Julien Blanc gets destroyed in CNN interview

Wibbs · 19-11-2014 12:41am

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Would it not be more beneficial to read up on psychological studies on what has actually been proven to work? There's loads of research on attraction and flirtation.

On this point tBL, much of said research would back up a fair bit of what the PUA types are suggesting. The problem comes when the same PUA types carve it into a given, a product, for confused young men.

Foxtrol · 19-11-2014 5:05am

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

There might be thousands of techniques but I can name 5 that most (perhaps not even most) Western women use: heels (visible), make up (visible), push up bra (not visible), hairstyle (visible), sexy clothes (visible). All very straight-forward (although not so straight-forward to wear).

You're using high level buckets to suit your argument while then doing the exact opposite of separating all different PUA techniques individually, rather than bucketing them. You could easily put PUA into high level buckets too but either way it's semantics that prove nothing.

They do give PUA a bad name though. I'm stating a fact. Whether it's fair or justified or not is another story but that's the rep it has right now among many men AND women.

I agree it's a fact and that's why I've been pointing out how uninformed and at times hypocritical that opinion is.

Cool. They sound like techniques used by human beings to flirt and can't really be claimed by PUA.

Why not? You're very pro pointing out subtle techniques that women use when talking about them altering their appearance. Again, you're using one set of rules for what you'd like to include in the discussion to suit your argument without any valid reason why others can't be included.

Foxtrol · 19-11-2014 5:16am

Wibbs wrote: »

The problem comes even for the more honest PUA types where they get into the mindset and the selection biased appraisal of women as a hivemind entity rather than an individual. It can get ugly at that point. Where they see women as boxes(no pun) to be ticked(wrong verb) and "hamsters" to be understood and conquered.

Isn't this ugly point exactly what is happening here as far as posters judging all people involved in PUA techniques as a hivemind entity rather than an individual?

J Mysterio · 19-11-2014 5:30am

Laura Palmer wrote: »

It is quite cultish. If you've ever seen the film Magnolia: scientology enthusiast one Thomas Cruise plays (very convincingly) the role of an extremely sinister PUA "guru" ("Respect the cock, tame the c*nt!") :eek:

StinkyMunkey · 19-11-2014 5:39am

Hopefully this twat has a few daughters, then his perceptions of woman will change. Like to see him sit back and watch his techniques used on them. He has the kinda face were you have to fight the urge not to punch it.

TheBeardedLady · 19-11-2014 7:27am

Wibbs wrote: »

On this point tBL, much of said research would back up a fair bit of what the PUA types are suggesting. The problem comes when the same PUA types carve it into a given, a product, for confused young men.

Yep and that was my point. They're not saying anything new but are passing it off as ground-breaking and charging many people for the privilege. I mean,

actually noticed some things I naturally did anyway (being playful (not aggressive negging or the likes), initiating contact, body language stuff, dealing with friends) but I've never gone through a full set/routine.

Eh....I've read that millions of times elsewhere from non PUA sources and like Foxtrol, I recognise it from my own interactions with men. I've read hundreds of articles on the above. I understand these fellas make it into consumable, easy-to-understand, "sexy" less academic form but they're taking people for fools making them believe they're letting them in on some secret when that info is already available.

TheBeardedLady · 19-11-2014 7:49am

Why not? You're very pro pointing out subtle techniques that women use when talking about them altering their appearance. Again, you're using one set of rules for what you'd like to include in the discussion to suit your argument without any valid reason why others can't be included.

I don't understand your point here. What set of rules? Women have techniques to flirt and as do men but I have an issue with this particular technique (and I would have a problem with 18 year-olds getting boob jobs from their parents as graduation presents as is common in the States, for example - I see it as playing on young women's insecurities). My problem with this is that these PUA gurus are repackaging advice that is already available and making money off it. They're taking many men for chumps and I believe they target certain kinds of men (men who are not all that confident). Obviously you saw the videos for free on Youtube but many men don't stop there and pay for them and pay to go to their talks etc. These men aren't helping other men out of charity, many are making money off what they're doing. I think there's a fair bit of exploitation going on.

