The Ethics of PUA

liah

PUA being, of course, Pick Up Artistry, e.g. The Game.

As a potential target of PUA, it unnerves me. Quite a lot, actually. When reading material and terms such as "HB10" (meaning, a "hot body"/girl who's a 10), "target," "k/f/#-close" (kiss/fuck/number "close," i.e. how they ended the encounter), "alpha," "beta," "negging" (insulting a girl to "validate" her), "canned openers," "prize," etc. it strikes me as relentlessly manipulative. It's like turning meeting women into a hunt, or a military strategy. To me, it seems dehumanizing, predatory, selfish, arrogant, and very, very creepy. I would absolutely hate to find out I had been the prey of a player, and frankly it's putting me off dating completely because I just don't want to take the risk.

A lot of men will claim that it teaches otherwise shy/socially inept guys how to socialize by giving them an easy, step-by-step guide to becoming confident and learning how to approach women. Personally, my view is that this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Teaching men to view women as "targets," teaching them how to deliver canned lines and how to say/do something to receive x result, teaching them to manipulate women into bed - none of these seem positive to me, and in fact can be potentially incredibly destructive to everyone the player of the game comes in contact with. It's effectively teaching these poor guys to lie about themselves and to lie to other people for momentary gratification. It's effectively teaching them that women are all the same - dumb and easy to manipulate to get sex, and that their only real purpose is sex. It seems incredibly unhealthy, as anything built on lies and dehumanization tends to be.

But enough about what I think - what are your views on the ethics of Pick Up Artistry? Do you think it's predatory, dehumanizing and manipulative, or do you think it's doing a good deed in helping shy guys build much-needed confidence?

Sleepy

I've read 'The Game' and found it quite funny tbh.

Most of what these guys call Game is what the rest of us do naturally when we're attracted to somebody only far more formulaic. It's certainly a little sleazy / desperate as most of it is effectively the "scattergun approach" to finding a sexual partner: hit on everything that moves until you find someone that's not repulsed by you.

They do tend to objectify women quite a bit in their jargon but no more so than you'd hear in a typical male locker room imho.

Have you read the book yourself? Strauss walks away from the "community" in the end, for some of the reasons you state but also because his life had become as vacuous as the women the PUA stuff worked on.

Morag

Lack of ethics I think is more of the point.
There is a difference between a system which offers to build up a person's confidence
and one which teaches a person to tear down someone else's.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Does it actually work? I don't know much about it but always thought it would be like a placebo/trick. Basically a guy thinks he can get women because of this technique so hes more confident getting women. Women like confidence.

He puts it down to the technique but it was simply that he was more confident

Though yeah its a bit creepy the terminology alright - id you read the book liah or is it online somewhere?

liah

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Does it actually work? I don't know much about it but always thought it would be like a placebo/trick. Basically a guy thinks he can get women because of this technique so hes more confident getting women. Women like confidence.

"Work" in what sense, as in work on women? Yes, it's massive in America and a lot of other places. But it seems to particularly work on American women and/or be designed to work on American women.

Reading a lot of it, I have no idea how it actually works on the girls as a lot of it just seems insanely transparent. I mean, I understand how it's meant to work in theory, but the girls have to be spectacularly dumb to fall for a lot of the canned stuff, and completely ignorant of PUA for a lot of the rest of it (and everyone's seen How I Met Your Mother/Barney..).

If you meant men, then again, I'm not sure. A lot of them claim to have learned how to be confident and feel it's given them positive results (I'm dubious, as I think it's very superficially positive). There's an IAmA interview with a well-known PUA up on reddit at the moment (an interview where you can ask questions with people you wouldn't normally encounter) which is pretty interesting.

I asked him this, take from it what you will. Whole thread here.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Though yeah its a bit creepy the terminology alright - id you read the book liah or is it online somewhere?

Haven't read the book, no, but I follow the r/seduction community on reddit out of a sort of morbid curiosity/preventative measure, so I know how a fair amount of people use it.

Sleepy

I met a couple of twins from New York when I was in Budapest who I saw succeed with the techniques they'd printed off from a website. They were handsome lads who'd probably have done okay without "game" in the first place but I think it gave them confidence (bordering on arrogance tbh) and some ice-breakers to use to get them chatting with girls in the first place.

Watching them use it, however, some of the techniques, namely the "negging" or giving backhanded compliments, did actual seem to work (granted, the girls they were talking to were quite innocent college students in their late teens / early twenties who were on an exchange program - the same girls most Irish lads do very well with by just "having the banter")

RedXIV

I read it, took alot of good things from it. I've alot of posts about it on these boards already. I hasten to point out that if you read "The Game" you'd see at the end the author chooses to leave the lifestyle having "found his way" so to speak.

I do think there is alot of good in the book mixed with the bad. There are self confidence exercises, social etiquette, and some fundamental truths which while unpopular, are surprisingly accurate.

Of course this is excessively sprinkled with alot of crap as well but if I knew someone who wanted to become more confident around women, I would point them in the Game's direction but just tell them to take it with a pinch of salt/common sense.

Sleepy

liah wrote: »

"Work" in what sense, as in work on women? Yes, it's massive in America and a lot of other places. But it seems to particularly work on American women and/or be designed to work on American women.

Reading a lot of it, I have no idea how it actually works on the girls as a lot of it just seems insanely transparent. I mean, I understand how it's meant to work in theory, but the girls have to be spectacularly dumb to fall for a lot of the canned stuff, and completely ignorant of PUA for a lot of the rest of it (and everyone's seen How I Met Your Mother/Barney..).

Then again, NLP sounds very transparent when you read some of the techniques etc. but when you watch someone like Derren Brown use them on members of the public of both sexes as part of his stage show they do seem to be incredibly powerful.

liah

RedXIV wrote: »

I read it, took alot of good things from it. I've alot of posts about it on these boards already. I hasten to point out that if you read "The Game" you'd see at the end the author chooses to leave the lifestyle having "found his way" so to speak.

Lots of people seem to trot that out, when in reality afaik Strauss has been divorced since and gone back into the Game, and the majority of people who read the book do so because they want to learn how to pick up women. There's a reason everyone's heard about the bad parts of the Game instead of the good ones - because lots of people take advantage of it and use it to get their end and ignore the ethics that may or may not be there in the end (as I said, I haven't read it).

I do think there is alot of good in the book mixed with the bad. There are self confidence exercises, social etiquette, and some fundamental truths which while unpopular, are surprisingly accurate.

Oh undoubtedly, but I don't want this thread to be about just the book, hence why I used it as an example rather than a topic-focus.

I would be very curious as to what fundamental truths you are referring to?

Of course this is excessively sprinkled with alot of crap as well but if I knew someone who wanted to become more confident around women, I would point them in the Game's direction but just tell them to take it with a pinch of salt/common sense.

Personally I'd rather help my friend build confidence without also teaching him to devalue and manipulate others, but I suppose everyone's different.

RedXIV

liah wrote: »

Lots of people seem to trot that out, when in reality afaik Strauss has been divorced since and gone back into the Game, and the majority of people who read the book do so because they want to learn how to pick up women. There's a reason everyone's heard about the bad parts of the Game instead of the good ones - because lots of people take advantage of it and use it to get their end and ignore the ethics that may or may not be there in the end (as I said, I haven't read it).

Actually I'd argue that the reason everyone is hearing the bad about the book is the apparent outrage that women are presenting to the world. Strauss has indeed gone back into the pick up community, he's extremely popular there because he doesn't go to the extreme lengths some of the others go to and does seem intent on finding a relationship.

And for someone who hasn't read the material, you've a very insistent attitude about its pretexts I'll use the same metaphor I used before. It's easier if you think of the PUA ideals as a tool. A tool by itself can do nothing. A tool in a good person's hands can do good things, likewise a tool in a bad person's hands can do bad things. The problem I have with the general moral outrage women bring about is the conviction women have that this stuff turns good people into bad, which it doesn't. It'll make good people better, and bad people worse probably but if your shy next door neighbour reads this and turns into the kind of PUA you detest, I'd bet he was never going to be an utter gentleman anyway

liah wrote: »

Oh undoubtedly, but I don't want this thread to be about just the book, hence why I used it as an example rather than a topic-focus.

I would be very curious as to what fundamental truths you are referring to?

The fundamental truths that a lot of young men fall for that teenage years generally reinforce. The fact that women are not the elusive creatures that some men make them out to be. Alot of men are simply terrified of talking to women, who they see as aloof individuals who wouldn't waste time talking to them. The truth is that most women are just as insecure as we men

liah wrote: »

Personally I'd rather help my friend build confidence without also teaching him to devalue and manipulate others, but I suppose everyone's different.

