The Game By Neil strauss

pharmaton

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

I have been with a few women and like any other man who has experienced some success with the opposite sex, I have learned what works and what doesn't. If I could go back and time and tell my past self what mistakes I should have avoided and what signals I should picked up on I would.
If I ever have a son I am going to teach him how to pick up women to spare him the heartbreak I went through before I became comfortable talking to and approaching women.

and if he turns out to be gay might be able to teach you some tricks you probably haven't learned yet. win win.

Wibbs

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

In the past when mankind lived in small bands the opportunity to have sex was extremely limited.

Incorrect, unless we're talking about very small related groups. Sexuality among modern huntergatherers is as varied as it is among western city dwellers. In some they're very restricted, in others there is much more of a free for all and bothe young men and women can have multiple "practice partners" before settling down and even that may not last for a lifetime.

If a man fluffed his approach and is publicly humiliated that was it! It was only when mankind started living in large towns and cities that sexual promiscuity became possible which around the same time when religions began and adultery and chastity became major preoccupations and taboos were obeyed on pain of death.

Again, incorrect or simplistic. What farming and towns and stable wealth brought was an increased importance of inheritance. Men wanted to be sure that they passed on their name/land/goods/title to their offspring. While a woman always knows she's the mother of her child a man(until genetic testing came out) couldn't be absolutely sure. The label of "bastard" or "cuckold" were serious slurs. To make it more likely that a man would be more confident in his offspring the patriarchal culture came up with and celebrated virginity and chastity in women.

Psychopathic men are often prolific womanizers.
This is probably a evolutionary throwback to the time of hunter gatherers when resources were limited and men had to live much more by their wits than today. They had to kill other men and act on impulse and without regret and their only options were to steal women or rape them or fool them into sex when they were already taken by other rival men.

OK I'd broadly be OK with that.

When farming was discovered and human populations grew and people no longer roamed far and wide for food and started living in towns and cities, with law and order and religion, the domesticated man flourished but the wild man or psychopath died out or else put on the mask of sanity to blend in among the herd.

Psychopaths are more easily spotted in small bands of hunters. These are people who live in cultures where they're almost never alone. If anything larger populations hide psychos more readily.

The psychopath gene still exists and pure psychopaths who are extremely independent minded, resourceful, prey on human weakness, who have no fear, act on impulse and have no regrets about their actions roam like wolves among the sheep. These individuals are adept at lowering a woman's defenses. Violent psychopaths kidnap and murder women but most psychopaths are not violent but lie cheat and fool women.
They have the evolutionary disadvantage of not being trust worthy and women have evolved their defense mechanisms to counter them.

Indeed and that's why known psychos and murderers in prison and death row for heinous crimes don't get lots and lots of love letters from women. Oh wait, they do. Swap the genders and you simply don't see this. It could be more argued that a subsection of women actively select for psychos. QV charles mansons current girlfriend(who he doesn't acknowledge as such and has other women fighting over him). A short fat sad old nutter who will die in gaol who spouts crap and is the near definition of a psycho. Clearly she's nuts, but the less extreme is out there.

Romantic love and the idea of one true love has existed for thousands of years and this means men seek out virginal sweet hearts and women chose knights in shining armor.

Where are you posting from? 1890? Romantic love has certainly existed, but for most of our history it was much more prosaic a transaction. Arranged marriage was very common. Mate exchange between groups was very common. Marriages of elites very common again. The Egyptians took the latter so far they married off brothers and sisters to keep it in the family. The notion of romantic love as pushed by Hallmark is actually quite a recent and more western thing.

A man who has struggled all his life to climb the promotion ladder is also likely to have struggled to get accepted by women and this kind of man believes in the ONE.

What? Eh....

Men will forgive emotional infidelity but not sexual infidelity.

Not me. I'd be way more forgiving of sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity. Must be a woman then. I can think of enough men that would be similar.

A lothario or psychopathic man who is only after one thing and who could have numerous sexual encounters with women is not a dependable father figure. He has to evolutionary advantage of being handsome, physically attractive, has the natural gift in seduction etc but he has a evolutionary disadvantage in his lack of interest in settling down.

Yet lotharios and psychos are still with us and will often get more sex with more women than the "nice guy". Doesn't sound like much of a selective pressure to me

Talib Fiasco wrote: »

I'm only a young fella still but what I see is that guys of this generation put women on such a high pedestal

Yes that does seem to be more common and among guys who are past the teenage years too. Women are neither special, nor rare. Half the worlds population. Now one woman can be special to you and hopefully you find that and she you, but overall, nope. So to assign that specialness to all of them off the bat, before you even speak to them is just daft to me.

Vitaliorange

Reekwind wrote: »

You mean, aside from the distillation of human interaction into a series of manipulative mechanisms (complete with ridiculous terminology) to get someone laid?

In any genre specific language develops to allow the subject matter to be discussed with more brevity and accuracy. I don't see the problem. That link is every possible term thats been used by countless people. If you were to look at every term involved in soccer it would also look ridiculous.

Ultimately there is a pattern that emerges when you get good at seducing women, why can't these things be taught to speed up a guy's progress.

For example it could take a guy months or longer of practice to realize a woman will comply with your command when you look her in the eye. Why not tell that guy that he should look her in the eyes when he takes her hand and says " lets move over here" and speed up his learning curve.. This is social skills, calling it "manipulative" doesn't make it wrong.

Reekwind

Wibbs wrote: »

While not concerned with sex of course one could suggest that much of the self help stuff for women is puerile too, but it does get less flak than the PUA stuff

I genuinely can't think how its more puerile though. Even the most obvious counterpart to The Game (The Rules, as mentioned), while arguably taking the same manipulative angle, is concerned with relationships. Very different from alpha PUAs sarging around to [insert additional cringeworthy lingo here]

Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of self-help books for women that shouldn't be criticised, and often are, for various reasons but I can't think of any quite so adolescent in mindset as the PUA scene

Behind the surface hard sell of negs and AFC's and all that shíte I found it interesting from the social point of view. That so many men apparently needed such a place where men could talk with men and that the PUA bullshít was more of an umbrella for support and self help.

Which I can understand. As with all self-help works, the sheer positivity of the genre (it's in the name - by buying the book you've already taken the first step to improve yourself) and provision of a shared space to discuss this is not a bad thing per se. I don't think anyone can belittle the benefit in giving shy people, and I would count myself amongst them, a confidence boost

With self-help tomes this confidence giving solution is a harmless placebo [edit: Not placenta, definitely not placenta]. The reason that PUAs attract such derision, from one quarter at least, that that here the 'solution' is based on a profoundly mechanistic and regressive view of human relations. It's building confidence through teaching manipulation and eroding respect for the other half of the species, all with the end goal of sex

A book about getting people into relationships? Fine. Building real emotional connections with other people? Fine. Becoming a rounded human being? Fine. Using rote techniques to lower a woman's self-esteem so that she'll sleep with you? Not fine

Balaclava1991 wrote:

Obviously if you want to be happy in life you should be aiming ultimately for a permanent relationship with a woman and looking forward to being a good husband and a good father. You will NEVER get there unless you learn by trial and error how to attract a woman and how to progress from hello to sex and romance. If there is guidebook to get there and you can learn from the experiences of other men then why not? No relationship is without some degree of deceit and manipulation.

I've obviously been doing it all wrong. Instead of simply going out and 'hitting it off with someone', I clearly should have gotten them to a Comfort Building Location, performed a MCR, throw in a bit of negging and BHRR to get her to DHV herself and then home for a ONS

Now there is a world of difference between that - a very mechanical, manipulative (and thus dismissive) approach to sex - and the simple process of living that actually makes us human. Which approach do you think is more conductive to building a relationship?

And incidentally, your post with Wibbs (hunter-gather sex and whatnot) are pure pub-science

Vitaliorange

Reekwind wrote: »

I genuinely can't think how its more puerile though. Even the most obvious counterpart to The Game (The Rules, as mentioned), while arguably taking the same manipulative angle, is concerned with relationships. Very different from alpha PUAs sarging around to [insert additional cringeworthy lingo here]

Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of self-help books for women that shouldn't be criticised, and often are, for various reasons but I can't think of any quite so adolescent in mindset as the PUA scene

Which I can understand. As with all self-help works, the sheer positivity of the genre (it's in the name - by buying the book you've already taken the first step to improve yourself) and provision of a shared space to discuss this is not a bad thing per se. I don't think anyone can belittle the benefit in giving shy people, and I would count myself amongst them, a confidence boost

With self-help tomes this confidence giving solution is a harmless placenta. The reason that PUAs attract such derision, from one quarter at least, that that here the 'solution' is based on a profoundly mechanistic and regressive view of human relations. It's building confidence through teaching manipulation and eroding respect for the other half of the species, all with the end goal of sex

A book about getting people into relationships? Fine. Building real emotional connections with other people? Fine. Becoming a rounded human being? Fine. Using rote techniques to lower a woman's self-esteem so that she'll sleep with you? Not fine

I've obviously been doing it all wrong. Instead of simply going out and 'hitting it off with someone', I clearly should have gotten them to a Comfort Building Location, performed a MCR, throw in a bit of negging and BHRR to get her to DHV herself and then home for a ONS

Now there is a world of difference between that - a very mechanical, manipulative (and thus dismissive) approach to sex - and the simple process of living that actually makes us human. Which approach do you think is more conductive to building a relationship?

And incidentally, your post with Wibbs (hunter-gather sex and whatnot) are pure pub-science

Have a look at rsdnation.com ( leading company in the industry) thoroughly and tell me they don't value becoming a rounded individual, seeing women as unique individuals and generally improving all aspects of your life.

If one decides they only want casual sex that doesn't mean they don't respect women. This may surprise you but plenty of women like casual sex too.

I've taken on board a lot of pua advice which has allowed me to have much better connections with women. There are women who know me better after two hours of conversation than most people I've known for years. The assumption that real emotional connections aren't important in the sphere of pua is ridiculous. It sounds like something you want to believe as a result of feeling threatened by this stuff. Thats often the case when men get so irrationally angry about PUA.

Reekwind

Reekwind wrote: »

With self-help tomes this confidence giving solution is a harmless placenta.

I'll never be able to type placebo, without smiling, again.

Reekwind

Vitaliorange wrote:

In any genre specific language develops to allow the subject matter to be discussed with more brevity and accuracy. I don't see the problem

It doesn't strike you as cringeworthily macho and adolescent? And you're absolutely fine with transporting this sort hyper-geek lingo into the world of relationships between people? How strange

For example it could take a guy months or longer of practice to realize a woman will comply with your command when you look her in the eye. Why not tell that guy that he should look her in the eyes when he takes her hand and says " lets move over here" and speed up his learning curve.. This is social skills, calling it "manipulative" doesn't make it wrong.

I've not questioned it's effectiveness - not because I believe it to be effective but because that's an irrelevancy. Of far more concern is the idea that you think it's advisable to teach people how to "command" women. And you put that in as cold a manner as you'd talk about training a dog. That's a problem and it's the crux of the matter - such manipulation implies disrespect. You are the actor, she is the object and here is your toolset for getting her into bed

Leaving aside the whole issue as to why this is not particularly healthy, can you see why people might consider this to be a ridiculously adolescent approach of relationships and sex?

Candie wrote:

I'll never be able to type placebo, without smiling, again.

Now I'm worried that that was some sort of Freudian slip. The placenta isn't even a particularly sexy thing. Or so I've been told

Vitaliorange

Reekwind wrote: »

It doesn't strike you as cringeworthily macho and adolescent? And you're absolutely fine with transporting this sort hyper-geek lingo into the world of relationships between people? How strange

I've not questioned it's effectiveness - not because I believe it to be effective but because that's an irrelevancy. Of far more concern is the idea that you think it's advisable to teach people how to "command" women. And you put that in as cold a manner as you'd talk about training a dog. That's a problem and it's the crux of the matter - such manipulation implies disrespect. You are the actor, she is the object and here is your toolset for getting her into bed

Leaving aside the whole issue as to why this is not particularly healthy, can you see why people might consider this to be a ridiculously adolescent approach of relationships and sex?

Now I'm worried that that was some sort of Freudian slip. The placenta isn't even a particularly sexy thing. Or so I've been told

You can't generalise, whether it is macho or adolecent depends on the attitude and maturity of the indivudual. There is certainly nothing inherently macho or adolescent about trying to improve an aspect of your life and admitting to yourself that it is your own behavours casuing a lack of success with women.

Believe it or not women respond better and more favourably to men who aren't afraid to be decisive, take charge and lead the interaction.

You may think it is inadvisable to tell a woman to move over with you to the other side of the bar but the reality is thats ridiculous and implies a lack of social skills.

smurgen

Reekwind wrote: »

I've not questioned it's effectiveness - not because I believe it to be effective but because that's an irrelevancy. Of far more concern is the idea that you think it's advisable to teach people how to "command" women. And you put that in as cold a manner as you'd talk about training a dog. That's a problem and it's the crux of the matter - such manipulation implies disrespect. You are the actor, she is the object and here is your toolset for getting her into bed

I think this is the jist of my problem with this p.u.a thing. Basically I think it's probably effective for superficial , short term relationships but not a good foundation for a long term one. Why in gods name would anyone want a woman you can command? a woman you can manipulate? I'd be thinking well if I can command and manipulate her well what's to stop anyone else from doing it?What you want and need is someone who likes you for you. that way if some idiot with cheap tricks who talks to much comes along the woman wont want listen to their crap.

Vitaliorange

Reekwind wrote: »

I genuinely can't think how its more puerile though. Even the most obvious counterpart to The Game (The Rules, as mentioned), while arguably taking the same manipulative angle, is concerned with relationships. Very different from alpha PUAs sarging around to [insert additional cringeworthy lingo here]

Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of self-help books for women that shouldn't be criticised, and often are, for various reasons but I can't think of any quite so adolescent in mindset as the PUA scene

Which I can understand. As with all self-help works, the sheer positivity of the genre (it's in the name - by buying the book you've already taken the first step to improve yourself) and provision of a shared space to discuss this is not a bad thing per se. I don't think anyone can belittle the benefit in giving shy people, and I would count myself amongst them, a confidence boost

With self-help tomes this confidence giving solution is a harmless placebo [edit: Not placenta, definitely not placenta]. The reason that PUAs attract such derision, from one quarter at least, that that here the 'solution' is based on a profoundly mechanistic and regressive view of human relations. It's building confidence through teaching manipulation and eroding respect for the other half of the species, all with the end goal of sex

A book about getting people into relationships? Fine. Building real emotional connections with other people? Fine. Becoming a rounded human being? Fine. Using rote techniques to lower a woman's self-esteem so that she'll sleep with you? Not fine

I've obviously been doing it all wrong. Instead of simply going out and 'hitting it off with someone', I clearly should have gotten them to a Comfort Building Location, performed a MCR, throw in a bit of negging and BHRR to get her to DHV herself and then home for a ONS

Now there is a world of difference between that - a very mechanical, manipulative (and thus dismissive) approach to sex - and the simple process of living that actually makes us human. Which approach do you think is more conductive to building a relationship?

And incidentally, your post with Wibbs (hunter-gather sex and whatnot) are pure pub-science

Understanding the mechanics of approaching.women doesnt t mean you can't build a genuine connection with a woman.

Wibbs

Reekwind wrote: »

I've not questioned it's effectiveness - not because I believe it to be effective but because that's an irrelevancy.

Oh I dunno if it's irrelevant RK. IMHO at least some of the anger directed at this PUA meme is because it is effective for a subset of women and that freaks people out. The idea that some women respond favorably to being controlled, even seek it out and want an old style gender dynamic is uncomfortable. I've read similar disquiet in a seemingly unrelated area, namely women who convert to Islam. The idea that women would actively seek out such a patriarchal faith(women converts vastly outnumber male ones) is again uncomfortable.

Vitaliorange

smurgen wrote: »

I think this is the jist of my problem with this p.u.a thing. Basically I think it's probably effective for superficial , short term relationships but not a good foundation for a long term one. Why in gods name would anyone want a woman you can command? a woman you can manipulate? I'd be thinking well if I can command and manipulate her well what's to stop anyone else from doing it?What you want and need is someone who likes you for you. that way if some idiot with cheap tricks who talks to much comes along the woman wont want listen to their crap.

What do you mean by a woman you can "command and manipulate"?

To be highly desirable to women in general you should be able to comfortably take charge when you have to or when needed. That doesn't mean you should always take charge or deny a woman her autonomy.

Can somone please quote some modern PUA advice from a top company that advocates seeing women as objects or controlling them?

There seems to be serious misinformed propoganda about this.



most modern PUA advice it urges you to be your true genuine self.

pharmaton

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I dunno if it's irrelevant RK. IMHO at least some of the anger directed at this PUA meme is because it is effective for a subset of women and that freaks people out. The idea that some women respond favorably to being controlled, even seek it out and want an old style gender dynamic is uncomfortable. I've read similar disquiet in a seemingly unrelated area, namely women who convert to Islam. The idea that women would actively seek out such a patriarchal faith(women converts vastly outnumber male ones) is again uncomfortable.

I'll be honest and admit I find women of that ilk to be slightly diminished in intellect, which is just not something I find attractive in a woman personally. (fortunately most of them are straight so it's not an issue I get to encounter a lot) But each to their own.

FTA69

Vitaliorange wrote: »

What aspects of "The game" do you find puerile?

Also keep in mind the seduction community is completely different now to what it was circa 2001-2002 during the events of "The Game". Back then convoluted scripts and routines were the base of game. Now its much more natural.

You say its marketing guff, but a lot of it works if applied intelligently.

Who the f*ck are the "seduction community"? What a ridiculous phrase. Personally I'd mark any man who used that term as a guaranteed bell-end.

Reekwind

Vitaliorange wrote: »

There is certainly nothing inherently macho or adolescent about trying to improve an aspect of your life and admitting to yourself that it is your own behavours casuing a lack of success with women

Of course not, you're dead right here. It's what follows - the idea that "success with women" requires a toolset of tricks that transforms yourself into an 'alpha male' who can treat women like putty during "the interaction" - that strikes me, and I'd suggest most people, as macho and adolescent. That the end result of all of this, ie how you measure "success", is sex just makes it more puerile

You may think it is inadvisable to tell a woman to move over with you to the other side of the bar but the reality is thats ridiculous and implies a lack of social skills.

I'd suggest that the advisable approach would be to suggest moving to a more private part of the room, rather than fixing her with a death stare and issuing a "command" that she is expected to obey. One approach treats the woman as an equal, the other as an object

Wibbs wrote:

Oh I dunno if it's irrelevant RK. IMHO at least some of the anger directed at this PUA meme is because it is effective for a subset of women and that freaks people out. The idea that some women respond favorably to being controlled, even seek it out and want an old style gender dynamic is uncomfortable

To clarify: I think its effectiveness is "irrelevant" because whether it works or not I still find the approach and the mindset to be adolescent at best and pretty disturbing at worst. Whether or not people get laid as a result, the fact that they go out and treat women as a puzzle game (a hit to the self-esteem here, a commanding gaze there) is something I personally find objectionable

I've read similar disquiet in a seemingly unrelated area, namely women who convert to Islam. The idea that women would actively seek out such a patriarchal faith(women converts vastly outnumber male ones) is again uncomfortable.

I think that's a whole different discussion and I'd be cautious in reaching such broad generalisations

Vitaliorange

FTA69 wrote: »

Who the f*ck are the "seduction community"? What a ridiculous phrase. Personally I'd mark any man who used that term as a guaranteed bell-end.

Thats what it tends to be called.

Balaclava1991

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Understanding the mechanics of approaching.women doesnt t mean you can't build a genuine connection with a woman.

I think most of the hostility to PUA is because it exposes a cruel often bleak reality to human relationships that few are prepared to admit.

There is a very disturbing conspiracy sub culture on the internet calling itself True Force Loneliness which is based around men who believe they are too unattractive physically, financially and personality wise to fit within a supposedly false paradigm created by Western culture dominated by capitalism and feminism. This self-pitying grouping has made George Sodini in to their hero. Sodini was a 48 year old nut who shot and killed a group of women in a local gym before taking his own life because of a sustained failure to get a date and posted a series of youtube videos explaining his decision and blaming his extreme loneliness and unhappiness on women.

Obviously these men are pathetic and need psychiatric help.
However there is certain grain of truth to these paranoid deluded nuts.

There is general formula for how to attract women and if you fail to conform to that formula you WILL be lonely.
You cannot behave in front of women as you want to have sex or a relationship with if you behave as you do among your friends or family where you can be yourself - dressing like a slob, wolfing your food, not shaving every day, talking rudely and loudly and so forth.
You have to conform to women's expectations.
A single guy with his own apartment, his own car and a high salary is more likely to be successful than a single guy who lives with his parents, rides a bicycle or public transport and delivers pizza.
The universe will un-apologetically cancel a loser's genes out of existence.

Among men who are successful with women and who are in happy relationships and marriages there is a constant nagging fear of reverting to the state of men who are shiftless and lonely. A man feels he must make an effort constantly and he must find out the secret to success with women or he is doomed. It is intolerable to concede that the ONE he has married could be what he settled for out of desperation.

We are fed on diet of unrealistic romantic movies that show the guy who cravenly sucks up to women will get the girl while the "bully" - the guy with the big car, good job and power gets his comeuppance.

Titanic is the classic example in which Jack Dawson, the artist without a pot to p*ss in, gets Rose while her fiance is a super rich and cruel brute who tries to murder them both.

Vitaliorange

Reekwind wrote: »

Of course not, you're dead right here. It's what follows - the idea that "success with women" requires a toolset of tricks that transforms yourself into an 'alpha male' who can treat women like putty during "the interaction" - that strikes me, and I'd suggest most people, as macho and adolescent. That the end result of all of this, ie how you measure "success", is sex just makes it more puerile

I'd suggest that the advisable approach would be to suggest moving to a more private part of the room, rather than fixing her with a death stare and issuing a "command" that she is expected to obey. One approach treats the woman as an equal, the other as an object

To clarify: I think its effectiveness is "irrelevant" because whether it works or not I still find the approach and the mindset to be adolescent at best and pretty disturbing at worst. Whether or not people get laid as a result, the fact that they go out and treat women as a puzzle game (a hit to the self-esteem here, a commanding gaze there) is something I personally find objectionable

I think that's a whole different discussion and I'd be cautious in reaching such broad generalisations

Death stare? Do you never look at people in eyes?

whats wrong with theword "interaction", do you have a problem with that too?

You keep making these assumptions about the individuals practicing this. Who says women are "putty"?

Your framing everything through your skewed lens.

Common PUA advice is to smile when you approach women.

Is that a "death smile" in your eyes?

Wibbs

Reekwind wrote: »

To clarify: I think its effectiveness is "irrelevant" because whether it works or not I still find the approach and the mindset to be adolescent at best and pretty disturbing at worst. Whether or not people get laid as a result, the fact that they go out and treat women as a puzzle game (a hit to the self-esteem here, a commanding gaze there) is something I personally find objectionable

I think that's a whole different discussion and I'd be cautious in reaching such broad generalisations

Oh sure RW, but my point was that not the getting laid as result part, but the fact that it seems to work on a subset of women. That a subset of women appear to want to be "dominated" like this and men who act in such a manner are more likely to succeed in getting women(even if as a temporary thing). You do also see the "oh that's stupid and would never work on me" from some quarters. OK put it another way RW, if it didn't work at all, IMHO there would be a lot less dismissal of the whole thing.

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

I think most of the hostility to PUA is because it exposes a cruel often bleak reality to human relationships that few are prepared to admit.

There is a very disturbing conspiracy sub culture on the internet calling itself True Force Loneliness which is based around men who believe they are too unattractive physically, financially and personality wise to fit within a supposedly false paradigm created by Western culture dominated by capitalism and feminism. This self-pitying grouping has made George Sodini in to their hero. Sodini was a 48 year old nut who shot and killed a group of women in a local gym before taking his own life because of a sustained failure to get a date and posted a series of youtube videos explaining his decision and blaming his extreme loneliness and unhappiness on women.

Obviously these men are pathetic and need psychiatric help.
However there is certain grain of truth to these paranoid deluded nuts.

There is general formula for how to attract women and if you fail to conform to that formula you WILL be lonely.
You cannot behave in front of women as you want to have sex or a relationship with if you behave as you do among your friends or family where you can be yourself - dressing like a slob, wolfing your food, not shaving every day, talking rudely and loudly and so forth.
You have to conform to women's expectations.
A single guy with his own apartment, his own car and a high salary is more likely to be successful than a single guy who lives with his parents, rides a bicycle or public transport and delivers pizza.
The universe will un-apologetically cancel a loser's genes out of existence.

Jesus.

Among men who are successful with women and who are in happy relationships and marriages there is a constant nagging fear of reverting to the state of men who are shiftless and lonely.

Ehhhh wut? Only if they're neurotic.

We are fed on diet of unrealistic romantic movies that show the guy who cravenly sucks up to women will get the girl while the "bully" - the guy with the big car, good job and power gets his comeuppance.

Titanic is the classic example in which Jack Dawson, the artist without a pot to p*ss in, gets Rose while her fiance is a super rich and cruel brute who tries to murder them both.

I'd tend to agree with this part alright.

Vitaliorange

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

I think most of the hostility to PUA is because it exposes a cruel often bleak reality to human relationships that few are prepared to admit.

There is a very disturbing conspiracy sub culture on the internet calling itself True Force Loneliness which is based around men who believe they are too unattractive physically, financially and personality wise to fit within a supposedly false paradigm created by Western culture dominated by capitalism and feminism. This self-pitying grouping has made George Sodini in to their hero. Sodini was a 48 year old nut who shot and killed a group of women in a local gym before taking his own life because of a sustained failure to get a date and posted a series of youtube videos explaining his decision and blaming his extreme loneliness and unhappiness on women.

Obviously these men are pathetic and need psychiatric help.
However there is certain grain of truth to these paranoid deluded nuts.

There is general formula for how to attract women and if you fail to conform to that formula you WILL be lonely.
You cannot behave in front of women as you want to have sex or a relationship with if you behave as you do among your friends or family where you can be yourself - dressing like a slob, wolfing your food, not shaving every day, talking rudely and loudly and so forth.
You have to conform to women's expectations.
A single guy with his own apartment, his own car and a high salary is more likely to be successful than a single guy who lives with his parents, rides a bicycle or public transport and delivers pizza.
The universe will un-apologetically cancel a loser's genes out of existence.

Among men who are successful with women and who are in happy relationships and marriages there is a constant nagging fear of reverting to the state of men who are shiftless and lonely. A man feels he must make an effort constantly and he must find out the secret to success with women or he is doomed. It is intolerable to concede that the ONE he has married could be what he settled for out of desperation.

We are fed on diet of unrealistic romantic movies that show the guy who cravenly sucks up to women will get the girl while the "bully" - the guy with the big car, good job and power gets his comeuppance.

Titanic is the classic example in which Jack Dawson, the artist without a pot to p*ss in, gets Rose while her fiance is a super rich and cruel brute who tries to murder them both.

Im not sure what you are getting at but a man's behavours are primarily what attracts them. The way he moves, talks, facial expressions etc. Of course most of these things fix themselves when when you free yourself of anxiety.

Ultimately value attracts women. Are you a man who brings the fun or are you the man who tries to weasel his way into someone elses fun. Its like at a long restaurant table, are you the man watching and listening to others having fun at the other end of the table, or are you the man making the fun at your end of the table. The man who can make the fun at his end wont have trouble attracting women.

Balaclava1991

Wibbs wrote: »

Jesus.

Ehhhh wut? Only if they're neurotic.

Isn't neurosis the reason why we seek out romantic relationships?

There is evolutionary advantage to unhappiness because it forces us to change ourselves and change the world.

If people were happy nothing would happen would it?

The guy who wrote Genesis long ago was onto something when he wrote:

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2: 23-24)

There is a disturbing neediness and insecurity in that famous Biblical phrase.

This love is possessive and jealous and this talk of flesh and bones hints at violence of some kind or some sort of sick surgery than involves fusing two human beings together.

For the writer of that passage women were clearly hard to come by jealously guarded and controlled and there is a great fear of loneliness and abandonment.

PUA culture is threatening to that sensibility because it "cheats" and goes to the heart of male sexual insecurity.

Reekwind

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Death stare? Do you never look at people in eyes?

I generally don't fix people with a stare, with the intent of compelling them to follow my command, no

whats wrong with theword "interaction", do you have a problem with that too?

It was the word 'the' that lends the phrase an edge. It's that same use of a very clinical language to describe what most people... well, don't describe. Maybe I have shockingly poor social skills but I have never in my life described talking to a woman as 'an interaction'. It's almost like a 'phase' of play in sport

Common PUA advice is to smile when you approach women.

Is that a "death smile" in your eyes?

I think you find that that would be a 'fixed smile'

Wibbs wrote:

Oh sure RW, but my point was that not the getting laid as result part, but the fact that it seems to work on a subset of women. That a subset of women appear to want to be "dominated" like this and men who act in such a manner are more likely to succeed in getting women(even if as a temporary thing). You do also see the "oh that's stupid and would never work on me" from some quarters. OK put it another way RW, if it didn't work at all, IMHO there would be a lot less dismissal of the whole thing.

Careful now. The key point here - that it could well work - is fine and I'm not going to argue with anyone on that. But I do take issue with the idea that this is a result of some women 'wanting to be dominated'

We are all wee bags of neuroses and when you start pulling and prodding at these, in order to manipulate, then you'll get a reaction. I do not see this as PUAs tapping into some latent desire in some women though

FTA69

Vitaliorange wrote: »

Thats what it tends to be called.

By spastics maybe. The "seduction community" my arse.

Miguel_Sanchez

All these pick-up books are basically 'how to talk to women' guides for people who have no personalities of their own.

Femme_Fatale

Miguel_Sanchez wrote: »

All these pick-up books are basically 'how to talk to women' guides for people who have no personalities of their own.

I think being dismissive of guys who find it hard to talk to women is unhelpful though, and just aids in creating polarisation and hostility, and drawing these guys to the crazy misogynists.

Not every guy who finds it hard to get a date is a personality-free mammy's boy who secretly hates women; a lot of lovely guys are crippled by their shyness and it's sad. Women can't just start dating them out of pity either - they are either attracted to them or they aren't, but it's still a shyte situation. Something that builds their confidence in a healthy way while still respecting women can only be a good thing, so a benign, non agenda-driven handbook would be no harm as a starter, IMO.

I once read an interview with a guy who advocates just going up to women on the street and telling them they're stunning. Really?! That's just creepiness and much too forward - no matter how good-looking the guy is (before the "It's only creepy if he's not good-looking" brigade arrive). Don't!

Vitaliorange

Miguel_Sanchez wrote: »

All these pick-up books are basically 'how to talk to women' guides for people who have no personalities of their own.

Everyone has a personality, the problem for many is allowing themselves to express it freely. Many can't even walk over to a woman and talk to her through crippling anxiety which stifles their personality.

Vitaliorange

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I think being dismissive of guys who find it hard to talk to women is unhelpful though, and just aids in creating polarisation and hostility, and drawing these guys to the crazy misogynists.

Not every guy who finds it hard to get a date is a personality-free mammy's boy who secretly hates women; a lot of lovely guys are crippled by their shyness and it's sad. Women can't just start dating them out of pity either - they are either attracted to them or they aren't, but it's still a shyte situation. Something that builds their confidence in a healthy way while still respecting women can only be a good thing, so a benign, non agenda-driven handbook would be no harm as a starter, IMO.

I once read an interview with a guy who advocates just going up to women on the street and telling them they're stunning. Really?! That's just creepiness and much too forward - no matter how good-looking the guy is (before the "It's only creepy if he's not good-looking" brigade arrive). Don't!

Saying hi to every woman/man you pass on the street is actually a good exercise to help people get over their anxieties with the opposite sex.

Wibbs

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Isn't neurosis the reason why we seek out romantic relationships?

Eh no. Indeed if you are neurotic then best fix that loooong before involving a third party. We seek out romantic relationships because of reproductive drives and companionship. Of course gay folks are into romantic relationships too and it's not about physical reproduction though many such couples adopt.

There is evolutionary advantage to unhappiness because it forces us to change ourselves and change the world.

If people were happy nothing would happen would it?

There is a helluva difference between being pissed off your toaster is crap and inventing a batter one and personal happiness. One could be a veritable Tesla and be happy as a clam.

The guy who wrote Genesis long ago was onto something when he wrote:



There is a disturbing neediness and insecurity in that famous Biblical phrase.

This love is possessive and jealous and this talk of flesh and bones hints at violence of some kind or some sort of sick surgery than involves fusing two human beings together.

Jesus(I say again).

For the writer of that passage women were clearly hard to come by jealously guarded and controlled and there is a great fear of loneliness and abandonment.

Eh no, there isn't.

PUA culture is threatening to that sensibility because it "cheats" and goes to the heart of male sexual insecurity.

No it goes to the heart of a subset of young men who feel increasingly left out of the social whirl around them. No metaphysical crisis required.

Muise...

FTA69 wrote: »

By spastics maybe. The "seduction community" my arse.

Yes. Those words together are the wrong sort of intimacy. "Community" is as seductive as a warm seat in a public toilet.

Balaclava1991

When I talked to women in the past my conversations would often go like this:

Him: "Hi." (nervous).
Her: Oh...hi...
Him: Ah..er...ahh..I saw you just now and I thought you were really nice and I wanted to talk to you.
Her: Oh..ahh...thanks (Giggles).
Him: What do you do?
Her: I'm an artist.
Him: Cool. Where are you from?
Her: Switzerland. (sighs)
Him: That's nice. And what do you do for fun?
Her: I go to the cinema...ah...listen...Very nice to talk to you. I gotta go. My friends are waiting. I'll see you around (vexed)
Him: Ohhh...yeah...bye..(tearful)

A guy who knows what he is talking about would have been able to create a long conversation and built a rapport.

If a girl tells you she is an artist, she is Swiss and she likes cinema then a guy is armed with lots to work with to draw her out and get her to talk about herself.

If the guy focused on the artist angle he could get her to open up how she wants to express herself with art, how she sees the world, the paintings she has made, her favorite artists, the famous museums and artists she has seen, did she paint still life, is she free spirited, does she take risks, did she paint nude men at art college, does she want to paint another man nude...

If the guy focused on the Switzerland you could get her talk about chocolate, money, cuckoo clocks, mountain climbing, Lake Geneva, the great outdoors, the German and French languages, skiing, how much she likes men who yodel and men in leather shorts...

If the guy focused on the cinema you could get her talking about movies she likes, her favorite romantic movies, her biggest movie star crush, would she like to be an actress, would she do nude scenes...

I'm a real fan of patterns which are loaded with weasel phrases and embedded commands that subconsciously turn women on:

For instance:

Me: So, you have a boyfriend?
Her: Not right now. Last one I broke up with a few months ago... how about you?
Me: Yeah, same here. It was a beautiful relationship. Too bad it had to end the way it did... Its like... at first... we are so much in love. We feel that the whole world is revolving around us... you know what it's like to FEEL TOTALLY IN LOVE, don't you? We're like that (gesture back and forth). It's like, when we look at each other's eyes (look into her eyes)... we can see... into each other's soul... and we can SEE... and... FEEL... that love... burning within the both of us... warm and close enough to touch (touch her forearm, or a non-touching gesture towards her chest)... and that bond between us... really so strong... so powerful... so overwhelming... It does become that way at times, now doesn't it?

Or

You : Well, we're adult's now, aren't we? We can talk about sex in an intelligent way, can't we ?

Her : Uhhh...yeah...

You : Well....how do you VIEW SEX NOW. (?)

(shut up and let her talk)

You : I agree. And I think that SEX is much more than that. It's human nature! SEX ensures that our species will survive and that's why SEX IS PROGRAMMED DEEPLY... INSIDE... YOUR MINE. It's like... there's this voice (pause, point to your own mouth or throat... hahaha... ambiguity) inside YOUR MINE, which is actually, your vocalized URGES and DESIRES... and as you LISTEN TO THIS VOICE, it's telling you... YOU WANNA HAVE SEX, YOU WANNA HAVE SEX... YOU NEED TO HAVE SEX.... YOU NEED TO HAVE SEX. NOW, WITH ME, this is all so natural! You may not ACT ON IT, or JUST DO IT, but the point is, it's a DESIRE... a natural, AROUSING URGE... ME, I TAKE THIS IN (point to dick)... with an open mind.

I don't know if you have OPENED YOURSELF UP (open leg gesture*) to things (point to dick) like these."

open leg gesture - join both palms, point palms towards her legs, then separate them on cue.

There's load more of these patterns which hide really smutty stuff within otherwise harmless conversation.

I swear by them!:)