My other criticism, like I mentioned before, is that guys looking for relationships (NOT ONSs) believe PUA is the answer but I don't believe it's sustainable. Like make up, you can't cover yourself 24/7. My boyfriend sees me put my mascara on when we go out, I see him mess around with his hair and do various things to make it look like he's got more hair than he does but we see each other behind the scenes too - I know him completely. What do you do if you make a girl believe you're a fun, hilarious person but you like her and want to see her again? It's one thing taking off your cap to reveal your bald patch but it's another thing becoming a different person to what you were personality-wise.

I've used alcohol in the past for dutch courage and have been shy when meeting him with the guy again when sober, or at least not like I was able to (when I was younger). I wouldn't advice other people to go out and get ****-faced to meet the love of their life, would you? I see it as similar only you're lining some guru's pockets in the process.

Edit: I'm just as critical of the beauty industry as well, by the way.

TheBeardedLady · 19-11-2014 8:06am

Foxtrol wrote: »

Isn't this ugly point exactly what is happening here as far as posters judging all people involved in PUA techniques as a hivemind entity rather than an individual?

Can't it be argued that the gurus are treating its customers as a hivemind by stating that their techniques will work for everyone?

TheBeardedLady · 19-11-2014 8:23am

It's okay to be critical of stuff and acknowledge the negatives of something. Convincing yourself that it has no flaws is delusional.

tritium · 19-11-2014 8:57am

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Yep and that was my point. They're not saying anything new but are passing it off as ground-breaking and charging many people for the privilege. I mean,

Eh....I've read that millions of times elsewhere from non PUA sources and like Foxtrol, I recognise it from my own interactions with men. I've read hundreds of articles on the above. I understand these fellas make it into consumable, easy-to-understand, "sexy" less academic form but they're taking people for fools making them believe they're letting them in on some secret when that info is already available.

Is that any different though than charging someone for a sales course or a programming course or any other skill? Its pretty common to package stuff up and resell it. From the little I know if it its generally acknowledged where those parts came from so the only thing that credit is being claimed for if the packaging and the claimed results. This isn't really very new and tbh like all of them it will have good and bad parts. If it helps with social abilities for people who lack them its a positive. If it goes down the manipulative cult route that's not.

For what its worth, people have been making money out if deceit in attraction for centuries. The idea of modifying or changing yourself both physically and personality wise is as old as the hills. Deportmen classes were once all the rage for women. Women's and men's mags discuss what the other gender want as a way to be successful with them. Really what puas do as a business model isn't particularly new.....

Grayson · 19-11-2014 9:07am

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

It's okay to be critical of stuff and acknowledge the negatives of something. Convincing yourself that it has no flaws is delusional.

There have been people in this thread and others who have stated outright or strongly implied that any guy who ever looks at this stuff is a sad, pathetic bastard who has rapey tendencies.

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

My problem with this is that these PUA gurus are repackaging advice that is already available and making money off it.

so you'be be ok if guys bought self help books that had been around for a generation? To be fair, if you look at any self help section, you'll find recycled garbage. And any person who helps people like psychologists, doctors etc are going to charge. Noone invests that much time for free.

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

My other criticism, like I mentioned before, is that guys looking for relationships (NOT ONSs) believe PUA is the answer but I don't believe it's sustainable.

PUA isn't sustainable. It's not meant to be. It's supposed to generate an opening (no pun) and let the guy be himself. It's not like Barney Stinson running a play where he pretends to be a billionaire.

RDM_83 again · 19-11-2014 9:15am

tritium wrote: »

For what its worth, people have been making money out if deceit in attraction for centuries. The idea of modifying or changing yourself both physically and personality wise is as old as the hills. Deportmen classes were once all the rage for women. Women's and men's mags discuss what the other gender want as a way to be successful with them.

