The Pick Up Artist!

scanlas

shellyboo wrote: »

He's not debilitatingly unattractive, either. He's an average looking guy who can hold a good conversation - there is zero preventing that guy from getting a date. He doesn't need magic beans to do so.

I fail to see what's difficult, or new, or different about the way he's talking to those women. I would call that "having a conversation" with a side of "flirting". I understand that not all men are capable of this naturally, but why must the teaching of it be dressed up in manipulation, as if it's some sort of game? It gives the whole thing a bad name when really the skills being taught are normal, basic communication skills.

It's not dressed up as manipulation, people looking at this stuff from the outside just interpret it at manipulation.

It just shows that the important teachings of PUA these days can't be noticed even when you are looking for them.

He approaches women and says hello with a happy-not a care in the world tonality, most men can't do that and it takes work to get there.

He has his feet firmly planted most of the time, most men can't do that.

Listen to the pauses in his speech and shifting of tonality, he goes from more lively tonality...then pauses.... then he has a calm tonality, he does this again and again. He subtley cuts off the women at times showing dominance.

He leads the interaction at all times. He touches the two of them and makes them hold hands.

He leans back. He doesn't try to impress them. He doesn't seek rapport.

He moves around less than the women and he is less emotionally reactive than the women.

As you can see from the video the women are clearly enjoying themselves, PUA isn't the work of the devil. It's mainly about learning the good attractive habits and subcommunications that make you attractive to women.

Mehow in the video was terrible with women, now he can consistently see a group of attractive women and pull the one he wants( not every time obvously).

Herbal Deity

shellyboo wrote: »

I understand that not all men are capable of this naturally, but why must the teaching of it be dressed up in manipulation, as if it's some sort of game?

The rhetoric used is empowering to shy men with low self esteem, I disagree that it's "dressed up in manipulation", I think people just jump to negative conclusions about it without really looking into it. The idea that life is a game isn't hugely revolutionary and it's a good mindset to have, IMO. It's not really presented as a game in a "don't worry about hurting anyone" way, but in a "don't be so uptight and don't take things too seriously" and "practice makes perfect" way.

shellyboo wrote: »

It gives the whole thing a bad name when really the skills being taught are normal, basic communication skills.

"The whole thing" encompasses a huge community. Some of it is OTT to the point of being creepy - guys being OCD about developing algorithms for engineering social situations etc.

The most extreme PUAs get the most attention, but the majority of guys making use PUA techniques ad taking advice on board are just out to develop confidence and be a little more successful with women.

Snowie

Herbal Deity wrote: »

The rhetoric used is empowering to shy men with low self esteem, I disagree that it's "dressed up in manipulation", I think people just jump to negative conclusions about it without really looking into it. The idea that life is a game isn't hugely revolutionary and it's a good mindset to have, IMO. It's not really presented as a game in a "don't worry about hurting anyone" way, but in a "don't be so uptight and don't take things too seriously" and "practice makes perfect" way.


"The whole thing" encompasses a huge community. Some of it is OTT to the point of being creepy - guys being OCD about developing algorithms for engineering social situations etc.

The most extreme PUAs get the most attention, but the majority of guys making use PUA techniques ad taking advice on board are just out to develop confidence and be a little more successful with women.

More or less people are interpiting it for something its not hense the hole negitive ideals about it ?

RedXIV

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

More or less people are interpiting it for something its not hense the hole negitive ideals about it ?

Exactly. People don't actually look into it enough to gain any insight into it and as pointed out, the most ridiculous PUA's are the one getting the attention, leading to the bad reputation.

In general, just take it as a rule not to mention it to women, i've yet to meet any accepting of it

Snowie

RedXIV wrote: »

Exactly. People don't actually look into it enough to gain any insight into it and as pointed out, the most ridiculous PUA's are the one getting the attention, leading to the bad reputation.

In general, just take it as a rule not to mention it to women, i've yet to meet any accepting of it

would you like to throw up a few links to some who ar'nt so ridiculas ?

more so out of curiosity as ive only heard of the a few that could be deamed outrageous.

I think it should be braught to womens attention that not every man in the world is born with ability to talk to women some have to learn. imo.

