The Ethics of PUA

liah

leggo wrote: »

I'm not being intentionally disrespectful (and apologies if you take it that way). But you're clearly lying to yourself here. The bolded bits all have one recurring theme "I don't want to be a victim of this."

Yeah. And I said that. A lot of times.

That's fine, and understandable, but you seem to be rejecting the idea that has been offered that you would not be considered a 'victim' by anyone but yourself in this case.

I don't care who else thinks of me/doesn't think of me as a victim. I do care how I feel about myself. And I would not feel good about finding out I'd been manipulated or lied to by the type of PUAs who aren't exactly savoury. What is so horrible about saying that? How does me saying that make it clear that I don't know what I'm talking about, when it's clear that I'm talking about a very particular subset of the PUA community that I have personally encountered?

Please just leave the thread. You are not adding anything constructive to the debate and are just making me repeat myself despite me telling you many, many times that I am just not interested in engaging with you.

'The Game' isn't about you or any other women. It is about changing the way a man communicates with women to allow him to showcase his real personality in the best possible light. In other words, just because he's shy doesn't make him boring or undeserved of her attention. And the idea is to right that wrong. Whether you agree with how he gets from A to B or not, it has a great success rate. And one I'd happily explain to you if you listened yourself. But you've made up your mind before you even know the full facts.

This proves 100% that you are not reading my posts, I have never said anything to the contrary.

If anything, I'm trying to reassure you here. But if you're going to ignore clear and concise attempts to do so, then there's not much anyone can do to qualm your worries, is there?

No, you just want to get the last word in and frustrate me by forcing myself to repeat myself over and over and over and over because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that I have addressed every single thing in your post at least 10 times. You are finding problems where there are none.

Just leave me the frick alone already, I don't want to repeat myself any more.

SugarHigh wrote: »

To expand upon the idea of dragging down their view of women. I don't it
possible take women of their perch and view them as equals in one step. The only way to knock women off that mental perch is to find ways to look down on them. Doing this actually allows you to form relationships which
Previously you weren't able to do. Hopefully these relationships will elevate your view of women up to equal status.

So I just view looking down on women as a necessary stage in knocking
Women off their perch and viewing them as equals.

I think stuff like this probably happens
Naturally for most guys even with
PUA.

Fair enough. I don't agree that that's a good way to do it, but I understand it, at least. Just wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of their advances.

liah

Taking a break for the night (1am here), will return to the thread to respond to you Wolfe_Tone (given me a fair bit of food for thought there) and anyone other than leggo who replies after this.

Thanks to the folk who managed to keep it respectful. It's been an enlightening evening.

SugarHigh

Liah I think you are letting your own experience cloud your judgement. All your story really told was that you didn't lack empathy you were just immature at the time. I think it's kind of like someone with mild non medical depression who manages to snap out of it thinking that someone with a serious depression can do the same.
It's not just about treating people poorly it's about genuinely not knowing how to be nice. I've tried to be nice and it's just not something I can do. There is a lot of stuff in social interaction that simply doesn't make sense if you don't have empathy.

I don't buy into the idea that you should keep searching for people to accept you. I actually think the Internet has done a great disservice to social groups because you can now surround yourself with people just like you. Now matter how obscure your interests you will find a group on the Internet that's into it.

I don't want to be surrounded by people just like because I don't see what there is to gain in being around people just like you. I'd a group of people where no one is even slightly similar. That way there is actually somthing to be gained from talking to them. The only way I can meet different people and not piss them off is to fake a personality. My own personality is too limiting in social situations.

Careful Now

Sometimes I wonder why the sky is blue.

strobe

(You're replying to everyone's posts here Liah and it looks exhausting, so don't feel obligated to reply to mine.)

liah wrote: »

I think a lot of guys underestimate how intimidating it can actually be.

I'm sure a lot of guys do but I don't think that means women can just throw out blanket 'your not a woman you wouldn't understand' comments as an argument. It's not an argument, it's a dismissal.

I think I can easily imagine how intimidating it could be for some women.

Okay, I worded that poorly.

It's not that I have a problem with men trying to get women into bed per se. I do have a problem when that's the only reason they're talking to a woman at all. Does that make sense?

Like.. if there were two scenarios, and imagine both are one night stands:

1) a guy runs game on a girl for the sole purpose of having sex and just puts up with her talking to be able to get to the goal and has sex with her, or
2) a guy chats up a girl he finds attractive using game and just enjoys the night with no expectations, and they happen to fall into bed together.

Scenario 1 creeps me out. He's not interested in me, he's not interested in talking to me, he's JUST interested in getting the hole/adding another notch.

Scenario 2 doesn't. He's in it because he wants to have a nice evening, and getting laid is just a bonus, it's not the sole reason for communication.

Do you see what I mean? Like, I mean, I know that realistically they both want to get laid. But to me there's a fundamental difference in the two attitudes, and that's where the creepy factor lies. The desperation factor, or the dehumanizing factor, or a combination of the two, I don't know.

I acknowledge the difference between the two attitudes but it depends on the situation for me. Out in a club slamming Jagerbombers on a Friday night, I don't think there is anything wrong with scenario 1 tbh.

It would be a bit different in a park walking your dogs or whatever but I still wouldn't find it 'creepy' if a women approached me, got talking to me and I realised she was primarily interested in sex.

I think we have little hope of seeing eye to eye on this point though. Sometimes (obviously not always) for me sex is is just a physical act. Like a sport, or hobby, for want of a better term. You seem to view it differently. On occasion I don't much care if the person I'm playing tennis with studied journalism or loves rainbows. I just think they look like good players and want to play a couple of sets with them. If that makes sense...

