I’ve been following Saul from Elite Social Skills and Social Prime lately. They’re a European/Australian pickup company, and they have a pretty good handle on female archetypes, one of my areas of interest.
In their Facebook group, they often throw around the terms “value girl” and “comfort girl”.
To quote Saul:
Girls (and human being in general for that matter) and NOT the same. They have different values, belief systems, social and cultural conditioning, goals, and desires (i.e Blueprints)
…
The girls that you meet out in the streets or the club when you cold approach will have varying ‘emotional blueprints’ – meaning that they respond to different behaviours, and that seducing and sleeping with them requires taking different routes
…
‘Comfort girls’ – are generally your typical girls who perceive themselves as ‘morally good girls’ with strong social conditioning, are not particularly comfortable with their sexuality, and need to ‘really know a guy’ before sleeping with him. This will be most girls that you meet out and are more difficult to get a ‘same night lay’ with. As the name implies, they require a lot of ‘comfort’ (as opposed to value/attraction) and this usually implies a longer time-frame of the seduction
‘Status oriented girls’ – are those who are quite comfortable with their sexuality, are not particularly sensitive to judgement, and are willing to sleep with a guy quickly not based on the emotional connection but are just screening for the highest value guy
…
Now, girls aren’t permanently stuck on one point along the scale – but rather they fluctuate depending on a myriad of variables – including but not limited to – their life situation, experiences, culture, city, point of their menstruation cycle, level of sexual experience, and a about a million other things
What really matters is not why they are where they are, but that you’re able to identify where they are and CALIBRATE.
If you start spitting hardcore negs at the super comfort girls because you saw it on a piece of infield triggering a strong reaction, you’re gonna get slapped in the face and alienate the people you’re speaking to.
And if you go all ‘Mr. connection mode’’ with a status oriented girl and aren’t able to position yourself as an authority in her reality, you’re gonna be left wondering why all these ‘bitchy girls blow you off’.
When you see hear stories of guys pulling multiple girls per night – it’s done by very aggressively screening for those status oriented girls’, piercing into their reality, communicating that you are the one and only best option, and dealing with any objectives that may come up – sounds simple. It’s not. It actually requires a lot of skills and possessing legitimate value.
Now, this is nothing new. Krauser has already covered this with his “r-selection vs. k-selection” terms, pulled directly from evolutionary biology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
However, I find single letters hard to differentiate, and I can’t be bothered to create a mnemonic for it.
From now on, I’ll be using the terms “value girl” and “comfort girl”, as they convey the qualities needed to best connect with these types of girls.
Pancake Mouse 
I agree, Value-Comfort is a great model for calibration. Here’s a set of distinctions I’ve used, expanding on the value-comfort model, that have helped me qualify and screen girls better.
Caveat: this may be specific to location and cultural considerations.
I’ve noticed that girls I meet in social circle or cold approach will fall into one of the following circumstances, and they correlate with how willingly they respond to sexual escalation and value game.
1. Girl has just gotten into a relationship, she’s dating a guy, she’s into him and all her attention is focused on making him invest. I’ve had zero luck getting a girl like this to come out on a day2, let alone close her. There’s just very little upside for her, all she wants to do atm is “lock down” the guy she’s dating. IMO girls in this stage are brainwashing themselves into thinking the guy they’re dating is the ‘ultimate alpha male’ or ‘perfect for them’ so there’s very little room for my game to have any impact.
2. Girl is in a stable, committed relationship. A bit of a wildcard – – some girls retain a high opinion of the guy they’re dating even after a few months or years, and others start to see their man’s commitment as a sign of weakness/scarcity, and start resenting the guy. If the girl is in the latter situation, she’ll respond strongly to strong emotions, value game and the promise of anonymity (no consequences). “Girl who just had a fight with her BF” closes are in this category.
Formula: Value + sexual escalation + anonymity.
Even if things are going well with the BF, if you convey enough high value, the girl may keep you in her rolodex “for future reference” in case things deteriorate in her relationship. These are the girls that ghost you when you text them after getting their number in daygame, but then text you back 2 months later.
3. Girl just broke up with her BF – – the stuff most same night lays are made of IMO. Minimal game + sexual escalation works quite well here. TBH, alcohol game is usually more than enough.