RedXIV

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

would you like to throw up a few links to some who ar'nt so ridiculas ?

more so out of curiosity as ive only heard of the a few that could be deamed outrageous.

I think it should be braught to womens attention that not every man in the world is born with ability to talk to women some have to learn. imo.

Thats the thing, i only read two or three books, mainly the game and looked online at some stuff. What helped me the most was having a friend who was into it at the same time who was willing to try out some of the stuff. I think Wibbs is right when he says you need the right mindframe to tackle it, just learn to ignore the outrageous stuff. For example, in the game by Neil Strauss, he talks alot about certain lines and actions to "seal the deal". Thats all crap. What you want is the stuff that you can use. KNOW you're worth any woman's attention. Don't get worked up over rejection, she'll never know what she was missing.

There are some basic psychology tips which are useful, the likes of reading body language and observing subconscious behaviour but in general, ignore anything that isn't directed at you

Snowie

RedXIV wrote: »

Thats the thing, i only read two or three books, mainly the game and looked online at some stuff. What helped me the most was having a friend who was into it at the same time who was willing to try out some of the stuff. I think Wibbs is right when he says you need the right mindframe to tackle it, just learn to ignore the outrageous stuff. For example, in the game by Neil Strauss, he talks alot about certain lines and actions to "seal the deal". Thats all crap. What you want is the stuff that you can use. KNOW you're worth any woman's attention. Don't get worked up over rejection, she'll never know what she was missing.

There are some basic psychology tips which are useful, the likes of reading body language and observing subconscious behaviour but in general, ignore anything that isn't directed at you

You sorta miss understood me i ment as in any example of any not so crazy pick and have a more shall i say the satring eye to eye thing and let have a moment clap trap ....

I thought you may have read some oither bits that where less weird ...

But what you say is true man

Wibbs

shellyboo wrote: »

He's not debilitatingly unattractive, either. He's an average looking guy who can hold a good conversation - there is zero preventing that guy from getting a date. He doesn't need magic beans to do so.

I agree.

I fail to see what's difficult, or new, or different about the way he's talking to those women. I would call that "having a conversation" with a side of "flirting". I understand that not all men are capable of this naturally, but why must the teaching of it be dressed up in manipulation, as if it's some sort of game?

Well a couple of things. Many men simply have no clue in interacting with women. I mean no clue. Or if they do learn they learn how to be another woman as it were. This seems to be getting worse too from what I can see. This leaves otherwise good men out of the loop or just settling for the first women they get "lucky" with. Of course then if and when it goes tits up, they're even more devastated as they dont know why. On more than one level. This isn't good for women either.

The second thing is that I initially felt a bit ugh about the whole thing re the learning of basic social skills, mainly because I had them. I judged it on the basis of that.

Another thing is the broad gender diffs involved and IMHO the only gender diffs that do stand out for me are in the mating/dating arena. Men or a lot of men like structure. They like the idea of a system to follow. They also like to deal in absolutes more. You see this when dieting comes up. Men will usually come out with eat less move more or some breakdown of that. They don't or rarely engage with the emotional aspect of it. They reduce it to simple terms. And its not simple. Even the men who dont or appear not to, then go on about their "system" for losing wieght followed by tables of diet advice and weight training. Again ignoring the emotional aspect of it.

Then we come to romantic love. Many more women ascribe a magical aspect to it all. It was fate/love at first sight/he was the one/weak at the knees/I just knew/etc Very few men come out with that stuff by comparison. Ask a room full of women the reasons why they fell in love or were attracted and they are a lot less obvious and less aware of the actual why. They just felt it. This is why women are generally bad ones to ask for advice on attracting other women for most men.

This is not illogical as Ive said either. It's extremely logical in fact and often more accurate than men's reasons when you look objectively. IMHO women are very rapidly building a picture of a man they meet. The whole man, down to little microgestures and comparing that with the template in their head of the "right guy". This builds up rapidly until that logical process comes together and is expressed as a thought "I like him/love at first sight". Men dont do this so much or are more obvious as to the why. Hence why a lot of men poo poo love first sight and fate and all that. They just dont get it and dismiss it accordingly.