I don't know if the majority of it is really as bad as some people portray but to me the part I find interesting and a bit disturbing about the entire thing is the use of behavioural science.
I think this is partially why people might really buy into the thing because it does seem to be based on "fact". I find the idea of a mechanistic reduction of human interactions and social ques as something thats not exactly a thing to be happy at being popularised imagine a world full of Car Salesmen, its not just PUA the whole AMOG thing feeds of the same theories.

TheBeardedLady · 19-11-2014 10:58am

There have been people in this thread and others who have stated outright or strongly implied that any guy who ever looks at this stuff is a sad, pathetic bastard who has rapey tendencies.

I haven't so you'll have to take it up with them.

so you'be be ok if guys bought self help books that had been around for a generation? To be fair, if you look at any self help section, you'll find recycled garbage. And any person who helps people like psychologists, doctors etc are going to charge. Noone invests that much time for free.

I believe many PUA gurus go beyond that though.

PUA isn't sustainable. It's not meant to be. It's supposed to generate an opening (no pun) and let the guy be himself. It's not like Barney Stinson running a play where he pretends to be a billionaire.

A re-reg this morning (I don't know if his post was deleted or not) claimed PUA techniques will change you as a person. That's the issue: people believing it IS sustainable.

TheBeardedLady · 19-11-2014 11:07am

tritium wrote: »

Is that any different though than charging someone for a sales course or a programming course or any other skill? .

You tell me. You don't see a difference? One is selling computer skills and one is selling men the idea that they can be funnier or more interesting - you're playing with people's emotions and in turn, you're getting into murky territory.

I'm studying psychology (only a few months now) but the importance of the code of ethics and conduct for psychologists has been hammered home repeatedly. I'm conducting a harmless experiment on people at the moment for an assignment but I had to read up on ethics and get my idea signed off by my university before I conducted it. I spent 2 weeks sending my proposal to my lecturer before she finally approved it and I had to make massive changes to my original idea before I could begin. All the participants have to sign forms which clearly state their rights in the experiment as well as info on where they can get assistance if they've been psychology traumatised in some way by the study...and I'm only 2 months into a certificate. It was frustrating but I understand why she did it. Psychologists HAVE to conduct themselves ethically in everything they do because they're dealing with people in a more complexed way than simply selling them computer skills. Same as these PUA guys.

Do you believe these PUA gurus take a code of ethics so seriously?

Potatoeman · 19-11-2014 11:35am

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Yep and that was my point. They're not saying anything new but are passing it off as ground-breaking and charging many people for the privilege. I mean,

Eh....I've read that millions of times elsewhere from non PUA sources and like Foxtrol, I recognise it from my own interactions with men. I've read hundreds of articles on the above. I understand these fellas make it into consumable, easy-to-understand, "sexy" less academic form but they're taking people for fools making them believe they're letting them in on some secret when that info is already available.

In fairness every diet course is the same if not worse. They could all be replaced with eat less, eat healthier food and excercise more.

TheBeardedLady · 19-11-2014 11:39am

Potatoeman wrote: »

In fairness every diet course is the same if not worse. They could all be replaced with eat less, eat healthier food and excercise more.

Yep because diet courses are also playing with people's emotions and insecurities. Not a fan.

Greenmachine · 19-11-2014 11:40am

This rubbish still going on?

Potatoeman · 19-11-2014 11:46am

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Yep because diet courses are also playing with people's emotions and insecurities. Not a fan.

Yes but calling for a code of ethics is not going to happen. Sales people use phycology too. Its really up to people to educate themselves.

kjl · 19-11-2014 11:52am

I don't see all the hate for the PUA guides. 99.999% of the guys who try is have spend very little money learning the technique and if it gives unconfident guys the confidence to start actually talking to girls.

Every girl I know find it annoying that guys don't come up to them in a night club, this teaches guys to take a chance. So whats the harm.

The guy at the start is a bit of a knob but I did watch him on a proper video (about 60 long) once and not once did he say anything about physical abuse.