Formula: alcohol + sexual escalation
4. Girl has been single for a while (a month – few months). Usually girls are “finding themselves” in this phase. A minority of girls will do so by dating as much as possible, but most of them do it pretty holistically – – they’ll try out some hobbies, go out with friends more. They’ll often get a fuckbuddy at this point of time, so they’re looking for someone to fuck, but also someone who is pleasant enough company to see multiple times.
Formula: some value + a LOT of fun + sexual escalation to make it the perfect FWB package.
5. Girl has been single long enough that she’s considering a relationship. At this point, both value and comfort start becoming more and more important. In (4) just being really fun and good in bed is enough, but when a girl starts shopping for boyfriends, she’ll want the full package, high social/situational value, a lot of comfort so she knows she’s not going to be dating an asshole like her last BF, lots of qualification so she feels like you’re a winner etc etc.
IMO it’s easier to meet a girl at stage (4) and then let the FWB equation naturally develop into an LTR, than to try to play the “perfect” game of a girl who’s already in a (5) headspace. Typically, girls in (5) will try to get the highest value guy in their social circle. I’d rather catch the girl at (4) and ride out the natural progression to (5) over time.
There are many generalizations in this model, but it has helped me save a lot of time; screening to filter out girls in (1) and (5) and modulating how much ‘value game’ I spit and how much I sexually escalate depending on (2), (3) or (4).
LikeLiked by 1 person
GOLD!
LikeLike
> From now on, I’ll be using the terms “value girl” and “comfort girl”, as they convey the qualities needed to best connect with these types of girls.
Pancake. I am interested to read this, as you use these terms… and I have never liked these terms… but now I know where you got the labels.
r/K is much more clear… as it hits “one dimension” (fast sex/slow sex… no commitment/commitment), whereas your use of “value” or even “status” hops between dimensions.
I am not really into r/K either, but as a “map of Girls,” it’s easier to understand.
> they require a lot of ‘comfort’ (as opposed to value/attraction)
If we use ATTRACTION MATERIAL (not attraction, which is different), then yeah… fast r girls, jump on ATTRACTION MATERIAL (Gamey/spikey stuff), and typically respond well to it. Are they “value” girls… I still think that is a very confusing way to think about it.
Who is valuable again here? The girls? They are “party girls” (fastest way a girl can ruin herself), with low attention spans, drug/alcohol problems that chase guys with similar qualities. The guys? I can see why aspiring players would “want to be the guys” in these scenarios… very hard to be that kind of guy, in many ways those guys are “morality tales” for proper HIGH VALUE MEN, which rarely spend time with “bottles” in nightclubs… proper HIGH VALUE MEN often have bigger things on their plates.
If you mean “r girls like playboys/badboys” – yes, totally makes sense. Is playboy/badboy = “value?” No. To make it personal, I am a “player” (I date a lot, no monogamy, I can pickup, I get sex fast and often), the EXPERIENCE I give girls (including the fast sex) is a kind of “value,” but mostly I am HIGH VALUE for the things in my life that have nothing to do with “being a playboy.” A PATRIARCH is high value. A “club badboy” is a kind of “boy.” That is “low value.” Mostly that true.
The use of “value” is the confusing part.
Value has often means “something besides Game.” And your “value girls’ (club sluts, girls that chase shallow, flashy status – not all bad girls, but that seems to be what you mean) will respond well to flashy Game, regardless of the real “value” a guy has to offer outside of Game.
I think you are actually using “value” to describe “Social Proof” (a concept that is totally irrelevant to most guys looking for success with women, 99.9% of the time, completely unnecessary) kind of guy. In that case, YES… “club sluts” love the “connected promotor,” conspicuously famous guy, etc.
Status is another topic. And lotsa lotsa “K” girls want status. And “club promoter” would be anti-status for many K girls (it’s a douchy/bad/unhealthy architype for many K girls). Status girls might be into economic status of any kind, maybe moreso to professional status (non grimy status), or status in the community (more “politician”/”entrepreneur vs “club boy”). At the lower end, they would be “label whores” etc… and yes, chase “VIP access to the hottest clubs.”
A lot of dimensions here.
