The Pick Up Artist!

Snowie

theganster wrote: »

I can tell you from a lot of experience, this stuff works. But you can't just read the game and suddently turn into Charlie Harper, its requires a significant change in the way you do things - but honestly, as much as I wish these techniques don't work, if used prioperly, they do.

I used to be absolutely hopeless with women. Well, actually, I had more beautiful women friends that any guy you'll know, but rarely scored any of them. This went on for years. I finally delved into this scene and it turned my life around. Most of the time I would have to do the complete oppasite to what my gut instinct told me to, but it would work out. Women will deny that many of the techniques work - and actually it saddens me that women respond the way they do, but that's just how they are wired. The psychologyu behind it is actualy very interesting.

Over the next year or so I turned myself into a bit of a legend between my friends - and had a lot of fun. It really is a Game. People really could not understand how I turned it round so quickly with women. I lad lots of fun with loads of different women, dating etc. Now i'm happy to say I met an amazing beautiful women and we've very happy together, and I can be my normal genuine nice kind self with her, and it goes great - but I could probably say that if I had met her a few years ago, she probably would not have been interested in me.

I highly recommend that any guy give this a real look. Read the Game first, then look into David DeAngello and Ross Jeffries. Ross Jeffries is more like 'tricking' a girl to like you, whereas David Deangello is more like becoming more of the man that women are attracted to.

Its good to hear from some one who says what it is your saying.
Personally speaking i can understand the hole lots of female friends not scoring any of them but now adays things are different... for me any way...

Are you talking about david dalanglo method of cocky funny ? etc?
Davids write ups can be pretty hipnotic at times would you agree?
He allmost moulds you into being some one else in some ways ??
or maybe keeping your own persoanlitlty but working your personality with a fine set of rules so to speak

But dont mind peopel who say nasty things to feel free to post more if some people say your a bad person becasue you your self have admitted that you where crap with girls and yo went around improoving it in what ever way you could well are you really doing anything wrong ?

In my eyes no, a man goes to a councilor to work out problems you went to the book of a pick up artist to work your own out it can be classed as self help almost depending on how you use these books. tips

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Define sleazebag.

He was hopeless with women, changed his approach based on reading some books, and it worked out for him. He had fun, no one got hurt. What's the issue?

I think you have a narrow and skewed view of what PUA techniques actually consist of. While there exist PUA methods which consist of essentially memorizing lines and acting, this is not the whole picture. Most of it is simply confidence tips and tips on how to talk to women, how to conduct oneself in the social situation of chatting up a woman etc.

Dont mind her mate she doesnt agree with it and thats her opinion i can understand her point to a degree but again i can understand people whove used such teachnicks to improve there stance's....being good with women is a good feeling it builds self esteam levels it makes you feel good about being you for all the right reasons. so there my take..

Snowie

liah wrote: »

At the risk/assurance of getting myself banned here, how the hell do you not feel like a complete sleazebag?

But to answer your comment is it
wrong to follow the advice of a A guy that can cleerly pull women?
when you can't little storys here

First time a i was rejected bye a girl was when i was 15 she was 14 long blonde hair really bubely attractive english girl she was damm fit and loads of fun to be with she had been all over me for the first week and suddenly got flirty with me so i asked could i kiss her she said i only look at you as friend

Any bloke going to no what that feels like...

But if you keep on getting rejected or making the wrong moves which lead to rejection. Yand have no idea whee your going wrong. Suddenly you start to look apon your self in a bad and weeker way you can loose self confidance
because on this plannet we are here to bread, Now you tell me whats attractive about a guy who has absaloutly no confidance in him self what so ever.

If a guy need to read a few books get some guidance here and there. Not nesscerelly follow the game out to a t but learn and see where hes making his misteaks and improve on this see the benfits well then is it really a case of being sleazze bag ?

Warfi

liah wrote: »

At the risk/assurance of getting myself banned here, how the hell do you not feel like a complete sleazebag?

Some of the pick up artist material is sleazy but I don't think the men who use it are sleazy though. It shows that they're being pro active about meeting a girl, instead of complaining that life is awful, nobody likes me yada yada. It takes great courage for anyone to look at him/herself objectively, find that there's something that needs to be fixed, and then fix it.

minidazzler

Personally I think it's really sad.