Here is where it's evident you didn't read the book Most of the self confidence stuff has nothing to do with anyone else. After all, self confidence at the expense of others would be a temporary thing whereas self confidence through yourself is longer lasting.

PUA gets a bad rep, mostly though the formulaic actions of some of the PUA fanboys, but the same self help stuff that people are seeing in completely unrelated self help books is whats usually presented.

leggo

I read it after I gave up booze and realised I'd never chatted up a girl while sober. Since I had been grand enough with women beforehand, I picked up a lot of it easily and quickly went on to teach some of it myself to BOTH men and women (never for cash...I always felt uneasy charging for people's insecurities). During that I met and interviewed Neil Strauss and had my work credited by him. We still keep in occasional touch. So I feel quite an authority on the subject.

The difference people need to understand is between the ideologies and practise of it. I am uneasy, myself, with several of the tactics and marketing that goes into it. Which is why I've never dubbed myself a PUA and actively distanced myself from the 'community' aspect of it.

Take NLP for example. Now this is a fine, reputed skill that has proven success. But you can either use it ala Derren Brown, Keith Barry etc (for entertainment purposes) or to con people out of thousands of euro by claiming to be a psychic.

In other words, there's a difference between the material itself and how it can be used.

Much of the PUA material is bang-on. It's psychologically sound and works time and again. Many of the problems with it are born out of misconceptions on people's parts (e.g. The OP's misunderstanding of negging), being threatened by it (lads who don't like the idea that other lads may know something they don't or women who don't want to feel 'tricked') or the ethically questionable marketing of some so-called 'gurus'.

In reality, the core of it is confidence building. I have watched lives change through this, simple as. Attracting the opposite sex is but a cherry on top to provoke men AND women into breaking boundaries they once thought unbreakable.

Look at the routines, for instance. People argue that they may be creepy or weird...but if you've ever told anyone a joke that wasn't 100% original you've used a 'routine'. The idea behind them is to show men that attracting women is possible by changing the script of what they say and how they say it. These will be people who are convinced they deserve to die alone. Once they use someone else's words and make progress a whole new world opens. I'll teach a routine or two, but as soon as they're ready move them onto speaking naturally. Routines are simple stabilisers before they ride the bike for real (if you'll excuse the pun).

I'm not trying to sell or convince anyone here...just put an informed, alternative viewpoint across for those who may build misconceptions based on the half-truths and misinformation of some. I share a lot of your grievances. But understand there is a difference between knowledge and how you go about using that knowledge.

SugarHigh

I don't see what's unethical about it surely it's just teaching men skills that other men have naturally? I haven't read them but maybe you're just annoyed that they work?

They sound manipulative because they are but then so is natural socializing. Isn't putting an effort to smile more to keep everyone at ease manipulative?

What comes naturally to some has to be done consciously for others I don't see whats unethical about it.

Personally, my view is that this is entirely the wrong way to go about it.

Well if their aim is to get sex and they get then I don't see how it's the wrong way to go about it.

Teaching men to view women as "targets," teaching them how to deliver canned lines and how to say/do something to receive x result, teaching them to manipulate women into bed - none of these seem positive to me, and in fact can be potentially incredibly destructive to everyone the player of the game comes in contact with.

How is it destructive to the women? They want to sleep with him. Yes they have been manipulated but anyone who is well liked is that way because they manipulate people into liking them. It's just not a conscious effort. Being likable isn't natural for a lot of people so they have to learn it. It's no less manipulative than making people laugh so they like you or learning how to make people laugh.

It's effectively teaching these poor guys to lie about themselves and to lie to other people for momentary gratification. It's effectively teaching them that women are all the same - dumb and easy to manipulate to get sex, and that their only real purpose is sex. It seems incredibly unhealthy, as anything built on lies and dehumanization tends to be.

Basically everyone lies about themselves in order to pick up the opposite sex. Everyone acts differently when they are trying to impress people, they cover their flaws and exaggerate their good points. It's self defeating not to do this in fact I'd go as far to say it would show social ineptitude to not do this.


What I do agree with you is that it dehumanizes women but that's also probably why it works. I don't think it's a good way to start a relationship but that's probably not what they're looking for. If it helps them get sex until they're naturally comfortable around women to form meaningful relationships then I don't see the harm.

liah

RedXIV wrote: »

And for someone who hasn't read the material, you've a very insistent attitude about its pretexts

You'll notice that this thread isn't about the book, it's about PUA in general, and the book was literally only an example (indicated by my use of e.g.) and NOT what the focus of the discussion should be; merely something that most people have heard of that lays out these 'rules.' That's literally it. I prefer to follow communities with people who actually use this stuff, like r/seduction, to get my opinions, rather than just be won over by some happy little "but he decided it was all vapid in the end" ending in only one source of material for a very large concept.

The fundamental truths that a lot of young men fall for that teenage years generally reinforce. The fact that women are not the elusive creatures that some men make them out to be. Alot of men are simply terrified of talking to women, who they see as aloof individuals who wouldn't waste time talking to them. The truth is that most women are just as insecure as we men

Does it not strike you as counterproductive that the community itself reinforces using terms like "HB," "target," "close," etc that clearly objectify their 'prey'? I have no problems with men realizing we shouldn't be on pedestals, in fact I very much like the idea that they're copping on, but I do have problems with replacing that worshipping/fear with arrogance/lack of consideration for the other person.

Here is where it's evident you didn't read the book Most of the self confidence stuff has nothing to do with anyone else. After all, self confidence at the expense of others would be a temporary thing whereas self confidence through yourself is longer lasting.

Again, I am not talking about the book. I am talking about the PUA community in general. Me having or not having read the book has no relevance - it was only an example so people would understand the type of thing I'm talking about. It is not my source of material and it is not where I have formed my opinions, I've formed them mostly around the r/seduction community and everything I feel towards PUA is because of the people who use it and talk about it, not from high-profile authors or books.

PUA gets a bad rep, mostly though the formulaic actions of some of the PUA fanboys, but the same self help stuff that people are seeing in completely unrelated self help books is whats usually presented.

I have as much a problem with a lot of self-help crap as I do with PUA tbh, but that's another topic for another day.

Wolfe Tone

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Does it actually work? I don't know much about it but always thought it would be like a placebo/trick. Basically a guy thinks he can get women because of this technique so hes more confident getting women. Women like confidence.

He puts it down to the technique but it was simply that he was more confident

Though yeah its a bit creepy the terminology alright - id you read the book liah or is it online somewhere?

Wouldn't be into it myself, but I know a lad who is into it a bit and got me to read the book, it's a good read. <SNIP>

Its great for the people who just don't approach women and don't know how to. It basically gives men a checklist of how to approach and talk to women, do this this this and this and you are sorted. More helpful than the "be yourself" crap that shy men or those who are unsuccessful with women are told.

Some of the lesser things are pretty practical and I took a few things away from it. A lot of it is way out there but a lot is very useful. Some of it is basic psychology which when its pointed out makes sense.

It can boost peoples confidence for sure and has its uses. We all know guys who are just naturally great with women. It takes what they do unconsciously and reduces it to a formula which they say anyone can follow.

The reason why women are so against it/scared is because it works.

Is it ethical? Yeah why not? They have the same motivations as other men, the people who use these consciously just haven't adopted the methods naturally.

Wolfe Tone

liah, do you believe even half of the crap these men post about their successes online in seduction forums with women?

Vast majority of it is exaggeration!

Does it not strike you as counterproductive that the community itself reinforces using terms like "HB," "target," "close," etc that clearly objectify their 'prey'? I have no problems with men realizing we shouldn't be on pedestals, in fact I very much like the idea that they're copping on, but I do have problems with replacing that worshipping/fear with arrogance/lack of consideration for the other person.

It purposefully objectifies women so that the man wont give a damn if he is shot down. Many men who use these techniques are the type who who fear approaching women in case they get rejected, this tactic gets them over that.

SugarHigh

Is the predator/prey thing a big deal. I agree it probably teaches men that women are prey but isn't this just natural view point men who are very successful with women have.
It's almost always up to the man to chat up the woman so it seems that if a man didn't have at least some sort of predator instinct he wouldn't be very good at it.

I think maybe you have a romanticised view of how dating works and PUA is basically the reality written down into repeatable steps. The reality conflicts with the sentimental view of two people falling for each other.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

They sound manipulative because they are but then so is natural socializing. Isn't putting an effort to smile more to keep everyone at ease manipulative?

I don't do that so I don't know.