I know I sound judge-y here (I am judge-y). But if I take a Game purist POV, of course there is nothing wrong with “club sluts,” I see how they can be an ideal choice in many guys eyes (particularly guys that want what they see in rap videos, etc), I definitely get that those girls could be hard/impossible to Game for certain guys, and that dialing up Attraction Material/”Social Proof”/props like “yatchs” (my favorite LOL is “Yatch Game”)… I get it.
For normal guys, I think ^ all this is a complete waste of time. That Mystery, and certain modern guys fetishize this as Game, when it is a very narrow slice of Game… but I can see the attraction for certain guys..
For you… you mean “Party Girls.” Which is type every recognizes. I think you personally like a lot of the qualities of Party Girls (which is valid, yes), but the “IG Baddie”/Sugar Baby may not even party, but would give you a lot of what you’re looking for… I wouldn’t use the word “value” to help me see the overlap between those types of girls.
And now I understand what you mean a little better by value/comfort – very sloppy classification scheme IMAO, but I get it now.
Viva Pancake.
LikeLike
Value girls are attracted to what society decides is valuable. That’s why the original Elite Social Skills terminology was “Status-Oriented Girl”, but that was a mouthful so they shortened it to Value girl.
I like to look at the value/comfort girl dichotomy more as “What sort of Game do I need to run to seduce this girl? Do I need to build mostly value, or do I need to build mostly comfort?”
I like Todd V’s take on this as well: value/comfort buckets, e.g. every girl having a value bucket and a comfort bucket and you need to fill up both in order to seduce her and they’re different sizes depending on the girl.
LikeLike
> “Status-Oriented Girl”, but that was a mouthful so they shortened it to Value girl.
Status oriented girl is clear. Value Girl… is still a sloppy distinction.
> Value girls are attracted to what society decides is valuable.
I was thinking about this over lunch… I think you mean “Girls that like what is very popular and flashy.” That is much more specific than “valuable,” and is much closer to a kind of “status” girl.
>> I like to look at the value/comfort girl dichotomy more as “What sort of Game do I need to run to seduce this girl? Do I need to build mostly value, or do I need to build mostly comfort?”
This is still weird frame for me. A sober, hard working, community leader is “top value” in many, many ways (literally the most valuable man in the whole community)… particularly if he does this in an “alpha” way. He is not at all what “Party Girls” like, or what “Insta Baddies”/Sugar Baby girls are attracted to.
You seem to want something very specific.
> Value girls are attracted to what society decides is valuable.
The “Comfort Girl” is maybe a girl that doesn’t like Bad Boys? Is that right? But she would still like “What society decides is valuable.” Every girl likes A VERSION of “what is valuable.” A girl that ‘values’ Comfort (and I think most girls only want comfort until they have it… and that is every girl, 0.0% of girls are seduced without some obvious comfort) that wants a BF, might still like a fit guy, a good leader, etc. She is still after “what society decides is valuable.”
I think what all Pancake Girls have in common is that what they want is FLASHY/POPULAR.
It is not “what society says is valuable” (which is a broad category), but what is “in the headlines right now.”
When guys say “girls at all the ‘IT CLUBS’,” what they are pointing to is girls that like the flashy, popular thing. A good club, with good music, and great atmosphere (which is real value) is irrelevant. What they want is to be at, to been seen at, to have their pic taken, at the current “hot” club.
And what I think YOU want is to Game not “a” hot girl, but to Game “the current popular/hot Girls.” That is what the Party Girls, and IG Girls, and highly prized Sugar Baby type girls have in common. They are more than “good,” they are specifically popular in obvious ways.
No insults here… I am just trying to figure you out.
Some “hot bitch” on the sidewalk, in a certain outfit, that would reject a guy for not having the right “flashy” “it” symbols of pop culture is not after “value,” a kind of value, yeah, but what she wants are what I would call “shallow, trendy status markers.” No emphasis on shallow, but that is a good way to make the distinction between these girls and girls that like STATUS at a much more “mature”/”traditional” status.
Some girl will fuck a loser if he is popular (for any reason). But a proper “gold digger” is after actual net worth, and cares much less about his popularity (which = “competition”). Both are “status” girls… but one is the popular/trendy/flashy oriented one.
To be specific… some girl that wants to date the latest pop star/athlete, and is NOT interested in him once he is no longer in the headlines… that is “flashy/popular/trendy” girl. Megan Markle went after Prince Henry. She is clearly a status whore, but in a high bracket, where “trendy” isn’t the point.
—-
This is the question I have for you:
Q: Are you interested in attracted girls that “everyone thinks are hot?”
I think that IS what you want (no judgment). I don’t hear you saying you want a specific body type (“hot girl”), or “10s” (which could be introverts), or that her behavior or psychology are of a particular type (feminine, etc), I see you showing interested in being successful with “Popular Girls.”
XYZ girl gets into every club for free. Everyone looks at her. She is the “it” girl. You want to date that kind of girl.
ABC girl has 100k followers on Insta. Everyone looks at her. She is the kind of girl many, many guys would point to when they didn’t have something more specific to point to. You want to develop the kind of Game that gets THOSE GIRLS.
Is that right? That is not super judgmental, I don’t think. I thing “value/comfort” is maybe the clunkiest classification scheme I have ever heard of… but beyond that… I am looking to define “Pancake Girls.”
You are Mr yatchs/bottles. I don’t know if you care about yatchs and bottles, but you have said (I believe) that you want the kinds of girls that want those things, so you want to “be” those things specifically to get those girls. Is that right?
My feeling is you want to be successful with this popular/flashy/trendy category of girls in particular as a demonstration of success with that kind of Game.
Is any of this landing? Is any of that about right?
LikeLike
None of this is about me. Whether I like or want to attract X or Y doesn’t matter because the point of these terms is to use language that applies generally, and I don’t decide what general society thinks is valuable *in terms of attractiveness*, society does.
Society values really dumb, vapid shit. We both know this. This is why we have barely-functioning systems, because people chase headlines instead of effectiveness/substance… as an *average*. Not everyone/every girl. Some girls like “sober, hard-working community leaders”. But if you were to compare Lil Uzi Vert versus your sober, hard-working community leader, Lil Uzi Vert is getting more “societal frame”, as much as your PERSONAL value system may have trouble coping with this.
LikeLike
> I don’t decide what general society thinks is valuable *in terms of attractiveness*, society does.
Well, lots of things are valuable. That isn’t really what I think you mean. I think you want something very specific, and you want to specialize in the Game to get that goal.
When I ask you “what is a Value girl” – I think you point to the attendees of Yacht parties and girls that get walked past the velvet rope at “it” clubs. I think THESE ARE PANCAKE GIRLS, or the kind of girls you would like to date. “Value” is a clumsy way to point to those very specific girls.
You often say “Nash dates comfort girls” – as if that would make sense to me (I date a wide range of girls). And you say “I want to date value” girls, to which I barely know what you mean. And I have endless exp with both women and men talk about women… so I am given up trying to see any “value” in the Value vs comfort is frame. It doesn’t work for me.
But from that, I have been curious just exactly what your goals are in terms of women.
> Q: Are you interested in attracted girls that everyone thinks are hot? Is that your specific target?
> EX: Twin girls. Both “10s.” One has friends, social life, but is more “mainstream.” The other is “popular.” You want #2?
This is what I wrote on Twitter. I think this is starting to describe what I think you’re after.
You aren’t necessarily looking for a hot girl, with a good personality, that likes sex – which almost every guy would LOVE TO HAVE. You are looking for “attendees of Yacht parties and girls that get walked past the velvet rope.” If I am accurate here, that is what you want. And that is 100% valid. I mean that.
If that was right, in my mind I will call these PANCAKE GIRLS = which to me seem to be girls that chase flashy/trendy/popular appeal. They chase the yacht parties/”it” clubs. So you try to position yourself in those scenes to find those girls. That seems to be your goal for Game. If you had a great looking girl that wasn’t into Yacht parties or “it” clubs, I assume you would walk past her to find these particular girls. That is what I hear you saying. “Bottles” and “Yacht” describe the environment where PANCAKE GIRLS spend their time.
You tend to say “this is all general,” when it is very, very specific to you. I think it is extra specific to you in that a “typical” guy would find a hot girl with a good personality and would instantly forget about yacht parties and “it” clubs. Not you. That flashy/trendy/popular IS WHAT YOU WANT.
My sense is “you want girls that other guys want.” Or that “everyone wants.” Not only does she spend her time trading in flashy/popular/trendy, but she herself is flashy/popular/trendy. And you want the kind of Game that gets those girls. (Very specific). I think that is right. And if she doesn’t fit that, you’d walk past her. You’re not saying that, but that is what I see.