A few of the little Youtube videos I have watched have been retarded on the subject.

One of the guys acts Gay so he can "get in there" and then slowly wears down there defences makes them comfortable, a little peck, and then tries further.

Fcuk that.

This whole Peacocking thing I don't like either, dressing like a twat to draw attention to yourself. I'd rather not. I mean, I do dress like a twat sometimes, but never to pick up women.

I appreciate that it CAN work, as it works on the principle of what women RESPOND to rather than what women THINK they want.

But I still think it is quite sad and I do laugh at the people who try it.

That being said, I'd love to give it a shot as a social experiment for myself. But I like to think of myself as a manipulator for good rather than the retarded.

trout

Being confident and comfortable speaking with women ... I can see that as a good thing, and if reading a book and observing tips /techniques can do that for you, all the best.

I would see that as somewhat removed from scripts/strategies for getting gullible women into bed.

Rightly or wrongly, I think the term PUA has negative connotations.

Snowie

minidazzler wrote: »

Personally I think it's really sad.

A few of the little Youtube videos I have watched have been retarded on the subject.

One of the guys acts Gay so he can "get in there" and then slowly wears down there defences makes them comfortable, a little peck, and then tries further.

Fcuk that.

This whole Peacocking thing I don't like either, dressing like a twat to draw attention to yourself. I'd rather not. I mean, I do dress like a twat sometimes, but never to pick up women.

I appreciate that it CAN work, as it works on the principle of what women RESPOND to rather than what women THINK they want.

But I still think it is quite sad and I do laugh at the people who try it.

That being said, I'd love to give it a shot as a social experiment for myself. But I like to think of myself as a manipulator for good rather than the retarded.

Excuse me for bring ing a post up from another forum !
Didn't you post in the ladys lounge how you wished youd asked a girl for her number but never did ?
I think thats a perfect example to go on because i gave you a peace of advise which i beleave you thanked on....
Heres the irony I read that from a PUA articals so technically your some flawed...
I understand that the picoc affect is some what bizzare and its more then ten years old at this stage in more recent times that dont have to dress so ridiculasly

but hey why not spend a tenner and bye the game a read it you never know you might go OH theres where i went wrong like I did

trout

Please keep this civil.

Posts made in other forums are not germane to this discussion.

Snow-Monkey ... I'm looking at you. If you think minidazzler's argument is weak ... feel free to refute it, in a sensible manner.

Snowie

trout wrote: »

Please keep this civil.

Posts made in other forums are not germane to this discussion.

Snow-Monkey ... I'm looking at you. If you think minidazzler's argument is weak ... feel free to refute it, in a sensible manner.

Post edited and see where your coming from
and apolgies to mindazzeler if he read it etc.

scanlas

People it seems will always jump to the conclusion that if you learn how to seduce women it's sleazy.

Ultimately learning to be a great seducer is a gift to the women you seduce as it is yourself, but the word "seduce" seems to have negative connotations.

A great seducer gives a woman an amazing experience full of a rollercoaster of emotions which women thrive on.

minidazzler

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

Didn't you post in the ladys lounge how you wished youd asked a girl for her number but never did ?
I think thats a perfect example to go on because i gave you a peace of advise which i beleave you thanked on....
Heres the irony I read that from a PUA articals so technically your some flawed...
I understand that the picoc affect is some what bizzare and its more then ten years old at this stage in more recent times that dont have to dress so ridiculasly


but hey why not spend a tenner and bye the game a read it you never know you might go OH theres where i went wrong like I did

I never stated it was all bull****., JUst that I find alot of it quite sad. Particularily the bit mentioned.

I can't remember the advice you gave, but I probably agreed with it true, however that doesn't mean I agree with the philosophy of PUA's.

Herbal Deity

trout wrote: »

Being confident and comfortable speaking with women ... I can see that as a good thing, and if reading a book and observing tips /techniques can do that for you, all the best.

I would see that as somewhat removed from scripts/strategies for getting gullible women into bed.

I think some people could interpret the same techniques as the former and some as the latter.

