In 2005 Paul Janka published an ebook called Getting Laid in NYC. TV appearances on Dr. Phil and The Today Show and an Excel spreadsheet of his conquests upset Jezebel and Gawker, but inspired men to emulate his style of daygame. Having grown his pick-up business and moved to London, he recently revealed that he will be getting married to his English fiancée next year. So why does a red pill man give up the game? Troy Francis caught up with Janka to talk pickup, the pitfalls of the playboy lifestyle, the manosphere, and marriage.

You’ve been very successful disseminating a method for cutting through societal crap like prolonged dating and getting sex quickly, but there were some negative voices early on, particularly from Jezebel and Gawker. Was that tough to deal with?

Not really. I redoubled my resolve against those voices. But I guess there was a reputational cost when I tried to move into normal society, which I’ve had to manage.

A lot of the criticism was from feminized, blue pill sources.

True, but more simply it was from women. And they weren’t our paying customers so in a way I didn’t give a shit. The comments on the blog for The Today Show were fascinating. Guys championing me, and the women being critical. For all the Disney-fication of modern America and playing nice, the sexes are highly antagonistic still and really couldn’t agree less.

It would be great to get some tips on game from you for readers who are just starting out or are looking to sharpen up. Your method is very simple: approach a high volume of women in the daytime, get their phone numbers quickly before ejecting, send out mass texts and then go for sex with those who are most responsive. But others recommend building rapport for longer after approaching by going on instant dates and so on.

My tactics emerged in a very pragmatic way. I would see a girl very quickly often in a transitory situation like a subway station but would have to be somewhere, so instant dates were never an option. If a guy steps out of his office for coffee, he doesn’t have time to hang around. I don’t think instant dates are an option for most gainfully employed men. So my game was about very quick conversations and bookmarking it for later by getting the phone number.

Also, in NYC you have very target-rich environments–thirty hot girls in Union Square, say. Because I had no idea which number would follow through, my goal was to get as many as possible. Every time you’re talking to one girl you’re not talking to the next one. There’s nothing more annoying than an even sexier one walking right past you. If you keep it short you have a better chance of covering ground.

Your writing is very red pill, for example: At its core, the “game” is really this dance – getting the milk without buying the cow . . . It’s plain that women have a much better system for getting what they want. They also have the support of a society that defends their agenda.

It’s a script women are handed from an early age. It’s not their fault. Although technology and modern dating culture has deteriorated that a bit. We live in a hook-up culture and now men have a sweet spot with technology. The smartphone is a savior—being able to access a lot of women on your terms with no cost is an incredible advantage. We’ve been able to scale our tomcatting, and women have few defenses as they don’t know if you’re sincere.

You have also written: The amount of fun sex you enjoy on your terms is directly proportional to your level of personal discipline. When I approach women and deal with them everyday, I engage them on my own terms. Of course, some don’t like it. That’s the discipline.

I was lucky because though somewhat inexperienced when I got into this, I had some female attention. A guy who comes into game with insecurities, the first time an attractive woman shows him attention and puts the bait out, he’s a goner—he’s like a dog. He’ll bite down and hang onto that thing forever and she’ll drag him through the mud. What I mean by personal discipline is being able to cut something that’s tantalizing knowing that there’ll be five more pieces behind it. Also to know that if she’s jerking you left then that’s not where it’s going to end—she’s also going to jerk you right. So you need to open your mouth and let the bait go. But guys operating from a place of insecurity won’t do that so they get fucking smashed.

Abundance is key to successful game.

Yes. And ironically it’s reinforcing. The less you care the more women will be attracted to you.

What would you say to the guy reading this who doesn’t have abundance though?

Fake it to make it. And in a big city like London, New York, even LA there’s so many women that if you work on your verbal rap and work through the embarrassment and failure in the beginning you’ll eventually achieve a critical mass that’ll teach you something. Then you’ll develop discipline.

You advise building up an inventory of phone numbers – say forty – and then mass texting and seeing what comes back.

Many guys start out wanting to fuck five women a week but there’s a lot of things that can go wrong. A good exercise is to realise that out of fifty numbers I might not fuck any of these girls, or only go on a couple of dates. Don’t get attached. You’re doing it to get into the vibe, and it might take six months. See them as throwaway numbers.