It’s like a girl that wants a BF that plays in the NFL. Big, strong, wealthy, athletic, doesn’t matter. It’s all that and “NFL,” or she moves on. It’s not general.
It’s very specific. Other guys don’t think like this. That is why it has been hard to understand your position. But I think I have it now.
LikeLike
So to say “other guys don’t think like this” is a contradiction, when you note a couple sentences before that these are the girls that other guys want.
Based on vast experience talking to guys in the community, the *plurality* (not all or not even the majority obviously, but still a plurality) of guys want the “baddies”, or the girls that most other guys want.
So yes, other guys think like me. The plurality of guys do. That is why these terms were created, to serve a plurality of guys in the community. I realize it does not at all represent what *you* think is valuable, but that’s how language works – you have to use your imagination, otherwise we’re just disputing definitions (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-definitions)
P.S. if it helps, I can start saying “status girl” instead of “value girl”.
LikeLike
> So to say “other guys don’t think like this” is a contradiction, when you note a couple sentences before that these are the girls that other guys want.
Well, fair point.
I will say that guys that don’t date much, want those girls. Guys that don’t know women, can only see and then point to the “most obvious” women in the community. If they have unmet desire… it will lean that way as well.
Like Jr high boys wanting a lambo, or whatever. They don’t know they are talking about… but thye have the lambo poster on their wall. (Not surprising, it’s the same guys online that are about lambo that like the girls you like… it is the same crowd. Another clue.)
And guys that do date a lot, tend to like a much wider range of qualities (“I like short Latin girls with big tits”… that is what a normal guy would say… I trust that… he wouldn’t call her a “value” girl or a “comfort” girl either), and/or see Pancake Girls specifically as red flags to be avoided.
I think guys that know what they are doing “mostly” see those girls and roll their eyes. You want to fuck the classic “disaster” girl that sheiks fly out to Saudi for the weekend for $XX… that is basically who we are talking about. Lots of men that are great with women purposely avoid those girls… I think most men with experience see those girls, know what they are, and go “what a fucking mess.”
But… some men that know what they are DO target them. But they don’t sound anything like you either.
An example I thought of yesterday: “Stripper Game.” The typical “stripper” look is something “a lot of guys are attracted to.” I think those guys don’t know what they want, so they want the “obvious sexuality” of strippers. In reality, they don’t date those girls, nor would that be a good idea, but… if they were picking out images from a pile, guys would pounce on the stripper look all of the time. (Just like Jr high guys would point to the lambo.) Just like the Insta Baddies are popular. Both are girls most guys can’t/won’t/shouldn’t date. Most guys know that. And I think guys with experience mostly know that…
No, man. I don’t hear other players saying they want Insta Baddies. Let’s limit the pool of men we are listening to to those that actively practice Game and have some skill. And I think for those men, Insta Baddies turn heads… but the vast majority of successful players I know “have a type” and Insta Baddie isn’t it.
The super fake “you can get any girl you want” guys do point to Insta Baddies and club girls, though… that’s true. And the clueless newbies like that sale pitch… whereas guys with experience know that whole plan is weird/BS.
I think you’re interesting… because you sound like a newbie… and you actual skill level is 10000X beyond newbie You think every player wants “party girls,” and if he doesn’t, it’s cope. This just shows me how little know you about players.
I think another clue to understanding Pancake is “too much screen time.” Your history with Online dating (I won’t say OLD) overlays nicely with your interest in IG baddies. Same symptoms, same girls. You like the “2D” version of life… profiles (with pics of bottles/yacths, of course) are everything.
NOTE: A PANCAKE GIRL wears a ton of makeup. Am I wrong? No, I am right, aren’t I? This is a good example, because “makeup” isn’t the same as hot, but it looks good in pictures or across the room. And a lot of Guys with GREAT GAME, that are excellent with women, are not targeting girls with tons of makeup… but you are. And I think you (without intending to) probably EXCLUSIVELY target girls with tons of makeup (they may or may not be beautiful under the cake).
I think ^ I know exactly what you’re after. And guys that want a more “natural” look (which is lots of guys, dude) wouldn’t be interested. Or a more “natural” lifestyle. You’re in a “always online” world, so you wouldn’t know “3D”/natural preferences. That is part understanding you.
NOW… back to Stripper Game. Not so much recently, but lots of guys (although a very small %) actively chased strippers. There was Game designed just for strippers. Even my wing Sundance was cultivating stripper Game.
You are basically the kind of guy that wants to Game strippers… very specifically so. But in your case, they are the flashy/popular/trendy IG baddies and “it” club girls. In both case “Party girls.”
It’s a specialty. And you don’t seem to see it that way.
Yeah, man… I think lots of guys would go “I would” when they look at a PANCAKE GIRL. They would fuck a girl like that. But they would fuck every girl above a 6… so that isn’t saying much. But they aren’t targeting them exclusively. And they would never call them “value” girls. Or even “status” girls.
A PANCAKE GIRL is not the same as a Status girl, although she may require a very specific kind of status to date her… “access to popular/flashy/trendy.” Take a perfect 10 (so you can’t say this is about actual beauty), who wears very little makeup, went to an Ivy League school, and ONLY DATES Ivy League guys, and only the cream of the crop of them… SHE is a “Status” girl… and has nothing in common with your type.
No, man. Of all the dating/fucking that goes down in the PUA/Game community, I am going to say that >5% are that type of girl. So while lots of dudes would fuck a girl like that… that isn’t even close to what most guys are ACTUALLY after.
For guys that are successful… there could be some FOMO that they will never know what it’s like to date a Pancake girl. But the better they are, the less that would be true… they would know what those girls are like to date.
I know I have a bit of an attitude here. But I am perfectly fine (and obviously interested) in your pursuit of PANCAKE GIRLS (and I know my opinion has no authority anyway). I think your value/comfort is the most confusing tool to describe what you’re after, but as for specializing in Party Girls… good for you. I know what they are, but I am interested to see what you think.
I will say again that you have a bizarre read of the community… and Game in general. The weirdest take from you is that “NYC girls can’t be Gamed by taking their number.” That is so clueless/random, it says a lot about you. Maybe you’re ready to walk that one back now? You were adamant about it last time in NYC.
I think your stats don’t match other players (I am not talking about normies), and that is another sign you are so unusual, you just don’t know what typical is in this community (you just tune in to very unusual signals). And you latch on to “unusual” tales in the community and believe a lot of stuff that is either rare/BS/unsuccessful.
And you go completely sideways when you say “this is what value is” (Party girls? The guys they date?) and then assume that “isn’t about you” (it definitely is) and then say “this is what every guy wants” and… nah.
This is why it works for me to call them Pancake Girls. This really is about you. Doesn’t really apply beyond you and some very narrow slice of guys.
I am genuinely interested in your psychology. Particularly because you are not the slightest bit “typical.” I know typical backwards/forwards… you’re not it. But you are successful. Yes, you are.
And special. And that always catches my attention. I think you’re particularly bad at talking about “Game in general” – which is alien to you, IMAO.
I was calling you out for a while saying that if you can’t successfully date (see 1 girl, over and over) and have basic rels… your opinion is too “specialized” to matter to most guys. I am still very much there with you. If you were “typical,” you would easily date girls on an ongoing basis… and you do not. I don’t think you can – which is not a bad thing, but disqualifies you from “typical” relevance. Your 100 lays came from almost as many dates. Almost no repeat action with girls is so extremely unusual… anyone listening to you should start there. No dis there at all, but that incredibly unusual… no, you don’t know what normal is. You have no idea.
But Pancake…. I get why you like those girls. I get how they are “hot.” Yes, I do think many guys would notice them. I don’t think you are qualified, at all, to understand normal Game. But I DO think you are a rare example of “Super Human Game.” “Alien Game.” Which is special and legit. I mean that 100%.
I think you will only increase your Super Human Game. And that will likely mean you can successfully date these IG baddies. And when you nail all that down… I am interested to see what you will take from it.
LikeLike
I love this entire train of thought. While not perfect, it’s really rich and meaty.
And just as much, I love that pancake allowed this comment to be posted on his site.
Awesome stuff, boys.
Also, I’m really interested to see if pancake did ever crack his pancake girl game
LikeLike
I’m confused at why I would ever not allow comments like this to be posted? Quashing critique is just limiting oneself.
I’ve gotten better since May 2022, but still not where I want to be. Next phase coming soon.
LikeLike