What's interesting about this discussion is that many people seem to perceive a woman having a one night stand with a guy who's not being 100% himself as a bad thing. I don't understand why. What's so different between this scenario and a guy who picks up a girl without (consciously) using techniques? The end result is two people having consensual sex. What's the difference?

It should also be pointed out that guys routinely change their natural behaviour when they want to "pull" through the consumption of alcohol, and no one really has a problem with that. At least this is healthier.

PUA is only seen as sad because it's arbitrarily not socially acceptable.

Snowie

minidazzler wrote: »

I never stated it was all bull****., JUst that I find alot of it quite sad. Particularily the bit mentioned.

I can't remember the advice you gave, but I probably agreed with it true, however that doesn't mean I agree with the philosophy of PUA's.

Why is it sad?

but ya see i dont think many people do thast the point im trying to point out.
While its questions mens motives world wide it does give some solid advice which has to be respected. Even if there motives are some what questionable theres a lot any man can learn.. I know quite a few members who've happilly said so.

what is there philosophy some of the guys just want to meet a nice woman and dont have the confidance or lack of as well as experence to get to the postition so they go find help is that really sad?

scanlas

minidazzler wrote: »

I never stated it was all bull****., JUst that I find alot of it quite sad. Particularily the bit mentioned.

I can't remember the advice you gave, but I probably agreed with it true, however that doesn't mean I agree with the philosophy of PUA's.

What do you believe is the philosophy of PUAs?

Snowie

scanlas wrote: »

People it seems will always jump to the conclusion that if you learn how to seduce women it's sleazy.

Ultimately learning to be a great seducer is a gift to the women you seduce as it is yourself, but the word "seduce" seems to have negative connotations.

A great seducer gives a woman an amazing experience full of a rollercoaster of emotions which women thrive on.

But the things is your say seduce, I can see where people are going with this arguement i meann it does have negative connotations
and I can understand why any girl would think like that but what it carrys with saying that it sound some what hippnotised as tho shes not doing it under her own will.

Thast where many women would have the problem....

RedXIV

This topic has always been close to my heart. It was one that I believe that you won't understand until you examine it closer and there's not a woman on the planet that will ever approve of it because they seem to think guys go into it for the sole purpose of bedding as many women as possible but the truth it that at least half of the information I read up about this was all directed at how you view yourself and how to get rid of bad habits, i.e. watching a girl and thinking about how to approach her.

One of the best things I read was the Three second rule. If you see a woman you like the look of, approach her in under 3 seconds. If you wait longer, chances are you'll over analyse and excuse yourself from not doing it.

I genuinely think there is alot of good in this stuff and as i constantly point out, there are plenty of female equivilents out there, only today did i see a magazine with an article about how to get the guy you're thinking about.

The problem I think is that the "PUAs" that have made the seduction community famous, or perhaps more appropriately infamous, are the ones that DIDN'T need it and instead use it as an badge of their own percieved ability. It's a shame that the countless of guys who needed the extra boost in confidence, myself included, who have taken good from the community have their newfound self-belief torn down by women who have decided that by reading a book will change a everyone into a sleazebag. I know far more people who have benefited from PUA community teachings than have turned out to be sleazebags. obviously there's a few bad apples in every batch but i think the common factor is the shy guys focus on the internal stuff where as the sleazebags are adamant to try and learn an infallable formula to get what they want.

I do, personally, resent anyone who writes it off straight away without proper examination. People who do that are doing more harm to the shy guys out there than any book could.

trout

scanlas wrote: »

People it seems will always jump to the conclusion that if you learn how to seduce women it's sleazy.

Ultimately learning to be a great seducer is a gift to the women you seduce as it is yourself, but the word "seduce" seems to have negative connotations.

A great seducer gives a woman an amazing experience full of a rollercoaster of emotions which women thrive on.

Call me cyncial ... I suspect most "seducers" are thinking of their own enjoyment ... and not the "amazing experience" of the person they persuade to engage them in sexual intercourse.

scanlas

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

But the things is your say seduce, I can see where people are going with this arguement i meann it does have negative connotations
and I can understand why any girl would think like that but what it carrys with saying that it sound some what hippnotised as tho shes not doing it under her own will.

Thast where many women would have the problem....