This is just CNN being CNN and if the OP is so dumb to realise that CNN is a ratings based news network and not a real news network the maybe we should close the thread now. Sure one time I saw them use a psychic to see if the knew where malaysia airlines flight 370 was.

Total rubbish.

The_Captain · 19-11-2014 12:11pm

kjl wrote: »

I don't see all the hate for the PUA guides. 99.999% of the guys who try is have spend very little money learning the technique and if it gives unconfident guys the confidence to start actually talking to girls.

Every girl I know find it annoying that guys don't come up to them in a night club, this teaches guys to take a chance. So whats the harm.

The guy at the start is a bit of a knob but I did watch him on a proper video (about 60 long) once and not once did he say anything about physical abuse.

This is just CNN being CNN and if the OP is so dumb to realise that CNN is a ratings based news network and not a real news network the maybe we should close the thread now. Sure one time I saw them use a psychic to see if the knew where malaysia airlines flight 370 was.

Total rubbish.

He's only on CNN because he's become e-famous for choking women and trying to force their heads into his crotch you fool

eviltwin · 19-11-2014 12:16pm

He is due to bring his seminar to Dublin on June 4th next. Would anyone go?

Tiddlypeeps · 19-11-2014 12:20pm

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

I don't think you get make up: women aren't trying to look like they're not wearing make up, they're trying to excentuate features and make it look like it's put on well and that it's professional-looking and not clownish-looking. Lipstick, no matter much you spend on it or how well it's put on, won't look natural (although the more expensive one might look better). Eyeliner will never look natural (nobody has a dark, black line naturally over their eyelid). Mascara will never look natural (people's eyelashes don't look like that naturally). Eyeshadow will never look natural (nobody has blue eyelids, for example). Foundation, even a thin layer, will still be visible - women's skin is not poreless.

When women cake it on, they don't do it because they don't know how to put it on properly (although sometimes they can't) or because they bought cheap make up (I doubt Katy Perry uses Rimmel) or by accident or because they believed they've done a good job making it look natural and no one will notice, they do it because they like the made up look and they feel good with it on and many men like it too, believe it or not. Today I'm wearing a bit of mascara but I have naturally blonde hair and my mascara is black, so it's obvious this is not the colour of my eyelashes. Their texture and shape is different too. I've very little on but it's obvious I'm wearing it. I'm not trying to make people believe I have long, black eyelashes and blonde hair naturally, I just want to have eyelashes that are visible.

Although many men might not know the extremes the woman has gone to to look the way she does, I don't believe there's any deception there as you can see it, no matter how little (you'll obviously have to look a little closer in that case). And I'd also wager that on a night out, 95% of women in bars and clubs are wearing it and I'm sure most men know that.

I have to call you out on this because you are very wrong. YOU might not be trying to look like you aren't wearing any make up but you cannot speak on behalf of all women.

Make up is a hobby of mine so I'm pretty familiar with it and what lots of people are trying to achieve when they wear it.

The no make up look is a very sought after look. You might think it's always obvious when someone is wearing make up, but only the obvious examples are obvious. If someone is wearing proper "no makeup" makeup you won't really have anyway of knowing, not without outright asking or getting in for a very close look and even then when it's done right you still won't see it.

Here is a good example:
http://www.beautygold.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/No-makeup-look-3.jpg

Also a funny relevant web comic:
http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/makeup-no-makeup.png

Even when trying to look done up the goal is often to make it look as natural as possible. So you might have 20 products on your face, but a person looking at you might think you are only wearing a bit of eyeshadow, mascara and some lipstick.

I'm not making the argument that make up is deceitful. But it seems to be a perfectly fine and valid comparison to some of the less extreme PUA stuff.

J Mysterio · 19-11-2014 2:38pm

eviltwin wrote: »

He is due to bring his seminar to Dublin on June 4th next. Would anyone go?

Post a link in the misogyny thread

Grayson · 19-11-2014 2:46pm

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

I believe many PUA gurus go beyond that though.

believe whatever you want. On the internet it doesn't count unless you have a link to back it up. Besides i don't see how it's possible to go further than that.

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

A re-reg this morning (I don't know if his post was deleted or not) claimed PUA techniques will change you as a person. That's the issue: people believing it IS sustainable.

If you approach 50 women and learn to deal with rejection, that's a permanent change. But You're implying that if someone puts what they learned from PUA into action, they'll not be able to keep up a facade, you're right. However they don't have to. It's about creating an opening where you can actually show yourself off. It's not about pretending to be someone else.

Minjor · 19-11-2014 3:54pm

He's been denied a UK visa according to the BBC.

TheBeardedLady · 19-11-2014 3:55pm

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I have to call you out on this because you are very wrong. YOU might not be trying to look like you aren't wearing any make up but you cannot speak on behalf of all women.

Make up is a hobby of mine so I'm pretty familiar with it and what lots of people are trying to achieve when they wear it.

The no make up look is a very sought after look. You might think it's always obvious when someone is wearing make up, but only the obvious examples are obvious. If someone is wearing proper "no makeup" makeup you won't really have anyway of knowing, not without outright asking or getting in for a very close look and even then when it's done right you still won't see it.

Here is a good example:
http://www.beautygold.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/No-makeup-look-3.jpg

Also a funny relevant web comic:
http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/makeup-no-makeup.png

Even when trying to look done up the goal is often to make it look as natural as possible. So you might have 20 products on your face, but a person looking at you might think you are only wearing a bit of eyeshadow, mascara and some lipstick.

I'm not making the argument that make up is deceitful. But it seems to be a perfectly fine and valid comparison to some of the less extreme PUA stuff.

That woman is clearly wearing make up though. Women don't look like that naturally. Do some women genuinely believe no one would notice unless they stood up close to her face? She looks great and maybe as close to natural as you can look with full make up on..but she's obviously wearing make up. I'd spot it immediately.
I genuinely don't understand how someone couldn't notice. Like when people were shocked when that photo was released of Katy Perry with no make up. Perhasps I'm projecting but I find it genuinely baffling that anyone wouldn't know.

Either way, if that's their intention, fair enough. I stand corrected.

CdeC · 19-11-2014 3:59pm

He's learnt how to exploit one of the things that men get very insecure about. How to pick up women.

I have no issue with men learning tips and tricks in how to talk to women with the view to flirting and making themselves seem attactive to them but i think that it needs to be in the correct way and with confidence and respect towards said women.

Guy is an ass and his business should be discredited and shutdown.

Yarf Yarf · 19-11-2014 4:02pm

Yeah, comparing make-up application to PUA techniques is a little silly, to be honest. The difference between a woman wearing make-up and not wearing it is pretty obvious, even if the make-up is well-applied. Yes, women do go for a 'natural' look, but it's still fairly easy to tell the difference between a well made-up face and a truly natural look.

TheBeardedLady · 19-11-2014 4:32pm

believe whatever you want. On the internet it doesn't count unless you have a link to back it up. Besides i don't see how it's possible to go further than that.

I've forgotten what I'm supposed to prove again.

If you approach 50 women and learn to deal with rejection, that's a permanent change. But You're implying that if someone puts what they learned from PUA into action, they'll not be able to keep up a facade, you're right. However they don't have to. It's about creating an opening where you can actually show yourself off. It's not about pretending to be someone else.

I'm responding to the poster who said this:

And that's exactly what PUA techniques are, it's the guy advertising himself as if he's got an interesting personality, that the woman would be interested in, when in reality he's actually just following something that's pre-prepared.

That's sounds like more than just a simple opener to me. If I "advertise" myself as one thing when I'm not, isn't that pretending?

It sounds to me like people have different ideas of what PUA actually is. The person who wrote the post above thanked your post.

Arsemageddon · 19-11-2014 4:34pm

No visa for Julien Blanc to enter the UK...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30119100

Given the kicking he got on CNN shouldn't he be given refugee status?

Julien Blanc gets destroyed in CNN interview

Comments