Well if their aim is to get sex and they get then I don't see how it's the wrong way to go about it.

It's the wrong way of going about it because it fails to take into consideration that the person they're talking to probably does not want to be manipulated.

How is it destructive to the women? They want to sleep with him. Yes they have been manipulated but anyone who is well liked is that way because they manipulate people into liking them. It's just not a conscious effort. Being likable isn't natural for a lot of people so they have to learn it. It's no less manipulative than making people laugh so they like you or learning how to make people laugh.

No, they want to sleep with the image he's set up, but they don't actually want to sleep with him; he had to twist and manipulate them to get them to do so. And it's destructive because it produces a mentality that objectifies women and treats getting to know a woman as only a means to an end for sex, and I don't think this is a healthy attitude to actively promote in people.

And you honestly think that the only way people can be well-liked is if they're manipulative? You are incredibly, incredibly cynical - it's really not the case at all. People are well-liked for a very wide variety of reasons (including being a genuine, straight-forward person), and I doubt many people continue to like someone they find out has been manipulating them the whole time.

Basically everyone lies about themselves in order to pick up the opposite sex. Everyone acts differently when they are trying to impress people, they cover their flaws and exaggerate their good points. It's self defeating not to do this in fact I'd go as far to say it would show social ineptitude to not do this.

You speak for everyone, but you really shouldn't. I don't lie in order to pick up partners as I see it as completely counterproductive. I would not want people to lie to or manipulate me, so I do not do it to them. It's actually pretty easy, and much lighter on the aul' conscience.

What I do agree with you is that it dehumanizes women but that's also probably why it works. I don't think it's a good way to start a relationship but that's probably not what they're looking for. If it helps them get sex until they're naturally comfortable around women to form meaningful relationships then I don't see the harm.

But why do they feel that they're allowed to manipulate others/dehumanize others just to get laid, that's the part I don't understand. It's the lack of conscience, the lack of considering how the other person might react to finding out, after the fact, that they have been lied to all night and were just used for sex.

It's the lack of empathy it promotes that worries me.

RedXIV

liah wrote: »

You'll notice that this thread isn't about the book, it's about PUA in general, and the book was literally only an example (indicated by my use of e.g.) and NOT what the focus of the discussion should be; merely something that most people have heard of that lays out these 'rules.' That's literally it. I prefer to follow communities with people who actually use this stuff, like r/seduction, to get my opinions, rather than just be won over by some happy little "but he decided it was all vapid in the end" ending in only one source of material for a very large concept.

My apologies, generally the only source debated is the book and as such, i'm rehashing older posts

liah wrote: »

Does it not strike you as counterproductive that the community itself reinforces using terms like "HB," "target," "close," etc that clearly objectify their 'prey'? I have no problems with men realizing we shouldn't be on pedestals, in fact I very much like the idea that they're copping on, but I do have problems with replacing that worshipping/fear with arrogance/lack of consideration for the other person.

The terminology is almost all derived from one PUA known as mystery. The terminology has stuck with the community because it is its jargon. This is what it started with. The point of most of the terminology was/is to objectify the process that was involved in attracting women. Mystery believed he had created a scientific formula and he was using terms to promote this idea.

The point about replacing fear with arrogance is unfair though. I've done my time in nightclubs trying to find a nice girl and if with the amount of rejection any man gets, its hard to believe "yes but she's a decent human being". One of the major obstacles for men is the fear of rejection from someone even if it is as polite as "sorry but I have a boyfriend", the embarrassment for some is massive. It was for me when I was younger anyway you may not like it but a guy on a night out looking for a girl, is pretty much thinking "targets" anyway.

liah wrote: »

Again, I am not talking about the book. I am talking about the PUA community in general. Me having or not having read the book has no relevance - it was only an example so people would understand the type of thing I'm talking about. It is not my source of material and it is not where I have formed my opinions, I've formed them mostly around the r/seduction community and everything I feel towards PUA is because of the people who use it and talk about it, not from high-profile authors or books.

Have you actually met someone and talked to them about it? I don't mean on a forum, I mean face to face? there's a few people who do it on boards. I could give you my account, but its slightly biased as you may have already guessed

I have as much a problem with a lot of self-help crap as I do with PUA tbh, but that's another topic for another day.

Ah so you don't believe in self help stuff?

Truth is there is a massive market out there for manipulation that people have either become desensitized to or don't even realise it anymore. PUA's main belief is about putting forward the best possible version of you to increase your chances of attracting someone. Women do this by using make up, wearing revealing clothes, doing hair etc etc. There are numerous magazines aimed at women with the likes of "How to get your dream man" or "how to satisfy your man in bed" which have become so mainstream that no one notices anymore. Women have become so powerful in the attraction field that men have started to start to do things like PUA so they can keep up.

liah

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

liah, do you believe even half of the crap these men post about their successes online in seduction forums with women?

Not all, but some; I've met a fair few people who've been into it and I do know how it goes down, and I do know it happens an awful lot.

It purposefully objectifies women so that the man wont give a damn if he is shot down. Many men who use these techniques are the type who who fear approaching women in case they get rejected, this tactic gets them over that.

There's other ways to do that without objectifying women, though, and it seems like an incredibly short-sighted way of looking at it. A mentality like that "objectify them so you can feel okay," is just going to make them use that idea in every other facet of life and will lead them to just believe all women are dumb, vapid whores.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Is the predator/prey thing a big deal.

Yes. Yes, it is. I want to feel like an equal to anyone I want to have sex with, not like their prey, not like a prize, not like a target - but like a person, someone who is equal to them.

I agree it probably teaches men that women are prey but isn't this just natural view point men who are very successful with women have.

It depends on what you mean by successful. If by 'success' you mean 'get laid a lot and leave a trail of emotional destruction in your wake,' then sure, I guess. But what do you want - quantity or quality? Because all this is going to get you is quantity with absolutely no quality, and all that's going to do is further entrench the whole "women are dumb vapid whores" mindset.

I think maybe you have a romanticised view of how dating works and PUA is basically the reality written down into repeatable steps. The reality conflicts with the sentimental view of two people falling for each other.

It's the terms and language that I have the biggest problems with. There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching a guy to be confident and to stop putting women on pedestals, in fact I wish there were more options available to help them to do so. It's the tone, the vocabulary, and the type of people who are attracted to it that I have issue with.

I don't have a romanticized view of how dating works, I've dated and been in relationships before and luckily managed to avoid all this guff thus far. But I am terrified of it because there's two things I hate more than anything on the planet, and that is 1) being manipulated and 2) being disrespected, and this encompasses both those things, and sets my gender, and therefore me, as its target.

Wolfe Tone

There's other ways to do that without objectifying women, though, and it seems like an incredibly short-sighted way of looking at it. A mentality like that "objectify them so you can feel okay," is just going to make them use that idea in every other facet of life and will lead them to just believe all women are dumb, vapid whores.

Like what? You already said you don't believe in self help.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

And you honestly think that the only way people can be well-liked is if they're manipulative? You are incredibly, incredibly cynical - it's really not the case at all. People are well-liked for a very wide variety of reasons (including being a genuine, straight-forward person), and I doubt many people continue to like someone they find out has been manipulating them the whole time.

If people like you it's because you have made people like you. Persuasion is manipulation. Just because it happens naturally doesn't mean it's not manipulation.

You speak for everyone, but you really shouldn't. I don't lie in order to pick up partners as I see it as completely counterproductive. I would not want people to lie to or manipulate me, so I do not do it to them. It's actually pretty easy, and much lighter on the aul' conscience.

I don't believe you. I'm not talking about saying you earn €100,000 a year I'm just talking about putting in extra effort to be nice and stuff like that and yes I do believe everyone does this it's just a standard part of socializing. When people are around their families and people they don't want to impress they act completely differently.

But why do they feel that they're allowed to manipulate others/dehumanize others just to get laid, that's the part I don't understand. It's the lack of conscience, the lack of considering how the other person might react to finding out, after the fact, that they have been lied to all night and were just used for sex.

Why should they care? Like I said they are just doing what comes naturally to others. Some people learn these skills through their own social interactions and some people learn them through a book. I don't see what's the big deal. I don't see what's wrong with dehumanizing people.

It's the lack of empathy it promotes that worries me.

I think the fact having less empathy for women makes you more sexually successful is the worrying thing. The truth guys who can empathize with women are less successful with women.

liah

RedXIV wrote: »

The terminology is almost all derived from one PUA known as mystery. The terminology has stuck with the community because it is its jargon. This is what it started with. The point of most of the terminology was/is to objectify the process that was involved in attracting women. Mystery believed he had created a scientific formula and he was using terms to promote this idea.