Also women "manipulate" romantic situations all the time. They're more practiced at it too. The average woman at 20 has been approached more times, than 90% of guys in their whole lives and are usually far more socially in touch than men. They just do it unconsciously or naturally in most cases in this logical process(similar with men "naturally" good at this). So anyone coming along with an A to B breakdown of the hows and whys of this will ruffle many women. It takes the romantic mystery out of it for them. It takes the "magic" away or appears to.

shellyboo

I understand that it's not the work of the devil, but PUAs have a massive PR job to do in that case. Any woman getting a vague whiff of being "played" or "picked up" in such a manner is now going to run a mile - much as the book "The Rules" got a terrible reputation, so now has PUA.


There's also an element of women as targets or prey involved in it that is seriously demeaning. Not to mention the rating system used, which is just disgusting tbh.


I admit I haven't looked into it in depth, but if a normal woman like me is so vehemently against it from having heard things about it, what hope do PUAs have of being successful in practicing it? I appreciate that it can teach men with low self-esteem valuable skills, but the base undertone that's prevalent is unsettling, and rightly puts a lot of men and women off.

scanlas

shellyboo wrote: »

I understand that it's not the work of the devil, but PUAs have a massive PR job to do in that case. Any woman getting a vague whiff of being "played" or "picked up" in such a manner is now going to run a mile - much as the book "The Rules" got a terrible reputation, so now has PUA..

It doesn't need a PR job, the industry has been growing incredibly fast over the last 10 years, that's based off of success, the companies are getting better and better at transforming men who are bad with women to men who are good or great with women. People are always going to view it in a negative light, it doesn't matter, what the best of the PUA community teaches works.

shellyboo wrote: »

There's also an element of women as targets or prey involved in it that is seriously demeaning. Not to mention the rating system used, which is just disgusting tbh.

Well first of all I wouldn't care if a woman approached me who had studied pulling men with similar jargon, techniques and ratings. I would be thankful she went to the effort to learn how to attract and flirt with me in a fun way making it mutually beneficial. If she wants to describe me as a 7 thats her judgement. If I get worked up over that it's an issue I have with my own self worth. To learn something like picking up women or anything else to the best of your ability you need to see reality as it is regardless of whether you like it or not. The fact of the matter is there are differences between how women of varying degrees of attractiveness behave, if a man wants to pretend there isn't so he can believe in his fantasy world he is shooting himself in the foot.Imagine trying to learn build muscle but not wanting to believe that you need protein to do it. You wouldn't make much progress. It's actually not demeaning, it's just men looking at the facts and finding patterns. It's not intended as an insult. As wibbs described above, the real problem women have is that it destroys the magical illusion of romance when it can be broken down.

shellyboo wrote: »

I admit I haven't looked into it in depth, but if a normal woman like me is so vehemently against it from having heard things about it, what hope do PUAs have of being successful in practicing it? I appreciate that it can teach men with low self-esteem valuable skills, but the base undertone that's prevalent is unsettling, and rightly puts a lot of men and women off.

Well PUAs have great hope practicing it as it works even if you explain to the woman what you are doing as you are doing it. Also a lot of the tactics used are similar to what women already do. A lot of it is based around getting a woman to chase you as opposed to you chasing her.

A common line women will use is "don't get any ideas, I only just met you" to get the man chasing her, that's a common type of line now that the PUA will use to get the woman chasing him. So if you have a problem with PUAs you have to have a problem with most women because they use similar tactics whether they know it or not. And that's in the woman's benefit, women become excited and intrigued when they are chasing a man. A man chasing a woman continually becomes boring. Also they learn to be non judgemental and discrete about sex which benefits women who want casual sex but don't want to be judged. It can be hard for a woman who wants casual sex to find a man who is non judgemental and discrete.

Wibbs

scanlas wrote: »

It doesn't need a PR job, the industry has been growing incredibly fast over the last 10 years, that's based off of success, the companies are getting better and better at transforming men who are bad with women to men who are good or great with women. People are always going to view it in a negative light, it doesn't matter, what the best of the PUA community teaches works.