I was getting the impression from the flurry of replies here that it's meant to be a tool for guys to build confidence in general and learn how to socialize with women, not solely to bed them. Okay. Now it's back to being a bit creepy.

I think if anyone is implying that then they are being disingenuous. The PUA stuff is quite clearly focused on 'getting them into bed'.

Having said that though, having the 'tools' to bed a woman doesn't mean you can't also see her as a wonderful human being and want to get to know her, find out everything she is interested in, fall madly in love with her and grow old together looking at your grand kids playing in the field outside your country cottage. I was in love with my last girlfriend, we were living together etc, but I 'picked her up' in a pub in town. It's not mutually exclusive.

leggo

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

leggo, seen as you said you have helped people with this type of thing some positive stories may be a good idea!

No problem man.

A good mate of mine decided to come to me and ask if we could go out. I've since seen him transform his life from a guy who'd show off to girls (be 'a performing monkey' as I called it) and get nowhere, cheat on the girls he was with, to becoming a level-headed, rounded person in his first, proper relationship. He's got his career sorted, just moved into a beautiful home, got a car etc. I'm so proud to see his transformation. It's not down to me (I just nudged him in the right direction when he needed it and offered a listening ear), but it's incredible to see.

Same with the guy who is probably my best mate. On the radio show I used to do with him we did a feature about how he was a virgin at 20 and wanted to change it. It was enlightening to say the least. He learned about the pick-up arts and went on to do great things with his life. As a guy who used to bury his head in the sand, not go out much, become obsessed with little 'gimmicks' and would have wasted away in a part-time job not considering himself worthy of anything better...he's gone back to college in order to get a green card and complete his dream of moving to America. The self-motivated, go-getter I see now is a complete reversal of the man I got to know to begin with. He has the same hobbies and interests but now he knows how to make life work for him.

A guy who contacted me from abroad (won't get into specifics) still struggles with the basics with women, he has some ish to overcome, but has transformed his life otherwise. He is a pilot and has completed his full licence yolkymabob, gone back to playing music and gigged as backing to one of the X Factor contestants not so long ago, and most recently got a speaking role in a pretty big movie I can't tell you about. This whole motivation spurt came after he decided to help himself.

I could go on...

Now, I don't take credit for all of these. Like I said, they had it in them and just needed a push. But it goes to show it's not all about getting women into the sack and does have a massive effect on your life. This is why I can never take people who criticise it seriously, especially if they've got the facts so wrong. Women are just the enticing cherry on top. The bait, if you will, to do amazing things you never thought possible.

Earthhorse

Interesting thread. It's impossible to dip a into a community, any community, and know all the actions that have taken place and the motivations behind them. An online community such as r/seduction might give you some idea but it is also likely skewed toward a particular segment of the community. How many of the millions who have read The Game have gone on to join the PUA community and then post about it online? What qualifies one as a practitioner of PUA? If you use single technique you read about once? If you adapt some of their techniques to your own personality?

It seems to me the practise is too broad to be realistically quantified and assessed. I believe you if you tell me that some of the stories you've read online are a little creepy but I also think the kind of people who share the sordid details are of a particular type that PUA brings out the worst in.

Having read The Game I would say that much of the better material is often ignored by critics but there is still much to be critical of. The fact that there are other people out there manipulating their way through life is not a good defence of the ethics of PUA; indeed such an argument is a warning sign that what they're doing is unethical.

However, I do feel that the criticisms are overstated. It may not be ethical, indeed I would say some of the theory and much of the practise (with the caveat that it is hard to measure), is obviously not but it is no less unethical that many of our long standing social norms. From that point of view it seems unfair to single out PUA simply because he's the new kid on the block.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

It's not an on-off switch, but if you actually WANT to become something, generally, you can. You just have to make the effort to remember to think, "okay, now, where are they coming from with this?" - if you need to ask them to find out, do so. I developed my empathy by just listening to others, applying their situations to my character, and seeing how I felt. I guess it's a bit hard to explain, but it worked. Then it was just a matter of "okay, people are treating me poorly because I'm treating them poorly, so I'll treat them how I want to be treated." And on it goes. You just have to keep putting yourself in people's shoes, and really just wanting to be a better person. It's not like I flipped a switch or talked to a psychiatrist or read a self-help book or anything. It's just.. something I wanted to become, and became.

But I suppose with empathy there has to be something in you that wants to care to begin with.

The problem with this is that you are trying to view their perspective but first you are looking through your own. So it's your minds eyes view of what you think their minds eye view is. Your view distorts your perception of their view.

When you lack empathy and try and look through someones else's minds eye you can only ever get a perspective from someone who lacks empathy but you are trying to transpose this view onto someone who doesn't lack empathy.

I don't know if I've explained that well but trying to see through someone else's eye's only really works if you are both somewhat similar. Now a lot of people convince themselves they are good at reading other peoples thoughts but really they just place their own thoughts into that persons minds and confirmation bias does the rest.

Basically in short, me trying to look through someone else's is just embarrassingly pointless because what I come up with his normally way off the mark to what they're really feeling. I just genuinely don't know how other people feel about things and I'm quite cynical of their emotional responses because I don't know when they're real or not.

Wibbs

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/ or .co.uk or wherever. Indeed pick any general "woman's" magazine and they break down as Fashion, lifestyle, celebs and relationship/sex advice. How to read/get/have orgasms with/keep/dump a man. Relationships and relationship dynamics(not just romantic either) play a much greater, more complex role in women's lives. Men IME very rarely discuss relationships, except when one breaks down or when introducing a new one and even then detail is scant. Hell many women will complain the man they're actually with barely discusses such.

On average women drive and know how to drive romantic/sexual relationships more than men. Even in highly gender biased societies like Saudi Arabia the relationship dynamic is still largely driven by women. They may not see their own manipulation of the relationship dynamic, but I've seen it in women mates. I think manipulation is too pejorative a word. We're all manipulators. It's what all social animals do. We just dress it up in fancy clothes to satisfy our own intellects. Women IMHO do the latter more than men, or moreso are less likely to see it as manipulation. It's just "what they do".

OK question for ya L look around at your women friends and men friends. Look at your own life. Now ask the question who did more breaking off of relationships? Who turned down more offers? Who has an opposite sex mate they know is into them but they want to "keep the friendship"? Unless you've an unusual demographic around you, I'll put good money it's the ladies.

In our society it's even more mad if we step back for a moment. On the appearance front. On the surface at least women sexual/romantic/partner status is much more based on looks and age and specifically reproductive health. How many products are bombarding women on how to "lie" about that. Walk into an average nightclub at midnight and watch the heel highed staggering parade of two legged max factor mistruths before you. An Alien observer would have a field day. We look askance at the practise of Chinese foot binding in the past, yet modern western women are deemed to look their best while on very expensive stilts crushing their toes. They may have pushup bras, control pants, tights/stockings, fake tan, makeup and wouldn't have a clue what their real hair colour was if you spiked their Mai Tai's with sodium pentathol. They could have all this at 18 when "at their peak" and it's all "manipulation". Of course they dress for each other, it's not just peacocking and in other cultures men do similar, but regardless of the gender these practises are, at a very basic level tools to increase their chances of reproductive success. A level not immediately obvious 6 pints down wearin the face of some bloke in corner of a club, but still there. There have even been studies that showed women tend to wear less clothing and shorter skirts when ovulating.

Women have more of these tools at their disposal when compared to men. Particularly young women and young men. PUA ia overwhelmingly aimed at younger men* who are in general at a serious disadvantage with women of the same age. The latter hold all the cards. This goes double for a man who hasn;t learned how to interact with women romantically. Today more men encounter more women on a daily basis than in the past. Men and women have many more friendships than in the past. Men learn how to be women's friends before they learn how to be their lovers. That's confusion right there and far more men have gotten "let's be friends" than the other way around.

PUA is full of poo, or at least the basic truths are dressed up in a lot of flim flam. It's also very culturally biased. IMHO it works more on american women because America is quite an unrelaible and scary society for the individual. There is very little of a safety net if you fall while reaching for the american dream. You can go from middle class middle management to living in your car quite quickly through job loss(or for men divorce). In such a society women are more likely to look for the "alpha" male as a safer bet should she need it. The brash go getter type looks more of a safe bet. There are other gender/psychological/social reasons other parts of PUA may work IMHO, but that's for another thread.:o Mostly for most it's a numbers game though. Most guys who cant get a woman are like fishermen who cant get fish. They leave their net in the boat.

My 3 cents.

I'm speaking in general of course, but generally this is the case IMHO and IME.




*Though an encounter a year or so ago with a UK based "guru" gave me more insight on that score. Nice bloke actually. If you were another bloke. He was making serious cash and while we were chatting he made the point that the business was thinking of branching out to inclde older men. The demographic that "got lucky" at say 22, been with the same woman for 10-15-whatever years and are now divorced/separated and clueless.

Scanlas The 2nd

liah wrote: »

Presumably, one is being himself, and the other has a constant internal dialogue in his head telling him when to deliver such-and-such a line, when to start kino, when to k-close, when to #-close, etc.
.

That's just in the beginning and a phase you go through. After a while it becomes natural and instinctive and it brings out your natural attractive personality that never would have come out if PUA had not intervened. I think you mentioned only insecure people use PUA. Most people could be called insecure. Calum Best got interested in PUA recently even though he was already great with women. He's on youtube having a discussion with Richard La Ruina aka "Gambler" about it. He mentions how he used to analyze situtions and he was aware of people's game without any knowledge of PUA.

I want to clear something up about negs. They get terrible press.
The purpose of them is to show in a subtle way that you are not spellbound by a beautiful woman the way other men are. The purpose of them is not to insult a woman. It is to get her chasing you and adding investment/putting in effort to the interaction.

Blowing your nose in the presence of a beautiful woman is a neg. Hardly the evil insult that it is made out to be. As was said before, men and women neg naturally already without any knowledge of it.

coffee_cake

Wibbs wrote: »

On average women drive and know how to drive romantic/sexual relationships more than men. Even in highly gender biased societies like Saudi Arabia the relationship dynamic is still largely driven by women. They may not see their own manipulation of the relationship dynamic, but I've seen it in women mates.

In SA?! Can you elaborate a bit, please??

Wibbs

In SA like in many very paternalistic societies(the middle east in general), the women have their own society running alongside the mainstream male one. Under the veil much goes on behind closed doors, including in mate selection. The joke about the bloke not seeing his bride until their wedding night is an old one, but you can be sure each one of his female relatives has checked her out thoroughly and both him and her female rellies have had a right old confab about the whole thing. Its highly likely the women members of the families organised the match in the first place.

Waking-Dreams

Wibbs wrote: »

On the surface at least women sexual/romantic/partner status is much more based on looks and age and specifically reproductive health. How many products are bombarding women on how to "lie" about that? Walk into an average nightclub at midnight and watch the heel highed staggering parade of two legged max factor mistruths before you.

In fairness, you can’t be too hard on the girls for this, when the ideal image of a woman that gets projected out in the media in rags like NUTS, FHM, etc, is that of a woman who looks like a porn star but it’s: “sexy with a brain” and/or “me and my girlfriends love making out for a laugh”. Sure, a woman can forgo wearing make-up and not shave their legs/pits but in the eyes of modern men they might as well be tying a smelly tire around their bodies.

Then there’s celebs pushing fad diets and all the rest. Women can’t escape from this tirade of image obsession but it’s dressed up as though it’s empowering for them to look good that the lads will drool over them.

There is a certain defensiveness to this issue, that it’s the women driving all this heavy handed cosmetic intervention and manipulation but I think they are choices fuelled by desperation (not wanting to get left behind with absolutely no attention from the opposite sex who are busy chasing the others who do dress/look a certain way) rather than liberation.

It’s a “free” choice on the surface, as lots of women don’t go so far in dressing up to look like (insert female sex icon here) and can still have success in their dating lives but right now it seems the vast majority of young women / teenage girls feel pressured into looking like porn stars when they go out to the night club. Maybe this is also contributing to why some men treat them as such?

Wibbs

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

It’s a “free” choice on the surface, as lots of women don’t go so far in dressing up to look like (insert female sex icon here) and can still have success in their dating lives but right now it seems the vast majority of young women / teenage girls feel pressured into looking like porn stars when they go out to the night club. Maybe this is also contributing to why some men treat them as such?

Oh there is defo a sexualisation of women more than I recall at 18 *cough* years ago. There's defo more of a "gender war/them and us" thing too.

However I would argue that this appearance pressure often laid at the feet of men is more often than not coming from other women. Men as a general rule have no clue of the difference between a manolo blahnik and penneys best. Most are utterly clueless when it comes to makeup unless the woman is in oompaloompa territory.

I would say there is a difference that needs to be drawn between say "Nuts" and "Cosmo/Vogue". There's also the chicken and the egg thing. What came first, the basques high heels and suspenders or mens sexualisation of them? I'd argue its entirely cultural and driven by big biz and other women in the artificial social proof reproductive arms race. It happens in other societies, but in the modern western world it's more extreme. Just like images of beauty. There has always been an "ideal" in any culture. The difference is a Greek woman 3000 years ago could look at a statue of the ideal and be within sniffing distance of actually looking like that ideal. Today with image manipulation of human outliers in the first place that ideal becomes further and further away from everyday reality. So we're living in extreme times.

That said regardless of the extremes I do think the point is still valid. IE in the social proof reproductive arms race in young men and women, the latter in general hold more of the tools(no pun) and "manipulation" devices. It's a sellers market. The sellers are not so aware of that as they're living it. Just like a man has no clue how often even an average looking woman is sexually graded on looks on a daily basis. We're not living it.

Because they may not see the sellers market they're getting twitchy over the buyers having more choice through PUA? That they attack the concept because its not "natural" or "honest", yet among the ladies, very few are "natural" or "honest" about themselves as far as their outward(and sometimes inward) sociosexual triggers? Basically is a padded bra any more "dishonest" than a guy learning chat up lines?

liah wrote:

The 'be yourself' answer comes down to this: if you REALLY, REALLY want to find someone who is suited to you, like, PROPERLY suited to you, one you don't have to lie about yourself to, one that you can feel 100% comfortable with, etc, you really should just be yourself and not give a damn what other people think. Because you can find the best partner imaginable that way - or at least that's what's worked for me.

The only thing other than that is 'be confident in yourself,' i.e. just accept who you are and don't be terrified of talking to people.

That's good advice, but what if the "yourself" part is actually pretty socially unattractive? I've known men who moaned about being single all the time and under my breath I thanked the fates they'd likely not reproduce. Sometimes, hell a lot of the time, a fair few people need to fix up themselves to the best of their ability.

Tbh I really don't think that's the worst advice in the world. Again, it's worked incredibly well for me.

Oh yea L I'm quite sure it has worked incredibly well for you but this is why this advice is given more by women to men than the other way around(and why I would discount it more). Since it's a sellers market and you're a seller, a young woman, you could be the most neurotic windowlicker in christendom and you would still get male attention. The reverse is a lot less likely. Men will take sometimes unreal levels of mad bitch/daddies princess/irish mammy syndrome for sex/having a girlfriend.

RedXIV

Wibbs wrote: »

That's good advice, but what if the "yourself" part is actually pretty socially unattractive? I've known men who moaned about being single all the time and under my breath I thanked the fates they'd likely not reproduce. Sometimes, hell a lot of the time, a fair few people need to fix up themselves to the best of their ability.

I'd agree 110% with what you've put so far bar the bit in bold above.

If someone is asking for advice on how to appear more attractive to the opposite gender then obviously being yourself doesn't work otherwise they wouldn't be looking for advice.

Its not just bad advice, its pretty miserable advice to receive because it does absolutely nothing to help the person learn what would be a more socially attractive way to be. I honestly believe everyone tailors their personality to deal with different people all the time so the idea of being yourself at all times is a fallacy to me

Waking-Dreams

I do agree Wibbs, it is an arms race of sorts and women compete with one another in how they dress too. And yeah, the fact of the matter is that if a typical female wanted to go out tonight and find someone to sleep with she would undoubtedly find more men happy to oblige than in the reverse scenario where the guy is looking for it. Though that’s because men can, theoretically, reproduce every time they have sex; women have to ‘choose’ carefully so they are going to be much more particular in dealing with the opposite sex. This is all laid on sexual selection theory, etc. Though, one must remember there is proximate (orgasmic pleasure) and ultimate causes (reproduction) to consider in the equation.

RedXIV wrote: »

It’s not just bad advice, it’s pretty miserable advice to receive because it does absolutely nothing to help the person learn what would be a more socially attractive way to be. I honestly believe everyone tailors their personality to deal with different people all the time so the idea of being yourself at all times is a fallacy to me

I think that’s quite true. People talk about an authentic self but we all have many. ‘The presentation of self in everyday life’ and ‘Games people play’ shine some light on the manifold social masks we all wear and tailor to different people. When a bloke walks up to a girl in the nightclub, how likely is it that she is wearing her own social mask (for that situation) and not being entirely authentic?

Wibbs

Oh I agree its crap advice for men, but my whole point Red is it's not always bad advice for women, hence they will offer it as such more often. After all it probably worked for them. They've a lot less to lose "being themselves" personality wise at least. OK extreme(or not) example;

Remember this song from back in the day?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhfiiGGy7Ls

The Lyrics;
hate the world today
You're so good to me I know but I can't change
I tried to tell you but you look at me like maybe
I'm an angel underneath; innocent and sweet
Yesterday I cried; Must've been relief to see the softer side
I can understand how you'd be so confused
I don't envy you; I'm a little bit of everything
all rolled into one
I'm a bitch I'm a lover
I'm a child I'm a mother
I'm a sinner I'm a saint
I do not feel ashamed
I'm your hell I'm your dream
I'm nothing in between
you know you wouldn't want it any other way

So take me as I am
This may mean you'll have to be a stronger man
Rest assured that when I start to make you nervous
and I'm going to extremes; Tomorrow I will change
And today won't mean a thing

I'm a bitch I'm a lover
I'm a child I'm a mother
I'm a sinner I'm a saint
I do not feel ashamed
I'm your hell I'm your dream
I'm nothing in between
you know you wouldn't want it any other way

Musical Break

Just when you think, you got me figured out
The season's already changin'
I think it's cool; you do what you do
And don't try to save me

I'm a bitch I'm a lover
I'm a child I'm a mother
I'm a sinner I'm a saint
I do not feel ashamed
I'm your hell I'm your dream
I'm nothing in between
you know you wouldn't want it any other way


I'm a bitch, I'm a tease
I'm a goddess on my knees
When your hurt; when you suffer
I'm your angel undercover
I've been numb; I'm revived
Can't say I'm not alive
You know I wouldn't want it any other way


That was a popular song. Some even held it up as some sort of feminist lite anthem. And what are the lyrics describing? Well ask what would the lyrics describe if it was a man? An unbalanced unpredictable neurotic most likely and also most likely a man who wouldnt get laid in a brothel nor keep a girlfriend for very long. Entitled "I'm a twat"

It's pretty clear most men, especially younger men who feel they have less choice, will accept more personality "quirks" in a potential partner than a woman will all things being equal. Guy meets woman, fancies woman, woman acts a bit odd. So long as she doesn't go postal chances are she won't lose him. Not in the early stages of courtship. In the reverse, she's more likely to call him odd or creepy or just plain "eeeuw". She can "be herself", he has less freedom to do so.

IMHO this difference in what is valued by women versus men* makes most young women in general really bad at telling young men how to go about approaching and getting a woman.

That and it's often harder to pin down for themselves how or why they were wooed in a step by step way that men could work on. Him: "So how did Tom get you then?" Her: "Oh it was just the way he looked at me/chemistry/sense of humour/he was nice". Or Him: "how do I attract more women/get a girlfriend?" Her: "oh just be yourself/what's for you won't go by you/you're a lovely guy/there's a woman out there for you/etc" (sometimes... Him: "whatabout you?" Her: "eeeeuw":D). Not a lot to go on. Its all very subjective, because again it's a sellers market and she's never had to really think about it, so falls back on what has worked for her.




*these are subtles diffs, there are more commonalities, but it would be my opinion that in those diffs the issues lay.

RedXIV

Can't really argue with that, you're pretty much spot on.

This could also be one of the sources of aggravation for women in regards to PUA, since as you say above, for women, the advice "be yourself" works for other women and themselves so they've no reason to doubt the information when passing it on to a guy, however, as described elsewhere, men know this isn't the case and present a more male/buyer friendly set of advice which in actuality is what a guy needs to hear. It may be interpreted though that men are discounting the advice passed to them from women.

This is an interesting thread, really makes ya think

SugarHigh

That was a popular song. Some even held it up as some sort of feminist lite anthem. And what are the lyrics describing? Well ask what would the lyrics describe if it was a man? An unbalanced unpredictable neurotic most likely and also most likely a man who wouldnt get laid in a brothel nor keep a girlfriend for very long. Entitled "I'm a twat"

It's pretty clear most men, especially younger men who feel they have less choice, will accept more personality "quirks" in a potential partner than a woman will all things being equal. Guy meets woman, fancies woman, woman acts a bit odd. So long as she doesn't go postal chances are she won't lose him. Not in the early stages of courtship. In the reverse, she's more likely to call him odd or creepy or just plain "eeeuw". She can "be herself", he has less freedom to do so.

So true. You even see it a lot in threads on boards where people talk about depression or really any disorder like anxiety. The girls still have boyfriends but the guys don't have girlfriends. There are definitely more consequences for a man being seen as weird than for a woman.

Low confidence in a man is pretty much crippling in terms of finding a partner but in a woman it can even be seen as cute. If a guy with low confidence sits in the corner of a pub no one is going to approach him but the woman will still have men coming up to her. She really doesn't have to do anything active socially to be successful socially but if a guy is passive socially he will become isolated.

SugarHigh

Also completely agree with this

On average women drive and know how to drive romantic/sexual relationships more than men. Even in highly gender biased societies like Saudi Arabia the relationship dynamic is still largely driven by women. They may not see their own manipulation of the relationship dynamic, but I've seen it in women mates. I think manipulation is too pejorative a word. We're all manipulators. It's what all social animals do. We just dress it up in fancy clothes to satisfy our own intellects. Women IMHO do the latter more than men, or moreso are less likely to see it as manipulation. It's just "what they do".

I made the point earlier that most social interaction is basically manipulating people but it was shot down I think just because they didn't like the sound of the word.

leggo

The phrase they use is "be your best self," to be specific.

The idea, and one that I agree with, is that while there is nothing wrong with who you are...how you communicate that to other people is another story altogether.

The routines are a way of getting someone out of their comfort zone and trying to see things from a different perspective before integrating the things you've learned with your personality. You learn routines that coincide with your own interests, pick and choose basically, then go from there.

Wibbs

SugarHigh wrote: »

There are definitely more consequences for a man being seen as weird than for a woman.

One could also argue that there are more potential consequences for a woman being with a "weird" man, than the other way around.

Low confidence in a man is pretty much crippling in terms of finding a partner but in a woman it can even be seen as cute. If a guy with low confidence sits in the corner of a pub no one is going to approach him but the woman will still have men coming up to her. She really doesn't have to do anything active socially to be successful socially but if a guy is passive socially he will become isolated.

I'd agree with that alright

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

Liah I think you are letting your own experience cloud your judgement. All your story really told was that you didn't lack empathy you were just immature at the time. I think it's kind of like someone with mild non medical depression who manages to snap out of it thinking that someone with a serious depression can do the same.
It's not just about treating people poorly it's about genuinely not knowing how to be nice. I've tried to be nice and it's just not something I can do. There is a lot of stuff in social interaction that simply doesn't make sense if you don't have empathy.

I don't buy into the idea that you should keep searching for people to accept you. I actually think the Internet has done a great disservice to social groups because you can now surround yourself with people just like you. Now matter how obscure your interests you will find a group on the Internet that's into it.

I don't want to be surrounded by people just like because I don't see what there is to gain in being around people just like you. I'd a group of people where no one is even slightly similar. That way there is actually somthing to be gained from talking to them. The only way I can meet different people and not piss them off is to fake a personality. My own personality is too limiting in social situations.

I think this is something you just are going to have more trouble with than the average person due to your Asperger's.

And making friends/having relationships isn't about 'finding something to gain' in a person. It's not like a business transaction - you don't meet up and compare qualities to trade off on, it's not like "okay, you've got the car, I've got the XBox" sort of thing. You make friends because you enjoy their company and they enjoy yours, they can be identical to you or the complete opposite of you. But if you're looking at relationships and friendships like a business transaction it really doesn't surprise me that you're having trouble.. that's not really how it works!

strobe wrote: »

(You're replying to everyone's posts here Liah and it looks exhausting, so don't feel obligated to reply to mine.)

You have no idea how hard it is to keep track of what I'm replying to when I'm the only one being bombarded by 5 different people, needed the night to get myself sorted out because by the end of it I felt like I'd been blitzkrieged :pac: Would help if people didn't reply to things that aren't addressed to them/take tangents completely out of context.. would make my life a lot easier.

I'm sure a lot of guys do but I don't think that means women can just throw out blanket 'your not a woman you wouldn't understand' comments as an argument. It's not an argument, it's a dismissal.

I'm not meaning it to be a dismissal. I'm just saying, I wouldn't expect to know the ins-and-outs about how a man would feel around a group of women, so I can't expect a man to know what it'd be like for me surrounded by a bunch of men. That's all.

I acknowledge the difference between the two attitudes but it depends on the situation for me. Out in a club slamming Jagerbombers on a Friday night, I don't think there is anything wrong with scenario 1 tbh.

I don't like it. It's like his mindset is that he wants to use someone for sex. I could never use another person for sex, but that's just me - but that's also why I really don't want to encounter PUA types.

It would be a bit different in a park walking your dogs or whatever but I still wouldn't find it 'creepy' if a women approached me, got talking to me and I realised she was primarily interested in sex.

Well, personally, I would find it very creepy if a man approached me and asked me to have sex. A) because he's probably bigger than me, because it means he just sees me as something to bang, and C) because I don't even know the guy.

It doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't find it creepy, really, but understand that for some of us it is absolutely.

I think we have little hope of seeing eye to eye on this point though. Sometimes (obviously not always) for me sex is is just a physical act. Like a sport, or hobby, for want of a better term. You seem to view it differently. On occasion I don't much care if the person I'm playing tennis with studied journalism or loves rainbows. I just think they look like good players and want to play a couple of sets with them. If that makes sense...

I get it. It's just I can't see it that way - what it keeps coming down to is that I don't want to use another person and I don't want to be used by another person. And that I just plain don't want to be seen as only a hole.

Having said that though, having the 'tools' to bed a woman doesn't mean you can't also see her as a wonderful human being and want to get to know her, find out everything she is interested in, fall madly in love with her and grow old together looking at your grand kids playing in the field outside your country cottage. I was in love with my last girlfriend, we were living together etc, but I 'picked her up' in a pub in town. It's not mutually exclusive.

Ah I know, but so few PUA types actually think of it that way.

SugarHigh wrote: »

The problem with this is that you are trying to view their perspective but first you are looking through your own. So it's your minds eyes view of what you think their minds eye view is. Your view distorts your perception of their view.

When you lack empathy and try and look through someones else's minds eye you can only ever get a perspective from someone who lacks empathy but you are trying to transpose this view onto someone who doesn't lack empathy.