Do you agree with this method of terminology?

The point about replacing fear with arrogance is unfair though. I've done my time in nightclubs trying to find a nice girl and if with the amount of rejection any man gets, its hard to believe "yes but she's a decent human being". One of the major obstacles for men is the fear of rejection from someone even if it is as polite as "sorry but I have a boyfriend", the embarrassment for some is massive. It was for me when I was younger anyway you may not like it but a guy on a night out looking for a girl, is pretty much thinking "targets" anyway.

But do you think this manner of objectification is the only solution to getting over these issues?

Have you actually met someone and talked to them about it? I don't mean on a forum, I mean face to face? there's a few people who do it on boards. I could give you my account, but its slightly biased as you may have already guessed

Yes, I have. Tbh the patterns of thought mildly disturbed me, they seemed to have no qualms with causing emotional fallout, and never really seemed to think about how the woman might feel about the whole thing, and when when I questioned them about it they more or less blew me off and chalked it up to me "not getting it because I'm a chick." Needless to say, here I am, trying to find a more constructive answer :pac:

I would be interested in hearing your accounts, and I have a question - have you ever told any of the women you used PUA on that you did, in fact, use PUA on them? Or told any women you've been out with that you've been involved in PUA in the past (if you didn't use it on them)? If so, what were their reactions?

Ah so you don't believe in self help stuff?

The majority of it is pure guff that teaches people to bulldoze over other people in order to get what they want, or teaches them to internalize so much they fail to understand the world doesn't revolve around them, or includes absolutely baffling pseudoscience that doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. I don't have much faith in the whole self help book thing, but perhaps I've just not met the right material yet.

Truth is there is a massive market out there for manipulation that people have either become desensitized to or don't even realise it anymore. PUA's main belief is about putting forward the best possible version of you to increase your chances of attracting someone. Women do this by using make up, wearing revealing clothes, doing hair etc etc. There are numerous magazines aimed at women with the likes of "How to get your dream man" or "how to satisfy your man in bed" which have become so mainstream that no one notices anymore. Women have become so powerful in the attraction field that men have started to start to do things like PUA so they can keep up.

Does it not seem counterproductive to fight fire with fire, so to speak? The fact that things like 'The Rules' or whatever exist for women seems like a pretty weak reason to get into it, too. You'd figure men wouldn't want to sink down to that level considering how much aggravation it's probably caused them.

I guess I forget about the women's side of it as I don't read women's mags or watch women's tv or anything so I have no concept of what's out there on our end. But for some reason, the women's side of it strikes me more as "wanting to please" rather than "wanting to get one over on someone," if that makes sense. Again, I've only had limited exposure, so this assumption could be pretty far off.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

There's other ways to do that without objectifying women, though, and it seems like an incredibly short-sighted way of looking at it. A mentality like that "objectify them so you can feel okay," is just going to make them use that idea in every other facet of life and will lead them to just believe all women are dumb, vapid whores.

Why should the guy care about this? If a view like that makes him better with women isn't that the sad thing? Not his problem really.

Yes. Yes, it is. I want to feel like an equal to anyone I want to have sex with, not like their prey, not like a prize, not like a target - but like a person, someone who is equal to them.

You don't have to do the approaching. If you want to just hang around someone will approach you. This won't work for a man so obviously they have to do the approaching and this viewpoint helps with that. Is psyches you up. Not everyone has to read a book to get this viewpoint of predator/prey it's pretty natural for a lot of guys.

It depends on what you mean by successful. If by 'success' you mean 'get laid a lot and leave a trail of emotional destruction in your wake,' then sure, I guess. But what do you want - quantity or quality? Because all this is going to get you is quantity with absolutely no quality, and all that's going to do is further entrench the whole "women are dumb vapid whores" mindset.

What trail of emotional destruction? The woman doesn't even know that she's been manipulated otherwise it wouldn't work. Do you think the guy explains it afterwards. As far as she's concerned it's identical to every other one night stand.

Also what are you on about quality for. Why assume you will get a lower quality woman? This also shows your belief you don't think this stuff would work on you when the truth is you can't possible know that. Maybe it has worked on you and you just weren't aware of it.

It's the terms and language that I have the biggest problems with. There's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching a guy to be confident and to stop putting women on pedestals, in fact I wish there were more options available to help them to do so. It's the tone, the vocabulary, and the type of people who are attracted to it that I have issue with.

So snobbery then?

liah

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Like what? You already said you don't believe in self help.

I don't believe in what most self-help books have to say; I don't discredit it completely though.

I guess I have a skewed perspective as I managed to overcome some serious social issues (to the point where I couldn't order fast food) completely on my own. But what helped me wasn't reading books, it was just making myself go out and do stuff I was scared of before. And I certainly didn't gain my confidence by mentally putting people on a lower scale than myself; I did it by just understanding that most people have been through the same crap I have and that I just needed to treat people how I wanted to be treated. Worked like a charm (albeit it was gradual). But I get that this doesn't work for everyone, and that some people feel they need to read a book.

Therapy seems like a much healthier solution than teaching objectification.

SugarHigh wrote: »

If people like you it's because you have made people like you. Persuasion is manipulation. Just because it happens naturally doesn't mean it's not manipulation.

I didn't "make" anyone do anything. I was just myself, and people either liked that or they didn't. I didn't lead anyone on into thinking anything about me that wasn't true. I didn't have to persuade anyone to do anything. And a lot of people are just like me in that respect. So I think you're just speaking for yourself on this one.

Also, there's a big difference between unconscious and conscious manipulation - conscious manipulation and utilizing human beings as targets is what's creepy, smiling at a girl you like because that's just the reaction you have isn't. Do you see what I mean?

It's the planning that is the manipulative part. It's the conscious decisions involved that are the problem.

I don't believe you. I'm not talking about saying you earn €100,000 a year I'm just talking about putting in extra effort to be nice and stuff like that and yes I do believe everyone does this it's just a standard part of socializing. When people are around their families and people they don't want to impress they act completely differently.

Are you talking consciously or unconsciously?

I make a point of not trying to consciously manipulate people, but I can't be held responsible for what happens without me consciously choosing to do it.

Why should they care? Like I said they are just doing what comes naturally to others. Some people learn these skills through their own social interactions and some people learn them through a book. I don't see what's the big deal. I don't see what's wrong with dehumanizing people.

Why shouldn't they care?

Again, it's not the skills I really have the problem with - it's the package the skills are coming in, as I've clarified in my posts to RedXIV.

I think the fact having less empathy for women makes you more sexually successful is the worrying thing. The truth guys who can empathize with women are less successful with women.

Of course it's the worrying thing. I don't want to be used. Why would I? Nobody feels good when they find out they've been lied to, manipulated, or used, especially after you've been in bed with that person. Morally, it strikes me as wrong to consciously do that to people. It's just the complete disregard for how the other party might feel about it.

You seem to think empathy is a bad thing or something, is that the case?

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

Why should the guy care about this? If a view like that makes him better than women isn't that the sad thing? Not his problem really.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the part in the bold. Can you clarify?

You don't have to do the approaching. If you want to just hang around someone will approach you. This won't work for a man so obviously they have to do the approaching and this viewpoint helps with that. Is psyches you up. Not everyone has to read a book to get this viewpoint of predator/prey it's pretty natural for a lot of guys.

Sounds like a cop-out tbh. Just because it's 'natural' to think of women as prey doesn't mean it's a good thing, especially in 2011, after so much fighting has been done for equality. It's perfectly 'natural' to do a lot of things that are really not valuable in this era. It sounds like something for men who don't have the maturity to be honest about their intentions to hide behind.

What trail of emotional destruction? The woman doesn't even know that she's been manipulated otherwise it wouldn't work. Do you think the guy explains it afterwards. As far as she's concerned it's identical to every other one night stand.

I've known quite a few women who've found out they were played by players and the results weren't pretty at all. Again, nobody likes being lied to or manipulated, and lies and manipulation usually get found out.

Also what are you on about quality for. Why assume you will get a lower quality woman? This also shows your belief you don't think this stuff would work on you when the truth is you can't possible know that. Maybe it has worked on you and you just weren't aware of it.

Because it's a numbers game, nine times out of ten you won't end up with the best girl of the bunch but rather the most naive of them.

I already said in the OP that it's something I'm worried about affecting me, which indicates that I do think it could work on me, but I am also very aware of the strategies used so I'd have a higher chance than most to figure out what's going on - but by no means am I saying I'm immune, if I was immune it wouldn't bother me at all, but the fact is it bothers me so much because I don't want to be manipulated and know that I probably will be, and hate it.