I would partially agree. I think it has gotten successful because there is clearly a need in many men who feel left out of the loop. That need is being filled by this PUA idea. I would liken it to the slimming industry for women. There is a need, but much of it is dross and appealing to a weakness felt by many. Some of it is good advice, but picking the good stuff from the dross is increasingly difficult. It also in both cases may get people obsessed and leave them more confused than they were. IMHO there are quite a few parallels.

Well first of all I wouldn't care if a woman approached me who had studied pulling men with similar jargon, techniques and ratings. I would be thankful she went to the effort to learn how to attract and flirt with me in a fun way making it mutually beneficial. If she wants to describe me as a 7 thats her judgement. If I get worked up over that it's an issue I have with my own self worth.

Yes but IMHO that's because you're still thinking in a "male" way. You're missing a fundamental difference in many of the very gender you're "studying". Ironic considering. You have to put yourself in the other mindset and see why a woman would feel uneasy where you would not.

Herbal Deity

shellyboo wrote: »

I understand that it's not the work of the devil, but PUAs have a massive PR job to do in that case.

If it's working, why would they care?

shellyboo wrote: »

There's also an element of women as targets or prey involved in it that is seriously demeaning. Not to mention the rating system used, which is just disgusting tbh.

But women are targets to any man going out on the pull, and whether you like it or not, initial attraction is based on looks and rating members of the opposite sex out of 10 is nothing new.

I think in these two sentences, you've demonstrated exactly what Wibbs was saying above:

Wibbs wrote: »

Then we come to romantic love. Many more women ascribe a magical aspect to it all. It was fate/love at first sight/he was the one/weak at the knees/I just knew/etc Very few men come out with that stuff by comparison. Ask a room full of women the reasons why they fell in love or were attracted and they are a lot less obvious and less aware of the actual why. They just felt it. This is why women are generally bad ones to ask for advice on attracting other women for most men.

shellyboo wrote: »

I admit I haven't looked into it in depth, but if a normal woman like me is so vehemently against it from having heard things about it, what hope do PUAs have of being successful in practicing it?

Because women won't notice that the guy chatting them up is using PUA, that's the whole point. It's not like they're hoping women will think "awesome, he's using PUA, I'm going to go along with this".

shellyboo

scanlas wrote: »

Well first of all I wouldn't care if a woman approached me who had studied pulling men with similar jargon, techniques and ratings. I would be thankful she went to the effort to learn how to attract and flirt with me in a fun way making it mutually beneficial. If she wants to describe me as a 7 thats her judgement. If I get worked up over that it's an issue I have with my own self worth.

That's absolute crap. If I went around telling men that I judge them on their height, looks, pay packet and penis size and rate them as such I would be ripped apart as a shallow moneygrabbing bitch, and rightly so.

People deserve to be judged on their personality as a whole, not broken down into elements and rateable attributes. It's dehumanising and demeaning for both genders. It has nothing to do with low self-worth, I value myself more highly than to be bothered by a rating. What bothers me is being reduced to a number, no matter what that number may be. I'm more than how I look, and to target people and treat them differently on that basis is bigotry, pure and simple.

scanlas wrote: »

Imagine trying to learn build muscle but not wanting to believe that you need protein to do it. You wouldn't make much progress. It's actually not demeaning, it's just men looking at the facts and finding patterns. It's not intended as an insult. As wibbs described above, the real problem women have is that it destroys the magical illusion of romance when it can be broken down.

Whether it's intended as an insult or not, it's insulting. I have no delusions about romance, relationships are hard work and I know Mr Right isn't going to come galloping in on his white horse and throw me over his shoulder anytime soon, if ever. But there's a difference between realising that and adapting to it and being the best person you can be, and toying with people. Which is, as far as I can see, a large part of learning and practicing PUA.


People aren't things. They aren't ratings. They aren't machines, or systems, or mathematical formulas. They're not predictable. They're unique and human and they have feelings and they can get hurt. PUA seems to gloss over that fact and focus on pigeonholing both men and women into set behaviours that are not universally applicable.

scanlas wrote: »

Well PUAs have great hope practicing it as it works even if you explain to the woman what you are doing as you are doing it. Also a lot of the tactics used are similar to what women already do. A lot of it is based around getting a woman to chase you as opposed to you chasing her.

A common line women will use is "don't get any ideas, I only just met you" to get the man chasing her, that's a common type of line now that the PUA will use to get the woman chasing him. So if you have a problem with PUAs you have to have a problem with most women because they use similar tactics whether they know it or not. And that's in the woman's benefit, women become excited and intrigued when they are chasing a man. A man chasing a woman continually becomes boring. Also they learn to be non judgemental and discrete about sex which benefits women who want casual sex but don't want to be judged. It can be hard for a woman who wants casual sex to find a man who is non judgemental and discrete.

Ugh, the whole thing is just so depressing. At the end of the day, all you can do is be the best person you can be, for yourself. I accept that some of the principles in PUA help men to achieve that, I do. But this whole cultish, holier than thou attitude surrounding it completely turns me off. The good stuff involved - increasing self esteem and teaching social skills - is nothing new, it's just good advice dressed up in marketing spiel.

The bad stuff - treating women as playthings, the disparaging language, rating people based on appearance, reducing relationships to a formula - in my opinion they undermine and cancel out all that's good about PUA.

trout

shellyboo wrote: »

If I went around telling men that I judge them on their height, looks, pay packet and penis size and rate them as such I would be ripped apart as a shallow moneygrabbing bitch, and rightly so.

Hard to argue with this. That's not to say there are no shallow people, of either gender, who aren't influenced by these things.
Sadly, I think we all know people who are like this.

shellyboo wrote: »

People deserve to be judged on their personality as a whole, not broken down into elements and rateable attributes.

I'm inclined to agree ... but I don't know that most people actually do this, especially when we were young, dumb, and hormonally imbalanced.

shellyboo wrote: »

People aren't things. They aren't ratings. They aren't machines, or systems, or mathematical formulas. They're not predictable. They're unique and human and they have feelings and they can get hurt. PUA seems to gloss over that fact and focus on pigeonholing both men and women into set behaviours that are not universally applicable.

That's what I find hard to swallow about "the teachings" of PUA ... discarding a person's complexity, toying with other people ... I don't think I could do it, I'm sure I wouldn't like to be on the recieving end.

I'm not knocking it ... if it helps people with confidence or self-esteem, grand ... I just find it ever so slightly disturbing, maybe that says more about me.

Wibbs

ON the formula thing; I would be of the opinion that there are patterns, pretty consistent ones too. They're not nearly as black and white as the PUA guys claim(as they have to to build a "system"). But they are there. I could always read people of either gender pretty well, even as a child. Better than most. We're all social creatures and that takes a skillset. We notice someone lacking in that skillset and it can make us uncomfortable to be around them. It stands to reason some have a better skillset at reading people and situations.

Now looking back and thinking on this over the years, I do and have seen certain patterns. Not so much a formula though. It IS more complex than that. People are more complex than that. The PUA stuff can work as it's a sledgehammer approach to that. It'll work much more with younger women too. My issue is that they miss the complexity of this so very much

shellyboo

trout wrote: »

Hard to argue with this. That's not to say there are no shallow people, of either gender, who aren't influenced by these things.
Sadly, I think we all know people who are like this.



I'm inclined to agree ... but I don't know that most people actually do this, especially when we were young, dumb, and hormonally imbalanced.

Of course there are people like that, but there's a difference between being shallow and PROMOTING shallow.

scanlas

shellyboo wrote: »

That's absolute crap. If I went around telling men that I judge them on their height, looks, pay packet and penis size and rate them as such I would be ripped apart as a shallow moneygrabbing bitch, and rightly so..

You probably would by some but that's their problem, you are entitled to judge men however you want. If you only like men who eat exactly 15 apples a day that's up to you, no one can do anything about it.

shellyboo wrote: »

People deserve to be judged on their personality as a whole, not broken down into elements and rateable attributes. It's dehumanising and demeaning for both genders. It has nothing to do with low self-worth, I value myself more highly than to be bothered by a rating. What bothers me is being reduced to a number, no matter what that number may be. I'm more than how I look, and to target people and treat them differently on that basis is bigotry, pure and simple.

I spotted a fantasy belief in there which can cause depression, anger and frustration. You think people deserve to be judged in a certain way by other people. Other people deserve to judge people however they want so you don't deserve to be judged in any particular way. That's the reality of the situation. You can't control how people judge you. Why should you even care, there's nothing you can do about it and it doesn't really matter. I'd say that belief you have not based on reality causes you anger. The solution is to see reality as it is. It's nothing to be scared of. It's empowering not being interested in how someone judges you. Ultimately, it's none of your business what people think of you or how they choose to judge you in their own minds.

No one is saying you aren't more than a number, the number is just an estimate of the amount of attention you get from men, often an actual 10 (looks wise) behaves like a 7 because she thinks she is a 7 and vice versa. So it's not easy to predict behavours. Just because a man rates a womans looks doesn't mean that's all he is interested in. The looks rating just helps describe the scenario. Speaking to a woman who has never been chatted up is different to a woman who is chatted up 20 times every week.

shellyboo wrote: »

People aren't things. They aren't ratings. They aren't machines, or systems, or mathematical formulas. They're not predictable. They're unique and human and they have feelings and they can get hurt. PUA seems to gloss over that fact and focus on pigeonholing both men and women into set behaviours that are not universally applicable..

I'm aware that people are unique, but there are predicable patterns which can be found across men and women.

For example, although you are unique I'm fairly certain you are more likely to look up if you see 100 people looking up than just 1 person looking up.

There are universal behavours and effects of high value men which women consistently respond to. For instance not moving your head around much.

RedXIV

there are definitely patterns to be recognised and i apologise to women out there but there are some definite steps you would take in different instances. For example if you're dealing with a very shy girl in a pub, she isn't going to appreciate you paying her no attention because she wouldn't interact straight off the bat. You learn that a shy girl needs to have her personality teased out. With loud and confident girls, you change, bring it up a gear to keep up with them. and this really shouldn't be called PUA because you probably learned these skills dealing with your own friends BUT many men out there can't put two and two together.

The problem i have with shellyboo's (and not shelyboo ) ideas is that she believes we should judge on personality. As Wibbs said above, most women by 20 will have been approached more times than any guy in his life and because of that, most women are cagey enough on nights out. Thats fine and understandable but its not women displaying their TRUE personality. In fact I'd bet with any relationship, you didn't TRUELY know the other person for some time?

As regards for women running a mile when they hear this stuff, it's kinda understood that you don't tell her "i'm messing with your head to get you in bed". If you find a guy that has come up to you, been genuine, cracked a joke and asked you to dance, he may have studied PUA and you wouldn't know because he hasn't come up wearing a feather boa, repeated lines so fast that you know he has them off by heart or started straight away by playing mind games.

An awful lot of average joes that you might dismiss in a pub/club which have simply gone up to talk to you may have indeed found the courage to do that in PUA teachings and to me, thats fantastic

Herbal Deity

Attraction is shallow. Relationships are formed shallowly.

In most cases, you don't really appreciate someone's full personality until you've been with them for a few months.

It's not about undermining the complexity of people in general, it's acknowledging that when it comes to initial attraction between two people, certain behaviours or mannerisms can influence this attraction.

metaoblivia

I find the PUA thing very interesting. I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, I can understand how it would be helpful to men who have difficulty chatting up women. It reminds me of the phrase "fake it till you make it." A lot of times, if you want to develop confidence, you do have to fake it until it becomes more natural. And while I do believe that every person and situation is unique, there are certain patterns in human behavior that make one approach generally more successful than another. There's nothing wrong with a man who wants to learn a better way to talk to women. PUA breaks down those techniques using a language that the shy, introverted, linear-thinking guy can understand.

That said, as a woman, my biggest problems with the PUA community are the inherent objectification of the "targets" and the language used to describe the "conquests." I think those two things are a big part of why the community is viewed so negatively by other men and most women.

lee_

Interesting book so far, started reading last night.
Im only 40 pages in there is a bit of junk here too like using magic tricks to pick up girls, that is laughable. Maybe that crap works in the states but your average irish gal will just laugh at you.
It will be fun to use for a year or two until I get sick of womanising, my fall down in the past has been approaching random girls, I just didn't do it enough.
Im going to try avoid any girls over 27 ish too, mad for husbands the one night stands (or however long it takes to bed them) wont go down too well.

scanlas

lee_ wrote: »

Interesting book so far, started reading last night.
Im only 40 pages in there is a bit of junk here too like using magic tricks to pick up girls, that is laughable. Maybe that crap works in the states but your average irish gal will just laugh at you.
It will be fun to use for a year or two until I get sick of womanising, my fall down in the past has been approaching random girls, I just didn't do it enough.
Im going to try avoid any girls over 27 ish too, mad for husbands the one night stands (or however long it takes to bed them) wont go down too well.

That's what I would have thought too, but I now have a friend who is a magician and it's ridiculous the amount of attention he gets from women usin magic. I see it as a tool, you have to be careful not to be a dancing monkey though.

theganster

I'm not at all surprised at the negative reaction from many to some of the info here - its expected. I think that Yes, a lot of this can looked on as being sleazy, manipulative, objectifying women etc etc etc - however, that's not really fair. My take on it is that as with learning anything, you'll take the bits that you like and use them as you want. The fact is that if you find a guy (who's never read/studied of this stuff), but is naturally a real ladies man / Don Juan or whatever you want to call him - these guys basically do all this stuff naturally. That's it. They just so happen to naturally know how to attract women - they use all these various techniques etc every day without thinking about it - they do it so well its enver an issue to women - they love it. These things are just teaching guys who struggle to talk to women etc, the techniques and skills that women respond to! You are not hypnotising a girl into beeing with you against here will - you cannot do that.

It vastly deoends on the woman - but for very very good looking girls, being nice to them does not work. They are beautiful so everyone is nice to them, they want a challenge, a man who is going to 'be a Man' - it boild down to nature and the millions of years of human evolution, (most) women want their men to be in control and protect them. Women love Bad Boys. Being a sad sap who says yes to anything for any girl and is perfectly attentive, is never going to attract these girls. Treat en Mean - keep em Keen is not a well known saying my accident. Now I am in no way advocating being a bastard full time, but a little cockiness at the beginning can be enough to turn a womans interest towards her, and then later you can be more yourself, treat her like a princess and live happily ever after.

These things teach guys who have confidence issues to be more ballsey - more confident and less needy towards women - is there anything wrong with that? no women likes a spineless man. There are certain techniques which on the surface look manipulative etc but really its just understanding human nature and using it in a positive way. Beautiful women have been manipularing us men with their looks and sexuality since the Dawn of time and you do not hear us men whinging about it!!!

scanlas

theganster wrote: »

I'm not at all surprised at the negative reaction from many to some of the info here - its expected. I think that Yes, a lot of this can looked on as being sleazy, manipulative, objectifying women etc etc etc - however, that's not really fair. My take on it is that as with learning anything, you'll take the bits that you like and use them as you want. The fact is that if you find a guy (who's never read/studied of this stuff), but is naturally a real ladies man / Don Juan or whatever you want to call him - these guys basically do all this stuff naturally. That's it. They just so happen to naturally know how to attract women - they use all these various techniques etc every day without thinking about it - they do it so well its enver an issue to women - they love it. These things are just teaching guys who struggle to talk to women etc, the techniques and skills that women respond to! You are not hypnotising a girl into beeing with you against here will - you cannot do that.

It vastly deoends on the woman - but for very very good looking girls, being nice to them does not work. They are beautiful so everyone is nice to them, they want a challenge, a man who is going to 'be a Man' - it boild down to nature and the millions of years of human evolution, (most) women want their men to be in control and protect them. Women love Bad Boys. Being a sad sap who says yes to anything for any girl and is perfectly attentive, is never going to attract these girls. Treat en Mean - keep em Keen is not a well known saying my accident. Now I am in no way advocating being a bastard full time, but a little cockiness at the beginning can be enough to turn a womans interest towards her, and then later you can be more yourself, treat her like a princess and live happily ever after.

These things teach guys who have confidence issues to be more ballsey - more confident and less needy towards women - is there anything wrong with that? no women likes a spineless man. There are certain techniques which on the surface look manipulative etc but really its just understanding human nature and using it in a positive way. Beautiful women have been manipularing us men with their looks and sexuality since the Dawn of time and you do not hear us men whinging about it!!!

Agreed

cruizer101

I'm in the situation where I am terrible at approaching and chatting up women, so recently I bought 'The Game' and am a couple of chapters in.

Just a few points I'd like to raise, in the books yes women are referred to as targets and conquests, but thats not to say someone who reads the book in instantly going to start thinking of them in the same light. If thats how they viewed women before thats how they'll view women after. For my part I don't see them as such and 'The Game' isn't going to change my attitude on that.
Also, many men out there who have never gone near any of this stuff but are juts naturally good at picking up women will view them as objects too.

Whats different to a guy picking up a few pointers for chatting up women from a book, to a girl reading tips in a magazine or getting advice from another girl.
Peacocking, women do this all the time to a far greater extent and nothing is thought of it, so whats wrong with a guy doing it.

At the end of the day experience is needed but whats wrong with having a little prior help and preparation. You can't learn to drive without getting in a car, but there is no harm in reading up or watching videos to help you learn.

minidazzler

cruizer101 wrote: »

Peacocking, women do this all the time to a far greater extent and nothing is thought of it, so whats wrong with a guy doing it.

Just to say on this particular point, Peacocking is definitely a man's thing.

Women dress for other women really and dress up to fit in, peacocking is all about standing out. Something I have no problem with, I dress stupid all the time.

I still don't like the PUA mentality of seeing women as Targets, I am plenty good at picking up women without having to view them as objects.

Herbal Deity

Target != object.

Women are targets of heterosexual males, just as men are targets of heterosexual females. I don't see what the problem with the word "target" is.

Also, just because you analyse or read about analysis of human thought patterns and interactions doesn't mean you view people as less "human".

Being human doesn't mean that you're an enigma, exhibiting unique, spontaneous behaviour completely different to any other.

Snowie

minidazzler wrote: »

I still don't like the PUA mentality of seeing women as Targets, I am plenty good at picking up women without having to view them as objects.

So you've never once said oh my god, I'd love to get my claws around that ?

In my veiw women are objects untill I know them...
There objects of attraction the same way if you make your way into the ladys lounge You'le see a thread Intightled who makes you Druel:rolleyes:..

But thats ok, is it ?

So women never go out with the full intent to snog the face of a few blokes as a confidance booster?

To them those blokes are nothing more then an object that boost's confidance!

shellyboo

scanlas wrote: »

I spotted a fantasy belief in there which can cause depression, anger and frustration. You think people deserve to be judged in a certain way by other people. Other people deserve to judge people however they want so you don't deserve to be judged in any particular way. That's the reality of the situation. You can't control how people judge you. Why should you even care, there's nothing you can do about it and it doesn't really matter. I'd say that belief you have not based on reality causes you anger. The solution is to see reality as it is. It's nothing to be scared of. It's empowering not being interested in how someone judges you. Ultimately, it's none of your business what people think of you or how they choose to judge you in their own minds.

Don't try to analyse me, scanlas, please. Let's not get personal.

It is everyone's right to judge how they see fit, sure... but I personally judge someone who judges solely on looks to be shallow and not worthy of my time, and certainly not worthy of being in a relationship with.

So then, to be fooled into thinking this guy, who's looking at me and thinking "she's a 3, low-self esteem, I'll go talk to her like xyz" is actually a nice, normal and decent guy makes me angry in the extreme. It is deception, pure and simple.

Kimia

theganster wrote: »

Women love Bad Boys. Being a sad sap who says yes to anything for any girl and is perfectly attentive, is never going to attract these girls. Treat en Mean - keep em Keen is not a well known saying my accident. Now I am in no way advocating being a bastard full time, but a little cockiness at the beginning can be enough to turn a womans interest towards her, and then later you can be more yourself, treat her like a princess and live happily ever after.

I think this is absolute bull, sorry. Cockiness in any shape or form turns me right off. We're not all the same.