I don't know if I've explained that well but trying to see through someone else's eye's only really works if you are both somewhat similar. Now a lot of people convince themselves they are good at reading other peoples thoughts but really they just place their own thoughts into that persons minds and confirmation bias does the rest.

Basically in short, me trying to look through someone else's is just embarrassingly pointless because what I come up with his normally way off the mark to what they're really feeling. I just genuinely don't know how other people feel about things and I'm quite cynical of their emotional responses because I don't know when they're real or not.

Again, I think this is probably something that you're going to need legitimate therapy of some kind with if you genuinely want to understand how empathy's supposed to work. But I will say, you should really try and be less cynical. The majority of people won't bs you too much about their mood.

Unless I misunderstood you when you brought up Asperger's earlier and you weren't talking about yourself - in which case I really really apologize for the assumption - but if it is the case, then perhaps asking us how to do stuff isn't really the way to go about it, because we can't know what's going on in your mind, as your condition is a bit of a game-changer here.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

Also completely agree with this

I made the point earlier that most social interaction is basically manipulating people but it was shot down I think just because they didn't like the sound of the word.

It's not that you got shot down. It's just, you need to differentiate between intentional manipulation and unconscious manipulation.

Intentional manipulation is what's unnerving to most people because it's intentional deception - I don't think it's as bad when people aren't doing it on purpose and it's just part of who they are, or part of social conditioning. You can't really call someone manipulative if they're not actually trying to be manipulative.

Wolfe Tone

I think this is something you just are going to have more trouble with than the average person due to your Asperger's.

And making friends/having relationships isn't about 'finding something to gain' in a person. It's not like a business transaction - you don't meet up and compare qualities to trade off on, it's not like "okay, you've got the car, I've got the XBox" sort of thing. You make friends because you enjoy their company and they enjoy yours, they can be identical to you or the complete opposite of you. But if you're looking at relationships and friendships like a business transaction it really doesn't surprise me that you're having trouble.. that's not really how it works!

For what it is worth I agree with the vast vast majority of what he/she has said, seems to have a pretty good grasp on things to me.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

Again, I think this is probably something that you're going to need legitimate therapy of some kind with if you genuinely want to understand how empathy's supposed to work. But I will say, you should really try and be less cynical. The majority of people won't bs you too much about their mood.

Unless I misunderstood you when you brought up Asperger's earlier and you weren't talking about yourself - in which case I really really apologize for the assumption - but if it is the case, then perhaps asking us how to do stuff isn't really the way to go about it, because we can't know what's going on in your mind, as your condition is a bit of a game-changer here.

I wasn't actually asking for your advice with the intention of following it. I do see professionals. The reason I asked for your advice was because you kept saying these guys weren't going about it the right way and that faking a personality was creepy. You were claiming there was a better way but when asked you couldn't give a good answer. Your solution was basically "Disney" stuff of "be yourself" which really doesn't recognize the problem. Your other solutions involved saying simply having more confidence and becoming better at social interactions but you couldn't say how. Your advice was like telling someone with depression to not be depressed or a stressed person not to be stressed. Can you not see how this isn't actually a solution?

The truth is PUA does help these guys. it actually tells them how to have more confidence and how to be better socially. Your solutions don't.

liah wrote: »

It's not that you got shot down. It's just, you need to differentiate between intentional manipulation and unconscious manipulation.

Intentional manipulation is what's unnerving to most people because it's intentional deception - I don't think it's as bad when people aren't doing it on purpose and it's just part of who they are, or part of social conditioning. You can't really call someone manipulative if they're not actually trying to be manipulative.

I do recognize the difference it just isn't important. The people who can't do it naturally have to fake it because it's an essential part of socializing. By saying they shouldn't do this you are actually denying them the chance to socialize. Like I said before you are basically asking them to sacrifice their own life because you don't like how it sounds to intentional be manipulative. They are doing the exact same things that everyone else does it's just the mental work required to do it differs. The hope is that it will then become natural after time, which I do believe happens to people who PUA. I'm not sure what you expect these people to do before they are able to do it naturally.

If they can't socilize naturally but they need to socialize to learn how to do it naturally this is just a necessary step. Like I said before this is the sort of thing the professionals thought me in social skills classes. They teach you what everyone else just knows instinctively. You consistently stated in this thread that you don't have a problem with people learning social skills but then you go onto to say you don't agree with this essential part of the process. That is where all the conflict came from with the other guy

Without realizing it, you were trying to hold to conflicting positions at the same time. You need to fake knowing how to socilize to learn how to socilize. It's just that simple. So I have to be thought by someone else in a very clinical way, big deal. I still don't understand why I should care that other people find this creepy. Like I should just live a solitary life to please you people who won't ever now it's happening if I'm doing it right anyway, we would just be getting along like any normal group.

SugarHigh

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

For what it is worth I agree with the vast vast majority of what he/she has said, seems to have a pretty good grasp on things to me.

I think the problem is that when Liah is trying to image herself in these guys shoes she does so through her own "minds eye" which brings with it all her social skills that these guys simply don't have. This is the problem with her "Just do it" advice.

It would be like someone who can squat 200kg telling a skinny guy to "Just do it" never mind training just lift the bar like I do. It completely ignores their abilities.

They don't have that ability so they need to train and in the PUA case the training involves faking a few traits for a while because their really isn't any other solution to not having social skills then to "fake it, until you make" you have to copy other people because the natural way of copying people for some reason is working for you. So you need to do classes and learn it in a clinical way or whatever.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

I wasn't actually asking for your advice with the intention of following it. I do see professionals. The reason I asked for your advice was because you kept saying these guys weren't going about it the right way and that faking a personality was creepy. You were claiming there was a better way but when asked you couldn't give a good answer.

I mentioned therapy/psychiatry/counselling, etc as much better, healthier options over PUA a few times throughout the thread, just nobody seems to want to actually read anything I've to write. I sincerely doubt a therapist or professional would advise faking your entire personality?

I find it creepy and I always will find it creepy - if it's otherwise average people faking their entire personality. But I do acknowledge that things are going to be different for people with certain conditions or problems, and I still feel professionals should be able to find a way to help someone without convincing them to become a fake person.

Your solution was basically "Disney" stuff of "be yourself" which really doesn't recognize the problem. Your other solutions involved saying simply having more confidence and becoming better at social interactions but you couldn't say how. Your advice was like telling someone with depression to not be depressed or a stressed person not to be stressed. Can you not see how this isn't actually a solution?

Your perspective on this is quite different to your average person, and you need to understand that. The advice I've given has worked for me. It's worked for people I know. But these aren't people with a condition that is known to make social interaction difficult. It's not 'bad' advice, it's just not advice that's suited to you.

The truth is PUA does help these guys. it actually tells them how to have more confidence and how to be better socially. Your solutions don't.

Really? Professionals cannot help someone build confidence? This is new to me, why do people bother going to them then?

PUA is a superficial quick fix fix imo and I believe, like I said a few times now, talking to a professional is a better solution, particularly in the interests of long-term mental health.

I do recognize the difference it just isn't important. The people who can't do it naturally have to fake it because it's an essential part of socializing. By saying they shouldn't do this you are actually denying them the chance to socialize. Like I said before you are basically asking them to sacrifice their own life because you don't like how it sounds to intentional be manipulative. They are doing the exact same things that everyone else does it's just the mental work required to do it differs. The hope is that it will then become natural after time, which I do believe happens to people who PUA. I'm not sure what you expect these people to do before they are able to do it naturally.

Okay, hold on now.

Faking an entire personality is very, very different to learning how to socialize. Which one are you talking about? Faking, or learning? Because the constant switching is confusing me.

I have a feeling we're crossing wires on this one tbh. 'Faking' implies intentional deception because you're trying to hide yourself, or manipulate the other person, and you have no intention to develop yourself. You're just fake. If you're actually talking about learning how to socialize and show who you are better, using the word 'fake' is kind of distracting. I do get what you mean now, but your wording was throwing me off a lot.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

I think the problem is that when Liah is trying to image herself in these guys shoes she does so through her own "minds eye" which brings with it all her social skills that these guys simply don't have. This is the problem with her "Just do it" advice.

It would be like someone who can squat 200kg telling a skinny guy to "Just do it" never mind training just lift the bar like I do. It completely ignores their abilities.

They don't have that ability so they need to train and in the PUA case the training involves faking a few traits for a while because their really isn't any other solution to not having social skills then to "fake it, until you make" you have to copy other people because the natural way of copying people for some reason is working for you. So you need to do classes and learn it in a clinical way or whatever.

And I equally think you have a bit of a bias here due to your condition. I'm not chalking it all up to that, by any means, I just think you expect that all these people who use PUA are like you in that they find it difficult to empathize etc. when the reality I think is probably pretty different. I'd wager they're mostly average people who are shy/insecure and would benefit much more from speaking with a professional than resorting to PUA.

SugarHigh

I wish I never mentioned I had aspergers because you are just using it to dismiss me. What I said applies to men who aren't good socially. What works for a women is a null point because standing around doing nothing will work for a woman socially.

You still don't understand why your advice is pointless. You are telling someone who is bad social interaction to just become good at it naturally which he simply can't do. You also say stuff like "Be more confident" like I said this is like telling a poor person to just be richer.

Do you really not understand how this is pointless advice? Imagine going to a mechanic with a broken car and them saying "You should fix that" and then that being the end to their solution.

Really? Professionals cannot help someone build confidence? This is new to me, why do people bother going to them then?

PUA is a superficial quick fix fix imo and I believe, like I said a few times now, talking to a professional is a better solution, particularly in the interests of long-term mental health.

I was referring to your advice of. "Be more confident" "Be yourself" etc.

Who is going to see a therapist because they can't get laid? It's just not something most are willing to do. The solution will still be the same, they will teach you what others do naturally and you basically copy this. It's literally what the professionals did for me because it's the only solution. It's a necessary evil and you seem to pretending there is a solution that doesn't involve this when there simply isn't. You are denying the reality of the problem.

Like I have also said your own experience is clouding your judgement. You don't realise that what works for you simply doesn't apply to these people. Your not a man.

Faking an entire personality is very, very different to learning how to socialize. Which one are you talking about? Faking, or learning? Because the constant switching is confusing me.

I have a feeling we're crossing wires on this one tbh. 'Faking' implies intentional deception because you're trying to hide yourself, or manipulate the other person, and you have no intention to develop yourself. You're just fake. If you're actually talking about learning how to socialize and show who you are better, using the word 'fake' is kind of distracting. I do get what you mean now, but your wording was throwing me off a lot.

This is where you are holding contradicting viewpoints. Learning how to socialize does involve faking a personality. If I just act like myself I can't socilize I have to follow the steps I'm given. These are steps that everyone else just knows naturally, I have to fake them to make me seem naturally socialable. That's just the reality of the problem which you are denying. You keep pretending there is a silver bullet solution that doesn't involve this when there isn't

When I say fake a personality I'm not talking about pretending to be some CEO who fight MMA at the weekend I just mean faking social interaction by following steps that don't come naturally to you. This is pretty much all PUA is. Things like banter don't come naturally to me so I have to study how to do it and basically pretend I can do it by following steps and stuff. Until hopefully I can do it naturally.