So snobbery then?

If you're going to start being childish like this I'm not going to bother responding to you, it's not hard to tell from the context of my posts exactly what I'm referring to. It has nothing to do with snobbery - it has to do with the fact that it perpetuates objectification, and I disagree with that for very obvious reasons.

Wolfe Tone

I don't believe in what most self-help books have to say; I don't discredit it completely though.

I guess I have a skewed perspective as I managed to overcome some serious social issues (to the point where I couldn't order fast food) completely on my own. But what helped me wasn't reading books, it was just making myself go out and do stuff I was scared of before. And I certainly didn't gain my confidence by mentally putting people on a lower scale than myself; I did it by just understanding that most people have been through the same crap I have and that I just needed to treat people how I wanted to be treated. Worked like a charm (albeit it was gradual). But I get that this doesn't work for everyone, and that some people feel they need to read a book.

Therapy seems like a much healthier solution than teaching objectification.

Thats what a lot of PUA is! It helps people to do just that, it lays it out in formulaic, bite sized chunks. An example would be to simply say hello to ten random pretty women when you are out shopping, something many men are afraid to do.

It helps them get over that hump. The other stuff evolves from the "right I've said hello, what next, tell me what to do!" It involves having interesting stuff to say, avoiding awkward silences etc etc etc

It promises success, it lays it out simply, tells you exactly what to do, it works and it is achievable.

It can really help some people.

RedXIV

liah wrote: »

Do you agree with this method of terminology?

I don't approve or disapprove of it. I merely use it to understand what they are saying. The same way when someone talks to me about my sogi in my kata is wrong in martial arts or if RAM is made of Bytes in computers. I don't approve or disapprove, I merely understand.

liah wrote: »

But do you think this manner of objectification is the only solution to getting over these issues?

Probably not, but its probably the second easiest with the over consumption of alcohol just beating it. But if I walk out in the middle of a busy street and ask someone the time, I don't want to know that the person has a degree in something, likes poetry and deep down is dying to be a doctor. I haven't the time nor the inclination to learn all this. If I were to approach a woman and she rejected me, Why would I want to validate her position when she just turned down my attention? 90% of women will tell you that they don't approach guys in night clubs, there have been various polls on boards about this. That leaves women with all the power to choose who to interact with. Your suggestion that a man should see a woman he'd like to talk to as an equal simply isn't true because a woman will get FAR more attention than a man.

Objectification might not be the answer but while woman have all the power as is the case 90% of the time, its the best alot of men can deal with.

liah wrote: »

Yes, I have. Tbh the patterns of thought mildly disturbed me, they seemed to have no qualms with causing emotional fallout, and never really seemed to think about how the woman might feel about the whole thing, and when when I questioned them about it they more or less blew me off and chalked it up to me "not getting it because I'm a chick." Needless to say, here I am, trying to find a more constructive answer :pac:

Well when I was doing it I was mainly interested in getting past the initial ice breaker, getting a conversation. I find it hard to believe, at least I hope anyway, that you will not find that as disturbing

The thing is, it IS different for a woman, and with the points I mentioned above, I hope I've illustrated some of that. Men chase, women choose to put it simply.

liah wrote: »

I would be interested in hearing your accounts, and I have a question - have you ever told any of the women you used PUA on that you did, in fact, use PUA on them? Or told any women you've been out with that you've been involved in PUA in the past (if you didn't use it on them)? If so, what were their reactions?

My partner and mother of my child (soon to be of a second aswell) knows I've read this stuff before. We've had the same arguments that you and I are having now. I'm pretty sure she's not convinced but then again, i'm also pretty sure neither are you Maybe I'm just bad at arguing. Perhaps even I'm wrong (:eek:) but either way, I wouldn't change what I learned and done. Perhaps its because you see PUA as "tricking a girl to sleep with me" and I see it as "How to be better with the opposite sex".

My partner is still with me, so either I've kept the image up or she doesn't mind But I can promise you I've never used any of the forumlas sprouting on the seduction forums.

liah wrote: »

The majority of it is pure guff that teaches people to bulldoze over other people in order to get what they want, or teaches them to internalize so much they fail to understand the world doesn't revolve around them, or includes absolutely baffling pseudoscience that doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. I don't have much faith in the whole self help book thing, but perhaps I've just not met the right material yet.

Its possible that it doesn't appeal to you because you just don't need it. I showed the game to a friend of mine who was always good with girls, unconsciously doing some of the stuff in the book and he regards it as pure rubbish so perhaps thats it?

liah wrote: »

Does it not seem counterproductive to fight fire with fire, so to speak? The fact that things like 'The Rules' or whatever exist for women seems like a pretty weak reason to get into it, too. You'd figure men wouldn't want to sink down to that level considering how much aggravation it's probably caused them.

Well thats all very well and good but I wasn't going to take the moral high ground when I wanted a relationship. Instead I learned how to make myself a better person, present myself better and use that to make my search for a partner easier. I think it's a bit unfair condemning someone who learns the rules of engagment in a nightclub when you say yourself, women are following their own set

liah wrote: »

I guess I forget about the women's side of it as I don't read women's mags or watch women's tv or anything so I have no concept of what's out there on our end. But for some reason, the women's side of it strikes me more as "wanting to please" rather than "wanting to get one over on someone," if that makes sense. Again, I've only had limited exposure, so this assumption could be pretty far off.

At least you acknowledge the women's side thats a great start! Once again though, I can't agree with the idea that its "wanting to get one over on someone" because thats not how I view it

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

I didn't "make" anyone do anything. I was just myself, and people either liked that or they didn't. I didn't lead anyone on into thinking anything about me that wasn't true. I didn't have to persuade anyone to do anything. And a lot of people are just like me in that respect. So I think you're just speaking for yourself on this one.

You don't get what I mean. Your actions decided their feelings so yes you did make them like you since you control your own actions.

Also, there's a big difference between unconscious and conscious manipulation - conscious manipulation and utilizing human beings as targets is what's creepy, smiling at a girl you like because that's just the reaction you have isn't. Do you see what I mean?

It's the planning that is the manipulative part. It's the conscious decisions involved that are the problem.

Yes there is a bid difference between conscious and unconscious manipulation but why should only those who can do it naturally get the benefits. If you can't naturally make people like you should you just live a lonely life or should you learn how to make them like you?

Yes it sounds creepy but why should the person doing it care? Should he just lead a sh1t life because you think it sounds creepy?
This clearly works for a lot of people so why should they do something else if this works.

Are you talking consciously or unconsciously?

I make a point of not trying to consciously manipulate people, but I can't be held responsible for what happens without me consciously choosing to do it.

unconsciously. Yes you can do it naturally so you get benefits. There isn't anything wrong with what you are doing so I don't why it becomes wrong when someone need to make a conscious effort to do it.

You seem to think empathy is a bad thing or something, is that the case?

When it comes to picking up with then yes. I don't want to get into a discussion about friend zones but it's normally guys who empathize with women who get put into them. They become a friend and some asexual. The truth is treating women badly isn't a bad thing if you want to have sex with them.

liah

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Thats what a lot of PUA is! It helps people to do just that, it lays it out in formulaic, bite sized chunks. An example would be to simply say hello to ten random pretty women when you are out shopping, something many men are afraid to do.

Which is something I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is the stuff like "HB," "target," "closing," "sarging," all the other lingo used to reduce the entire affair to a manipulation tactic.

It's not the premise I have a problem with, it's the presentation they chose that I find to be particularly counterproductive for anyone who wants to build genuine confidence - genuine confidence is not built by assuming people are inferior to you.

It helps them get over that hump. The other stuff evolves from the "right I've said hello, what next, tell me what to do!" It involves having interesting stuff to say, avoiding awkward silences etc etc etc

It promises success, it lays it out simply, tells you exactly what to do, it works and it is achievable.

It can really help some people.

Again, I find the idea of teaching those things to be wonderful, and agree with the majority of it. I just think the jargon, terminology and structure is poorly thought-out, and that a very large part of the PUA community uses it as a means for objectification and manipulation rather than any sort of genuine self-help/improvement.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the part in the bold. Can you clarify?

Typing error. I meant better with women not better than.

Sounds like a cop-out tbh. Just because it's 'natural' to think of women as prey doesn't mean it's a good thing, especially in 2011, after so much fighting has been done for equality. It's perfectly 'natural' to do a lot of things that are really not valuable in this era. It sounds like something for men who don't have the maturity to be honest about their intentions to hide behind.

It's a good thing in terms of achieving the aim of getting her into bed. I don't see maturity has to do with it. If they were honest about their intention they wouldn't get anywhere. Being honest is self defeating.

I've known quite a few women who've found out they were played by players and the results weren't pretty at all. Again, nobody likes being lied to or manipulated, and lies and manipulation usually get found out.

How do you know they usually get found out. It's impossible to measure the ones that don't get found out.

Because it's a numbers game, nine times out of ten you won't end up with the best girl of the bunch but rather the most naive of them.

Says you. I think the most skilled at picking up women is going to get the best women. I this books makes you better at picking up with women I don't see why quality would go down. They want the hottest girl why would they care if she's naive? How does that make her lower quality.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

I think the jargon, terminology and structure is poorly thought-out, and that a very large part of the PUA community uses it as a means for objectification and manipulation rather than any sort of genuine self-help/improvement.

What you consider to be self-help/improvement probably differs to theirs.

They wan't help being better with women so from their perspective it does help and improve them. Just because it doesn't promote the characteristics you like that doesn't mean they haven't been improved.

liah

RedXIV wrote: »

Probably not, but its probably the second easiest with the over consumption of alcohol just beating it.

I'm not sure 'easiest' is 'healthiest' tbh.

But if I walk out in the middle of a busy street and ask someone the time, I don't want to know that the person has a degree in something, likes poetry and deep down is dying to be a doctor. I haven't the time nor the inclination to learn all this.

I think spending an evening with someone and asking them the time are kind of incomparable here. I'm not asking guys to learn the girls' life stories, but a different perspective than "sex target, LOCK ON!" would be nice. I think it would be much more valuable to teach people how to learn to enjoy other people's company without seeing them as a target, as that's nearly as effective for getting laid as playing a scripted game and much more ethically sound.

That leaves women with all the power to choose who to interact with. Your suggestion that a man should see a woman he'd like to talk to as an equal simply isn't true because a woman will get FAR more attention than a man.

I'm not sure how that follows, can you clarify? Women should be seen as inferior because other guys give them more attention?

Objectification might not be the answer but while woman have all the power as is the case 90% of the time, its the best alot of men can deal with.

Unfortunate but understandable I guess.

Well when I was doing it I was mainly interested in getting past the initial ice breaker, getting a conversation. I find it hard to believe, at least I hope anyway, that you will not find that as disturbing

Nah, I get that - it's just, when I see hundreds of men on reddit sharing the exact same lines with one another and sharing detailed reports of how exactly it worked it gets a little.. unnerving, I'm sure you can understand how one would find that disturbing?

When I read them, I can't help but think how the woman would feel if she ever found out about it - I know I would be infuriated.

The thing is, it IS different for a woman, and with the points I mentioned above, I hope I've illustrated some of that. Men chase, women choose to put it simply.

It's becoming less different, women are starting to approach men, too. And I think you've got a bit of 'grass is greener' in this one - it's just as nervewracking to be the chooser, believe me.

But I can promise you I've never used any of the forumlas sprouting on the seduction forums.

Fair enough.

Well thats all very well and good but I wasn't going to take the moral high ground when I wanted a relationship. Instead I learned how to make myself a better person, present myself better and use that to make my search for a partner easier. I think it's a bit unfair condemning someone who learns the rules of engagment in a nightclub when you say yourself, women are following their own set.

And I'd condemn those women too! Believe me.

At least you acknowledge the women's side thats a great start! Once again though, I can't agree with the idea that its "wanting to get one over on someone" because thats not how I view it

It's how it comes across from the PUA material that's floating around out there, it's a pretty popular position. Maybe it's just a fundamental difference in male/female brains, I don't know.

SugarHigh wrote: »

You don't get what I mean. Your actions decided their feelings so yes you did make them like you since you control your own actions.

They decide their feelings about my actions, not the other way around.

Yes there is a bid difference between conscious and unconscious manipulation but why should only those who can do it naturally get the benefits. If you can't naturally make people like you should you just live a lonely life or should you learn how to make them like you?

Again, I have no problem with teaching people confidence. I have problems with considering women "targets" and using numbers as identifiers/descriptors and turning the entire thing into a strategy, just as many men have problems with women who follow The Rules - nobody likes being manipulated.

Yes it sounds creepy but why should the person doing it care? Should he just lead a sh1t life because you think it sounds creepy?
This clearly works for a lot of people so why should they do something else if this works.

I'd like to think most people worth knowing would care about the effect they have on other people through their actions, and I'd like to think most people don't go out with the intent to manipulate others because they want to get momentary sexual gratification. Unfortunately what I'd like to think is probably completely wrong.

I don't think he should lead a **** life because I think it sounds creepy - as I've stated many times over in the thread, it's not the confidence-building I've a problem with, it's the manner in which it's put across and the tone of the text that enforces a lack of empathy and dehumanization, which are not healthy (noted by the fact that these are notorious traits of sociopaths).

unconsciously. Yes you can do it naturally so you get benefits. There isn't anything wrong with what you are doing so I don't why it becomes wrong when someone need to make a conscious effort to do it.

It's like the difference between accidentally hitting a kid who runs out in front of your car, and waiting for the kid to run into the street so you can run them over.

There's something inherently sinister about knowing manipulation because it means the manipulator has no respect for the person they're manipulating, no consideration for the feelings of the person they're manipulating, etc. Lack of empathy is not a sign of a good or mentally healthy person, anyway.

When it comes to picking up with then yes. I don't want to get into a discussion about friend zones but it's normally guys who empathize with women who get put into them. They become a friend and some asexual. The truth is treating women badly isn't a bad thing if you want to have sex with them.

Not how the friendzone thing works. The friendzone thing happens because they want to manipulate you into liking them. And that's exactly why it fails so often - a guy becomes a girl's friend because he wants to make her love him by showing her how nice he is so he can eventually have sex with her. You know why it doesn't work? Because it's manipulative and creepy.

Treating women badly isn't a bad thing FOR YOU if you want to have sex with them, sure - if you have literally no conscience and value getting laid over valuing and respecting someone as a person and don't mind people thinking of you as vaguely sociopathic. But I would be very wary of someone who was selfish enough to think that they can go around manipulating whoever they want because they feel entitled to a bit of totty, and I certainly wouldn't be able to keep on a friend like that, because I wouldn't be able to respect how they view other human beings.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

It's a good thing in terms of achieving the aim of getting her into bed. I don't see maturity has to do with it. If they were honest about their intention they wouldn't get anywhere. Being honest is self defeating.

That is an incredibly depressing way of looking at things. Being honest has done me well and allowed me to forge insanely close friendships and not have to put up with people I'm not suited to, ever - all lying ever did for me was make people pissed off and not want to be around once the truth came out, and the only friends I had were fake ones that I couldn't share anything with at all.

I'm much, much, much happier just being honest about who I am and what I want than I ever was when I was a manipulative little bitch.

How do you know they usually get found out. It's impossible to measure the ones that don't get found out.

People are careless and make mistakes, 9/10 the truth comes out.

Says you. I think the most skilled at picking up women is going to get the best women. I this books makes you better at picking up with women I don't see why quality would go down. They want the hottest girl why would they care if she's naive? How does that make her lower quality.

By 'quality vs. quantity,' I mean the type of women they're picking up probably will be hot, sure, but they're not going to be the type of women you'd want to spend a lot of time with. Which is obviously not the aim for a lot of guys, but that's not the point - what it results in is a bitter and incredibly jaded view on women, as after enough of the numbers game and the manipulation tactics and naive prey, they're going to start thinking that sex is all there is to women and that they're not good for much else. It's a mentality I've seen a lot of since the PUA thing started to gain publicity and it scares the crap out of me.

leggo

I'm sorry if I've missed something here, in work on the phone so just skimming.

OP your problems are with the terms, and I get that, I agree that they're not the best. If I ever heard someone saying 'HB' or 'Hot Babe' myself I'd shoot them in the face on general principle. But they are just that: terms. It doesn't change the fact that 95% of guys who practise it go into it for very simple reasons: to get a girlfriend, to pull better looking women or, as was my case, to not need to get twisted to meet a girl.

And you hate manipulative and disrespectful people. I'm with you there too. I hate them: big manipulatin' eyes on them. But believe it or not, there are manipulative people everywhere! They're not just confined to one online community! That last bloke you slept with mightn't have really wanted to know the time when he first approached you!

I can see from your posts that you haven't done your full homework here. If you had, you'd see that PUA in it's purest form is just an option for guys who want to improve in some shape or form. That's it. What they do with the information gleamed from it isn't down to the practise itself but to their own personal character.

liah

leggo wrote: »

I'm sorry if I've missed something here, in work on the phone so just skimming.

OP your problems are with the terms, and I get that, I agree that they're not the best. If I ever heard someone saying 'HB' or 'Hot Babe' myself I'd shoot them in the face on general principle. But they are just that: terms. It doesn't change the fact that 95% of guys who practise it go into it for very simple reasons: to get a girlfriend, to pull better looking women or, as was my case, to not need to get twisted to meet a girl.

And you hate manipulative and disrespectful people. I'm with you there too. I hate them: big manipulatin' eyes on them. But believe it or not, there are manipulative people everywhere! They're not just confined to one online community! That last bloke you slept with mightn't have really wanted to know the time when he first approached you!

I can see from your posts that you haven't done your full homework here. If you had, you'd see that PUA in it's purest form is just an option for guys who want to improve in some shape or form. That's it. What they do with the information gleamed from it isn't down to the practise itself but to their own personal character.

You haven't read my posts very well then, as I've specified a few times now that I'm not talking about specific books or material, but rather how people handle PUA individually in real life.

I think the practise has something to answer for - as I've also stated multiple times throughout the thread I have no problem with the concept of helping men gain confidence. I really, genuinely don't. What I do have a problem with is how it's presented and the type of message that presentation sends out.

It's not what it does for men that I have the problem with. It's the way that it encourages men to view women that's the main issue. There is a difference, quite a big one. All of the stuff in PUA can be taught without requiring you to make yourself out to be better than the women, or requiring you to lie or manipulate, or to view women as 'prizes' to be won in a 'game.' Do you see the difference?

And yeah, I know there's manipulative people everywhere. And I do my best not to let myself get used by them by arming myself with knowledge like this. Doesn't mean it makes it right or something to encourage though.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

That is an incredibly depressing way of looking at things. Being honest has done me well and allowed me to forge insanely close friendships and not have to put up with people I'm not suited to, ever - all lying ever did for me was make people pissed off and not want to be around once the truth came out, and the only friends I had were fake ones that I couldn't share anything with at all.

I'm much, much, much happier just being honest about who I am and what I want than I ever was when I was a manipulative little bitch.

That's fine for you but what about people who just aren't naturally likable. People who will evoke negative reactions in others if they be themselves. They need to fake a different personality just to get on with people.

People are careless and make mistakes, 9/10 the truth comes out.

So basically you will only be able to catch the bad players.

By 'quality vs. quantity,' I mean the type of women they're picking up probably will be hot, sure, but they're not going to be the type of women you'd want to spend a lot of time with. Which is obviously not the aim for a lot of guys, but that's not the point - what it results in is a bitter and incredibly jaded view on women, as after enough of the numbers game and the manipulation tactics and naive prey, they're going to start thinking that sex is all there is to women and that they're not good for much else. It's a mentality I've seen a lot of since the PUA thing started to gain publicity and it scares the crap out of me.

I don't think there is only a certain type of woman that this stuff works on. You said yourself it could work on you and yet you've studied so you aren't naive. I don't see how their view of women is bitter, it's obviously negative but how is it bitter?

Also I don't see why only viewing women as sex objects is bad for them if that's all they want. Obviously it's bad for women but why should he care?

I don't see why he should put other peoples happiness ahead of his.

leggo

The concepts you refer to do not encourage men to see themselves as better than women. Just equal. Hence the 'needing confidence' part that is core to its existence.

And as for being viewed as the 'prize'? Surely you'd love to be seen as a prize by a boyfriend, i.e. Something worth fighting for. If you perceive that as being a sexual conquest...take that up with individuals and not the practise as a whole.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

It's not what it does for men that I have the problem with. It's the way that it encourages men to view women that's the main issue. There is a difference, quite a big one. All of the stuff in PUA can be taught without requiring you to make yourself out to be better than the women, or requiring you to lie or manipulate, or to view women as 'prizes' to be won in a 'game.' Do you see the difference?

But it's this attitude of thinking your better than women that makes it work. I think the guy who looks down on women will do better than the guy who treats them as an equal. PUA basically demonstrates this.

SugarHigh

leggo wrote: »

The concepts you refer to do not encourage men to see themselves as better than women. Just equal. Hence the 'needing confidence' part that is core to its existence.

And as for being viewed as the 'prize'? Surely you'd love to be seen as a prize by a boyfriend, i.e. Something worth fighting for. If you perceive that as being a sexual conquest...take that up with individuals and not the practise as a whole.

Nah I definitely think it promotes the denigration of women. That's why it works.

PUA is clearly bad for women but good for men. Liah you keep claiming it's unhealthy but haven't really backed that up. From what I can gather these guys lives get improved by being able to pick up women.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

That's fine for you but what about people who just aren't naturally likable. People who will evoke negative reactions in others if they be themselves. They need to fake a different personality just to get on with people.

They shouldn't have to fake it, though. They should want to learn how to improve their social skills, and build towards them, but faking it is unhealthy and will only result in unhappiness when all is said and done.

I don't think there is only a certain type of woman that this stuff works on. You said yourself it could work on you and yet you've studied so you aren't naive. I don't see how their view of women is bitter, it's obviously negative but how is it bitter?

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I don't know.

It's bitter because they probably turned to stuff like this in the first place because they were mad at girls for turning them down. A lot of guys who use it tend to be very bitter when talking about women which just complicates the negativity.

Also I don't see why only viewing women as sex objects is bad for them if that's all they want. Obviously it's bad for women but why should he care?

If that's what they actually wanted from him, then why did he require PUA to get it?

He should care because normal, healthy human beings don't typically dehumanize other human beings. People who don't give a crap what they do to other humans are usually not healthy people (whether they recognize that or not is another thing entirely).

I don't see why he should put other peoples happiness ahead of his.

And I don't see why he should put his happiness above other people's. When your happiness has the chance to potentially hurt someone else (as most people are when they find out they've been used), that's when it gets into 'wrong' territory. Particularly when you have no conscience about the acts.

leggo wrote: »

The concepts you refer to do not encourage men to see themselves as better than women. Just equal. Hence the 'needing confidence' part that is core to its existence.

They do through the terminology.

And as for being viewed as the 'prize'? Surely you'd love to be seen as a prize by a boyfriend, i.e. Something worth fighting for. If you perceive that as being a sexual conquest...take that up with individuals and not the practise as a whole.

Sorry, no, I really wouldn't! I'd much rather be seen as a person with actual thoughts to offer up than some trinket to be won or fought over. I don't find that notion particularly appealing at all.

leggo

SugarHigh wrote: »

Nah I definitely think it promotes the denigration of women. That's why it works.

PUA is clearly bad for women but good for men. Liah you keep claiming it's unhealthy but haven't really backed that up. From what I can gather these guys lives get improved by being able to pick up women.

Nah see I disagree there.

The information is only there as a guide to help men meet partners. How is meeting a partner bad for women?

I go back to NLP. It can be used for harmless entertainment, self-improvement or trickery or deception. Didn't the great Einstein create the scientific tools that led to the Atomic Bomb and death of thousands? Does that make him a murderer?

Do you blame person who uses the information or the information itself for existing?

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

Nah I definitely think it promotes the denigration of women. That's why it works.

PUA is clearly bad for women but good for men. Liah you keep claiming it's unhealthy but haven't really backed that up. From what I can gather these guys lives get improved by being able to pick up women.

Unhealthy from a psychological perspective. I seriously think that the lack of empathy required for a lot of what PUA entails is indicative of some serious issues the person has, more than likely deeply rooted in insecurity.

Their lives may superficially improve but their attitude towards fellow members of the human race is certainly not a healthy one, by any stretch of the imagination. It's like how I'm sure the WBC's views are great for them, but I still think they're awful people for the message they send out. I wouldn't stop them doing it, but I will vehemently disagree with what they're doing from a moral perspective.

It should be noted that lack of empathy or guilt when manipulating or deceiving others is correlated with sociopathy and other mental disorders. I'm not saying that the guys who use PUA are sociopaths by any means, but that questions such as "why should I care that I may potentially hurt someone" are vaguely sociopathic in nature. Hence why it's seen as "bad."

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

They shouldn't have to fake it, though. They should want to learn how to improve their social skills, and build towards them, but faking it is unhealthy and will only result in unhappiness when all is said and done.

Learning social skills involves faking things you don't do naturally. Someone who understands social situations has to teach you how to act.

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. I don't know.

It's bitter because they probably turned to stuff like this in the first place because they were mad at girls for turning them down. A lot of guys who use it tend to be very bitter when talking about women which just complicates the negativity.

If they are bitter because they get rejected than surely PUA will make them less bitter?

If that's what they actually wanted from him, then why did he require PUA to get it?

What?

He should care because normal, healthy human beings don't typically dehumanize other human beings. People who don't give a crap what they do to other humans are usually not healthy people (whether they recognize that or not is another thing entirely).

This is just your opinion of what a healthy person is. If treating people like **** makes you happy, why stop?

And I don't see why he should put his happiness above other people's. When your happiness has the chance to potentially hurt someone else (as most people are when they find out they've been used), that's when it gets into 'wrong' territory. Particularly when you have no conscience about the acts.

Of course you should put your happiness above everyone else's. Don't even deny you do this everyone does. Your happiness often has the chance to hurt people so big deal? If one guy get's a job over another his happiness hurts the other guy. If a girl turns down a guy for another one her happiness and the guys she chose happiness is negatively impacting the one didn't get chosen.

You are constantly making other people unhappy whether you like it or not.Obviously you are going to justify your own actions and these guys will justify theirs.


Maybe he does PUA to turn the tide, he's just putting himself first because otherwise he will be miserable.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

But it's this attitude of thinking your better than women that makes it work. I think the guy who looks down on women will do better than the guy who treats them as an equal. PUA basically demonstrates this.

Yes, they will do better at sleeping with lots of hot women, but at what cost?

At the cost of manipulating woman after woman, at the cost of potentially hurting woman after woman if they find out they've been manipulated, at the cost of viewing an entire gender as nothing more than sex objects, at the cost of becoming insipidly arrogant, at the cost of making women everywhere even more distrustful of men's motives and therefore making it harder on the genuine men who don't use this stuff because now they have to convince us they're not lying, at the potential cost of their own mental health, at the potential cost of probably not being able to forge an actual meaningful relationship with a girl because he's been treating them as objects for so long?

Is it really worth it, just to get sexual gratification?

strobe

I think it depends. If your goal is to find girls with insecurities, use these to get them into bed and then blank them next time they speak to you then obviously that isn't a very nice way to behave.

I only really heard about this stuff 'The Game', PUA, all of that stuff about two years ago. A lad I was living with got mad into it and used to be singing it's praises to me. So I had a read of some of the stuff he gave me. It was mostly stuff I'd picked up through my teenage years (like lots of people did) through 'osmosis' without realising it.

So many people, male and female do this stuff too, all the time. They just aren't aware they are doing it. I've seen girls coming onto guys using 'negging' (which seems to be one of the things which most 'disturb' people) several times. I'm sure they would call it 'playful teasing' or something like that and have never read 'The Game' or anything similar but 'negging' is exactly what they were doing.

I think motivation would be the main factor here in terms of the ethical question. See my first paragraph:

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

Unhealthy from a psychological perspective. I seriously think that the lack of empathy required for a lot of what PUA entails is indicative of some serious issues the person has, more than likely deeply rooted in insecurity.

You're really not qualified to make any of these assertions. Internet psychologists blame everything on insecurity but maybe you're right. Maybe they have less empathy for women because women normally treat them like crap? PUA turns the tables. If you approach a woman who doesn't like she won't have any problem cutting you down.

Their lives may superficially improve but their attitude towards fellow members of the human race is certainly not a healthy one, by any stretch of the imagination. It's like how I'm sure the WBC's views are great for them, but I still think they're awful people for the message they send out. I wouldn't stop them doing it, but I will vehemently disagree with what they're doing from a moral perspective.

What does WBC mean?
IF the guys views are good for them then how is it unhealthy for them? You're just claiming things are unhealthy when you really aren't qualified to do so.

It should be noted that lack of empathy or guilt when manipulating or deceiving others is correlated with sociopathy and other mental disorders. I'm not saying that the guys who use PUA are sociopaths by any means, but that questions such as "why should I care that I may potentially hurt someone" are vaguely sociopathic in nature. Hence why it's seen as "bad."

Having traits that are also shared by sociopaths isn't indicative that someone is mentally unhealthy. Again, you really aren't qualified to assess this from a psychological viewpoint. Reading wikipedia isn't an education.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

Yes, they will do better at sleeping with lots of hot women, but at what cost?

At the cost of manipulating woman after woman, at the cost of potentially hurting woman after woman if they find out they've been manipulated, at the cost of viewing an entire gender as nothing more than sex objects, at the cost of becoming insipidly arrogant, at the cost of making women everywhere even more distrustful of men's motives and therefore making it harder on the genuine men who don't use this stuff because now they have to convince us they're not lying, at the potential cost of their own mental health, at the potential cost of probably not being able to forge an actual meaningful relationship with a girl because he's been treating them as objects for so long?

Is it really worth it, just to get sexual gratification?

If that's all they want from women than yes it is worth. I'm not sure if it will prevent them from having meaningful relationships for ever. I see it as a stage they go through.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

Learning social skills involves faking things you don't do naturally. Someone who understands social situations has to teach you how to act.

And as I've stated repeatedly, that's not the part of it I have the problem with. There's nothing wrong with learning how to socialize. There is something wrong with dehumanizing an entire gender to learn how to socialize.

If they are bitter because they get rejected than surely PUA will make them less bitter?

Doubtful. They'll just come to resent women more over time because they're told that they shouldn't see them as anything more than objects to have sex with, so anything else a woman does that isn't sex-related is likely to annoy them (seen examples of this, it's really not pretty..).

What?

This is just your opinion of what a healthy person is. If treating people like **** makes you happy, why stop?

Because it's ****ing with other people's heads. Would you want someone to **** with your head for their own fun? Using you like an unknowing puppet? I seriously fecking doubt it. It comes down to the basic tenet of 'treat people the way you would like to be treated.'

People who have the "if treating people like **** makes you happy, why stop" mentality don't have friends for very long and end up isolated and alone, because while they may win people over with their superficial charm for awhile, people will cop on, and the person with that attitude will be left alone, probably growing more resentful and bitter by the day.

And it's not my opinion of what a healthy person is, it's pretty much the standard for what people consider to be of healthy mind.

Of course you should put your happiness above everyone else's. Don't even deny you do this everyone does. Your happiness often has the chance to hurt people so big deal? If one guy get's a job over another his happiness hurts the other guy. If a girl turns down a guy for another one her happiness and the guys she chose happiness is negatively impacting the one didn't get chosen.

I will never, ever make the conscious decision to choose my own happiness when that choice means dehumanizing another person or has the potential to cause hurt. I just won't. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I knowingly screwed over someone else.

Yes, everyone's selfish now and again, but most people aren't selfish to the extent that they will purposely put other people in their line of fire.

You are constantly making other people unhappy whether you like it or not.Obviously you are going to justify your own actions and these guys will justify theirs.

Probably, but never purposely or consciously, unlike PUA who presumably know that the women don't want to be manipulated yet do it anyway.

Maybe he does PUA to turn the tide, he's just putting himself first because otherwise he will be miserable.

Maybe he should find a way to make himself happy that doesn't require potentially making other people miserable.

SugarHigh

strobe wrote: »

It was mostly stuff I'd picked up through my teenage years (like lots of people did) through 'osmosis' without realising it.

So many people, male and female do this stuff too, all the time. They just aren't aware they are doing it. I've seen girls coming onto guys using 'negging' (which seems to be one of the things which most 'disturb' people) several times. I'm sure they would call it 'playful teasing' or something like that and have never read 'The Game' or anything similar but 'negging' is exactly what they were doing.

Exactly. I still don't understand why it's ok to do this stuff naturally and not when it's planned. It obviously works so why should it only be available to those with social skills naturally? Not everyone picks this stuff up naturally maybe due to social isolation or whatever.

Some people have natural strategies others have to study them. The people who this naturally probably don't even realise what they're doing.

Valmont

liah wrote: »

Personally, my view is that this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Teaching men to view women as "targets," teaching them how to deliver canned lines and how to say/do something to receive x result, teaching them to manipulate women into bed - none of these seem positive to me, and in fact can be potentially incredibly destructive to everyone the player of the game comes in contact with. It's effectively teaching these poor guys to lie about themselves and to lie to other people for momentary gratification. It's effectively teaching them that women are all the same - dumb and easy to manipulate to get sex, and that their only real purpose is sex. It seems incredibly unhealthy, as anything built on lies and dehumanization tends to be.

PUA is quite a big and growing field; just look at the number of books that have been published on the subject since The Game was released. I think you have it wrong though, a large swathe of the literature actively discourages the negative behaviours you list above. What you are getting it is just one of the more malign schools of thought on the subject.