I can understand that as it has a manipulative association to many people. It's just a misunderstanding. Women and men seduce each other all the time, it's natural. A woman making herself look sexy is part of her seduction. Flirting is part of a mutual seduction. It's hardly manipulative. PUA really at it's core helps you become better at flirting and guiding the interaction to where you want it to go.

Herbal Deity

trout wrote: »

Call me cyncial ... I suspect most "seducers" are thinking of their own enjoyment ... and not the "amazing experience" of the person they persuade to engage them in sexual intercourse.

Yes, but it's not like the person being seduced doesn't enjoy themselves during the whole encounter...

trout

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Yes, but it's not like the person being seduced doesn't enjoy themselves during the whole encounter...

Satisfaction guaranteed ?

Snowie

scanlas wrote: »

I can understand that as it has a manipulative association to many people? it's just a misunderstanding. Women and men seduce each other all the time, it's natural. A woman making herself look sexy is part of her seduction. Flirting is part of a mutual seduction. It's hardly manipulative. PUA really at it's core helps you become better at flirting and guiding the interaction to where you want it to go.

Thats prefectly fair i see where your coming from but in my own mind seducing is done bye cleo patra because that lady is the queen


I do see where your coming from tho but i know your saying about seducing and maybe this is a result of soical conditioning but its what a woman does

Warfi

RedXIV wrote: »

I genuinely think there is alot of good in this stuff and as i constantly point out, there are plenty of female equivilents out there, only today did i see a magazine with an article about how to get the guy you're thinking about.

That's so true, there's loads of self help literature for women. It seems to be more acceptable in society for women to use so called 'tricks' to get a man/keep a man/convince a man to marry her etc etc. When it's the other way around i.e. a man using self help literature to get a woman, it's viewed with suspicion.
In my opinion I think it's viewed with suspicion because of the different ways men and women look at sex. Men in general, view sex as a physical act, while women in general view sex as an emotional act. Happen to mention to a girl that you were able to pick her up using a technique from a pua book, and more than likely she will think that you were just out to sh*g her. You might truly like the girl, but she would nevertheless question your motives.
Personally, I wouldn't be suspicious of a man who's used a pua book. I would only be suspicious of a man if I felt uncomfortable in his company.

scanlas

trout wrote: »

Call me cyncial ... I suspect most "seducers" are thinking of their own enjoyment ... and not the "amazing experience" of the person they persuade to engage them in sexual intercourse.

Maybe some men are maybe some aren't.......maybe some women are only thinking of their own enjoyment and maybe they aren't. If both are enjoying the interaction is it really that big of a deal.

PUA often makes men less manipulative. A common message from many sources in PUA is to never lie to women. They say don't pretend you might want a relationship but are actually only after sex. They often say to tell them you are not a boyfriend material or say I'm not a one woman man if you just want sex or a non exclusive relationship. This honesty often attracts women. They tell you not to try and impress a woman. It's a refreshing experience for a woman when a man isn't trying to impress her but just enjoying the interaction. Most men are manipulative by being overly nice and approval seeking, you might be surprised by how many women are sickened by that behavour. That's part of the reason why women love to be teased or slagged a bit. It's a refreshing change, and it's more genuine.

RedXIV

scanlas wrote: »

Most men are manipulative by being overly nice and approval seeking, you might be surprised by how many women are sickened by that behavour. That's part of the reason why women love to be teased or slagged a bit. It's a refreshing change, and it's more genuine.

and this is where the "nice guys finish last" and "treat em mean, keep em keen" comes from. Admitedly, they are not iron clad rules but there are grains of truth to be found in them

Warfi

scanlas wrote: »

PUA often makes men less manipulative. A common message from many sources in PUA is to never lie to women. They say don't pretend you might want a relationship but are actually only after sex. They often say to tell them you are not a boyfriend material or say I'm not a one woman man if you just want sex or a non exclusive relationship. This honesty often attracts women. They tell you not to try and impress a woman. It's a refreshing experience for a woman when a man isn't trying to impress her but just enjoying the interaction. Most men are manipulative by being overly nice and approval seeking, you might be surprised by how many women are sickened by that behavour. That's part of the reason why women love to be teased or slagged a bit. It's a refreshing change, and it's more genuine.