You’re famous for the statistic that 11% of numbers you got ended in sex.

Yes, people love that! It’s approximately one in nine. So if I get eighteen numbers in a day then that’s two confirmed fucks.

Some think it’s a high figure, others don’t, but one in nine from phone numbers then that sounds good to me. It’s interesting that Krauser’s 2013 results were nearly identical – 27 lays from 250 numbers is 10.8%!

There you go baby! Isn’t that crazy? The universal number. Let’s get nine girls here now: “one of you will be fucked by the end of the evening!”

Kinda like an Agatha Christie novel, but with game.

Sure. And given that it’s a verified statistic from several players, there’s no benefit to paying undue attention to any of the nine, because one will fuck and the other eight won’t no matter what I do.

It’s encouraging – if a guy goes out and approaches enough he will get results. But you’re tall, good-looking, well-educated and urbane. Also you operated in NYC, a great place for game. How would you counter guys who say that without your advantages they wouldn’t see the same success?

That’s fair thing. But I think the biggest advantage on that whole table is NYC—which is within reach of most guys if they make it a priority.  I’ve coached men in small towns and told them to move to New York. If it’s that important then make a life change. Anonymity within a big city is absolutely key. I grew up with guys who were equally good-looking – charismatic athletes, very popular, but all of them capped out at about 75 bangs and are now married. That’s partly because the settling down age is younger, but also because LA is just not as accessible and daygame friendly or anonymous as NYC.

The biggest hindrance to guys trying to get laid is that women don’t want to get judged by their friends. Read Joseph W. South, Practical Female Psychology for the Practical Man. She’s not going to put her social standing in jeopardy. The anonymity of NYC allows women to take the shot and never make excuses. I’ve met girls on the subway, proper girls who would never want their friends to think they’re slutty, I’ve taken their number discreetly and we’ve had two or three sessions. I’m sure they’ve never told their friends they shagged some guy they hardly knew. You can only do that in a large anonymous city. So of all those attributes, living in a big city is replicable and my biggest advantage. Yeah, of course looks play a part, but even a guy below average can improve his results.

And without meaning to denigrate him, Krauser is probably less classically good-looking than you, and yet his results come out the same. And the girls he hooks up with are beautiful.


There you go. And actually frame, masculinity and good rap—controlling the situation verbally—are more important than looks. A below-average guy with frame and very good control of language, and most importantly a plan, can crush it. Confidence is fundamentally built on having a game plan. The reason it falls away is the guy doesn’t know what to do next, but if you have a system you’ve done a hundred times that’s got you laid then no matter who the girl is you know exactly what to do next, and that’s what turns her on.

janka pick up

Mojo, or state, is really important too. You write: ‘There is something unique to the attitude and body language of a player – he’s cocky, self-assured and unflappable. He can talk to women in a way that indirectly (or, if he chooses, directly) makes the interaction sexual. He takes liberties that others may find offensive, or at least objectionable. But, women take off their wet panties for him.’ How can guys acquire this?

Internet porn, commingled with actual sexual exploits allowed me to see each curvaceous young woman as a totally sexual being and she could feel that energy. Also caffeine, and walking outdoors and the visual stimuli of New York helped—I think they were all intertwined. But the answer is to just practice—you’ll find moments when you’re inspired but also moments when you’re flat.

And you have to become hardened to rejection—you say somewhere that the more a man is getting laid, the more rejections he will have had along the way.

For a lot of new guys that sounds paradoxical, but you’re not getting laid a lot unless you’re also getting a lot of women pissed off at you! Men have can have a false belief that women are these attractive, uniform beings but they’re distinct like men are—some are bitches, some are poor communicators, some are hung up. There’s a hundred reasons why she was a bitch on the street and a guy who sees a failed interaction as a direct reflection of him or his game is wrong. One day I would crush it and the next I’d be drawing blanks as the same guy.

Do you have a view on the so-called manosphere?

I think it’s great that women have been taking gender studies for a long time and now men en masse are too under this guise. It’s valuable knowledge. If there’s any Achilles heel it’s that men have to be aware of life stages, and how they’re different. I think there’s sometimes a sense of inevitability—all women are going to lead you down this path—and universalism—all men face this—that I don’t agree with. I think there are a series of different outcomes and I don’t think that’s always allowed for enough.

janka paris

On relationships you have said: The big ruse of monogamous relationships is that women have succeeded in convincing us to voluntarily enter into a situation in which we have no sexual alternatives. Think about that. The way the institution is set up, men willing agree to forgo all the other sexual options so that their woman is happy. If that’s not evidence of a woman’s agenda and her control of the situation, then I don’t know what else is. Of course, given our biology, monogamy is a much easier concession (generally speaking) for women than for men, who are designed to spread their seed.

And unless you’ve experienced the opposite—a lot of different sexual partners—then you don’t really know what you’re giving up. So it’s good to have that first so you can really quantify both sides.

But you recently announced your engagement.

Yes—in the face of all this evidence!

Many readers will wonder why – you had a honed method and a life of sexual abundance that could have continued.

Regarding the manosphere, while I commend everyone for grappling with these big questions, a lot of men want offspring. Aside from the mini-relationship, there hasn’t really been a good alternative structure proposed. Chasing girls is fun when you have a core group of guys and continuity in your life. When you’re looking at women as disposable sexual objects then there’s so much churn and no one follows your life with any interest.

My parents will age and eventually die and most of our other male friends who follow the social script disappear into the suburbs and then take limited or circumscribed interest in us. So in my thirties all my running mates in NYC who provided support and had an interest in my narrative started to fall away. If we don’t have a witness to our lives it’s quite meaningless. You feel that really profoundly in NYC, where my pack of wolves became increasingly motley, as most “quality” guys got locked down into marriage.

As I started to make more money I realized I’d run the pattern of having sex with hot young women enough and I knew what it looked like. I wanted to travel, have unique experiences. If I take a wonderful trip with someone, I want to be able to reference that trip in five years with that same person. If you’re going to invest in someone, it has to be someone with long-term potential, not just some booty call. Finally, I met a girl whose character was in many ways superior to mine and I said wow, I want to hitch my horse to this cart.

I don’t think there’s a party line on marriage per se in the manosphere. I think actually a lot of guys would love the happy ending we were all brought up to believe possible, if the prospects with Western women didn’t appear so bleak. The issue is with hypergamy, divorce rate, alimony and child support and so on. And 70% of divorces are initiated by women.

Why would they voluntarily release themselves back into the sexual marketplace after their expiration date?

Well, now we have the mythology of the cougar. It’s delusional thinking inculcated by the culture.

Game teaches men to screen for sluttiness in women to find girls who are going to give us a blowjob in the next 45 minutes, but you need another filter to screen for character for marriage and for the mother of your children. The screening techniques of game are antithetical for screening for a mate.

There are romantic notions of women in partnerships and pragmatic ones. It’s very easy to get beguiled by a damaged or dangerous woman, and I think the manosphere is fixated on the idea that relationships are supposed to be passionate, but there’s a whole other side. The idea of a pragmatic union of people who can bring certain skills to the table so together their skillbase is sufficient to provide a home and education for young children. Marriage was a practical union prior to the 1940s. Pickup and game sites deal with the front-end: I don’t know if this other side has been considered sufficiently.

Many believe that sex with hot young women in their twenties is the only form of congress that should be of interest to men, and there are a lot of jokes about girls hitting the wall after a certain age.

Think about it this way: many of us have loving, affectionate relationships with our mothers, but our mothers are old and their tits are sagging. Should they be dragged off somewhere? No, their opinions are still important to us and we want their validation. And I think for a man to be successful at life he should recognise his youthful erotic nature, but as he ages he should transition into a more respectful relationship with a woman that perhaps resembles more what he has with his mother. Men who fail to do that might be cut off at the knees.

Finally, has having a fiancée affected your work, given the line of business you’re in?

All my material on pick-up is timeless, but going forward I would like to transition the business. Our list of customers is also growing older, and they may be interested in more functional relationship material and so on.

To find out more about Paul click here.

Read More: The Difference Between A Woman’s Behaviour And Her Intent