered to the ultimate trajectory. Shorter conversations are a natural manifestation of male non-neediness. Go for the insta-date followed by pull within 20 minutes at a cafe. If you're meeting up with a girl at a later time for a date, recognize that you are more likely to get her back the shorter the date is; go for the pull within 20-30 minutes tops while at a cafe.  Guys like to frame my emphasis on the normalcy of rejection as somehow reflective of my non-desire to have sexual outcomes. "Michael, I know you preach how rejection is the source of male confidence, but some of us guys just want to get laid. Why can't you just admit that wanting to get laid is okay?"  That's always a good one. Once again, this converges back on male excuse-making. 

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Dec 07, 202011:52
How pushy should you be on the cold approach. And is that needy?

How pushy should you be on the cold approach. And is that needy?

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

My views have heavily evolved since I wrote The Direct Approach article back in 2017. In that article, I talked about how if you say hi to a girl and she's moving away, terminate the conversation immediately. I really emphasized the point that the male should be non-needy in his interactions and not fight through with girls who seem unreceptive.  After all, isn't that needy to push back and attempt to fight through with girls who appear to be uninterested?  I even went on to include this article as one of the chapters in the book, The Forward Male, which I published in the spring of 2019. It wasn't soon after however that I became aware of my evolving perspectives, with the concept of how pushy the male should be on the cold approach as one of the most paramount.  I now see it as amateur to not push hard with girls on the cold approach. Because many of these girls who *seem unreceptive actually aren't.* That's what it comes down to.  If the girl is truly unreceptive (i.e., outright ignoring you), then yes, peel away and approach others. But if the girl throws up her hand at you, acts like you're creepy, tells you she's in a rush, or moves/accelerates away when you say hi, plenty of these girls will in reality go on to exchange with you if you are just a bit pertinacious.  I call this behavior-state untethering. And I wrote a recent article on it. That is, you can't judge a book by its cover, where the male is prone to misinterpret the girl's receptivity based on what he observes on the surface.  Just because a girl seems receptive doesn't mean she is; likewise, just because a girl seems unreceptive doesn't mean she is either.  As I've mentioned before, you can say hi to a girl where she's twirling her hair and blushing, and she tells you your approach was rare and that you're handsome, yet she refuses the contact exchange. Or she'll exchange and then ignore your texts. Guys will encounter this scenario occasionally and act surprised by it even though it's predictable: it's called behavior-state untethering. Was she receptive? No. It's her *actions* that matter; not your impression of the situation.  Well the opposite scenario on the cold approach is also frequent: the girl seems disinterested at best, or she tells you she can't talk because she's rushing, or she throws up her hand and jumps back a few feet when you first say hi; you non-react and pretend like nothing happened, and continue to engage her with short convo. She then goes on to exchange with you. You're like, "Wow, I can't believe that girl just exchanged." But then this will happen repeatedly until you just see it as standard and predictable: how the girl appears on the surface often has no relation to her underlying receptivity state.  Behavior-state untethering is the basis for why I'm hyper-pushy on my approaches now. Probably most of the girls I exchange with don't seem overtly receptive. I see that as normal. I don't expect them to be enthusiastic. I don't expect them to be warm and engaging. I see apprehension and resistance as normal female behavior.  Biologically, the male is to be pushy, and the female resists but acquiesces. That's how mating dynamics work...

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Dec 06, 202011:09
Why do other guys have higher conversion rates than I?

Why do other guys have higher conversion rates than I?

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 took a look at the comments on the last YouTube video and one seemed to get a little attention, which was asking about why some guys might have higher conversion rates compared to other guys. In other words, "Why am I going 1 for 15 on my approaches whereas another guy goes 3 for 15?"  This converges back on my talking point in that video about guys fixating on what they're "doing wrong" in their approaches.  The worst thing you can do is compare yourself to other guys as though what they're doing somehow relates to you in any way.  If you approach enough, you'll see that variation in micro (daily) conversion rates is normal, where you can go, e.g., 2 for 40 on a Tuesday, whereas the very next day you could go 7 for 25.  Never worry about your exact numbers on a given day. Fluctuation is normal. You need many data points to see that.  There was a day a few months back I had posted about to the WhatsApp group where I went I believe 0 for 70 or 80, before finally breaking through that day. Yet again, I also had a day this year where as part of an acquisition cluster I picked up ~12/16. These things balance out over the macro.  I've also discussed before how the more audacious and experienced the male is, the *lower,* not higher, his percentages. This is because if the male is adequately forward and bold, the more, not less, likely he is to get rejected.  If you say hi to a girl shopping with her mom, or while she's walking through an alleyway at 8pm, you're more likely to get rejected by default vs if you're only saying hi to girls on a sunny street in the afternoon. So a guy who takes rejections from being bold of course will have lower conversion rates.  One of the easy ways to gauge a male's experience level is by his view on "high conversion rates." If he views high conversion as a good thing, it says he doesn't approach enough, because the more the male approaches, the bolder he becomes, and the more he gets rejected and sees it as the most likely outcome from any approach.  However let's say we "hold boldness constant," where you take two guys of very different experience levels and have them approach only girls walking through a busy station. Will their conversion rates be different?  Well firstly, and as I just said above, you can never analyze micro conversion rates because approach is just a numbers game and one can have low conversions on one day but high the next day. So the exact numbers can't be analyzed from a single day alone.  But let's say we compare two guys over the course of an entire month, where they both theoretically approach in the same exact venue, with "boldness held constant"; the guy with higher macro approach volume, who is more audacious and forward, will certainly have higher conversion rates.   Why? Because he will be much more likely to push through interactions where the girl doesn't seem receptive, only for her to exchange anyway. The more novice male will think that receptive girls must be smiley and enthusiastic, without realizing that he's ejecting himself prematurely from many interactions because he erroneously believes a girl's receptiveness can be gauged by how she appears on the surface.

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Dec 06, 202010:37
Why are my percentages with girls so low? What am I doing "wrong?"

Why are my percentages with girls so low? What am I doing "wrong?"

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

One of the questions I hate seeing/hearing the most from guys is, "What am I doing wrong?"  "Mike, my percentages are low. I've been approaching a lot, but you can't tell me it's normal to literally be getting 1 contact for every 40 approaches, or to still not have hooked up with a girl after x number of approaches. What am I doing wrong?"  The reason asking what you're doing wrong is a dangerous line of thinking is because it opens you up to behavioral contrivance/regulation.  If your belief is that you're doing something wrong, then the natural logical branch point is to assume that you could improve your behavior somehow in order to minimize rejection.  The male is his most attractive the more deregulated he is (i.e., when he is 100% winging his approaches). It's not about what you say. That's a really important point to reinforce. You can say pretty much anything in a conversation and get rejected/accepted. It's not your words that matter; it's your *behavior* that does.  You need to go into your interactions being confident that you can be incredibly non-smooth / disjointed with your conversations and still get the positive outcomes you're looking for.  Because once again, it's not about what you say. As long as you walk up, introduce yourself, tell her she's attractive, and then 100% wing it, you *are* your most attractive. There's nothing else you need to do.  "But Mike, there's got to be some component that I could improve upon?"  Sure. It's called forwardness and conversational brevity.  I've described this as deregulation on a baseline of forwardness. That is, you're always forward in your interactions while simultaneously winging them.

Continue reading: https://mikemehlman.net/

Dec 04, 202013:52