We all want approval in some shape or form. However, if you seek this approval to the detriment of your own identity, it's not going to impress anyone. Men (as well as women) don't respect anyone who looks for approval at any cost, it's not a particularly female trait.

I think it's important to try and impress someone when you meet them, as long as it's not covering up a lack of something else. And I mean impress someone by showing courtesy and respect for them (whether it's a man or a woman).

Show me a person who's not impressed by courtesy and respect, you can be guaranteed they have esteem issues.

Wibbs

trout wrote: »

Call me cyncial ... I suspect most "seducers" are thinking of their own enjoyment ... and not the "amazing experience" of the person they persuade to engage them in sexual intercourse.

Call me even more cynical, we're all thinking ultimately of our own enjoyment. Why does a guy buy flowers, be romantic etc? He may call it being nice, he may well believe thats the case, but ultimately its for the return he will get from it. The only difference I would say between players/seducers etc is that they're aware theyre doing it and play it better. Ditto for women too.

Herbal Deity wrote:

What's interesting about this discussion is that many people seem to perceive a woman having a one night stand with a guy who's not being 100% himself as a bad thing. I don't understand why. What's so different between this scenario and a guy who picks up a girl without (consciously) using techniques? The end result is two people having consensual sex. What's the difference?

I would agree. Guys who are naturally good at attracting women do much of the pua stuff naturally.

I think the objection to this for many, especially women, is that it seems to take the free will and romance out of it. It appears to reduce women(and men) to averages. IMHO women will object to this much more as many of them apply a kind of magical thinking to love and sex. I've noticed throughout my life, that in general of course it's a nebulous process as far as many are concerned. The notion of fate and spark and star crossed lovers some sort of divine compatibility and love at first sight and meant to be together is very common currency in society and with women in particular. The notion that this can be reduced to a defined process takes the romance out of it. It also makes them uncomfortable. The idea that they can be "manipulated" by their feelings. If you're not sure why you like one guy over another, the idea that someone can break that down to a cold process is gonna grate.

I would agree with one tenet of PUA that stood out for me in my perusal of the subject(it was a perusal so please correct me if I get it arseways) Asking a woman what will attract her or other women is mostly a waste of time. The usual answers like "just be yourself" while very well intentioned, are no use as a guide.

Ask the same woman why she likes one guy and not another and the answers usually boil down to "I just felt it" or "I didn't feel it". There may be what seem like good reasons behind that attached on to that, but it boils down to how she feels. It's not as many men reckon illogical either. That's BS and an excuse men trot out to make themselves feel better. It's very logical, it's just a different logic and it's more complex, more hidden and less conscious. Before I get flamed, it's a general observation. Indeed one of the best guides I ever had was a woman. She was kinda in the middle. She can run with all the "spark" stuff, but she also has an amazing capacity to break down the whys of it.

Looking back on my life and women I ended up with and women I missed out on and women who left me, there are defo patterns and clear ones too. I've been dumped by women for men who on the face of it made no sense. "Objectively" I was way ahead on points to many of these men. We were more intimate or more compatible or I was better looking with more money, any number of "reasons". Others agreed, even other women. But now I have a much better handle on the why of that. It wasnt their money, their looks or even their life situation either. Those guys were simply triggering better emotions and feelings of security and hence sexual feelings etc than I was. They were better men than me at the time for them. Simple as that. I've been in the other position too. Men that on paper were so outa my league they were playing a different game and I got the woman and they didn't.

I would also say that again in general a woman's attention, love and attraction vary more over time and are more conditional than many mens. If a woman tells me she loves me I believe her completely, but I would also be aware that it's much more "at the time" than when I would say it. It could change in a month if I don't keep my end of the bargain up. Too many men get emotionally complacent in relationships. "Shes told me she loves me, so we're grand. I'll ignore some of her issues unless we're fighting and I'll try and get through that real quickly for the quiet life". Then whammo she "suddenly" dumps him and he has no clue why. That's a major failing in men IMHO.

I do think much of this PUA stuff is interesting. It's worthy of study from a scientific point of view to see what consistent patterns exist. The beauty of it is that there are so many doing it so the sample group is huge. It's my humble that many patterns do exist. In RL I get asked for advice a lot. Have since I was a kid. I usually give good advice and can predict pretty well the outcomes. To a point where I've had people tell me I must be "psychic":rolleyes:. Now I know its because I can see these patterns better than some.

Snowie

RedXIV wrote: »

I do, personally, resent anyone who writes it off straight away without proper examination. People who do that are doing more harm to the shy guys out there than any book could.

I can see where You're coming from. But would you agree that
the shy guy syndrome comes from being shy or is it really fear of rejection?

Reason why I'm asking what I've noticed int the past is that guys
who are shy tend to hold women on pedestals and in some case's come to the point of almost infatuation, the woman would meet there wants and not there need's and due to lack of experence put them slelves into the friend zone then in some case's.

Which ultimatly sets them up for disapointed.

Is it a case of lack of experence or is it a case of fear. Personaly speaking
I was allways a very timid person now a days I'm proud to say i speak my mind, Pua's did nothing for me I had other hidden problem asociated from the past.

Which brings me to this point. if a young male adult aged 16, chances his arm for the first time and get rejected thats a pretty difficult thing to get over, Useually affects some men for life if he doesn't know how to control the fear of rejection.

heres a nice quote i just got and makes some very true points...

This perticualr man is taking about being sucessfull with woman aposed seduction.

As humans, we have these incredible minds and
bodies, but sometimes they get wired up in ways
that aren't exactly useful for the situations that
we find ourselves in. Worse, sometimes our
cultures, families, or peer groups teach us ways
of thinking that just aren't useful at all for
what we'd like to accomplish.

Here's something that I realized a few years
ago when I was learning for myself how to be
successful with women... (this bit isnt true either.) He was taught.

I thought about this idea that I was having
this instant, automatic fear in different
situations with women, and that what I was really
thinking was "I don't want to screw this up" and
"I don't want her to think that I'm a dork"...

persoanlly i think any guy can relate to this at some stage of there live's.

Kooli

Warfi wrote: »

That's so true, there's loads of self help literature for women. It seems to be more acceptable in society for women to use so called 'tricks' to get a man/keep a man/convince a man to marry her etc etc. When it's the other way around i.e. a man using self help literature to get a woman, it's viewed with suspicion.
.

I think the reason it's viewed differently is because of how the 'target' is presented.

Reading PUA literature, there isn't a lot of respect for women that comes across. And I have actually read up on it. They are essentially objectified, and greated as one homogenous group (well, except differentiated by their physical attractiveness, which is rated out of 10!)

In the articles in women's magazines, they talk about attracting a particular guy you are interested in, not 'men' in general. I think they refer to men in respectful terms and imply that the woman is emotionally invested in success with this particular man. I'm not a fan of these articles (or women's magazines in general), but they definitely don't offend me.

Thats my 2c anyway.

Warfi

Kooli wrote: »

I think the reason it's viewed differently is because of how the 'target' is presented.

Reading PUA literature, there isn't a lot of respect for women that comes across. And I have actually read up on it. They are essentially objectified, and greated as one homogenous group (well, except differentiated by their physical attractiveness, which is rated out of 10!)

I hear you. I wonder is it because the authors think all men are like this? I've heard of groups of men rating women in terms of their physical attractiveness, can't remember where I heard it. For all I know it could have been a friend telling me, or something I saw on TV, or one of those articles in women's magazines where they pretend to ask John, London, 25 and Barry, Aberdeen, 28 what they think of women!

CDfm

Warfi wrote: »

I hear you. I wonder is it because the authors think all men are like this? I've heard of groups of men rating women in terms of their physical attractiveness, can't remember where I heard it. For all I know it could have been a friend telling me, or something I saw on TV, or one of those articles in women's magazines where they pretend to ask John, London, 25 and Barry, Aberdeen, 28 what they think of women!

But I think girls can be just as cynical. I have seen groups of girls out laughing at guys.I have never seen guys rating girls -only on TV. So I would say its mostly made up and is a myth.

Read the pages of PI and you see lots of shy guys posting.

When girls go out they are usually likely to be part of a group then on their own. So if you do get guys reading up on PUA tactics to get around that and get a bit radical with self help books. I mean you get it in women magazines and websites like this http://www.marrysmart.com/

OldGoat

CDfm wrote: »

I have never seen guys rating girls

:eek: